Couple hit with fines for holding a Bible study in their home

posted at 10:45 am on September 22, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Where two are three are gathered in His name, there good ol’ California city government is in the midst of them. Seriously. This happened. The Blaze reports:

A southern California couple has been fined $300 dollars for holding Christian Bible study sessions in their home, and could face another $500 for each additional gathering.

City officials in San Juan Capistrano, Calif. say Chuck and Stephanie Fromm are in violation of municipal code 9-3.301, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a permit. Stephanie hosts a Wednesday Bible study that draws about 20 attendees, and Chuck holds a Sunday service that gets about 50.

The Fromms appealed their citations but were denied and warned future sessions would carry heftier penalties. A statement from the Pacific Justice Institute, which is defending the couple in a lawsuit against the city, said Chuck Fromm was also told regular gatherings of three or more people require a conditional use permit, which can be costly and difficult to obtain.

Mrs. Fromm was rightly incensed at the city government’s intrusion into her living room. “I should be able to be hospitable in my own home,” she said. Had it been her bedroom, libs would have leaped to her defense, but as it was, no such luck for the lady.

The municipal code bans a religious organization. I’d say a private Bible study hardly qualifies — it’s just a friendly gathering of like-minded folks. Would the city of San Juan Capistrano also consider a family-members-only Bible study a religious organization?

But, more broadly, why is the ban on the books in the first place? What’s wrong with religious, fraternal and non-profit organizations in a residential neighborhood?

According to The Blaze, the Fromms’ property is such that parking and noise aren’t a problem. Plus, the Bible study is meditative. But the code enforcement department relies on complaints, which means some unfriendly neighbor or other member of the community turned the Fromms in. That snitch makes Gladys Kravitz look politely respectful of privacy.

The old gal in me wants to say “an eye for an eye,” but the new gal in me thinks maybe the Fromms’ best bet would be to ask the city officials — and the snoopy neighbor — to sit in on a session or two.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7

So…all houses should be designated a maximum number of visitors based upon “housing density” and frequency. Like I said, neither of those factors should matter. The number is not the problem with the ordinance…the entire foundations of the ordinance violate property rights.

Up to the local city governments.

If you think for example people should be able to have cars on blocks in the front yard, campaign for it….I on the other hand think they are eyesores and should not be allowed.

Like I said, it should up to the local governments…a horrid idea I know.

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Put the number at x, because it shouldn’t matter. 3 or 300 should make no difference so long as they stay on the private property. The only issue would be likely fines for noise (which aren’t being touted here, so it is obviously not a problem). It’s not a structural problem with the ordinance…it is a foundational problem.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Up to the local city governments.

If you think for example people should be able to have cars on blocks in the front yard, campaign for it….I on the other hand think they are eyesores and should not be allowed.

Like I said, it should up to the local governments…a horrid idea I know.

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 6:27 PM

We have reached the fundamental difference here. I say yes to the legality of the eye sore. I don’t think the law should be based on my personal tastes/feelings. If my neighbor can have a flower garden, I should be allowed to have a junk garden. My property, my decorations. ;)

Pattosensei on September 22, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Brad Dacus from the Pacific Justice Institute is using this to drum up publicity. He should be honest and let the public know that there are regularly 50 CARS on the street not guests in the home. The neighbors have been complaining for some time and the city is only responding to their concerns. Locals have been subjected to this influx on both weeknights and on Sunday. Add to that, the traffic to the home due to the religious artifacts business the Fromm’s have, and you may be able to see the point that the city is making on behalf of the other residents in the area.

The city is enforcing the municipal code. SJC has numerous churches and religious based schools that get along with the city and the codes without controversy. Jesus even commanded His followers to “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s” Mt 22:21 This group is skirting various taxes by not owning up to their true status as a church. The Fromm’s and their congregation should set a good example and apply for a variance which would allow them to abide by the law, or consider finding a more suitable location that does not infringe on the privacy and tone of the residential neighborhood.

InTheBellyoftheBeast on September 22, 2011 at 6:49 PM

But the group in question has meetings of 30-50 people twice a week….not 3.

This isn’t about them. It’s about the law itself.

If they had only 3 I doubt anyone would have complained., that being said I think 10-20 people is more reasonable (based on housing density)….based on the photos of their estate…20 seems reasonable.

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Well, as has already been pointed out, one of the meetings is only said to regularly attract as many as 20. And it doesn’t seem as people are being reasonable here.

Esthier on September 22, 2011 at 6:55 PM

Put the number at x, because it shouldn’t matter. 3 or 300 should make no difference so long as they stay on the private property. The only issue would be likely fines for noise (which aren’t being touted here, so it is obviously not a problem). It’s not a structural problem with the ordinance…it is a foundational problem.

Pattosensei on September 22, 2011 at 6:22 PM

With that clarification, I’d agree assuming building codes are being followed as well. If a home that can only reasonably fit 10 people is hosting a party for 300, then we could be talking about serious safety issues.

But I actually don’t have a problem with zoning laws. My problem is when you try to say that I can’t have friends over regularly and violate some “where 3 or more people gather” rule that makes no sense whatsoever.

Esthier on September 22, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Well, as has already been pointed out, one of the meetings is only said to regularly attract as many as 20. And it doesn’t seem as people are being reasonable here.

Do you have any idea where your number 20 came from? The actual number is much higher and that is why this case came to the attention of the city. Remember to avoid jumping to conclusions prior to gathering actual facts.

InTheBellyoftheBeast on September 22, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Sauer, I beg your pardon. Intellectually honest?? So you think that my faith in God is intellectually dishonest? Your logic is screwy, and besides, I feel sorry for you. Too bad you have lost your way…

chai on September 22, 2011 at 5:40 PM

I’m saying your faith in the Christian god is intellectually dishonest. You have as much evidence for the existence of the Christian god as Muslims have of the Islamic god. Namely none.

ALL you have is faith that what you believe is right and true. That’s it Chai.

I haven’t lost my way. Its you who have lost your way. You’ve allowed yourself to abnegate your will to people who claim to be agents for god on this earth Chai.

Why does god need agents on this earth to speak for him pray tell?

Would a god really need people like Moses, et al to speak for him?

What makes these folks so special that THEY deserve to be spoken to by god?

Nothing, because god never spoke with them. God didn’t sacrifice himself, to himself to appease himself. People made that shit up.

Grow up and realize that religions do more to divide us as people than any other ideology in existence.

Religions are like farts, YOURS is good, but everyone else’s stinks.

When you understand why YOU don’t believe in the fairy tales of other people, you will understand why I don’t believe in my former religion, and yours.

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 7:04 PM

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 7:04 PM

You don’t believe anymore?

Great.

Move on.

I just wonder why so many Atheists feel the need to 1) Proclaim they were formerly one of the faithful and 2) Feel the need to devote the rest of their lives to talking people who still believe out of their faith.

Me personally, I don’t care about what you believe and I don’t care about your soul. See, everyone’s happy.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 7:13 PM

The limits are defined by how many the private property can hold.
I did not intend to appear condescending and I’m sorry you got that impression.

Pattosensei on September 22, 2011 at 5:46 PM

While the physical limits are defined by how many people you can cram onto your property, most communities also have municipal codes that can and do limit the use of private property, how many can use it, and in what way.

Regulations in public safety and welfare, sanitation and health, and building and land use codes all cover aspects of the use of private property.

In this case, the city has established a code regulating the use of residential property – not to limit free speech – but to confine the use of the property to a specific purpose. They have done so for specific reasons having to do with community standards and planning, land value, tax base, public safety (egress and ingress into the community, distance too, type and quantity of public safety resources), availability and capacity of utilities, and, in many cases land conservation. There are many other considerations – enough to drive you mad.

So back to your point: you can cram as many people as you want onto your property. The answer is yes – - and no – - and depends.

As for this specific case, as one who attends a weekly bible study and helped plant a church that, like many, started in a home, I’m only certain it has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with interpretation of the residential code restriction – basically what constitutes a “church”.

And as for “first impressions”, they are often wrong and reflect the bias of the one forming them. So my apologies to you – for being wrong – and for becoming what I was accusing you of being.

Rod on September 22, 2011 at 7:19 PM

The limits are defined by how many the private property can hold.
I did not intend to appear condescending and I’m sorry you got that impression.

Pattosensei on September 22, 2011 at 5:46 PM

That was suppose to be quoted. I’m doing that more and more lately.

Rod on September 22, 2011 at 7:21 PM

My neighborhood used to be full of WWII vets and their wives. Now it’s full of Stasi narcing on each other. I’m not kidding. The city even recognizes this upstart “community organization.” Would someone please fine them for every meeting. I beg of you! Please.

That’s a good question for San Juan Capistrano. Do they fine residents over the meetings of neighborhood community organizing groups?

If they’re just looking revenue generation, fine people for their coexist bumper stickers. Cash cow.

tuffy on September 22, 2011 at 7:21 PM

You don’t believe anymore?

Great.

Move on.

I just wonder why so many Atheists feel the need to 1) Proclaim they were formerly one of the faithful and 2) Feel the need to devote the rest of their lives to talking people who still believe out of their faith.

Me personally, I don’t care about what you believe and I don’t care about your soul. See, everyone’s happy.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 7:13 PM

I’m trying to bring everyone else along as well.

I honestly worry about the poor decisions people make because of their religion. Like denying evolution, choosing to side with Israel primarily because they think that the Israelites are gods chosen people (and who wants to be on the opposing side in THAT argument?), things like that.

Religions make otherwise perfectly intelligent people stupid in this one regard.

I’m saying that the intellectually honest thing to do with these religious claims is stop believing in them. They’re obviously dumb. The people who made them up thought the world was flat, that volcanoes and earthquakes/other natural disasters were gods way of showing his displeasure. That sicknesses are/were caused by demons, etc.

Religions are just dumb, and these agents of god have scared the majority of people into believing them based on the claim that we have a soul that even NEEDS saving in the first place.

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 7:23 PM

@hawkdriver

As to your first point. I can’t do anything to prove it to you but I was a believer for 30+ years before I was born again.

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 7:31 PM

I’m trying to bring everyone else along as well.

Why do you care what we believe?

I honestly worry about the poor decisions people make because of their religion. Like denying evolution, choosing to side with Israel primarily because they think that the Israelites are gods chosen people (and who wants to be on the opposing side in THAT argument?), things like that.

You think poor decisions are made out of faith. Not, even sure, what to reply. No one else in the world besides Christians makes mistakes I guess.

Religions make otherwise perfectly intelligent people stupid in this one regard.

I don’t know. I’m a Christian and I live, eat and breath aerodynamics, aerospace and physics as part of my occupation. DrMagnolia and her hubby are both doctors and the Vet I went to at Ft. Bragg today was also a Christian. I could go on, but it doesn’t seem as though we’ve reversed the polarity of any major scientific discipline.

I’m saying that the intellectually honest thing to do with these religious claims is stop believing in them. They’re obviously dumb. The people who made them up thought the world was flat, that volcanoes and earthquakes/other natural disasters were gods way of showing his displeasure. That sicknesses are/were caused by demons, etc.

Your opinion and nothing more. Nothing more.

Religions are just dumb, and these agents of god have scared the majority of people into believing them based on the claim that we have a soul that even NEEDS saving in the first place.

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Mind your own business. Tolerate, like you ask us to tolerate. Again, I don’t care what you were or what you are. I just know I’m an American and promised religious freedom. Who are you to deny me what the founders guaranteed me?

And BTW, I might have believed you were a Christian until the last comment. Now you just sound like Dakine. He was a former commenter who would use any story to engage Christians and try to talk them out of their faith. That’s just my opinion though.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Zeckorlain also used that @ sign. Why do you guys do that?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 7:47 PM

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Well said. There have been doubting Thomases since, well, Thomas.

mike_NC9 on September 22, 2011 at 7:55 PM

There have been doubting Thomases since, well, Thomas.

mike_NC9 on September 22, 2011 at 7:55 PM

You are so right. And those that deceive since The Garden.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 8:01 PM

“…and Chuck holds a Sunday service (emphasis added) that gets about 50.”

Ms. Korbe conveniently overlooks this point, choosing instead to focus disingenuously on the innocent “little” Bible study class. If you are holding a service every Sunday attracting 50 people, you are a religious organization (frankly, you are a Church), not just some “friendly gathering of like-minded folks”. To pretend otherwise is just sophistry.

Clearly the Fromms are in violation of the law. They probably knew about it before they bought the property in question (and regardless, they are required to abide by it now that they have been formally advised), But, they apparently figure they can play the victim card and get away with doing whatever they want. We have a clown like that in our neighborhood as well.

Disgusting and disrespectful of the rights of their neighbors, who have every right to insist that zoning regulations be enforced. Property values, not to mention the reasonable expectation of peace and quiet in a residential neighborhood, depend on it. Could you sell your house living next door to this hootenanny? No. And you would be required to disclose it on your seller’s form, so there’s just no pretending that the problem doesn’t exist until after escrow closes.

50 people? Probably 25+ cars? Disgusting. The Fromms’ disregard for the rights of their neighbors is contemptible. It is not religious persecution to insist that they abide by the laws as written.

HTL on September 22, 2011 at 8:06 PM

@hawkdriver

I do tolerate it. I’m not forcing anyone into anything. I only seek to dissuade.

You asked.

Why do you care what we believe?

I answered you in the previous post, but you apparently glossed over it even though you quoted it right after the question. I care because religions make otherwise intelligent people make poor decisions BASED off their religion…

The reason for believing something is that it is true. No religion can be independently verified to be true. I didn’t say that Christians were the only ones wrong and I don’t pick only on Christians, although the majority of those I speak to are Christian so it stands to reason I would reference it a lot, that plus it was my former religion but I’m not picking on any one religion.

I’m an equal opportunity ridiculer and if I was dealing with Muslims, something that’s very unlikely on this website, I’d be trying to dissuade them of their notions just as I do yours.

So you’re a Christian who eats breathes and sleeps aerodynamics, etc… You know PhD’s and whatnot who are Christians, IN THIS ONE REGARD they’re wrong, you’re wrong. You’re guilty of an appeal to authority as if JUST because they were PhD’s/whatever that that somehow makes it ok to still believe in fairy tales.

God isn’t a muslim or a christian or insert religion’s name here, he just is, IF he is, but people who claim to know that there IS a god, and that he has revelation associated with his existence, are overreaching in their gnostic claims. Plain and simple.

You said, in response to my assertion that primitive peoples used to view what we know to be natural disasters now as god driven events.

Your opinion and nothing more. Nothing more.

No, its fact. We have historical records of events like the Santorini volcano in the Mediterranean blowing its lid, and tales associated with these cataclysmic events like the exodus story of Jewish and Egyptian fame. We have flood tales throughout the middle east that speak of a great flood, but it didn’t flood the entire world like the Sumerians/Jews/Assyrians claimed, just the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia, etc.

Throughout history, EVERY mystery that has EVER been solved has turned out to be… NOT magic (which is the default claim of all miracle witnessing proponents)… Science has PULLED back the curtains on the Wizard of Oz COUNTLESS times, and MUCH that the world claimed used to belong to the supernatural, and by extension god, has been shown to have more natural explanations…

Yet faith is still a virtue, except when it’s faith associated with people like the Muslims who flew the planes into the buildings in NYC and Washington…

Faith is the denial of observation, so that BELIEF can be preserved.

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 8:06 PM

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 8:06 PM

I’m sure by the volume of material you post here and youtube and your other atheist forums, you must have a lot of material you can cut and paste. I mean, I hope that’s what you did here because again, I’m not interested in your opinion on religion. And your comment might appear to have taken a while to write.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 8:13 PM

LOL

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Keep your head in the sand all you like. Many others do. Just trying to make you think about it.

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 8:19 PM

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 8:19 PM

What? Are we still exchanging?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 8:21 PM

God bless you, hawkdriver, well said.

Elisa on September 22, 2011 at 8:30 PM

Well since you keep coming back with something I guess we are, although you appear to have your head stuck up something. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 8:31 PM

Faith is the denial of observation, so that BELIEF can be preserved.

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 8:06 PM

“Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrew 11:1)

Nothing I have EVER observed needed to be denied in order to preserve my blessed faith, a gift to me, not something I earned or created. In fact, with the eyes of faith, I have been able to see much and learn truth.

Faith is a gift. A gift that can be squandered or rejected. It is also a gift that a person can pray and ask for. With sincerity, patience and love, Our loving Father will grant that gift of faith.

Like hawkdriver said, if you don’t want it, no one, not even God, will force it upon you.

Your rationale for trying to get others to abandon their faith is false.

Religion, especially the Judeo Christian religion, has given society order and charity and advance civilization. Hospitals, schools, the advancement of science, helping the poor, our justice system, right and wrong, a moral code that God has written onto the hearts of men. Have some false religions or evil people of the true religion done wrong over the centuries? Of course. But the good far outweighs the bad.

The past century has shown what enforced atheism (not individual atheists) have done for society. Look at the millions murdered because of communism, Nazism, Cambodia, etc. Even the wildly exaggerated claims of deaths from the Spanish Inquisition (proven to be less than 4,000 by scholars who have studied the actual case files still kept in Spain, including atheist scholars), pale in comparison to the actual murders by regimes without faith.

Elisa on September 22, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Well since you keep coming back with something I guess we are, although you appear to have your head stuck up something. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 8:31 PM

Why do you do that? I’ve said nothing rude to you.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Well since you keep coming back with something I guess we are, although you appear to have your head stuck up something. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 8:31 PM

Why do you do that? I’ve said nothing rude to you.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM

I guess this last comment interaction is an example of how atheists are better people than Christians?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 8:37 PM

The past century has shown what enforced atheism (not individual atheists) have done for society. Look at the millions murdered because of communism, Nazism, Cambodia, etc. Even the wildly exaggerated claims of deaths from the Spanish Inquisition (proven to be less than 4,000 by scholars who have studied the actual case files still kept in Spain, including atheist scholars), pale in comparison to the actual murders by regimes without faith.

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time.

But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty.

Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.

~Noted athiest Adolf Hitler.

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 8:40 PM

We have historical records of events like the Santorini volcano in the Mediterranean blowing its lid, and tales associated with these cataclysmic events like the exodus story of Jewish and Egyptian fame.

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 8:06 PM

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2006/09/Debunking-The-Exodus-Decoded.aspx#Article

Debunking the Exodus Decoded

Excerpts:

Exhibit F: Santorini Pumice in Egypt. The second major premise of The Exodus Decoded is that tectonic activity caused the eruption of the Santorini volcano and triggered earthquakes, bringing about the plagues in Egypt. Jacobovici says the eruption took place in 1500 BC at the time of the Exodus. The date of the eruption is a hotly debated topic. Carbon-14 samples suggest a date of ca. 1625 BC, whereas conventional historical dating places the event at ca. 1525 BC.[2] Pumice from the Santorini eruption was found at Tell el-Daba. Here, we run into another major chronological difficulty. The pumice was found in an archaeological stratum later than the reign of Ahmose (Bietak 1997: 124–25). Thus, there is a chronological disconnect between Jacobovici’s Pharaoh of the Exodus and the eruption of Santorini.

Exhibit G: Ipuwer Plagues Papyrus. Jacobovici now calls on the Ipuwer Papyrus, which he believes provides evidence for a plague of “ice and fire mingled together.” The seventh plague of hail, he says, is volcanic hail induced by Santorini as described in the Ipuwer Papyrus. Again, we have a chronological problem. Although Jacobovici states that many scholars date the Ipuwer Papyrus to the Hyksos period, the fact of the matter is that most Egyptologists date it to the First Intermediate Period (ca. 2100 BC) or the late Middle Kingdom (ca. 1700 BC) (Shupak 1997: 93), well before Jacobovici’s Exodus date of 1500 BC.

Exhibit I: Male Plague Victims. Jacobovici asserts that mass burials of males in pit graves at Tell el-Daba are evidence for plague 10, the death of the firstborn. However, he presents only part of the evidence. As usual, there is a chronological problem. The burials are from the early 18th Dynasty, after the expulsion of the Hyksos. In addition, the individuals have a very narrow age range: between 18 and 25. We would expect victims of plague 10 to be younger than 18 and older than 25. Anthropological examination has shown that some of the individuals were Nubians, commonly employed in the Egyptian army in this time period. Since the burials were in the area of a military camp and arrowheads were found in the graves, the most logical explanation is that the burials were soldiers from the Egyptian army. The excavator concludes, “They were probably soldiers who died in the camps from diseases over a period of time” (Bietak 2005: 13).

End of excerpts

I think I’ve had enough for one night. God bless all of you here, believers and unbelievers.

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not, no proof is enough.”

For

Elisa on September 22, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Hilter has known to dabble in Satanism. He was not a Christian and every honest person knows this.

Elisa on September 22, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Elisa on September 22, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Excellent post. Prayers.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Most cities probably have similar ordinances. They ensure that non-commercial organizations don’t skirt zoning laws. Do the perfectly ordinary zoning laws that every city has on the books infringe on first amendment rights? Maybe in a strictly philosophical sense, but not in a legal sense. This may be an example of local government overreach, but it’s not religious persecution. Anyway, isn’t there something in the bible about bearing false witness? Funny how the religious right is the loudest about how everybody needs to be a good Christian, but they have no problem being dishonest when it suits their political agenda. The biggest problem with the Christian right is that they aren’t Christian enough.

RightOFLeft on September 22, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Hilter has known to dabble in Satanism. He was not a Christian and every honest person knows this.

Elisa on September 22, 2011 at 8:44 PM

From Wikipedia:

Hitler’s parents were Roman Catholics, but after leaving home he never attended Mass or received the sacraments.[261] Hitler favoured aspects of Protestantism that suited his own views. However, he also adopted some elements of the Catholic Church’s hierarchical organization, liturgy and phraseology in his politics.[262][263] After his move to Germany, where Catholic and Protestant churches are largely financed through a church tax, Hitler did not leave his church, leading the historian Richard Steigmann-Gall to conclude that Hitler “can be classified as Catholic”,[264] but that “nominal church membership is a very unreliable gauge of actual piety in this context.”[265]

In public, Hitler often praised Christian heritage, German Christian culture, and professed a belief in an “Aryan” Jesus Christ, a Jesus who fought against the Jews.[266] In his speeches and publications, Hitler spoke of his interpretation of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that “As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.”[267][268] In private, Hitler was more critical of traditional Christianity, considering it a religion fit only for slaves; he admired the power of Rome but maintained a severe hostility towards its teaching.[269] Hitler’s critical views on Catholicism resonated with Streicher’s contention that the Catholic establishment was allying itself with the Jews.[270] In light of these private statements, for John S. Conway and many other historians, it is beyond doubt that Hitler held a “fundamental antagonism” towards the Christian churches.[271] However, some researchers have questioned the authenticity of Hitler’s private statements; for instance, Hermann Rauschning’s Hitler speaks is considered by most historians to be an invention.[272][273]

In the political relations with the churches in Germany, however, Hitler readily adopted a strategy “that suited his immediate political purposes”.[271] Hitler had a general plan, even before his rise to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich.[274][275][276] The leader of the Hitler Youth stated that “the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement” from the start, but “considerations of expedience made it impossible” publicly to express this extreme position.[274] His intention was to wait until the war was over to destroy the influence of Christianity.[269]

Hitler, for a time, advocated a form of the Christian faith he called “Positive Christianity”,[277][278] a belief system purged of what he objected to in orthodox Christianity, and featuring racist elements. By 1940, however, Hitler had abandoned advocating even the syncretist idea of a positive Christianity.[279] Hitler maintained that the “terrorism in religion is, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalized and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men’s minds.”[280]

Hitler articulated his view on the relationship between religion and national identity as, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany”.[

Also from Wikipedia:

The Nazi party grew out of several occult groups that sprang up in the late 19th century as a reaction to the advanced materialism and technology of the era[citation needed]. These groups spoke of the coming of a new Messiah that would save Germany[citation needed]. Young Adolf Hitler developed the notion that perhaps he was the chosen one to save the German people.

The political parties created in the wake of the country’s defeat in World War I combined nationalistic sentiment and occultist practices to forge an image of a superior German people. Hitler’s imprisonment after the failed 1923 Munich Beer Hall Putsch would make him a national hero for his defense of a strong German state, convincing him that he was the Messiah who could save Germany.

Hitler appropriated Christian religious symbols such as the Spear of Destiny and the Holy Grail for his own purposes. He adopted the swastika from Hinduism among many other Sanskrit terms and symbols. The symbol of the Swastika represents the Sun, and also the Wheel of Life turning. The original symbol turns clockwise. The Nazi one turns backwards. The four arms of the original Swastika represent the Four Vedas. The swastika is also the symbol for peace and harmony, as in Buddhism, Jainism and Taoism. It decorates most Hindu homes and temples. Adolf Hitler’s rise was the product of forces and events connecting him, his associates and the occult. Was Hitler influenced by supernatural ideas or was he just the embodiment of pure hate and evil? Examine the importance of symbols of the occult, religion and astrology to Hitler’s concept of world domination.

In the conclusion, after the author Dusty Sklar has pointed out that Hitler’s suicide happened at the night of April 30/May 1, which is Walpurgis Night, the narrator continues: “With Hitler gone, it was as if a spell had been broken”. Then Joachim von Ribbentrop’s infamous statement of his continued subservience to Hitler at the Nuremberg Trials is taken as final evidence of Hitler’s “occult power”: (“Even with all I know, if in this cell Hitler should come to me and say ‘Do this!’, I would still do it.”).

OK Debate time. Good night.

Elisa on September 22, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Excellent post. Prayers.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 8:44 PM

I sincerely thank you for those prayers. My family and I could use them and I value someone praying for me more than anything.

I will keep you and your family in my prayers.

Elisa on September 22, 2011 at 8:52 PM

Hilter has known to dabble in Satanism. He was not a Christian and every honest person knows this.

His quotes clearly indicate he believed in a supernatural creator…whomever that would be.

Not an athiest.

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 8:53 PM

See my post here:

Elisa on September 22, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Night.

Elisa on September 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 8:53 PM

So, even a zealot like SauerKraut537 believes in God, but that doesn’t make him a Christian. What’s your point?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 8:56 PM

So, even a zealot like SauerKraut537 believes in God, but that doesn’t make him a Christian. What’s your point?

Didn’t say he was a Christain. Said he was not an athiest.

Claim was made that Nazism was an athiest regime.

It wasn’t and Hitler wasn’t.

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Oh, I got you.

But you don’t dispute the other points?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 9:05 PM

But you don’t dispute the other points?

No I just didn’t respond.

But I would not agree with the rest no.

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Pablo? You didn’t dispute the other points that Elisa made?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Not even that Commusits ran Atheist states? That Stalin was an Atheist. Marx was an Atheist. Lenin, was an Atheist. How would you describe Gosateizm?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 9:14 PM

lol Commusits.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 9:15 PM

Pablo? You didn’t dispute the other points that Elisa made?

No I dispute them as well.

Pretty much everything she wrote you can mark down as disputed by Pablo Honey.

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 9:16 PM

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 9:16 PM

Not even that Communists ran Atheist states? That Stalin was an Atheist. Marx was an Atheist. Lenin, was an Atheist. How would you describe Gosateizm?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 9:14 PM

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 9:18 PM

How many millions of people did Stalin the Atheist kill during The Purge?

Elisa was saying pretty much that. You disagree?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Do you dispute that Stalin wasn’t an Atheist or that The Purge didn’t happen?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 9:23 PM

Pablo?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 9:23 PM

Not even that Commusits ran Atheist states? That Stalin was an Atheist. Marx was an Atheist. Lenin, was an Atheist. How would you describe Gosateizm?

Those men were certainly athiests, however they insisted on worship of the state. North Korea and dear leader is the endgame of this philosophy. These regimes certainly do not promote critical thinking and freethought.

How would you describe Gosateizm?

Looked like an attempt to replace traditional religious impulses and directing them towards worship of the state and Stalin himself. It was used to eliminate any type of rival authority ie churches clergy. It was all about control.

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 9:26 PM

How many millions of people did Stalin the Atheist kill during The Purge?

Elisa was saying pretty much that. You disagree?

He killed alot, but he did it to consolidate power…not to spread athiesm.

BTW, We can play this game all night.

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 9:30 PM

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 9:26 PM

That’s funny what you think it looked like. Most Scholars agree that they were and are Atheist Societies. Your assertion is a stretch that it is a pseudo-religion.

What about the Pol Pot Regime banning all religion? Elisa asserted that. Is he not one of the most notorious murderers of the last century?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 9:31 PM

BTW, We can play this game all night.

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 9:30 PM

You substituting historical fact with your debate points might seem like a game. Admit you’re wrong. All these men were Atheists.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Stalin was an Atheist. Under Communism, an Atheist State was enforced. How many people were killed in the last century directly because of Communism?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 9:34 PM

Go back to Hitler. His Chief European Ally, Benito Mussolini, was an Atheist. What’s his culpability in the murderous rampage of the Axis during WWII?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 9:36 PM

That’s funny what you think it looked like. Most Scholars agree that they were and are Atheist Societies. Your assertion is a stretch that it is a pseudo-religion.

What about the Pol Pot Regime banning all religion? Elisa asserted that. Is he not one of the most notorious murderers of the last century?

Yep they did that. They also killed all the scholars. They tend to kill off any kind of threat to their authority. The clergy and the professional class would fall under that.

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Can you dispute anything Elisa asserted with anything other than your opinion?

She was quite right in the entirety of her comment.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 9:38 PM

All these men were Atheists.

Of course they were and I stated it.

Are you like slow or something? Seriously your questions are infantile.

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 9:38 PM

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 9:37 PM

See, wouldn’t it have just been easier to agree with Elisa in the first place?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 9:39 PM

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 9:38 PM

Again, you guys get debated into a corner and you get rude. What’s up with that. And you really were trying to deflect the notion these states were atheist. Don’t blame me for your own assertions by questioning my intelligence. I’m just asking questions.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 9:41 PM

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 9:34 PM

It doesn’t matter if Stalin was Buddhist, he was a totalitarian. It doesn’t matter that the previous 1500 years or so of brutally oppressive european states were Christian, either. They were also totalitarian states. It doesn’t matter what religion you are when you grant yourself absolute power.

RightOFLeft on September 22, 2011 at 10:00 PM

RightOFLeft on September 22, 2011 at 10:00 PM

It does if the assertion was that none of the people in the argument as stated were Atheists. They all were.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 10:03 PM

Religions are just dumb, and these agents of god have scared the majority of people into believing them based on the claim that we have a soul that even NEEDS saving in the first place.

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Let’s assume you are right and religion is an invention of man rather than Revealed Truth.

Why then do you waste your time railing against this man-made invention, replacing it with nothing but your vacuous, poorly directed anger? Don’t you have bigger fish to fry, say man-made ideologies that have crushed millions of people in recent memory like Communism?

BKennedy on September 22, 2011 at 10:09 PM

Don’t you have bigger fish to fry, say man-made ideologies that have crushed millions of people in recent memory like Communism?

BKennedy on September 22, 2011 at 10:09 PM

Man-made “Atheist” ideologies to boot.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 10:13 PM

The past century has shown what enforced atheism (not individual atheists) have done for society. Look at the millions murdered because of communism, Nazism, Cambodia, etc. Even the wildly exaggerated claims of deaths from the Spanish Inquisition (proven to be less than 4,000 by scholars who have studied the actual case files still kept in Spain, including atheist scholars), pale in comparison to the actual murders by regimes without faith.

Elisa on September 22, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Ellisa, thanks for stating your support of religion and debunking the anti-religion talk from Sauer. I am a devout Catholic, and cannot understand how any rational person can face life or the universe believing in absolutely nothing. Proof that God exists? Just look at nature.

chai on September 22, 2011 at 10:31 PM

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 10:03 PM

Apologies to Pablo Honey for stepping on his argument, but this is what he wrote:

Those men were certainly athiests, however they insisted on worship of the state.

Or were you arguing with somebody else, Hawkdriver?

RightOFLeft on September 22, 2011 at 10:31 PM

Or were you arguing with somebody else, Hawkdriver?

RightOFLeft on September 22, 2011 at 10:31 PM

You had to ignore a lot of comments to boil it down to that. Go back further.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 10:46 PM

And Pablo is a she I understand.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 10:47 PM

@Elisa

Faith is retarded

Alright, lets say I was friends with Kirk Cameron, and lets say that Kirk was over at my house one day and I told Kirk that the story of “The Three Little Pigs” was a true story. Now, I think we can agree that Kirk Cameron would have to be incredibly stupid to believe me. Especially if I don’t give him any evidence, if I didn’t back it up with some kind of scientific information from a respectable source. If I didn’t give him any evidence at all and he believed me, I think its safe to say we can agree he is very stupid.

But this is the exact definition of the word faith. Faith means to believe in something that you don’t have any proof for, which is exactly the same thing as Kirk Cameron believing me when I tell him that the story of the Three Little Pigs is true. Now every single one of us would make fun of Kirk if he believed me for telling him that without any evidence. Which makes me wonder, why does our society revere men of faith? Because its EXACTLY the same! These men are the biggest retards of our society. They take great pride in believing in things without any evidence. Faith is not something to be proud of. Faith is something to be scorned, ridiculed and mocked at every chance because why would anyone believe anything without evidence?

This is an insane way to live your life, and faith doesn’t make you pious, faith makes you gullible. The definition of gullible is to be easily tricked or deceived and who are the people easiest to trick and deceive? The people who believe in things without evidence, the faithful! How many times have we heard stories of charlatans bilking people out of money for prayer cards and videos, etc… Too much faith is a bad thing…

Of course, I realize that most Christians don’t consider themselves to be gullible. They believe that there is LOTS of information backing up Christianity. They’ve been told this over and over again, by preachers, and their family and friends, so they just believe it… But when you actually go to Christians and ask them point blank what the evidence is for it, you typically find that they have no idea.

Now if you talk to them online they go and look it up, and copy and paste things from Christian websites. But if you talk to them in the real world and ask them what the information is, they have no idea… Most of them anyway, at least 75% of them are just Sunday Christians. The inner core of Christianity is only like 20-25% of them, the fundamentalists.

Fortunately, there are SOME Christians who DO want to know what the evidence is. They don’t want to just take the bible on blind faith so they go and research it for themselves. Time and time again, when they do this, they go to the same old Christian websites and sources, and then once they’ve meditated on it they think to themselves, “Well, that proves it, I was right all along to be a Christian!” But you weren’t right, you AREN’T right.

This is incredibly flawed logic.

It’s exactly the same as this example… Let’s say I was in the Nazi party and one day I decided, “Hey, I better go research it to see if being in the Nazi Party is really a great idea.” So the first thing I do is go read the words of Hitler in his book “Mein Kampf” to see what he has to say about it. And when I’m done reading Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” I walk away and say to myself, “Well, that’s that! I was right all along to be a Nazi!” But I WASN’T right all along to be a Nazi! If you ONLY go and read the words of Hitler to see if Nazism is a good idea, you’re obviously going to walk away with a positive spin on Nazism.

Likewise, when you only go read the words of Christians when you’re researching Christianity, you’re obviously going to walk away with a positive spin on Christianity. If you want to be intellectually honest with yourself, you’re going to have to go one step forward. You’re going to have to actually research what these men have to say and see what the outsiders to the faith say about it.

What you’ll find, is what me and many many people before me have found out, and that is that you’ve been deceived since birth by people who meant well, but ultimately did not have enough information to break free of the curse of faith. Because thats what faith is, a curse. A curse of not having enough information. Now your mother, your father, your grandfathers and grandmothers… They meant well, none of them knew they were lying to you, but they didn’t have enough information to know any better.

But here’s the good news. YOU DO! You have enough information to break free from the curse of faith. You live in a glorious time where practically anything you want to know is available to you instantly! You don’t have to take things on faith anymore. You can know for sure, right now, what is more probable to be true than not, you just gotta do a little research.

Our society does not have to be imprisoned by a bronze age myth written by primitive people.

We have cell phones, and high definition televisions, and computers now, and the men who gave us these things, the scientists, have doubled the life expectancy of every single one of us. They’ve proven time and time again that they know what they are talking about. You don’t have to take their words on faith. You can see it for yourself on the desk in front of you, in your own living room, outside in your driveway and up in the sky. The proof that these men understand the natural laws of this world, at least better than anyone else, is all around us.

Yet, still the majority of the world believe the words of primitive, bronze aged people instead of their own eyes. Could there be any greater delusion than that?

Luckily, knowledge is to faith what light is to darkness. And the fact that you are reading my words right now means that you already have access to the greatest source of knowledge the world has ever known.

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Pattosensei on September 22, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Sorry, but you’re wrong on this, Pattosensei. It’s not a strawman to raise a likely contingency.

Local ordinances shouldn’t discriminate against gatherings merely because they are religious, but it is indefensible to suggest that there is no circumstance under which we might want the authorities to regulate what people are using their homes for. We could very well want them to do it even for religious gatherings, because of how those gatherings might affect the neighbors. There is no basis on which to insist that no religious gathering could possibly incommode the neighborhood to the extent that intervention under the law would be required.

J.E. Dyer on September 22, 2011 at 10:50 PM

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Yet still, you believe in God.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 10:56 PM

What did Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung all have in common apart from their atheism? Anyone? They all had a fanatical devotion to collectivism.

In short, all three subscribed to a dogmatic ideology that considered the wellbeing of the collective to be of greater import than the wellbeing of the individuals that made up the collective. Individuals percieved as threats to or targets of the collective were eliminated by exile, starvation or good old fashioned killing.

The problem with ideologies is that they inevitably centre around the notion that ideas are more important than people. Accepting that ideas are more important than people inevitably leads to tragedy and atrocity, like religion does when it comes to the outsider.

Atheism has no ideology. The central idea of atheism is a lack of belief in theistic gods. Atheism can form a part of an ideology but it can never ben an ideology in itself because there’s not enough to it.

Now as for our friend Adolf, first an aside:

Hitler was NOT an atheist. It takes some spectacular mental contortions to come to the conclusion that Hitler was motivated by or even entertained the notion of atheism. A self declared “Christian…fighter for Truth and Justics” who declared himself an agent of “the Almighty Creator” makes for a lousy atheist. It’s entirely understandable why you would want to distance yourself from Hitler, but attempting to use his name to sully your opponents is simply dishonest.

So what did motivate Hitler? Well it wasn’t collectivism. It was however a fanatical devotion to an ideology which valued ideas more than it valued people! Hitler’s ideology of Nazism, largely of his own invention, was a mish-mash of misunderstanding the works of Neitzsche and Heidegger who in turn were busy misunderstanding the works of Charles Darwin.

Hitler’s ideology was based on germanic and aryan supremacy and slavic and jewish inferiority rather than on political collectivism, and focused on race war rather than class struggle, but it was still at heart an ideology which crushed its targets and opponents under foot.

Yet again we see that when ideas are considered to be more valuable than people it is inevitably followed by tragedy and atrocity.

These four great apparently secular tyrants all had the same thing in common. Where else do we see this phenomenon? Every time an alleged witch is burned, every time a homosexual is murdered, every time a woman is beaten or raped for not covering herself up, every time a person is convicted or persecuted for unislamic or unchristian behaviour, every time an apostate is executed or a blasphemer is censured or threatened we are seeing a demonstration of ideas being held as more important than people.

I believe that personal liberty and freedom of speech are ideas worth fighting for and worth defending precisely because these ideas put people first. They protect the individual from the scourge of ideology.

If we celebrate the ideology of liberty and free speech you can be sure that you are putting people ahead of ideas.

Isn’t that the way it should be?

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 10:58 PM

Yet still, you believe in God.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 10:56 PM

I believe in gods POSSIBILITY. I see no true indicator that he exists outside of the environment we perceive.

The Riddle of Epicurus still has yet to have a good answer to it.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 11:00 PM

50 people? Probably 25+ cars? Disgusting. The Fromms’ disregard for the rights of their neighbors is contemptible. It is not religious persecution to insist that they abide by the laws as written.

Can you show me in the constitution where they have the right to deny someone their religious expression because the neighbors don’t like extra cars for a couple of hours? get over yourself. Shame on the neighbors for being such jerks as to start this. Shame on you.

Noelie on September 22, 2011 at 11:03 PM

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 10:58 PM

All that’s great but the simple point is that they were all Atheists. Not just non-believers, but Atheists. Not just passive Atheists, but people who in most cases outlawed religion because of their beliefs and then went on to murder millions and millions of people.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 11:04 PM

Luckily, knowledge is to faith what light is to darkness. And the fact that you are reading my words right now means that you already have access to the greatest source of knowledge the world has ever known.

Another one that needs to get a grip on reality. You aren’t as smart as you think you are.

Noelie on September 22, 2011 at 11:06 PM

I believe in gods POSSIBILITY.

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 11:00 PM

That’s great my friend. We have common ground. My are now firmly ensconced in my prayers.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 11:06 PM

RightofLeft …

The past century has shown what enforced atheism (not individual atheists) have done for society. Look at the millions murdered because of communism, Nazism, Cambodia, etc. Even the wildly exaggerated claims of deaths from the Spanish Inquisition (proven to be less than 4,000 by scholars who have studied the actual case files still kept in Spain, including atheist scholars), pale in comparison to the actual murders by regimes without faith.

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time.

But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty.

Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.

~Noted athiest Adolf Hitler.

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Right, this is her and Elisa’s original exchange. Rather than consider all of Elisa’s debate points, Pablo choose to assert Hitler was a man of faith. Pablo made her point about him and our exchange started with a question about the balance of Elisa’s statement. Pablo asserted here that …

Pablo? You didn’t dispute the other points that Elisa made?

No I dispute them as well.

Pretty much everything she wrote you can mark down as disputed by Pablo Honey.

Pablo Honey on September 22, 2011 at 9:16 PM

There was nothing else in her comment that she agreed with.

You can read all the exchanges where we cover Pol Pot, Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Mussolini and finally come to an agreement that all of these men were all Atheists and all presided over regimes that were responsible for the worse of murderous behavior in the last century.

Did it look like I was arguing with someone else, or where you being factious?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 11:08 PM

All that’s great but the simple point is that they were all Atheists. Not just non-believers, but Atheists. Not just passive Atheists, but people who in most cases outlawed religion because of their beliefs and then went on to murder millions and millions of people.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 11:04 PM

And Torquemada was a Christian responsible for thousands, to tens of thousands of deaths… The ancient popes in charge of the crusades and the Caliphates of Islam were responsible for the deaths of thousands to millions. The kings and missionaries of europe were responsible for the forced conversion of millions of native americans. I can go on and on hawk.

With or without religion you would have good people doing good deeds, and evil people doing evil deeds. But for good people to do evil deeds, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg, Nobel Physicist

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 11:09 PM

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 11:09 PM

But the discussion had nothing to do with that. An assertion was made that Elisa had not made cogent and truthful points about Pol Pot, every communist know in the last century and Atheist regimes. I believe she asserted and proved that handily.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 11:15 PM

If we celebrate the ideology of liberty and free speech you can be sure that you are putting people ahead of ideas.

Isn’t that the way it should be?

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 10:58 PM

Oddly, Christ does just that–He puts people ahead of ideologies. Too bad you are putting atheism ahead of people, that is, ahead of tolerance and kindness toward Christians, who, as it turns out, are people and not ideologies.

Maybe you will learn something by the time you are in your 30′s, but it’s not looking good with that chip on your shoulder.

tcn on September 22, 2011 at 11:16 PM

SauerKraut, You did make a statement a long time ago that I was trying to Google that never made much sense to me. If I can find it, will you take a shot at it for me?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 11:18 PM

And Torquemada was a Christian responsible for thousands, to tens of thousands of deaths…

Nope. Less than 100 total, all of them killed by the secular courts.

The kings and missionaries of europe were responsible for the forced conversion of millions of native americans.

Nope. But there were several missionaries killed by native Americans, so there is that.

Maybe you should try getting your facts from sources that aren’t grinding their own axes.

tcn on September 22, 2011 at 11:19 PM

It had something to do with being “Saved” more than once. I recall you stating you’d been saved trice. True?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 11:19 PM

tcn on September 22, 2011 at 11:19 PM

That is some great return points. Thank you for the valuable input.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Oddly, Christ does just that–He puts people ahead of ideologies. Too bad you are putting atheism ahead of people, that is, ahead of tolerance and kindness toward Christians, who, as it turns out, are people and not ideologies.

Maybe you will learn something by the time you are in your 30′s, but it’s not looking good with that chip on your shoulder.

tcn on September 22, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Oddly, you barely know me, yet even with all I’ve written here you apparently missed that I’m in my 40′s. I’ve been a Christian for 34 of my 43 years. I don’t consider my first 6 years of life as being a Christian any longer since I barely knew what the hell one was at the time anyway.

Other than that, once I became old enough to enjoy pleasing my parents I became a Christian.

I’ve been born again 3 times in my life as a Christian, and once as an agnostic atheist. I happen to still believe in the god concept, I just don’t believe in theistic gods anymore, thus why I’m an “atheist”

You can be a deist and still be an atheist by my reckoning of the definition of atheism. The absence of theism, just like agnostic is the absence of knowledge. Amoral is the absence of morals. Atypical is the absence of typicalness.

This makes sense to me. I know I’ll be pilloried for my changing of the definition but it fits the way words are broken down to their component parts.

If you think about it. Someone can still have a god concept but just not believe in any particular theistic strain of god. In other words, believe in gods without revelations associated with them (ie the Christian story or the Islamic story).

I think that if a real Jesus existed, and he preached what they say he preached, I’m all for it to an extent. I don’t like some of what he says but for the most part I think he was spot on.

I think if there was a real Jesus, that he was probably just a real person like you or I, but his story got blown up in the process of word of mouth the way it was back then. The first writings of or about Jesus weren’t until at least 35-40 years after his “passing”.

Ever played the secret story game where people sit in a big circle (say 20 people or so), and one person whispers a story to the next person who then whispers it to the next? The story always ends up back at the original teller as something so different than the original that it almost doesn’t resemble it.

Jesus could have been a very wise man, a great philosopher who preached goodness to your fellow man, but was he really the son of god? I don’t think so and unfortunately for you, we don’t have any testaments to his miracles other than the claims laid down in the bible. I think the reality is that in an attempt to make Jesus more impressive, the story tellers may have used previous religions divinity claims by fabricating the miracle stories, the son of god claims, the virgin birth, the resurrection and the ascension.

I think this is a much more plausible explanation for what really happened way back when. Its a shame too… They may have taken a man who could have possibly been one of histories great philosophers of love and human understanding and made his story so unbelievable that people question his very existence. Their intentions may have been good, but the truth would have been better.

Actions are more important than beliefs.

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 11:27 PM

SauerKraut, maybe slow down with the long points and just talk with us man. I’m still looking for that comment. And dude, I’m impressed. You are all over the internet. Quite prolific.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 11:28 PM

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 11:27 PM

I see you kind of answered it. I’m still trying to find where I saw your comment. I’m very happy that you acknowledge the existence of Jesus too. A lot of Atheists won’t even admit the historical records of his existence.

So, the meat and potatoes is that you’re really an agnostic, again that is wonderful to know.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 11:32 PM

Actions are more important than beliefs.

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Did you think I was hanging on your every word? Think again. I’ve heard all the atheist drivel before, and it just repeats.

About that “telephone” game? How, then, did so many people, from so many different places and at so many different times come up with the same story? Somehow they all just made up the same stuff about this dude they’d never met named Jesus? Wow. What a mind blower. /s

Here’s an action. I’ll pray that you someday figure out where you are headed and why. But don’t let my beliefs get in your way as you exit stage left.

tcn on September 22, 2011 at 11:33 PM

tcn on September 22, 2011 at 11:33 PM

If you wanna have a conversation you gotta hear what’s been said. If you’re gonna interject at the end, read what came before.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about in paragraph 2 but did you know:

Who was the Son of the highest God, and the biggest healer in Antiquity? He healed the sick and even raised the dead. Hear and behold: former paralysed walked again, the blind could miraculously see again, and the deaf could listen and the mute speak after the Master’s gentle touch! But he did not only heal the body, he also healed the soul. They called him Saviour and Redeemer, and he healed both rich and poor, men and women, young and old, slaves and free men, friends and enemies. In one occasion a paralysed man was brough to him in his bed, and took his bed and left walking after the Saviour had touched him. What was this Saviour’s name?

… Asklepios.

Who was born by a mortal virgin mother and had a divine Father, and was known as the “Saviour of the world”? Before he was born his parents wandered to a bigger town, and prophets had foretold his birth and that he would be a king. This instigated a search for the infant Saviour by a leading figure who wanted to kill him. After growing up the Son of God was shown all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain. He also walked on water and when he met his end his mother and his favorite disciple stood by him. He then tells his mother: “Do not cry, I’m going to heaven”. When he dies he utter: “It is finished” and the earth trembles and darkness cover the land. Then he ascended to heaven, and his greatest achievement was to conquer death.

His name was of course…Hercules

Wise men were led to his birth by a star, and his conception was miraculous. After his birth the ruler in the area wanted him dead and started a hunt for the child. But his parents were warned by a heavenly messenger who told them to escape over the river with the holy child. Here, he was met by shepherds. The boy grew up and did many great deeds, and was the mediator between God and man.

His name: Krishna.

And there is of course the God-man, the prophet, the founder of a great monotheistic religion that still exist today. He preached that there was only one true God, and his teachings focused on the eternal fight between good and evil. The teachings include the idea of the Saviour will wake the dead and pass judgment on all. The righteous ones goes to Paradise and the sinful straight to a burning Hell. The very word of Paradise stems from this religion. This semigod started his career in his early thirties, and had a following of disciples. As a band of monks they wandered around, preaching their religion. He was eventually killed and sent to heaven.

And he was the Persian Zarathustra.

As for your last comment… I suppose exiting stage left means I get to go to your hell?

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 11:42 PM

Holy Crap SauerKraut537, lol, someone else must be using the same screenname for an email address out there. This cannot be you. wow.

lol

Still looking. I know you comment on Hot Air and Youtube. I thought it was a youtube comment. While I’m looking. My question is this.

If you understood when you were a Christian that being “Born Again” was an acclamation that you had received The Holy Spirit, that you accepted Christ and felt the Holy Spirit move you, but you lost it. And that it happened three times? I don’t get that. Is there a chance you were never truly saved?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 11:43 PM

I’m very happy that you acknowledge the existence of Jesus too. A lot of Atheists won’t even admit the historical records of his existence.

So, the meat and potatoes is that you’re really an agnostic, again that is wonderful to know.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 11:32 PM

I don’t acknowledge the existence of Jesus because unlike Ceasar, Cyrus, Alexander, Aquinas, he doesn’t have any corroborating writings which prove his existence.

The earliest writings of him are in the third person (anecdotal) and not until 40 years after his supposed passing. They were all written by “supporters” of his deism and thus suspect. The only Roman writings of him were from Tacitus and a few others whose names escape me at the moment… Pliny the Younger, Josephus.

The Josephus writings appear to be a hoax due tot he nature of what he supposedly said about him (in other words are not the same style as Josephus’ other writings), and Tacitus only mentions the existence of the cult after Crestus.

I don’t care if he existed at all. The sentiment of what he supposedly said stands as a good way to be for the most part.

The bible is fiction like any fictitious tale with characters in it written today.

The bible is a fairy tale.

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 11:49 PM

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 11:49 PM

Wow, you go back and forth. A little Jeckel/Hyde man. Calm down.

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 11:55 PM

The bible is a fairy tale.

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 11:49 PM

I guess just the last question then again. It’s a little surprising if you’re, what, I guess an Atheist now? How did you get it in your mind three separate times in your life that you were a Christian. That you had received the Holy Spirit three times, that you were Baptized three times, and that you lost your faith, three times?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 11:59 PM

If you understood when you were a Christian that being “Born Again” was an acclamation that you had received The Holy Spirit, that you accepted Christ and felt the Holy Spirit move you, but you lost it. And that it happened three times? I don’t get that. Is there a chance you were never truly saved?

hawkdriver on September 22, 2011 at 11:43 PM

OK, stop creeping me out dude. Looking up my comments from the past? WTF for? Nothing to see there that I’m not still saying today.

Look hawk, being born again is just an emotional time in your life where you “feel the holy spirit”. I now know that not to be any “spirit” entering me or whatever but just an emotional feeling one has when they have a “transcendent” moment. It’s just your damn body emitting endorphins or seratonin or DMT into your body in reaction to a scary, exciting, numinous moment.

I had one when I was first asked to come up on stage and pledge my life for Jesus, then again when in Young Life in my teen years, then again in my 30′s after having kids.

Interestingly, I also had one that eclipsed the rest of them when I realized I’d been hoodwinked by the stupidity of religious belief. When I finally realized that it was all a bad f’king joke.

Religions are just reflections of the societies that they spawned from and they all scab off each other.

Christianity stole the Jewish tales and added a bit on until it became their own story. The Arabs saw all this going on and decided to start one of their own so they stole some of the Judaic tales for themselves and added in a bunch of militant Bedouin warrior stories and became Islam. Then you have the damn Mormons who come along and steal not only all the Judaic tales but the Christian ones as well and voila! Mormonism.

They’re a f’king joke!

SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 11:59 PM

OK, stop creeping me out dude. Looking up my comments from the past? WTF for? Nothing to see there that I’m not still saying today.

Knock it off. You addressed it anyway in a comment above before you even acknowledged I asked about it. What’s creepy is the time you spend all over the internet on a one man crusade to defeat Christianity. And really, your screen name is linked to some pretty weird stuff I really hope is not you. You keep talking about creepy though. It scares me.

Look hawk, being born again is just an emotional time in your life where you “feel the holy spirit”. I now know that not to be any “spirit” entering me or whatever but just an emotional feeling one has when they have a “transcendent” moment. It’s just your damn body emitting endorphins or seratonin or DMT into your body in reaction to a scary, exciting, numinous moment.SauerKraut537 on September 22, 2011 at 11:59 PM

But you claim it happened to you “three” times.

Glenn Beck is totally off his rocker. I get the whole born again mentality, been there 3 times, but I disagree with what he’s saying here. The facts are that he’s a great orator, I like a lot of what he talks about, but he comes off as a snake-oil salesman with this kind of tripe. Armor of righteousness? Sword of the Spirit? We’re in the 21st century folks. Time to wake up and realize that god is the problem, not the solution. Religion pits man vs man. Religion degrades humanity.

This is you, right? Or is there another Anti-Christian bigot named SauerKraut537 out there?

hawkdriver on September 23, 2011 at 12:10 AM

What I said isn’t creepy. But you looking up my past is a bit creepy. I might have another born again moment. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on September 23, 2011 at 12:14 AM

And yes, I had three “crisis moments” where I felt I needed to resubmit myself to the lord, if you will. What of it?

You doubt my feelings at those moments? That I didn’t feel that god was in my presence? That I wasn’t feeling the love of those around me in Christ? That I didn’t almost feel like speaking in tongues (of course that was always a little too creepy, I never did understand that concept but I thought about trying it/I felt strongly enough about my love of the lord though)

;-)

SauerKraut537 on September 23, 2011 at 12:17 AM

and as for why I’m “crusading”… I brought many people to the lord. I thought about joining the clergy a time or three… I was a missionary of sorts for a bit.

I feel guilty for that.

;-)

SauerKraut537 on September 23, 2011 at 12:21 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7