Here's Why They Hate America and Israel

[JoeB131]

What!
You need even more education????
Just for you...I just wrote an OP on the UN.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/266460-the-un-wolf-in-sheep-s-clothing.html#post6458835

Yeah, right. The sad thing is you believe that sort of nonsense.

And so does too much of the right wing, unforunately.

 

[JoeB131]

[



"...which is what happens when people listen to too much hate radio."

Actually, this is what I listen to when I'm studying:


JS Bach Psalm 51 BWV 1083 Cantatas BWV 170,198,106,136,53 - YouTube

I've always found Bach to be a bit too pretentious.

Give me Mozart any day of the week.

 

[American_Jihad]

Why They Hate America and Israel

I believe self-loathing has a lot to do with it...

 

[turzovka]

Wow. Just wow.

Umm, fyi before the influx of jewish immigrants after the turn of the Century the Jewish population was about 3% in Palestine. When they came they did bring much needed capital to the region and that improved the lot for many indigenous Palestinians as many of them flocked to the cities for the jobs.

Indigenous used loosely, especially if you were a bedouin. The population numbers are highly disputed, but I would not rely solely on Wikipedia which is somewhat exposed, its agenda that is. But to the greater points. There was no Palestine as a nation surely, nor even as a bordered territory. It was part of a far larger geographic area which included Jordan, Syria, Iraq, etc. all under the control of the Ottoman empire for a number of centuries. There were considerably more Jews than 3% in this region as well as Christians from many stripes, but there was no country, no capital, no formal standing that this was an Arab nation and others were "guests."

By and large, the jewish population that moved in at the turn of the century and leading on purchased land from the Ottoman Turks, and none of those purchases were land that was inhabited by someone else. It was unoccupied and in a majority of cases, not very arable. The Jews were the heroes of bringing a foresaken land back to life.

Population figures become more reliable 1914 forward and the number of Jews who moved in was in the hundreds of thousands only to be surpassed by the number of Arabs who moved into the land, specifically because the Jews offered them a way of living whichyou alluded to as well. So one large question which Golda Meir posed back in the sixties remains --- "What is a Palestinian?" Is it all those Egyptians and Lebanese and Syrians, et al. who moved in the same time the Jews did? Then what right do they have to say it is their nation? What right do they have to say they are a Palestinian?

It gets more complicated and unfair from there, of course.

Many countries came into existence after WWI and the break up of the Ottoman-Turk Empire and the augument over the name they call themselves is specious.

Even the Jewish Virtual Library has the population of Jews below 10% as late as 1918. Furmore, about those land purchases:

Prior to 1858, land in Palestine, then a part of the Ottoman Empire since 1516, was cultivated or occupied mainly by peasants. Land ownership was regulated by people living on the land according to customs and traditions. Usually, land was communally owned by village residents, though land could be owned by individuals or families.[7]

In 1858 the Ottoman Empire introduced The Ottoman Land Code of 1858, requiring land owners to register ownership. The reasons behind the law were twofold: (1) to increase tax revenue, and (2) to exercise greater state control over the area. Peasants, however, saw no need to register claims, for several reasons:[7] Land owners were subject to military service in the Ottoman Army, general opposition to official regulations from the Ottoman Empire, and evasion of taxes and registration fees to the Ottoman Empire.

The registration process itself was open to falsification and manipulation. Land collectively owned by village residents ended up registered to one villager, and merchants and local Ottoman administrators took the opportunity to register large areas of land to their own name. The result was land that became the legal property of people who had never lived on the land, while the peasants, having lived there for generations, retained possession, but became tenants of absentee owners.

Israeli land and property laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The land in Palestine was not unoccupied. It was already blooming.

But to the point it was not the Israelis who gave the Indigenous people(whatever they call themselves) the land.

Many various accounts of the history of modern Israel exist and they look very different depending on which facts one chooses to admit or omit. I tend to believe Jewish accounts of their tortured history over any secular voice, generally speaking.

Put it this way: In 1054 a.d., an emissary from Rome, Cardinal Humbert, approached the sanctuary of the Hagia Cathedral in Constantinople confronting the church leaders of the Eastern capital of the Catholic Church who were in years of defiance, insolence and disobedience with the papacy, the liturgy and doctrines of the Church. He placed a bull of excommunication on the altar, uttered but 6 words, “Let God be the final judge,” turned and left.

Ditto for the Jewish nation.

 

[JoeB131]

[


Many various accounts of the history of modern Israel exist and they look very different depending on which facts one chooses to admit or omit. I tend to believe Jewish accounts of their tortured history over any secular voice, generally speaking.

Put it this way: In 1054 a.d., an emissary from Rome, Cardinal Humbert, approached the sanctuary of the Hagia Cathedral in Constantinople confronting the church leaders of the Eastern capital of the Catholic Church who were in years of defiance, insolence and disobedience with the papacy, the liturgy and doctrines of the Church. He placed a bull of excommunication on the altar, uttered but 6 words, “Let God be the final judge,” turned and left.

Ditto for the Jewish nation.

Yeah, that worked out well, didn't it? So the Catholic and Orthodox Churches had a hissy about the Pope's authority, and they almost lost the whole thing to Islam...

Because your Sky Pixie is a dick like that.

I hope for the happy day when people don't believe in Gods anymore. We'll all be better off.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What!
You need even more education????
Just for you...I just wrote an OP on the UN.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/266460-the-un-wolf-in-sheep-s-clothing.html#post6458835

Yeah, right. The sad thing is you believe that sort of nonsense.

And so does too much of the right wing, unforunately.

1. If you don't...you lack perception.


Proof? R2P


2. The Doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect,” (RtoP) was accepted by the 2005World Summit, and the 2006 Security Council of the UN. The basic ideas are:

a. A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).
b. The international community has a responsibility to assist peacefully.
c. The international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.

3. Picture Bosnia, or Rwanda or Libya….what could be bad?

4. Well, what if the real intentions behind the RtoP was to allow certain forces a ‘moral’ right to ‘interfere’ in the National Sovereignty of a nation they didn’t care for. Say…oh, I don’t know….the United States? Or Israel?

5. “Advocates of RtoP claim that only occasions where the international community will intervene on a State without its consent is when the state is either allowing mass atrocities to occur, or is committing them, in which case the State is no longer upholding its responsibilities as a sovereign.” Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6. Now, let’s say that the UN decides to declare Palestine to be a state…What a coincidence! That was the news this week! Declaring An Independent Palestinian State - Uncommon Thought Journal


7. “Philanthropist billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the global organization that promotes the military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to the doctrine's founder.According to reports, Power was instrumental in convincing Obama to act against Libya.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been described by its founders and proponents, including Soros, as promoting global governance while allowing the international community to penetrate a nation state's borders under certain conditions.” Soros Fingerprints on Libya Bombing - George Soros - Fox Nation


"The sad thing is you believe that sort of nonsense."


Perhaps the NYTimes does, as well....

"President Clinton once urged creation of an American "rapid deployment force" of peacekeepers that would be on instant call to the United Nations. He's settled for something less. He won't commit a U.S. contingent to a U.N. standing army or earmark units for U.N. duty in advance. Instead, some troops will train to be part-time peacekeepers and could serve under U.N. command on "a case-by-case basis."
…Mr. Clinton could go further. It may be politically ill-advised to ask Congress to pre-commit U.S. forces. But he could prudently order the Pentagon to designate one or two U.S.-based brigades to be used exclusively for peacekeeping contingencies and have them participate in joint exercises with peacekeepers from other nations."
U.S. Troops for a U.N. Army - NYTimes.com



Could we have a Liberal President put our troops at the disposal of the UN?

Seems so.


Could a US Supreme Court decide to abide by foreign law?


What do you think?

 

[PoliticalChic]

[



"...which is what happens when people listen to too much hate radio."

Actually, this is what I listen to when I'm studying:


JS Bach Psalm 51 BWV 1083 Cantatas BWV 170,198,106,136,53 - YouTube

I've always found Bach to be a bit too pretentious.

Give me Mozart any day of the week.

Bach....then Mozart.....then Kool & the Gang

 

[JoeB131]

What!
You need even more education????
Just for you...I just wrote an OP on the UN.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/266460-the-un-wolf-in-sheep-s-clothing.html#post6458835

Yeah, right. The sad thing is you believe that sort of nonsense.

And so does too much of the right wing, unforunately.

1. If you don't...you lack perception.


Could we have a Liberal President put our troops at the disposal of the UN?

Seems so.

Could a US Supreme Court decide to abide by foreign law?

What do you think?

Could a liberal president put our troops at the disposal of the UN? Yup. And so could a conservative president. In fact, the only three times the UN has voted to use force were Korea, Iraq in 1991 and Afghanistan in 2001. Two of those cases were conservative presidents who instigated the action.

If there is a danger from loss of soverignty, it isn't from the UN, it is from the growth in power of multi-national corporations that can buy elections and crush economies. Both of which were tried to get a Weird Mormon Robot elected in this country.

 

[JoeB131]

[



"...which is what happens when people listen to too much hate radio."

Actually, this is what I listen to when I'm studying:


JS Bach Psalm 51 BWV 1083 Cantatas BWV 170,198,106,136,53 - YouTube

I've always found Bach to be a bit too pretentious.

Give me Mozart any day of the week.

Bach....then Mozart.....then Kool & the Gang

Since we are sharing.

Mozart, Beethoven, Johann Strauss, Copeland for classical composers. Used to like Wagner, but he has kind of faded for me. Verdi's a lot of fun.

Contemporary- Pink Floyd (obviously), Moody Blues, the Doors, Led Zeppelin.

Well, contemporary for me, anyway.

 

[turzovka]

[


Many various accounts of the history of modern Israel exist and they look very different depending on which facts one chooses to admit or omit. I tend to believe Jewish accounts of their tortured history over any secular voice, generally speaking.

Put it this way: In 1054 a.d., an emissary from Rome, Cardinal Humbert, approached the sanctuary of the Hagia Cathedral in Constantinople confronting the church leaders of the Eastern capital of the Catholic Church who were in years of defiance, insolence and disobedience with the papacy, the liturgy and doctrines of the Church. He placed a bull of excommunication on the altar, uttered but 6 words, “Let God be the final judge,” turned and left.

Ditto for the Jewish nation.

Yeah, that worked out well, didn't it? So the Catholic and Orthodox Churches had a hissy about the Pope's authority, and they almost lost the whole thing to Islam...

Because your Sky Pixie is a dick like that.

I hope for the happy day when people don't believe in Gods anymore. We'll all be better off.

Yeah, Joe, it was nothing more than a "hissy fit." A clash of egos if you will?

Your issues never approach apologetics or interpretation of Scripture. You think God does not exist and I can see from experience there is no way of reasoning with those types. Especially because they think they have reason on their side, and we are nothing but a bunch of hopefuls believing in something that has no reason behind it or evidence.

Tragic.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, that worked out well, didn't it? So the Catholic and Orthodox Churches had a hissy about the Pope's authority, and they almost lost the whole thing to Islam...

Because your Sky Pixie is a dick like that.

I hope for the happy day when people don't believe in Gods anymore. We'll all be better off.

Yeah, Joe, it was nothing more than a "hissy fit." A clash of egos if you will?

Your issues never approach apologetics or interpretation of Scripture. You think God does not exist and I can see from experience there is no way of reasoning with those types. Especially because they think they have reason on their side, and we are nothing but a bunch of hopefuls believing in something that has no reason behind it or evidence.

Tragic.

Quite the contrary, I grew up Catholic, got the full 12 years of attempted brainwashing about the bullshit. And frankly, all I saw during it was the contradictions and hypocrisy.

Let's take this story you are on about. The Orthodox and Catholic Church had a big fight over whether or not the Pope had authority over all of Christiandom. Which implies that anyone who doesn't believe in the Pope's authority is damned and going to hell. After the Patriarch of Constantiople was less than impressed by the Papal Legate's argument, he flipped him off.

Now, if God really did think that anyone who didn't listen to the pope should go to hell, he's let a hissy fit between these two men condemn MILLIONS to the eternal flames when they might well think they were following the right path. Wasn't their fault. As far as they knew, the Patriarch had God's authority, not the Pope.

The problem with a lot of your belief system is that God just comes off as really being kind of a capricious dick. Maybe he'd be worthy of fear, but he'd never be worthy of love or respect.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah, that worked out well, didn't it? So the Catholic and Orthodox Churches had a hissy about the Pope's authority, and they almost lost the whole thing to Islam...

Because your Sky Pixie is a dick like that.

I hope for the happy day when people don't believe in Gods anymore. We'll all be better off.

Yeah, Joe, it was nothing more than a "hissy fit." A clash of egos if you will?

Your issues never approach apologetics or interpretation of Scripture. You think God does not exist and I can see from experience there is no way of reasoning with those types. Especially because they think they have reason on their side, and we are nothing but a bunch of hopefuls believing in something that has no reason behind it or evidence.

Tragic.

Quite the contrary, I grew up Catholic, got the full 12 years of attempted brainwashing about the bullshit. And frankly, all I saw during it was the contradictions and hypocrisy.

Let's take this story you are on about. The Orthodox and Catholic Church had a big fight over whether or not the Pope had authority over all of Christiandom. Which implies that anyone who doesn't believe in the Pope's authority is damned and going to hell. After the Patriarch of Constantiople was less than impressed by the Papal Legate's argument, he flipped him off.

Now, if God really did think that anyone who didn't listen to the pope should go to hell, he's let a hissy fit between these two men condemn MILLIONS to the eternal flames when they might well think they were following the right path. Wasn't their fault. As far as they knew, the Patriarch had God's authority, not the Pope.

The problem with a lot of your belief system is that God just comes off as really being kind of a capricious dick. Maybe he'd be worthy of fear, but he'd never be worthy of love or respect.

"...all I saw during it was the contradictions and hypocrisy."


I really enjoy it when one uses that type of argument in the face of the following:

The Left must bear a Sisyphean burden having to suspend reason and accountability, in order to rationalize the positions that they claim to espouse:

a. They support higher taxes and government intervention to grow the economy, when all evidence historical and current (Greece) records the disastrous folly of such a course.

b. The President’s view that a woman’s right to have recreational sex and enjoy cost-free access to pregnancy prevention/termination trumps the constitutional right to act according to one’s religious beliefs.

c. Eisenhower famously said ‘public opinion wins wars,’ yet the Left won’t allow the terms ‘Islamofascism’ or ‘Radical Islam.’

d. Belief in Global Warming, in the face of the East Anglia emails…

e. The government sues the state of Arizona for the enforcement of laws the passage of which are not only the right of the state under the Constitution, but the content of which is virtually identical with federal law.

f. The state of California sentences the farmers of the Central Valley to drought and their farms to destruction because a small fish called the delta smelt has been declared endangered.

g. A baby born alive as a result of a botched abortion should be left to die.

h. That some 400 Liberal journalists have been revealed as involved in a cabal to distort that which they offer as news, in aid of Liberalism, makes no difference to the Liberal. Meet the New Journolist, Smaller Than the Old Journolist - Jeffrey Goldberg - The Atlantic

i. That the government gives billions in taxpayer funds to supposed businesses that turn around and kick part back to the party that gave it to them.

j. One explains the abysmal performance of Obama by saying “look at the mess he inherited,” as if the President did not campaign on the platform of cleaning up the “mess.”




And, a problem with religion?

The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."

 

[JoeB131]

"...all I saw during it was the contradictions and hypocrisy."


I really enjoy it when one uses that type of argument in the face of the following:

The Left must bear a Sisyphean burden having to suspend reason and accountability, in order to rationalize the positions that they claim to espouse:

.....



The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."

Yawn... and she's off in the weeds again. What does any of that have to do with anything I said? I was merely pointing out to the Catholic Fanatic how silly Catholic Dogma really is. And you go into this whole speil about how bad "Marxism" is when no one really proposed that.

Let's take a few of your points, since I have niether the time nor patience to slog through it all.

a. They support higher taxes and government intervention to grow the economy, when all evidence historical and current (Greece) records the disastrous folly of such a course.

Greece isn't a good example, because that has a lot more to do with currency than policy. Ireland does the exact opposite of that, and the Euro is screwing up their economy just as badly.

the historical record is that from 1940 to 1970, we grew the economy at a spectacular pace, enjoyed the greatest prosperity in our history, and the government spent a lot more in real terms than it does now. Because we invested in infrastructure and education, we had a huge edge on our rivals after WWII.

d. Belief in Global Warming, in the face of the East Anglia emails…

More along the lines of "belief in Global Warming because we had temperatures in the 70's in Early December in Chicago". Because the grass is still green outside my house and we've gone the longest period without snowfall in Chicago in history as of today. because we have tropical storms hitting northern cities. Not because someone wrote some scientific jargon about statistical analysis that sounds suspicious when taken out of context.

It's more a case of "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes!" when the people who make money off the status quo try to tell us there is no Global Warming.

Eisenhower famously said ‘public opinion wins wars,’ yet the Left won’t allow the terms ‘Islamofascism’ or ‘Radical Islam.’

I'm sorry, is there a censor going to Faux News or Hate Radio telling them they can't say that? Those terms shouldn't be used because they have little to do with a fight against a terrorist organization. If it's America against terrorists, we can win that fight. Most Muslims hate the terrorists as much as we do. If it's America against Islam, and we demonize the faith of a billion people, that's a fight we can't win and frankly shouldn't have.

b. The President’s view that a woman’s right to have recreational sex and enjoy cost-free access to pregnancy prevention/termination trumps the constitutional right to act according to one’s religious beliefs.

You are more than free to deny yourself any enjoyment you want because of your belief in a sky pixie. You simply can't impose that on people who work for you when you promised them health insurance as a condition of employment. Frankly, I'd like to get the employers out of health insurance altogether, because they only mess it up.

Here's the thing. Family Planning Services don't cost more, they cost less than having the babies, which is why the insurance carriers didn't say boo about this provision. And the Catholic Bishops didn't say boo about ACA because they saw the huge windfall their hospital (BUSINESS) ends would get from it's other provisions. Until they realized that one detail that exposes the hypocrisy of a bunch of sexless men in dresses telling the 96% of Catholic women who practice family planning that it's still a 'sin".

 

[Mac1958]

I've always found Bach to be a bit too pretentious.

Give me Mozart any day of the week.

Bach....then Mozart.....then Kool & the Gang

Since we are sharing.

Mozart, Beethoven, Johann Strauss, Copeland for classical composers. Used to like Wagner, but he has kind of faded for me. Verdi's a lot of fun.

Contemporary- Pink Floyd (obviously), Moody Blues, the Doors, Led Zeppelin.

Well, contemporary for me, anyway.

Well hell then, Pantera, Jimmy Buffett, Disturbed, Korn, Jane's Addiction, Black Sabbath and BB King.

But I have issues.

.

 

[koshergrl]

I find it humorous how historically pig-ignorant clowns like the OP always overlook exactly how Israel became Israel in the first place, and then complain when they think Israel is having a hard time of things.

Any Canaanites around to ask about that?

******* idiot.

From time to time an ignorant buffoon stumbles onto the board, and announces his presence in tones and remonstrances lacking civility.
I’m not a proctologist, but I recognize you…

Oh, I'm sorry, honey, but I'm generally not civil, as a rule, to historically illiterate blow hards with no grasp of what they're braying about.

Don't like it? Too bad.

Some, having been braced throughout their lives in this manner have never been taught how to speak to others.

Some make the mistake of believing that the abrasive tone will be mistaken for knowledge.
It is not.
It is recognized for exactly what it is: the mark of a boorish lout.

You opinion of me irrelevant.

Here's hoping that you decide to remain on the board, as I look forward to wiping the floor with you.

Based on your posting history, there is statistically no probability of that happening whatsoever.

But, hey, dream big since it's clearly all you have.

This post is perfect, and stands on it's own as a ringing indictment of this particular pontificating know-nothing...

But the icing on the cake are the retards who thanked it.

I'll bet mblowjob thinks the support of acknowledged (by both sides) nuts makes him credible.

 

[Colin]

I find it humorous how historically pig-ignorant clowns like the OP always overlook exactly how Israel became Israel in the first place, and then complain when they think Israel is having a hard time of things.

Any Canaanites around to ask about that?

******* idiot.

From time to time an ignorant buffoon stumbles onto the board, and announces his presence in tones and remonstrances lacking civility.
I’m not a proctologist, but I recognize you…

Oh, I'm sorry, honey, but I'm generally not civil, as a rule, to historically illiterate blow hards with no grasp of what they're braying about.

Don't like it? Too bad.

Some, having been braced throughout their lives in this manner have never been taught how to speak to others.

Some make the mistake of believing that the abrasive tone will be mistaken for knowledge.
It is not.
It is recognized for exactly what it is: the mark of a boorish lout.

You opinion of me irrelevant.

Here's hoping that you decide to remain on the board, as I look forward to wiping the floor with you.

Based on your posting history, there is statistically no probability of that happening whatsoever.

But, hey, dream big since it's clearly all you have.

You've been a member for a matter of days, yet you are cognisant with her posting history. I smell a sock!

 

[koshergrl]

yup.

 

[turzovka]

Quite the contrary, I grew up Catholic, got the full 12 years of attempted brainwashing about the bullshit. And frankly, all I saw during it was the contradictions and hypocrisy.

And we are to now assume you are brainwash free of all error or fanciful imaginings? What assurance.

Let's take this story you are on about. The Orthodox and Catholic Church had a big fight over whether or not the Pope had authority over all of Christiandom. Which implies that anyone who doesn't believe in the Pope's authority is damned and going to hell.

It does not get any more of a strawman than that implication. You are lying or you are ignorant of the truth. Nowhere in Catholic teaching does it say anything of the sort. In fact, Vatican II states something quite the opposite: "Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life."

Now, if God really did think that anyone who didn't listen to the pope should go to hell, he's let a hissy fit between these two men condemn MILLIONS to the eternal flames when they might well think they were following the right path. Wasn't their fault. As far as they knew, the Patriarch had God's authority, not the Pope.

This is stupid Joe, which I already alluded to. But you feel justified in your defiance somehow because of your imagined beliefs the Catholic Church holds to. Well no wonder we have a conflict.

The problem with a lot of your belief system is that God just comes off as really being kind of a capricious dick. Maybe he'd be worthy of fear, but he'd never be worthy of love or respect.

Not according to your faulted little mind. You have this idea of God and if anyone should tell you differently, well… for some reason you know so much better than the thousands of holy saints who have been privileged with revelations. Well as the Virgin Mary said to one visionary in Ecuador --- "many only come to know God on bended knees." I suggest we all would benefit from that posture.

 

[JoeB131]

Hey, you know what the proof was for me on the existence of God.

My mom got cancer. Everyone prayed for her to get better. She didn't.

No God.

Simple as that.

Better evidence than what some stoned peasent in fuckin' Ecuador thought he saw after he drank too much of whatever the **** they drink in Ecuador. There are people who see Bigfoot and Space Aliens, too, and I give that as much credence as the Virgin Mary.

Bonus there is no God. Thousands of children were molested by the clergy of your Church, and God did nothing about it.

No God.

Never was.

And frankly, I take great comfort in that. I would really hate to think there was someone who could fix this messed up, slaughterhouse of a world, but can't be bothered.

Oh, by the way, Papal Infalliabiity IS a doctrine of your Church, as retarded as it is.

 

[turzovka]

Hey, you know what the proof was for me on the existence of God.

My mom got cancer. Everyone prayed for her to get better. She didn't.

No God.

Simple as that.

Better evidence than what some stoned peasent in fuckin' Ecuador thought he saw after he drank too much of whatever the **** they drink in Ecuador. There are people who see Bigfoot and Space Aliens, too, and I give that as much credence as the Virgin Mary.

Bonus there is no God. Thousands of children were molested by the clergy of your Church, and God did nothing about it.

No God.

Never was.

And frankly, I take great comfort in that. I would really hate to think there was someone who could fix this messed up, slaughterhouse of a world, but can't be bothered.

Oh, by the way, Papal Infalliabiity IS a doctrine of your Church, as retarded as it is.

Because we cannot provide the answer as to why God allows suffering, you, not knowing where you came from, have determined no other evidence for God and His Word makes any difference to His reality or importance. That is quite a demand.

And the child mollestation is not evidence for no God, it is evidence for the evil one in this world. And, again, we cannot tell you why God allows the devil but it does not stop our greater understandings of the Creator and acting upon them. Life is temporary. Heaven is forever.

As to the pope's infallibility, I dare say it has only been invoked in Church history four or five times. You need to understand its meaning. Who was it that deemed the Bible the inspired Word of God? The same fallible men who put forth other divine teachings for the edification of man including papal infallibility. If God is real, none of this is a problem.