| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Interesting Article |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 14 2004, 04:14 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > Interesting Article Posted by: =Veritas= Mar 25 2004, 06:47 PM Since this is such a common topic here, I thought I'd post this commentary I came across recently. I found it pretty interesting and thought it would prove to be a good conversation starter. I know there have been a few of you in particular that credit historical atrocities and mass-killings to Christianity, and claim it as a reason (among others) as to why you oppose it. In contrast however, many people don't look at the good things that can also be attributed to Christianity. Just some examples: 1. Hospitals (I've never seen a hospital named "Atheist Hospital for the People" etc., most begin with "St."). 2. The Christians on the front lines after/during war, giving food, clothing, and healthcare to the civilians. 3. "Feed the Children" non-profit organizations. 4. Homeless shelters/soup kitchens. Granted, there may be some non-profit organizations out there that have been founded by Atheists or Agnostics as well. I'm just not aware of many (please give reference if there are, I'm curious to know). Anyway, I think this is all worth looking at. I could go on, but I think I've provided enough to get started with. SO, without further delay, here's the commentary: Many atheists claim that religion is evil and, as such, cannot be from God. There are many examples of evil committed in the name of Christianity. In the past, those who disagreed with "official" church doctrine, such as Galileo were persecuted or killed. Many other Christians were brought before the Inquisition because they were teaching from the Bible instead of from "officially sanctioned" church materials. In addition, the Crusades resulted in "holy" wars between "Christians," Jews, and Moslems. In more modern times, wars have been fought between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland and between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. However, common to all this violence was an underlying struggle for power. Today, some people kill abortionists in the name of God. Therefore, I absolutely agree with atheists and others who say that many atrocious things have been done in the name of God, even in the name of Christianity. However, these atrocities were not perpetrated by God, but by evil human beings. In fact, if you examine the atrocities perpetrated by atheists, you find that they have killed more people in the last century than all of the crimes of 2000 years of "church" history combined. Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizens between 1929 and 1939 because they were not politically correct. Mao Tse-tung killed 34 to 62 million Chinese during the Chinese civil war of the 1930s and 1940s. Pol Pot, the leader of the Marxist regime in Cambodia, Kampuchea, in the 1970's killed 1.7 million of his own people. Should atheism be blamed for the atrocities of a few prominent atheists? Jesus Himself addressed the issue of "Christians," performing evil deeds in a rather chilling prophecy: "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'" (Matthew 7:22-23) One should note that Jesus said that "many" people who think they are His followers will be rejected by Jesus when they attempt to claim to be His disciples at the judgment. Not all who claim the name of Jesus are actually His disciples. My guess is that in even the best of Christian churches only about half of the people have been truly born again (see John ch. 3). Christianity should be judged on the basis of what Jesus said and did, not on the basis of the actions of people who merely claim to be Christians. I would suggest getting the book Foxe's Book of Martyrs, which details the deaths of Christians who were killed because of their faith in Christ, in many cases by people claiming to be Christians. How do you know if a person is a Christian or not? We cannot know for certain whether a person is or is not a true Christian (only God can makes such a determination). However, the Bible describes the nature of a person who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit (which happens at the point a person accept Jesus as Lord and Savior): But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23) In addition, the true believer does what is right and demonstrates love toward others Even non-believers can readily see who the true Christians are. Ultimately, the behavior of those who claim to be Christians but practice evil should not be a consideration in determining if the claims of Christ are true or not. (END Quote) Any thoughts, opinions, feedback? I think this one will be interesting to explore. Peace, =Veritas= Posted by: chefranden Mar 25 2004, 07:25 PM QUOTE (=Veritas=) Therefore, I absolutely agree with atheists and others who say that many atrocious things have been done in the name of God, even in the name of Christianity. However, these atrocities were not perpetrated by God, but by evil human beings. I agree. A non-existant being cannot perpetrate anything. Posted by: Snake42 Mar 25 2004, 07:28 PM 1. Hospitals (I've never seen a hospital named "Atheist Hospital for the People" etc., most begin with "St."). Let's say someone went out and founded such an "Atheist (or Pagan/Wiccan/whatever Hospital for the People." I can picture three reactions: A. Sensible people wouldn't care who founded it, as long as they received good care. B. Some would go to it though desperation (only hospital around/only one they could afford), and be consumed with guilt. "Have I sinned O Lord by being treated by those Pagans?" C. Who knows how many wouldn't go there even though it meant death? "Better for little Johnny to go and be with the Lord than lose his immortal soul." Posted by: Baby Eater Mar 25 2004, 07:33 PM "Since this is such a common topic here, I thought I'd post this commentary I came across recently. I found it pretty interesting and thought it would prove to be a good conversation starter. I know there have been a few of you in particular that credit historical atrocities and mass-killings to Christianity, and claim it as a reason (among others) as to why you oppose it." A reason among others as you said. Not many really oppose christianity because of past horrors. It is about pointing out what one can do in the name of faith. It is just one of the many faces of the religion's absurdity. "In contrast however, many people don't look at the good things that can also be attributed to Christianity. Just some examples:" Wrong, we know of those good things. Like the LISTEN TO ME PREACHING ABOUT JESUS OR YOU WON'T HAVE FOOD! of missionaries. But many are tired of listening to christians pating themselves about how they are so loving and all when they reject people on the street for their appearance and such things. (lots of stories about that around here on the website) "1. Hospitals (I've never seen a hospital named "Atheist Hospital for the People" etc., most begin with "St.")." Of course, the religious had a monopoly on health cares. This is why all hospital from that time still bear the same name. Thanks to you to remind us all of the good progress christianity have given to medecin, especially in the Dark Age. (sarcasm) "2. The Christians on the front lines after/during war, giving food, clothing, and healthcare to the civilians." The buddhists and atheists doing that. Of course, no buddhist would paint some "GOOD BUDDHIST DOGOODER" on his truck, christians does. Still, I wonder if it is christianity that urged those people to act. "3. "Feed the Children" non-profit organizations." That's great. But I'd hope they would buy more food instead of bibles. "4. Homeless shelters/soup kitchens." Same thing. "Granted, there may be some non-profit organizations out there that have been founded by Atheists or Agnostics as well. I'm just not aware of many (please give reference if there are, I'm curious to know). Anyway, I think this is all worth looking at. I could go on, but I think I've provided enough to get started with." THE ATHEIST GRACE: do you imagine such a label? When christians do good, they must associate it with their god. When atheists do good, they don't associate it to no-god. Still, there are some nice christian organisations out there. But they could make better use of their fund. "Many atheists claim that religion is evil and, as such, cannot be from God." Who said that? "There are many examples of evil committed in the name of Christianity. In the past, those who disagreed with "official" church doctrine, such as Galileo were persecuted or killed. Many other Christians were brought before the Inquisition because they were teaching from the Bible instead of from "officially sanctioned" church materials. In addition, the Crusades resulted in "holy" wars between "Christians," Jews, and Moslems. In more modern times, wars have been fought between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland and between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. However, common to all this violence was an underlying struggle for power. Today, some people kill abortionists in the name of God." As WW2 wasn't about people dying there and there but about a freakin big absurd war, Christianity wasn't just about doing bad things there and there. "Therefore, I absolutely agree with atheists and others who say that many atrocious things have been done in the name of God, even in the name of Christianity. However, these atrocities were not perpetrated by God, but by evil human beings." Stupid human beings. Who said it was your god? I don't believe in your god. But some people who do use it as an excuse to do horrible things. "In fact, if you examine the atrocities perpetrated by atheists, you find that they have killed more people in the last century than all of the crimes of 2000 years of "church" history combined. Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizens between 1929 and 1939 because they were not politically correct. Mao Tse-tung killed 34 to 62 million Chinese during the Chinese civil war of the 1930s and 1940s. Pol Pot, the leader of the Marxist regime in Cambodia, Kampuchea, in the 1970's killed 1.7 million of his own people. Should atheism be blamed for the atrocities of a few prominent atheists?" In the name of atheism or by atheist? Why don't you include all the murder ever commited by christians? You might as well include Hiroshima's destruction as a christian crime, by that logic. "Christianity should be judged on the basis of what Jesus said and did, not on the basis of the actions of people who merely claim to be Christians. I would suggest getting the book Foxe's Book of Martyrs, which details the deaths of Christians who were killed because of their faith in Christ, in many cases by people claiming to be Christians." "You will recognise them by their fruit" who said that? Haha... martyrs... I know a lot of martyrs victims of christianity. All those people who died for just saying "the earth rotate the sun" or "there are other worlds" or such things. Dead in the name of free speech and science. Good conversion tool: they died for that guy, they must have been right. I laugh at the cult of martyrs. "How do you know if a person is a Christian or not? We cannot know for certain whether a person is or is not a true Christian (only God can makes such a determination). However, the Bible describes the nature of a person who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit (which happens at the point a person accept Jesus as Lord and Savior):" So... anybody who do wrong do not have the same label as you do? How convenient. "In addition, the true believer does what is right and demonstrates love toward others Even non-believers can readily see who the true Christians are. Ultimately, the behavior of those who claim to be Christians but practice evil should not be a consideration in determining if the claims of Christ are true or not. (END Quote)" Of course it should not. Posted by: chefranden Mar 25 2004, 07:50 PM Are you a TrueXian? If so, are you a sinner, or an ex-sinner? If you are a sinner, how many sins to you get before you are not a TrueXian? If other people followed your example would they be saved? Or would you have your doubts? Are you aware that we, the United States, killed 100's of thousands of Cambodians with our indiscriminate bombing and our invasion of Cambodia in May of 1970? Are you aware that these actions convinced most rural Cambodians to join Pol Pot. Were the aircrews and soldiers, most claimed xianity, not TrueXians for participating? If only god can judge a TrueXian, why should we believe that you are a Xian. Why should we believe what you say, since for all we know you are just an evil person claiming to be a Xian, like the millions of other unTrueXians. How do we know that those that started the institutions you mentioned above were TrueXians? In all probability they were not. (narrow is the way and few there are that find it) Therefore it is doubtful many of the institutions were Xian founded. Which XianSect has the most TrueXians. Are any XianSects automatically excluded from being TrueXianSects because their doctrine isn't correct, even though their works show the fruit. Posted by: =Veritas= Mar 25 2004, 10:50 PM QUOTE I agree. A non-existant being cannot perpetrate anything. Clever Chef, you're at it again! *************************************************** Hi Snake, I'm not sure we've "met" yet - but I'm glad you're here and thanks for your feedback. You said: QUOTE Let's say someone went out and founded such an "Atheist (or Pagan/Wiccan/whatever Hospital for the People." I can picture three reactions: A. Sensible people wouldn't care who founded it, as long as they received good care. I agree with you here. QUOTE B. Some would go to it though desperation (only hospital around/only one they could afford), and be consumed with guilt. "Have I sinned O Lord by being treated by those Pagans?" LOL - Only some of the extreme fundies out there. Or, the ignorant kind. Take your pick! QUOTE C. Who knows how many wouldn't go there even though it meant death? "Better for little Johnny to go and be with the Lord than lose his immortal soul." Again, only those lacking the sense to live. Or those that are "So heavenly minded that they're no Earthly good." *************************************************** Hi Baby Eater, You bring up some good points. Allow me to adress some of them. You said: QUOTE Wrong, we know of those good things. Like the LISTEN TO ME PREACHING ABOUT JESUS OR YOU WON'T HAVE FOOD! of missionaries. I think you have a strong misconception of how these missionaries work. This doesn't portray to me that you "know of those good things" at all. Sorry BE, not trying to offend here, I'm just being honest. QUOTE But many are tired of listening to christians pating themselves about how they are so loving and all when they reject people on the street for their appearance and such things. (lots of stories about that around here on the website) I COMPLETELY AGREE with you here! Christians that reject people for any reason just don't get it. QUOTE Of course, the religious had a monopoly on health cares. This is why all hospital from that time still bear the same name. Thanks to you to remind us all of the good progress christianity have given to medecin, especially in the Dark Age. (sarcasm) Granted (and sarcasm noted). And I see the Christians making great use of that medicine by providing it to those that need it most. Of course, there are SO many Atheist groups out there doing the same thing, and helping those in need. (sarcasm) Touche! Which brings me to your next statement: QUOTE The buddhists and atheists doing that. Of course, no buddhist would paint some "GOOD BUDDHIST DOGOODER" on his truck, christians does. Still, I wonder if it is christianity that urged those people to act. What Buddhists and Atheists are doing that? I'm not saying there aren't any, but I don't know of any. And what "paint" stuff are you referring to? Can you clarify please? QUOTE That's great. But I'd hope they would buy more food instead of bibles. First, understand that "spiritual" food is more important than physical food (to the Christian). However, there is plenty of food being distributed. Maybe if more groups would join in the contribution and distribution of it, more would get done. QUOTE THE ATHEIST GRACE: do you imagine such a label? When christians do good, they must associate it with their god. When atheists do good, they don't associate it to no-god. Still, there are some nice christian organisations out there. But they could make better use of their fund. When Christians do good - you're right - they should give God the credit. When Atheists do good, that's an equally good thing! Yes, there are some nice Christian organizations out there, and there are some nice non-Christian organizations out there as well. I agree that some of these "Christian" groups could make better use of their money. I agree with that wholeheartedly. The rest of your feedback is directed toward the commentary I provided. I didn't write it, I only pasted it. Therefore, I'm not inclined to reply in a defensive or rebuttal form. Your comments are appreciated, but I can't really reply to them. *************************************************** And now, back to Chef. Are you a TrueXian? Yes, I believe I am. If so, are you a sinner, or an ex-sinner? I'm a sinner. If you are a sinner, how many sins to you get before you are not a TrueXian? This isn't a valid question, as it holds no veracity to the claims of the Bible. It's not a matter of "how many sins". If other people followed your example would they be saved? Or would you have your doubts? I would have my doubts, since I am a mere man. Jesus didn't say "follow my people" He said, "follow me". All I can do is love and accept people, be available to them as a person, and point them to the cross if they ask. It's not about me. Are you aware that we, the United States, killed 100's of thousands of Cambodians with our indiscriminate bombing and our invasion of Cambodia in May of 1970? No, I wasn't aware of that. Are you aware that these actions convinced most rural Cambodians to join Pol Pot. Were the aircrews and soldiers, most claimed xianity, not TrueXians for participating? That goes into a really great topic of Christian soldiers. Believers who enlist or serve in the military and are asked to be a part of something they don't believe in spiritually, but are commanded to do. It would be interesting to explore that. I can't answer your question to that Chef. I'm not God and can't pretend to know the hearts of the numerous participants involved in those actions. Sorry. If only god can judge a TrueXian, why should we believe that you are a Xian. Why should we believe what you say, since for all we know you are just an evil person claiming to be a Xian, like the millions of other unTrueXians. That's a good question Chef. Only God has the ability to fully know the heart of a person. However, anybody can have the discernment to determine if a person is true or false. The Bible gives us insight as to how a Christian should live, what their attitude should be like, how they should treat other people, etc. I'm not asking you or anyone else to believe me or what I say. I'm simply here, living the best I can, and sharing a portion of my life with you. The rest my friend, is your call. How do we know that those that started the institutions you mentioned above were TrueXians? In all probability they were not. (narrow is the way and few there are that find it) Therefore it is doubtful many of the institutions were Xian founded. You could very well be correct in saying that Chef. I suppose again, we'd have to look at the purposes behind their actions. The motivation that caused them to do it. This also brings up a great topic - What is the basis in which we can identify and measure the actions of a "Christian" in order to ascertain that they are in fact, true Christians? What is the source? Which XianSect has the most TrueXians. Are any XianSects automatically excluded from being TrueXianSects because their doctrine isn't correct, even though their works show the fruit. Another great question. Which sect? I don't know. Automatically excluded? Doctrine, yes - People, not neccessarily. =Veritas= Posted by: Lokmer Mar 26 2004, 12:52 AM Care to cite your source for that long quote, Jason? -Lokmer Posted by: A Witness Mar 26 2004, 04:15 AM REgarding the remark that atheism itself had nothing to do with the crimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al, I must point out that the problem is that communism did not have to be atheistic...it was Marx who insisted on giving dialectical materialism (the philosophic base of Communism and developed by Lenin and Trotsky) a materialistic, ATHEISTIC base. In the immortal words of Leon Trotsky, from his own autobiography, "it was the acceptance of atheism that gave me the courage to break the shackles of tradtion and do the hard deeds, the desparate deeds..." Indeed, among Trotsky's hard deeds were riding around Southern Russia during the civil war which followed the revolution and rooting out the stench of relgion, burning churchs, with people in them, and terrorizing believers into submission...those who didn't; shot or sent to the developing Gulags. (Solzhenitsyn's descriptions are still the best.) The point? Atheism gave communism the brutal character it took in the 20th century...it didn't have to be that way. Oh, the atheists will say we "just lack belief in god, we don't make any claims." And yet if there is no god then there is no revelation from god and the people believing so are deluded and an obstacle to the coming "scientific" utopia. So argued Trotsky, the key prophet, after Lenin, of the expression of atheistic communism in the 20th century...and ably represented by disciples like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and thousands of party functionaries with the same commintment to ATHEISTIC communism. Posted by: Tocis Mar 26 2004, 04:45 AM QUOTE (A Witness @ Mar 26 2004, 04:15 AM) And yet if there is no god then there is no revelation from god and the people believing so are deluded and an obstacle to the coming "scientific" utopia. 1. Define "scientific utopia" 2. It's not the belief of the followers of whatever religion what matters. It's the actions to which they feel motivated by their faith. As far as I'm concerned, go ahead and believe in the literal truth of the myths in the babble, believe that only you and your christian friends will live happily ever after the end of the world, and believe that The End™ will come very soon. I don't mind. But if you try to force others to believe the same, or for example try to sell babblical cretinism as science to deceive the uneducated, then is the time I go wild. By the way, I'm not even an atheist myself. Read my sig. Posted by: Sanguine Mar 26 2004, 05:27 AM QUOTE In fact, if you examine the atrocities perpetrated by atheists, you find that they have killed more people in the last century than all of the crimes of 2000 years of "church" history combined. Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizens between 1929 and 1939 because they were not politically correct. Mao Tse-tung killed 34 to 62 million Chinese during the Chinese civil war of the 1930s and 1940s. Pol Pot, the leader of the Marxist regime in Cambodia, Kampuchea, in the 1970's killed 1.7 million of his own people. Should atheism be blamed for the atrocities of a few prominent atheists? Torquemada and co. didn't have guns, explosives, gas chambers, bio weapons and all those nice efficient modern implements (Can't forget transport either, there wasn't exactly a global village thing going in the dark ages... so you're only able to slaughter those unlucky enough to live in the general area.) of destruction at their disposal. If they did, well suffice to say they would have made your line up look like amateurs. Posted by: Judyism Mar 26 2004, 05:43 AM Is it just me, or does it seem like every debate over xtianity vs non reads almost like a scorecard? Who cares who founded the hospitals? Not all of the employees are xtian, but they still save lives. Would we just not have hospitals if no churches helped donate funds? Realistically, how much money comes from church orgs to run hospitals? Any stats on this? Christians are not the only ones who donate or volunteer their time to homeless shelters, and post-war areas. And at least with the non-fundamentalists the folks being helped can rest easy because their help doesn't come with a "catch" like an attempt to convert them to xtianity. This line from the original post QUOTE In addition, the true believer does what is right and demonstrates love toward others works just as well like this: QUOTE In addition, the good person does what is right and demonstrates love toward others I personally don't think religion has squat to do with the bottom line. Either you are a good person, or a bad person. There are both among Christians & non-Christians. Posted by: channelcat Mar 26 2004, 08:25 AM The entire agenda and nature of Christianity is to ultimately dominate the world. If by providing health care and food furthers the agenda of this religion, then they see it as justified. Actually, i don't think real love can be found by believing in a deity as cruel and evil as the Christian god. Christianity to me is no longer merely a religion that has the wool pulled over the eyes of the believers. Recently I have come to view this religion as the most advanced stage of derrangement that one could suffer from. This religion is twisted and sick. Imagine if you will, this omnipotent and omniscient deity, "weaving a person in their mothers womb", as the traditional christian canon says. And all the while having foreknowledge, that this person's perception of reality will not be that of the holy book that he/she is required to believe. This person's god given free will and god given reasoning skills just won't allow him/her to see the christian god as the one true god, or if he even exists at all. But in spite of god's omniscience, and in spite of the screams of agony that He can already hear in the future, of this person being tortured in hell...God continues to mindlessly weave away...knowing at any time, He could prevent the inevitable and unspeakable fate of this being...but instead...for twisted and derranged reasons of His own...He continues weaving away. Then on top of that, He insults this person's god given intelligence by saying that he/she has a choice of their eternal destiny. This is the character of a trickster, and can scarcely be called love. If one plugs into this source, only a veil of love can be displayed; but behind that veil, their lies an evil so horrible it makes the devil look like a saint. If their is one being worthy of hell, that would be a deity of this capacity - the christian god. I no longer reject christianity because of contradictions in the traditional christian canon, nor the hypocrisy, nor the history of it's bloodshed. I reject this religion because of it's fundamental doctrines, like the one I desribed above. It is the most twisted and derranged belief; full of insanity and mindlessness. I find it very disturbing that people can actually worship a deity this evil. So even though people do good in the name of christianity, like hospital, outreaches, and so forth, the fundamental beliefs that are exposed when peeling back the layers, causes me to wonder what they are REALLY after. Posted by: =Veritas= Mar 26 2004, 08:51 AM Channelcat, Thank you for your feedback, I believe it was heartfelt and very sincere. You know I don't completely agree with it, but I respect your thoughts (and everybody's) nonetheless. Thank you for sharing. Lokmer, Thanks for your inquiry. I have directed you to this site before (where I found the commentary). http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html Hi Judyism, I agree, sometimes it does seem like a scoreboard. I want you to know that I'm not saying these things for this intention (to keep "score"), but rather just to discuss and explore the idea's/topic's/etc. I'm playing the opposite advocate, if you will. Most of the people here, know that I'm pretty reasonable for the most part, and don't come in thumpin' and preachin' and pointing fingers. It's not my style, it's not the way I communicate. So, I agree with you. It shouldn't be about keeping score - it should be about doing what's right, regardless of who does it. Just a question (to play my part here), you mentioned that what matters is, "Either you are a good person, or a bad person." I agree, but "good" or "bad" compared to what? Who's standard? Peace, =Veritas= Posted by: Consummate Deist Mar 26 2004, 09:40 AM Here is another one from Dad - Ms CD I have noticed that many of the Christ Cultists posting here keep talking about how many people the “Atheists” have killed during this century and how that figure alone is greater than all of those killed by the Cult. While this is true, one must look at things in context. During the period of 1500 to 1700 CE, over 60,256,000 heretics, witches, and other non-believers were murdered by the Christ Cult, in the name of their God. Since the world population at that time was 545,000,000, this would be 11% of humanity alive at that time killed by the Cult! In contrast, during the first half of the 20th Century, Nazism (which actually considered itself Christ Cult), Communism, and other despotic groups murdered (this is after removing military and civilian casualties of war) approximately 15,000,000. The world population in 1950 was approximately 2,900,000,000, this would be .06 of 1% of the world population at that time! As people have pointed out before, the Christ Cult is a murderous cult and thankfully is dying out. – CD Posted by: A Witness Mar 26 2004, 10:04 AM Hey Deist. where did you get that 60,000,000 figure? Do you have any sources on that from established institutions (Harvard, Yale, I''ll even accept the University of Chicago) and not just some internet article. Look in the Encyclopedia Britannica for death tolls of the Salem Witch trials...19...so I suspect your figures are a lie. since your figure would be over half the female poplulation of Europe at that time. Posted by: Vixentrox Mar 26 2004, 10:41 AM I imagine the Indians in the new world that were butchered by Christians was probably included in that figure.... Posted by: A Witness Mar 26 2004, 11:01 AM Hey VT...you "imagine" that figure would include the Indians...exactly, you imagine it. My source for the figure of 100 Million dead at the hands of practitioners of atheistically based secular philosophies in the 20th century alone is The Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard Univeristy Press...hardly a "fundamentalist" institution. As to Tocis: 1. Define "faith" 2. Define "religion" 3. Define "atheist" And I am not trying to force my views on anyone, I am simply stating my views. You gotta problem with that? Posted by: Tocis Mar 26 2004, 11:25 AM QUOTE (A Witness @ Mar 26 2004, 11:01 AM) 1. Define "faith" 2. Define "religion" 3. Define "atheist" What does this have to do with your claim that without belief in a god the believers would be obstacles to the ill-defined "scientific utopia"? I merely countered your embedded accusation that atheists would dislike (or worse) believers just because they believe... Typical vengeful reaction of a fundie, methinks. If you have something reasonable to answer, go ahead - but I'm not holding my breath. Posted by: Judyism Mar 26 2004, 11:47 AM QUOTE (=Veritas= @ Mar 26 2004, 11:51 AM) Hi Judyism, I agree, sometimes it does seem like a scoreboard. I want you to know that I'm not saying these things for this intention (to keep "score"), but rather just to discuss and explore the idea's/topic's/etc. I'm playing the opposite advocate, if you will. Most of the people here, know that I'm pretty reasonable for the most part, and don't come in thumpin' and preachin' and pointing fingers. It's not my style, it's not the way I communicate. So, I agree with you. It shouldn't be about keeping score - it should be about doing what's right, regardless of who does it. Just a question (to play my part here), you mentioned that what matters is, "Either you are a good person, or a bad person." I agree, but "good" or "bad" compared to what? Who's standard? Peace, =Veritas= Hey Veritas, I've read some of your posts, and I know you're a very nice guy! Just for the record, I don't have anything against the general act of being a Christian. It's the fundamentalist of ANY religion that tweaks me, so please bear that in mind if my posts seem a little like I'm just dogging Xtianity for the heck of it. You ask a really good question of me.... I believe that humans have the ability to innately know the difference between right and wrong. IE.; it's wrong to kill someone, or it's wrong to perform a sex act on an 8 yr old. We have laws for things like this that I don't believe need to be rooted in religious origins to set a standard of morality. On the other hand, I know that other people might disagree with my or someone else's idea of what's good or bad. The meter I use is the one that determines whether or not the actions I make in my life affect others. If they do affect others, is it in a positive or negative manner? If it's negative, then I'm not being a good person. I realise that I can't expect all other people to have the mental capacity to make the same sort of analysis as I do, so this is why the govt makes laws. I expressly believe that those laws should not be created based on the religious doctrine of ANY church. I also do not agree with all the laws we have, but alas I am only one person. *sigh* I hope I explained that well enough for you to see what I'm trying to say.... I'm not that great at explaining things sometimes! Cheers, Judy Posted by: channelcat Mar 26 2004, 11:55 AM Christians and atheists can co-exist peacefully. Just becasue it has never been done does'nt mean that it can't, or won't in the future. I am an agnostic bordering on atheism, and I live with a wife who is a theist (uni-tarian). We get along fine. The key is to NEVER shove your beliefs down the other's throat. Atheists and Christians alike have been guilty of this in the past. It seems to me, and this might just be my perception, but despite the fact that ALL religions and belief systems have shared in both roles as persecutORS and perecutEES throughout history, it seems that Christianity is the one that Bellyaches the loudest about it. What other religion has a monthly magazine focusing on persecution and martyrdom like " the voice of the martyrs." Regarding the leader in terms of martyrs, let's tally up the totals of all casualties, on both sides, and whoever wins gets a cookie. tee-hee! Posted by: A witness Mar 26 2004, 02:47 PM Tocis, nice evasion... Grade; Bt Good strawman argument, too! (Who said I was a fundie) Grade; A- Posted by: Tocis Mar 26 2004, 02:52 PM QUOTE (A witness @ Mar 26 2004, 02:47 PM) Tocis, nice evasion... Good strawman argument, too! (Who said I was a fundie) Evasion? You made an unsupported claim, I questioned it. Where's the evasion, eh? As for the fundie, you act like one, chances are you are one. Though I'll grant you this one: You (so far?) don't act like an extreme fundie - no massive insults until now. Posted by: A Witness Mar 26 2004, 03:04 PM You call those "massive insults"? Wow, you are sensitive... You are also wrong. And you WORRY too much; as one of the nutballs pointed out...the fit survive, the weak perish. Right? So relax. Posted by: Judyism Mar 26 2004, 03:07 PM one of the nutballs? huh? Posted by: =Veritas= Mar 26 2004, 03:57 PM Hey Judy, Thanks for your response QUOTE (Judyism) I've read some of your posts, and I know you're a very nice guy! Just for the record, I don't have anything against the general act of being a Christian. It's the fundamentalist of ANY religion that tweaks me, so please bear that in mind if my posts seem a little like I'm just dogging Xtianity for the heck of it. Thanks for the compliments too! I'm glad you shared your views on this with me. It enables me to gain understanding of where you stand regarding Christianity, etc. Thanks! QUOTE (Judyism) You ask a really good question of me.... I believe that humans have the ability to innately know the difference between right and wrong. IE.; it's wrong to kill someone, or it's wrong to perform a sex act on an 8 yr old. We have laws for things like this that I don't believe need to be rooted in religious origins to set a standard of morality. I agree. I don't think we have to be rooted in religious origins either. This topic of morality is a hot one. It is discussed so frequently among believers and non-believers alike. It brings me to another question (the one that follows right in line with the development of this argument): You said, "...humans have the ability to innately know the difference between right and wrong..." right? So, the questions then goes: Where did that "innate" behavior or awareness of good/evil come from? Who says it's "wrong" to kill or commit other various sexual wrongs? If it is in our innate nature, what is it that developed it to be this way - Our ability to determine right from wrong and what actions fall into the given categories? QUOTE (Judyism) On the other hand, I know that other people might disagree with my or someone else's idea of what's good or bad. The meter I use is the one that determines whether or not the actions I make in my life affect others. If they do affect others, is it in a positive or negative manner? If it's negative, then I'm not being a good person. Positive or negative compared to who? One person may see nothing wrong with rape, while many others do. I may not think it's wrong to deck someone in the face; and you may agree with me, if he hit me first. So, when is it right or wrong to do right or wrong? And to who's/what standard? QUOTE (Judyism) I realise that I can't expect all other people to have the mental capacity to make the same sort of analysis as I do, so this is why the govt makes laws. I expressly believe that those laws should not be created based on the religious doctrine of ANY church. I also do not agree with all the laws we have, but alas I am only one person. *sigh* I'm right there with ya Judy! QUOTE (Judyism) I hope I explained that well enough for you to see what I'm trying to say.... I'm not that great at explaining things sometimes! You did a great job! Thanks again, and I'm looking forward to more. =Veritas= Posted by: Madame M Mar 26 2004, 04:17 PM QUOTE 1. Hospitals (I've never seen a hospital named "Atheist Hospital for the People" etc., most begin with "St."). If Christian founded hospitals are in part charities, how come they charge the same amount as a secular hospital? Maybe I am wrong, but isn't it usually the county hospitals that serve the poor and indigent, not the Catholic/Christian hospitals. In addition, our own president has remarked that he does not consider athiests to be Americans. So how is a country this intolerant of those espousing a non-theist viewpoint going to accept hospitals in their name? I also do not see Buddhist, Muslim or any other type of hospital because Christianity holds a monopoly. The only thing close would be the Shriner hospitals. Posted by: Madame M Mar 26 2004, 04:25 PM QUOTE Still, there are some nice christian organisations out there. But they could make better use of their fund. Agreed! And this was my beef when I was a Christian. Christians could make such better use of their funds and physical resources- like property and buildings. In most dense urban/suburban areas, there are 5-10 churches within a mile radius- all claiming some form of Christianity. On Sunday morning, they are all half full. If Christians woudl stop arguing over petty doctrines and stuff, they could take half, or more of these buildings and use them for some good in the community. Homeless shelters, or shelters for abused women/children, job training centers, tutoring centers, food banks, good low cost or free daycare for single moms..etc. You know, REAL ministries- not just cover ops to for indoctrination. It seems a waste that the chruches are squeezing their members for money every week to support their cumbersome mortgages and utility bills, so the building can stand empty most of the week. I got darn sick of seeing 10% of our income go to buying new, but unnecessary pews, paving the parking lot..etc, and worst of all, making the pastor filthy rich. I wanted my money to go to helping people who were in real need of help. But after being screamed at that God was going to strike down our finances if we should "rob" him of even 1 penny of the 10% owed to the church- we never had anythign left to do any real helping. What a pathetic system! Posted by: I Broke Free Mar 26 2004, 04:41 PM QUOTE (=Veritas= @ Mar 26 2004, 06:57 PM) You said, "...humans have the ability to innately know the difference between right and wrong..." right? So, the questions then goes: Where did that "innate" behavior or awareness of good/evil come from? I would guess "Natural Selection" Those individuals that did not have an innate sense not to harm other people, were likely not very desirable mates and therefore their genes were less likely to continue. Humans are social animals. Those individuals that do not create harmony within a society will be considered outcasts. To me it make sense that our 'innate' sense of right and wrong is just natural selection at work. Posted by: Judyism Mar 26 2004, 06:30 PM QUOTE (Madame M @ Mar 26 2004, 07:17 PM) In addition, our own president has remarked that he does not consider athiests to be Americans. Jeez, I haven't seen that pearl of wisdom by our esteemed leader. Doesn't surprise me much tho. Posted by: Doug2 Mar 26 2004, 06:41 PM QUOTE (Judyism @ Mar 26 2004, 06:30 PM) QUOTE (Madame M @ Mar 26 2004, 07:17 PM) In addition, our own president has remarked that he does not consider athiests to be Americans. Jeez, I haven't seen that pearl of wisdom by our esteemed leader. Doesn't surprise me much tho. I thought that was Bush I, not II? (Which is strange, since bush II is the fundy) Posted by: chefranden Mar 26 2004, 07:14 PM QUOTE (Veritas) You said, "...humans have the ability to innately know the difference between right and wrong..." right? So, the questions then goes: Where did that "innate" behavior or awareness of good/evil come from? Who says it's "wrong" to kill or commit other various sexual wrongs? If it is in our innate nature, what is it that developed it to be this way - Our ability to determine right from wrong and what actions fall into the given categories? Just to add to what IBF wrote: The fact that human morality is flawed from an idealistic point of view is best explained by an evolutionary hypothesis. Morality only needs to be good enough to help the species sustain a net gain in population or at least stability in population. Morality serves no other purpose then this utilitarian one. Nevertheless, it does infuse us as individuals with feeling of compassion towards others that give rise to idealism in which the lion and the lamb can share a meal of clover. On the other hand it also gives rise to moral outrage that allows us to slaughter our fellows at amazing rates. Once that rage is quelled it is very difficult to kill even a stranger. Professional soldiers need to be trained to kill so that they may do so without first having a war dance too work up their rage. See: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316330116/qid=1080357046/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-4395620-5899334?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman PS George Bush sees Ossama bin Ladan as a demon, but rest assured, if Ossama is still alive, he sees George as a demon too. Posted by: Judyism Mar 26 2004, 07:19 PM QUOTE (=Veritas=) Thanks for the compliments too! I'm glad you shared your views on this with me. It enables me to gain understanding of where you stand regarding Christianity, etc. Thanks! I suppose it's time for me to write a manifest of my beliefs so there is a point of reference of where I'm coming from here, huh? lol Embellishing on my earlier statement of my stance on religious beliefs, I should add that I base any feelings of like or dislike on an individual basis. As long as I feel like my beliefs and life choices are met with respect by others, I will always return that respect. It makes no difference to me if the other person is Christian, pagan, Athiest, or otherwise. I'm one of those silly people who still believe there is a chance that we can all live on the same planet without blowing each other up or converting each other to our way of thinking, whatever that may be. I have always chosen the hard row to hoe. QUOTE (=Veritas=) I agree. I don't think we have to be rooted in religious origins either. This topic of morality is a hot one. It is discussed so frequently among believers and non-believers alike. It brings me to another question (the one that follows right in line with the development of this argument): You said, "...humans have the ability to innately know the difference between right and wrong..." right? So, the questions then goes: Where did that "innate" behavior or awareness of good/evil come from? Who says it's "wrong" to kill or commit other various sexual wrongs? If it is in our innate nature, what is it that developed it to be this way - Our ability to determine right from wrong and what actions fall into the given categories? And yet another great question! I like IBF's answer of "natural selection," and I believe that water seeks its own level.... in other words, I think that communities have always had some measure of dealing with the "undesirables." Same as in the animal kingdom, the weak or sick will get left behind. Other animals do not have the same mental capacity as human animals, but they innately know how to nurse their young and protect them from predators. Same with humans. If a man raped an 8 yr old, I would think that the community would deal with him as harshly as a mother lion protecting her young. Of course, there is the chance that a community could consist of devients, and those devients might think that was OK. I really don't have anything to measure this by as I am more artistically inclined rather than scholarly inclined! I do see where you are going with the line of questions, tho - I think. Correct me if I am wrong.... the Bible has set moral and ethical boundaries that we as a society have used as a moral compass over the centuries that it has existed. However, I believe that those "rules" exisited prior to the creation of Christianity in other religions and societies, so i don't think morals are completely a Christian creation. QUOTE (=Veritas=) Positive or negative compared to who? One person may see nothing wrong with rape, while many others do. I may not think it's wrong to deck someone in the face; and you may agree with me, if he hit me first. So, when is it right or wrong to do right or wrong? And to who's/what standard? Again, I believe that the idea of "Do what you will, lest it harm none" or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the strongest mitigating factor in determining what is right or wrong. Certainly, only the most mentally challenged would believe that rape doesn't hurt the rapee, or that punching someone doesn't affect the punchee negatively. I am a huge proponent of individual rights - I don't believe that what's best for the majority is best for all in all circumstances. For instance, I can't understand why it's best for all if marijuana is illegal if there are individuals who may benefit from using it - like cancer or glaucoma patients. I don't think that answers your question either. I'm not sure whose standards should be used, because I'm not sure if there is a person or deity whose ideals I fully agree with, or even if I have a set standard myself since I am continuously growing and changing opinions with the aquisition of new knowledge. And yet there are many who believe they do have the answers. These are the people who scare me - the ones who choose absolutes due to what they have decided is correct behavior for themselves. I really like the quote you have at the bottom of your posts. That sort of sums it all up! Posted by: Bruce Mar 26 2004, 09:00 PM Why don't atheists found charitable institutions that are labelled as such, to paraphrase Verita. Most non-Christians in this country are involved in many charitable and social orhanizations and causes. I would hazard to guess that the American Atheists and other secular groups do not found such institutions and label them as such because religious belief is not a factor inour day to day lives. I and I know of many other non-believers that are actively involved in serving society, even in sometimes dangerous situations. I can speak for myself only here. There is no need to set up such things. They already exist and are called secular institutions. For me, I lead search and Rescue teams in the Civil Air Patrol as a volunteer, respond with CAP to disasters, etc. There are also faith based institutions that do the same, Baptist Men's Disaster Relief for instance. However, I did not need to found an Atheist Emergency Response organization, for a non-religious (secular) organization already existed. Veritas, consider that the non-Christians that are actively involved in serving humanity are largely invisible, because the organizations we serve in are not broadcasting a religious belief. I serve humanity faithfully, and in fact ran two Search and Rescue missions in the last 24 hours, but I do it because I am a member of humanity, not to appease some invisible deity. We, the non-Christian philanthropists are only invisible as non-believers because we identify not with a god, but with secular organizations. For a closer, I will share something that always makes me shake my head when I get home from a mission. Almost without fail, when we find and rescue people, they thank god for it. They think nothing of the hours it has taken to actually conduct the mission or the years of training that made the rescue possible. We rescue them, but god gets the credit. The more I work in emergency services, the more I am saddened by the lack of rationality in people. People trust god for their safety, but when that trust fails, it is us non-religious, CAP Search and Rescue Teams that actually delivers their salvation......... //Bruce// Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Mar 26 2004, 09:09 PM QUOTE (A witness @ Mar 26 2004, 05:47 PM) Tocis, nice evasion... Grade; Bt Good strawman argument, too! (Who said I was a fundie) Grade; A- A witness, for your attempt at acting superior by grading other people: Grade F Posted by: God's Prosecutor Mar 26 2004, 09:28 PM QUOTE (Doug2 @ Mar 26 2004, 08:41 PM) QUOTE (Judyism @ Mar 26 2004, 06:30 PM) QUOTE (Madame M @ Mar 26 2004, 07:17 PM) In addition, our own president has remarked that he does not consider athiests to be Americans. Jeez, I haven't seen that pearl of wisdom by our esteemed leader. Doesn't surprise me much tho. I thought that was Bush I, not II? (Which is strange, since bush II is the fundy) You are correct. It was Bush I. The full quote is, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm Posted by: A witness Mar 27 2004, 05:14 AM Hey, Space thing, how come you keep calling yourself "and I'm the jewish guy"? Is that supposed to mean squat around here? Posted by: Madame M Mar 27 2004, 05:58 AM QUOTE However, I did not need to found an Atheist Emergency Response organization, for a non-religious (secular) organization already existed. I wanted to add to Bruce's line of thought. Comparing Atheism to Christianity, is like comparing apples and oranges. The flaw is in the Christian's logic and outlook on life, that everyone identifies with a religion, seeks to convert others and "worships" something. Athiesm is not a religion. It is actually the complete absence of belief in a diety- any diety- not just the Christian diety. Therefore, they do not feel compelled to set up organizations touting their beliefs, with the underlying purpose of converting people to their set of beliefs. Also, comparing death tolls between athiests and christians is also an unfair comparison. Christians have a unifying code- the Bible. This book gives them a standard by which they are supposed to live. They profess that their central leader, Messiah Jesus, has the power to change their lives via his Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit produces good fruit- good works- in them. Therefore, Christians hold themselves up for the world to see and say, "Hey, look, we've got something good, something better for you that can supernaturally change your life!" So when they do attrocious things it stands out. In comparison, there is no set code of Atheism. It is more an individual expression as opposed to group expression. They do not do anything in the name of a diety- good or bad. Posted by: Tocis Mar 27 2004, 06:18 AM QUOTE (A Witness @ Mar 26 2004, 03:04 PM) You call those "massive insults"? Wow, you are sensitive... How about you read my postings before you reply? I did not claim that you hurled massive insults. Not until now at least. QUOTE And you WORRY too much; as one of the nutballs pointed out...the fit survive, the weak perish. Right? I trust that you know that "fit", in this context, does not automatically mean "strong", no? Posted by: A witness Mar 27 2004, 12:54 PM In answer to your question, "fit" means whatever the group with enough power to win says it means. And what's with this "sons of Odin" stuff? Weren't the Nazis in to that kind of thing? What's the deal? Or are you just kidding around? Posted by: chefranden Mar 27 2004, 05:16 PM QUOTE (A witness @ Mar 27 2004, 02:54 PM) In answer to your question, "fit" means whatever the group with enough power to win says it means. And what's with this "sons of Odin" stuff? Weren't the Nazis in to that kind of thing? What's the deal? Or are you just kidding around? No, they were into Christianity. Posted by: Doug2 Mar 27 2004, 06:14 PM QUOTE Weren't the Nazis in to that kind of thing? There were into breathing and eating as well Posted by: Lokmer Mar 27 2004, 09:26 PM Himmler was into a black magic flavor of the old germanic religion, IIRC. But Himmler was considered nuts even by Hitler. -Lokmer (BTW, Tocis, I'm not saying that you're nuts for that) Posted by: Tocis Mar 28 2004, 01:28 AM QUOTE (A witness @ Mar 27 2004, 12:54 PM) In answer to your question, "fit" means whatever the group with enough power to win says it means. That is very likely (unfortunately) but it does not change the original meaning of "fit" as used by Darwin. QUOTE And what's with this "sons of Odin" stuff? Weren't the Nazis in to that kind of thing? What's the deal? Or are you just kidding around? Quite easy, I'm an Asatruar, I honor the Aesir and Vanir. Odin is first among equals in the Aesir pantheon. The nazis used and defiled Asatru (think of the swastika that was used by our ancestors as a symbol of the sun and of Thor, or the Sowulo rune that was used as the symbol of the SS) just as they defiled Christianity (check out some decent history book about the "Deutsche Christen" who went far enough to bless the artillery guns before they were shipped to the frontier). (As for the quote in my sig, I like Manowar, though I dislike some of their lyrics) Posted by: Tocis Mar 28 2004, 01:29 AM QUOTE (Lokmer @ Mar 27 2004, 09:26 PM) (BTW, Tocis, I'm not saying that you're nuts for that) No offense taken Posted by: PriorWorrier Mar 28 2004, 07:51 AM QUOTE (Bruce @ Mar 26 2004, 09:00 PM) For a closer, I will share something that always makes me shake my head when I get home from a mission. Almost without fail, when we find and rescue people, they thank god for it. They think nothing of the hours it has taken to actually conduct the mission or the years of training that made the rescue possible. We rescue them, but god gets the credit. The more I work in emergency services, the more I am saddened by the lack of rationality in people. People trust god for their safety, but when that trust fails, it is us non-religious, CAP Search and Rescue Teams that actually delivers their salvation......... Bruce, Here's one small voice of thanks for what you do in the name of humanity. Just wondering how much of the blame sticks to God when a mission fails? It's his perfect "will" of course if a tragedy happens, but no blame is attached. With God there is no flip side to the blame/credit coin that is the currency for us little humans. It doesn't make sense to thank God if you can't curse him too when the circumstances warrant. I was trying to follow the line of thought through this thread about how our code of morality is derived from or based on the scriptures. The implication is that we need to keep returning to the scriptures for our moral compass. As long as one can selectively pick and choose which of the 600 odd commandments one thinks is still relevant. You have to be very selective to us the scriptures as a guidebook in this day and age. A person just can't do it on their own without a lot of guidance and commentary by a religious leader of some sort. Posted by: Consummate Deist Mar 28 2004, 09:36 AM Witness, as you may know, I am not in country at present and do not have ready access to the web so my responses are usually slow. Below are the books and documents that my figures came from on the Christ Cultist murders of heretics, witches, and non-believers. Incidentally 60,000,000 were followers of the various Native American religions that were murdered by the European Christians from 1500 to 1700 CE. Also I believe your figures contain the casualties of various wars as well as the true victims of purge, death camps, etc; but even if I let you claim 100,000,000 that is only 3% of the world population compared to the 11% racked up by the Christ Cultists – Yep, they’re still the all time champs! K.Deschner, Abermals krähte der Hahn, Stuttgart 1962. , K.Deschner, Opus Diaboli, Reinbek 1987. , P.W.Edbury, Crusade and Settlement, Cardiff Univ. Press 1985. S.Eidelberg, The Jews and the Crusaders, Madison 1977. Hunter, M., Wootton, D., Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment, Oxford 1992 , Schröder-Kappus, E., Wagner, W., Michael Sattler. Ein Märtyrer in Rottenburg, Tübingen, TVT Media 1992., , H.C.Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, New York 1961., M.Margolis, A.Marx, A History of the Jewish People, J.T.Noonan, Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, Cambridge/Mass., 1992., D.Stannard, American Holocaust, Oxford University Press 1992., A True Account of the Most Considerable Occurrences that have Hapned in the Warre Between the English and the Indians in New England, London 1676, F.Turner, Beyond Geography, New York 1980, H.Wollschläger: Die bewaffneten Wallfahrten gen Jerusalem, Zürich 1973. [N.Cohn, Europe's Inner Demons: An Enquiry Inspired by the Great Witch Hunt, Frogmore 1976, R.H.Robbins, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, New York 1959, J.B.Russell, Witchcraft in the Middle Ages, Ithaca/NY 1972, H.Zwetsloot, Friedrich Spee und die Hexenprozesse, Trier 1954 Oh, one more thing – as an Eli or Yalie, I just don’t understand this almost sexual obsession with Harvard (gag, gag) Press! I just did a survey of their titles, while quite impressive, I did notice that one book they (nor my Yale or even Chicago University) didn’t print was the “Holy Bible” ! - CD Posted by: Ms CD Mar 28 2004, 09:38 AM i forgot to say that i posted the above for my Dad - Ms CD Posted by: A Witness. Mar 28 2004, 11:18 AM Hey Deist, nice set of referenc |