The Black Vault

Humpreys wrote:

I know of no atheists who have made teaching Christ illegal.

I don't even personally know of any atheists in positions of power who would be able to do such a thing.

???

A few examples..though you may argue that they are not from atheists , we can be sure there are some atheists behind it.

http://www.christianadc.org/news-and-ar ... the-corner

So, besides the double-standard, why should you be fuming and taking action before you even finish reading this? Because these two bills that are going to be sent to President Barack Obama's desk will silence Christians from speaking against homosexuality or teaching our children that it is wrong. You would quite literally be committing a Federal crime and convicted. If these bills get passed, not only will Christians be silenced -- but, the government is scheduled to swoop in with $10 Million dollars to drive a stake right into the heart of Christians by making sure your children hear and are taught everything against Judeo-Christian beliefs.
The Liberal Bailout

Now I am not advocating that bullying homosexuals is how Christians should act, because that is not the correct way of approaching this offensive act. But to not be able to teach children that these acts of sexuality are not what God had in mind for us when He created us sexual, is a right that is in danger of being taken away.

They have also made it illegal to say the lords prayer in public school. Not saying "they" are atheists, but there is a good chance many who helped pass this were.

Ora, I might argue they are not from atheists but you are sure they are? That's supposed to be convincing to me - seeing as you are biased as hell?

What a great example

Homosexuality is only offensive because your silly book written by uneducated and scientifically illiterate humans said it is. Barring prejudice and hatred against other humans is not irradication of religion, it is simply putting Christianity on level footing with other unproven ideas.

You're free to practice your religion, but once it encroaches on the freedom of others that is not acceptable, I see no issue with laws created to protect me and others from your insane beliefs.

I am likewise in favour of any laws that will protect me from other religious nutjobs, like fanatic Muslims.

greeney2 wrote:He did not make his point, it was not sensible it was a "loaded senerio", and several people replied why. Maybe his attitude turns the place into a so called madhouse presenting something in a distorted manner, and playing dumb to the real defintion of militant atheist.

Please, you decided you "knew" what the article was about without even reading it, built yourself a completely idiotic straw man to attack, and then you and your ilk beat it to death... exactly what happens any time anyone tries to start a conversation in here that isn't Christians-are-the-best-why-does-everyone-hate-us. It's impossible to play dumb when dumb is all you're surrounded by.

greeney2 wrote:Militant Atheists regularly and passionately confront those who oppose them.

To some degree, you are a militant Atheist in the true sense of the word. But not in the incorrect, technical sense, i.e. weapon-carrying.

Hold on Frosty, nobody started up anti-atheism posts here designed to infuriate the atheists, it was the atheists here who started posting distortion propaganda about the Bible and religion. Nothing was done in any spirit of debate it was done in a mean spirited attack on your beliefs. No atheist was defending themselves, they were bringing slurs and lies to the message board, with a mission of arguing it to the death, your beliefs. Humphreys posted this to try to equate that militant atheism is a myth because it is not a act of violence like the islamic assasination in Pakistan, to distort what militant atheism is. They are coming out with these over zealous attacks on the Bible, with intent to distroy Faith, not to have a friendly debate. No offence Humphreys but you are militant in your approach, and EH is even worse.

Being anti-religion or even believing God does not exist is everyones right, but what is the motivation for attacking those who practice their religion, believe in God, and live a life doing so? Small town USA has millions of people doing this, and they are no more part of world misery than Mickey Mouse. They live everyday with Faith, worship, and do not bother anyone. There are many atheists who do the same thing and are left alone, and do not go out of their way to be verbally hostile to believers.

There is a distinct difference between Humphreys and Frosty, if you think they are both equally militant. Which one is trying to save a soul?

You are off your effing nut, you know that?
How is discussing a point of view attacking your point of view. They are two separate things and, regardless of what you think, the former has been attempted in this very forum on many occasions.

How can you look a thread like that Soldiers Of Christ take heed f**knuttery and pretend that it isn't propaganda or hostile to non-believers?! You wouldn't know a slur or a lie if it bit you on your senile old ass.

Humphreys wrote:

Homosexuality is only offensive because your silly book written by uneducated and scientifically illiterate humans said it is. Barring prejudice and hatred against other humans is not irradication of religion, it is simply putting Christianity on level footing with other unproven ideas.

Ok. I guess the fact that the part of the body intended for ridding humans of waste, is used in the sexual act, has nothing to do with the disgusting factor at all. It's disgusting in heterosexual sex as well, and is not condoned by God.

What next Humphreys? The man who wants to have sex with your young son, should not be prejudiced against and hated ? After all who silly idea was it that having sex with children is wrong, by your standards of thinking. Your people will argue that these men did not choose to be this way, they were created this way, and soon with your atheist type of reasoning they will be allowed to have sex with children, because the child has been manipulated to enjoy it, therefore no one is being hurt. After all humphreys , they will say "who said a child shouldn't have rights to have sex if they want to "? correct?

This is what is being planned down the road next by the "free thinkers" such as yourself. It already is the mentality amongst many of the "elite" with their secret child porn rings, but it will become the norm, and your little boy will be legally allowed to be enticed by the perverted souls that love to take innocence away .

Wow man...just...WOW. There's so much c-r-a-z-y going on in here I don't know where to begin. You people are whacked man. It's pointless getting into debates with these religious psychos posting in here. They're so far beyond reasoning...to the point of no return.

It really is scary that there are still so many people out there like this...many of them are in office too. It's like they're still living in the 12th century.

OraProNobis wrote:Ok. I guess the fact that the part of the body intended for ridding humans of waste, is used in the sexual act, has nothing to do with the disgusting factor at all. It's disgusting in heterosexual sex as well, and is not condoned by God.

Err, you understand that piss comes out the penis and vagina, right?

OraProNobis wrote:What next Humphreys? The man who wants to have sex with your young son, should not be prejudiced against and hated ? After all who silly idea was it that having sex with children is wrong, by your standards of thinking.

I agree with EH, you are sick in the head. Disgusting.

The fact you would equate sex between two consenting adults with the rape of a toddler, and then imply that allowing sex with children is a future goal of atheists like myself shows just how much religion has f*cked with your mind.

You make me sick to be honest.

greeney2 wrote:Militant Atheists regularly and passionately confront those who oppose them.

To some degree, you are a militant Atheist in the true sense of the word. But not in the incorrect, technical sense, i.e. weapon-carrying.

Hold on Frosty, nobody started up anti-atheism posts here designed to infuriate the atheists, it was the atheists here who started posting distortion propaganda about the Bible and religion. Nothing was done in any spirit of debate it was done in a mean spirited attack on your beliefs. No atheist was defending themselves, they were bringing slurs and lies to the message board, with a mission of arguing it to the death, your beliefs. Humphreys posted this to try to equate that militant atheism is a myth because it is not a act of violence like the islamic assasination in Pakistan, to distort what militant atheism is. They are coming out with these over zealous attacks on the Bible, with intent to distroy Faith, not to have a friendly debate. No offence Humphreys but you are militant in your approach, and EH is even worse.

Being anti-religion or even believing God does not exist is everyones right, but what is the motivation for attacking those who practice their religion, believe in God, and live a life doing so? Small town USA has millions of people doing this, and they are no more part of world misery than Mickey Mouse. They live everyday with Faith, worship, and do not bother anyone. There are many atheists who do the same thing and are left alone, and do not go out of their way to be verbally hostile to believers.

There is a distinct difference between Humphreys and Frosty, if you think they are both equally militant. Which one is trying to save a soul?

For the luva whatchamacallit. These are nothing more than talking points -- get that through your granite skull. This is what people do on message boards, pinhead. People come here to debate their points of view. All you ever do is cry when someone posts without Christian goggles on.

This forum wasn't made just for Christians so they can come in here and jerk each other off.

greeney2 wrote:No atheist was defending themselves, they were bringing slurs and lies to the message board, with a mission of arguing it to the death

It was YOU that started in with the "militant atheist" jabs. All Humphreys was doing was defending himself by pointing out the obvious double standard that exists with the "militant" expression. That's it. Now you're going off on this ridiculous tangent...about what I have no idea.

Furthermore, so what if we're militant. WAAAAA WAAAAA WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Read the First Amendment and get over yourself already.

Move along now please.

Humphreys wrote:
Err, you understand that piss comes out the penis and vagina, right?

really now? piss comes out of the vagina? *sighs* Please google where piss comes from in a female .


Piss comes out of one valve in the penis, and nothing is "going into " that valve . Hardly the same as a penis going into a rectum.

Humphreys wrote:
The fact you would equate sex between two consenting adults with the rape of a toddler, and then imply that allowing sex with children is a future goal of atheists like myself shows just how much religion has f*cked with your mind.

You make me sick to be honest.

You have no idea what is being planned.

By the very standards of you saying there is NO GOD..who would you be to judge whether a child should or shouldn't have sex? Really ? That is exactly what some atheists will argue and have already. There will be the whole scenerio of nobody has the right to push their views on anyone, even children. Children have the right to choose for themselves. Yes, children will be taught to think for themselves, and do what they think is ok.

Sound familiar humphreys? If the idea of that makes you sick, well join the club , because it makes me sick as well. Pretty much how two people of the same sex can get married , sort of makes me sick. I don't want to judge them, but it honestly makes my stomach turn.

But look closely at who will be behind this type of 'freedom" for all , who in fact already is behind it, but just secretly. Like Orangetom says, it is not so much atheists, but something far more sinister that backs atheism .

So.. Humphreys, when you teach your child to think for itself, and it wants to play doctor with the little boy down the street, or the little girl, what do you say to him. How do you teach him to think for himself? If one of his coaches tells him it is ok to do certain things, and it feels good, and considering there really is no such thing as God, and moral values are really just what certain people want them to be , and they shouldn't be pushed on anyone.

You may find me disgusting to bring up the relevance of all this, but you can clearly see why I am bringing it up. Its already happening behind the scenes , and is just the next step that Satan can use to take away the innocence of souls.

If you can say in one breath, that nobody has the right to pass their moral judgement on anyone elses sexuality, you better be prepared to back that up all the way across the board, because there are people who are actually fighting for the legal right of children to choose whether or not they want to have sex with adults, or with each other.

mrshumphreys wrote:

greeney2 wrote:Militant Atheists regularly and passionately confront those who oppose them.

To some degree, you are a militant Atheist in the true sense of the word. But not in the incorrect, technical sense, i.e. weapon-carrying.

Hold on Frosty, nobody started up anti-atheism posts here designed to infuriate the atheists, it was the atheists here who started posting distortion propaganda about the Bible and religion. Nothing was done in any spirit of debate it was done in a mean spirited attack on your beliefs. No atheist was defending themselves, they were bringing slurs and lies to the message board, with a mission of arguing it to the death, your beliefs. Humphreys posted this to try to equate that militant atheism is a myth because it is not a act of violence like the islamic assasination in Pakistan, to distort what militant atheism is. They are coming out with these over zealous attacks on the Bible, with intent to distroy Faith, not to have a friendly debate. No offence Humphreys but you are militant in your approach, and EH is even worse.

Being anti-religion or even believing God does not exist is everyones right, but what is the motivation for attacking those who practice their religion, believe in God, and live a life doing so? Small town USA has millions of people doing this, and they are no more part of world misery than Mickey Mouse. They live everyday with Faith, worship, and do not bother anyone. There are many atheists who do the same thing and are left alone, and do not go out of their way to be verbally hostile to believers.

There is a distinct difference between Humphreys and Frosty, if you think they are both equally militant. Which one is trying to save a soul?

You are off your effing nut, you know that?
How is discussing a point of view attacking your point of view. They are two separate things and, regardless of what you think, the former has been attempted in this very forum on many occasions.

How can you look a thread like that Soldiers Of Christ take heed f**knuttery and pretend that it isn't propaganda or hostile to non-believers?! You wouldn't know a slur or a lie if it bit you on your senile old ass.

With all due respect to a spouse coming to the rescue of her hubby, for someone who bitched about me mistaking you and your name so many times, I am not part of the Soldiers of Christ thread whatsoever, so get it straight you senile old Bat, since I'm just a senile old ass! You will not find a single post by me on that thread!