3-way cage match

[Leo Volont]

I don't think peeing in someone's soup would be very *compassionate*.
Of course, LEO, Jesus would not be "harmed", by someone peeing in his soup.
I love the comment about Jesus making more wine, very funny. I think they would probably all be very sympathetic towards each other because their followers have given them all a bad name...

Where in the World does Jesus have a 'bad name'.

At one time or another I have been a member of every major world religion and a heck of a lot of cults, and NOBODY ever had a problem with Jesus. There are Religions which do not go so far as to equate Him with God the Father Almighty, or see Him equal to the Uncreated and UnChanging Oneness, but certainly we cannot thus conclude that those who would deny Him the status of Absolute Perfection are somehow giving Him a 'bad name'. Not a single Religion would not have been delighted to have such a Saint in their ranks.

 

[cole grey]

LEO,
These forums are at least one place in the world where Jesus gets a pretty bad rap. I'm not going to waste time detailing the various ways in which this is done. If you haven't noticed, you get the blind smiley of the day

...

P.S. I'm glad raven didn't get you banned, he was helping to escalate that one.
I'll admit, I think you go overboard sometimes, but you're alright when you aren't giving people a bad impression about Christians. (I will say the same about myself regarding the bad impression part)
Have you thought about the pride thing?
I don't mean to be mean, it's really just awkward compassion.

 

[Leo Volont]

LEO,

P.S. I'm glad raven didn't get you banned, he was helping to escalate that one.
I'll admit, I think you go overboard sometimes, but you're alright when you aren't giving people a bad impression about Christians. (I will say the same about myself regarding the bad impression part)
Have you thought about the pride thing?
I don't mean to be mean, it's really just awkward compassion.

I was teasing with Raven... what set me off was when I caught him defending Evil in the actions of Woody Allen that little perv. Yeah, Raven was right in the details, BUT IT IS SUCH A PUBLIC MISTAKE TO EVER DEFEND EVIL. I recalled how the Republican's destroyed Pat Buchanan's campaign a few Elections back -- they used an obvious trick which Buchanan should have seen ten miles away, but ... well this is what they did, they set up a Journalist to exaggerate Nazi cruelties and to misquote facts about Nazi Germany. Buchanan, forgetting himself, simply corrected a few factual errors. The next day the headlines read "BUCHANON DEFENDS HITLER!"

So when Raven began to defend a predatory pervert because of a few minor detail discrepancies, I couldn't resist 'Headlining' it. It thought it was so ludicrously over-the-top that he would know I was kidding, but apparently he takes his charlie manson persona much too seriously and descended further and further into victum consciousness. I should have pulled back when I saw that he did not get the joke, but when he began thrashing around like a wounded animal, my own killer instincts got away with me. I messaged him with an apology and told him I was sorry.

 

[Blindman]

If the divided trinity where to come together it would be the best of all parties. But of course this is only a metaphor, a synonym on what life could be.. They would say,

"How is it that evil can take over religion.. Should we not hide the word of god and let each man and woman find the good without gidance."
" Should we not just trust our god to have instilled good over evil and that the most basic of human states is the state of heaven."
" Fee will is the gift that they squander.. Religious orders instill regiment to their basic god given right."

and they would then say

"Let from this day forth, the word of our being be gone from the minds of man, for god did not make a demon, god trusted the soul of man to inherit his world for they are the most godly of creations"

 

[duendy]

I was teasing with Raven... what set me off was when I caught him defending Evil in the actions of Woody Allen that little perv.

D--my GODDESS, how you xians stick together.
right, about Woody Allan. I am no great fan really. yeah i have been humoured by his witty films over the years, and i quite like his character, but am nt a devotte worrdy allen fan....BUT, I wouldn't like someone slagging me off on the Web as 'that little perv"....so i am here for his defense.
What a hypocrite you are Leo. shouting about your alleginace with 'true' catolik principles. And your love for JeeeeeZUS.` does this include his command that 'do not judge less ye be judged"..? ...obviously not
Also, WHAY, pray, is Woody supposed to have DONE. i am seriously askin. the last i surveyed the celebrity rags about his private life, it was he had gone with a young adopted daughter which seriously upset Mia -his partner. was the girl pre-puberty....? i am remembering she may have been a 'minor'? am i right. So you are aginst that are you Leo? an older man having a sexual relationship with a younger female..or. JEALOUS? is your righteous indignation a masquearading of jealousy. some thin you'd really like to do in YOUR 'pervy' moments?

Yeah, Raven was right in the details, BUT IT IS SUCH A PUBLIC MISTAKE TO EVER DEFEND EVIL. I recalled how the Republican's destroyed Pat Buchanan's campaign a few Elections back -- they used an obvious trick which Buchanan should have seen ten miles away, but ... well this is what they did, they set up a Journalist to exaggerate Nazi cruelties and to misquote facts about Nazi Germany.

Oh Queen of the Underworld....how the lvin FUK can you 'EXAGGERATE' 'Nazi cruelties'...that is something neo nazis would assert!

Buchanan, forgetting himself, simply corrected a few factual errors. The next day the headlines read "BUCHANON DEFENDS HITLER!"

So when Raven began to defend a predatory pervert because of a few minor detail discrepancies, I couldn't resist 'Headlining' it. It thought it was so ludicrously over-the-top that he would know I was kidding, but apparently he takes his charlie manson persona much too seriously and descended further and further into victum consciousness. I should have pulled back when I saw that he did not get the joke, but when he began thrashing around like a wounded animal, my own killer instincts got away with me. I messaged him with an apology and told him I was sorry.

well that was a good move anyhow. for if he had been near you, he MAY have done a Manson on ya. or at least a slap

i must say also. i am not mad on manson at ALL, and find the mystique around that evil fuker disconcerting. btw, i can judge, i am not a christian...heh..ahhhhhhh, the FREEEdom

 

[cole grey]

DUENDY says, "how the lvin FUK can you 'EXAGGERATE' 'Nazi cruelties'...that is something neo nazis would assert!"

agreed, there can be no exaggeration of nazi cruelty.
There could be an exaggeration of the number of their cruelties. I won't make a statement to explain this as it could be interpreted as defending nazis somehow, which would just be sick. Neo-nazis are even crazier than nazis, they have an example of the evil their ethnic cleansing is capable of. LEO isn't THAT crazy... I think.

as far as "sticking together" goes - being civil or even "nice" towards people seems to be something the Goddess would encourage. Or, should I always have my claws out?
As has been evidenced, I'll "stick" up for a Pagan if I think they are being falsely judged.

 

[Leo Volont]

DUENDY says, "how the lvin FUK can you 'EXAGGERATE' 'Nazi cruelties'...that is something neo nazis would assert!"

agreed, there can be no exaggeration of nazi cruelty.

Actually I think there are ways to exaggerate Nazi Cruelties. For instance, we should wonder how, with England and America setting up a complete embargo on Continental Europe, the Germans, who controlled the Continent could be expected to feed everybody. Certainly Churchill and Rooosevelt must have been aware that if the war were to continue for a number of years certainly mass starvation would result. And it was England and America's policy to not discuss conditions for peace with the Nazis -- the Americans and the British had their Trade Embargo of Europe in place and nothing was to dissuade them from it. In these conditions, the Nazis were compelled by necessity to ration food, and yes we can certainly argue with the priorities the Nazis established -- the Armies were to be fed first, and then German Mothers and Children. The rest of everybody else, not just Jews, were gathered up and interred into Labor Camps were the food could be rationed and food rioting averted. When the food really did begin to disappear almost entirely, there seemed to be two schools of thought amoung the Nazis on how to respond -- for the most part camps were left to starve out, but some camps were pro-active and the inmates were executed, perhaps with the only intent being to save them from the suffering of certain starvation.

So, anyway, the Historic View that ONLY the Nazis were responsible for all the deaths in Europe is the exaggeration, when, afterall, it was Churchill and Roosevelt, England and America, that instigated the policy of starving out the entire Continent.

I'm sure it would have come up in the Nurenburg Trials but by some oversight in the matter, only the Germans were selected to be charged with anything. Everyone else was quite left to laugh about what they had done, but it was not the Germans who turned away boatloads of food from Continental Harbors.

 

[The Devil Inside]

i think they would get along, but end up in some sort of food fight, with gautama-buddha sitting back, smiling.

 

[path]

Actually I think there are ways to exaggerate Nazi Cruelties. For instance, we should wonder how, with England and America setting up a complete embargo on Continental Europe, the Germans, who controlled the Continent could be expected to feed everybody. Certainly Churchill and Rooosevelt must have been aware that if the war were to continue for a number of years certainly mass starvation would result. And it was England and America's policy to not discuss conditions for peace with the Nazis -- the Americans and the British had their Trade Embargo of Europe in place and nothing was to dissuade them from it. In these conditions, the Nazis were compelled by necessity to ration food, and yes we can certainly argue with the priorities the Nazis established -- the Armies were to be fed first, and then German Mothers and Children. The rest of everybody else, not just Jews, were gathered up and interred into Labor Camps were the food could be rationed and food rioting averted. When the food really did begin to disappear almost entirely, there seemed to be two schools of thought amoung the Nazis on how to respond -- for the most part camps were left to starve out, but some camps were pro-active and the inmates were executed, perhaps with the only intent being to save them from the suffering of certain starvation.

Did it ever actually occur to you that you are talking about bottling up a CONTINENT you know what continent means right Everything required for food and industry can be found in the continent of europe just as it has been found there since recorded history began ( with the possible exception of endless oil supplies)

 

[The Devil Inside]

this string of debate isnt exactly the dinner party imagined.....hm......hitler does NOT belong with the dinner guests.....
kindly remove him from the establishment?