>> Murder is not generally considered a religious trait.
>
> That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they
> kill
> someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed
> over
> religion than anything else.

You know I agree with you, but my point is that murder is not restricted to
religions or religious people.

There have been plenty of people killed by atheists and agnostics.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:17:16 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>> That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they kill
>> someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed over
>> religion than anything else.
>
>Where is your data? I think far more have been killed over greed than
>religion. Unfortunately, my data is about as good as yours. :-)
>
>
>Matt


Religion is a form of greed.

As an example, when the rapture comes, only the born again will enjoy
the blessings of heaven, while the rest of us burn in a sea of fire.

Not really a good example of sharing the wealth, is it?

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:18:38 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>>>Neither do people who belong to legitimate and mainstream religions. It
>>>is fun to watch folks like you try to lump fanatic nut cases like Hitler
>>>with religion. I'm sorry you don't have a legitimate issue and have to
>>>fabricate issues like this to try to support your prejudices.
>>
>>
>> During Hitler's ascendancy and power, millions did not view him as a
>> "fanatic nut case." Matter of fact he visited regularly with his close
>> friend Pope Pius in Rome.
>
>I didn't say he was stupid. Most fanatics are pretty good a camoflaging
>it until they have sufficient power to accomplish their goals.
>
>Matt

I think the point is that Pius was quite willing to play footsies with
Hitler, not how smart Hitler was.

There was no question about Hitler's character when he was meeting
with his pals in the Vatican. Furthermore, the relationship was as
much about the power of the church as it was Hitler's.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> >
> > Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> >>Murder is not generally considered a religious trait.
> >
> >
> > That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they
kill
> > someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed
over
> > religion than anything else.
>
> Where is your data? I think far more have been killed over greed than
> religion. Unfortunately, my data is about as good as yours. :-)
>
>
> Matt

I think you have a point there, Matt. Religion, to quote Stendhal, is
founded on the fears of the many and the cleverness of the few. The greedy
few have slyly used religion to mobilize the masses to do their bidding over
the centuries. Kings, prelates, despots, corporate executives, charismatic
ministers, governors, even elected presidents have found religion useful in
their hunger for wealth and power.

The Bible's justification of slavery -- e. g., the story of Ham in the Old
Testament and Paul's and Timothy's letters in the New --- was quite helpful
for the Conquistadors, the Pilgrims, Tidewater Aristocrats, and the Southern
Planters when they settled the New World.

Hilarious.

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
> >
> > What's funny about it?
>
> I just find really stupid statements humorous.

You must really crack yourself up.

wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:16:34 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>And there is a recent christian culture that gassed and burned 6
>>>million human beings.
>>
>>I'm not sure what a christian culture is, but a Christian culture didn't
>>do that. It was a Christian culture that came to the defense of the Jews.
>
>
>
> You need to pick up a good history book and spend a little time with
> it.

Hardly. Show me one shred of evidence that says Hitler was a bona fide
Christian. Show me one shred of evidence that says Christianity
supports genocide of Jews.


Matt

wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:17:16 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they kill
>>>someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed over
>>>religion than anything else.
>>
>>Where is your data? I think far more have been killed over greed than
>>religion. Unfortunately, my data is about as good as yours. :-)
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>
> Religion is a form of greed.
>
> As an example, when the rapture comes, only the born again will enjoy
> the blessings of heaven, while the rest of us burn in a sea of fire.
>
> Not really a good example of sharing the wealth, is it?

Certainly it is. Everyone has the opportunity to be part of the
rapture. Only those who choose not to participate will be left behind.
It doesn't get any more generous than that. It is entirely your
choice. What more could you ask for?

Matt

wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:18:38 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>>Neither do people who belong to legitimate and mainstream religions. It
>>>>is fun to watch folks like you try to lump fanatic nut cases like Hitler
>>>>with religion. I'm sorry you don't have a legitimate issue and have to
>>>>fabricate issues like this to try to support your prejudices.
>>>
>>>
>>>During Hitler's ascendancy and power, millions did not view him as a
>>>"fanatic nut case." Matter of fact he visited regularly with his close
>>>friend Pope Pius in Rome.
>>
>>I didn't say he was stupid. Most fanatics are pretty good a camoflaging
>>it until they have sufficient power to accomplish their goals.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> I think the point is that Pius was quite willing to play footsies with
> Hitler, not how smart Hitler was.
>
> There was no question about Hitler's character when he was meeting
> with his pals in the Vatican. Furthermore, the relationship was as
> much about the power of the church as it was Hitler's.

I'm no supporter of the Catholic church, so I won't argue with you
there. The Catholic church doesn't follow the Bible in many ways and
much of what they believe in and do is simply not supported by scripture
and often outright condemned.

I know most Catholics would disagree, but I don't consider Catholicism
to be Christianity as they tend to elevate Mary to a level equal to or
even higher than Christ.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:17:16 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they
kill
> >>>someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed
over
> >>>religion than anything else.
> >>
> >>Where is your data? I think far more have been killed over greed than
> >>religion. Unfortunately, my data is about as good as yours. :-)
> >>
> >>
> >>Matt
> >
> >
> >
> > Religion is a form of greed.
> >
> > As an example, when the rapture comes, only the born again will enjoy
> > the blessings of heaven, while the rest of us burn in a sea of fire.
> >
> > Not really a good example of sharing the wealth, is it?
>
> Certainly it is. Everyone has the opportunity to be part of the
> rapture. Only those who choose not to participate will be left behind.
> It doesn't get any more generous than that. It is entirely your
> choice. What more could you ask for?
>
> Matt

Ah, Matt, you don't even know your own holy book. Revelations describes
the dimensions of heaven and it is not unlimited. Hurry up and go, fella.
First come, first served. As soon as it is full (Hell,it may be full
a'ready), newcomers will be turned away. Matter of fact I have it on good
authority they'll be pushed over the balusters into the fiery brink below.

jls wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:17:16 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they
>
> kill
>
>>>>>someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed
>
> over
>
>>>>>religion than anything else.
>>>>
>>>>Where is your data? I think far more have been killed over greed than
>>>>religion. Unfortunately, my data is about as good as yours. :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Religion is a form of greed.
>>>
>>>As an example, when the rapture comes, only the born again will enjoy
>>>the blessings of heaven, while the rest of us burn in a sea of fire.
>>>
>>>Not really a good example of sharing the wealth, is it?
>>
>>Certainly it is. Everyone has the opportunity to be part of the
>>rapture. Only those who choose not to participate will be left behind.
>> It doesn't get any more generous than that. It is entirely your
>>choice. What more could you ask for?
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Ah, Matt, you don't even know your own holy book. Revelations describes
> the dimensions of heaven and it is not unlimited. Hurry up and go, fella.
> First come, first served. As soon as it is full (Hell,it may be full
> a'ready), newcomers will be turned away. Matter of fact I have it on good
> authority they'll be pushed over the balusters into the fiery brink below.
>
>

But it doesn't say how big the people there will be. :-)

At a few Angstroms in height, that cube will hold a LOT of us.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

> wrote:
>

<snip>

>> Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
>> atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
>> themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
>> that atheism is anathema to them.
>>
>> A curious contradiction, to say the least.
>
> I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so
> hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their
> beliefs?
>


Not ashamed of their beliefs, but perhaps reluctant to be lumped in with the
sheep mentality of the 'religious'?

It sounds like you would define religion as a belief system to explain that
which we do not _know_. By that definition certainly everyone must be
'religious'. It is only recently that I have heard of this definition (and
I find its timing a bit suspect). Previously it was belief in a higher
power and/or an afterlife that defined one as 'religious' or not.

But even using this new idea I still see atheism as different from religion
in the way faith is applied. Religious faith does not allow for much
critical thinking and certainly doesn't tolerate dissent. Whereas atheistic
'faith' accepts change as it happens.

There are certainly things I have to take on 'faith'. I don't _know_ the
universe was created by the big bang. But my acceptance of the theory will
be gladly changed in an instant if the physicists come up with something to
refute it tomorrow. I used to believe in the steady state universe and I
experienced no trauma in making the change. In fact I relish the thought of
learning new things about us.

Contrast that to the adherence to dogma required by 'religion' and perhaps
you can begin to understand why I wouldn't want to be associated with the
same group that put Galileo in jail and wouldn't admit their mistake for
_hundreds_ of years.


--
Frank....H

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
> Hardly. Show me one shred of evidence that says Hitler was a bona fide
> Christian. Show me one shred of evidence that says Christianity
> supports genocide of Jews.

The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews
and their religion. In his book, _On the Jews and their Lies_, Luther set
the standard for anti-semitism in Protestant Germany up until World War 2.
Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther, often quoting his
works and beliefs.

"He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or
else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away."

"But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews' synagogues and
forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God's name?
They will still keep doing it in secret. If we know that they are doing this
in secret, it is the same as if they were doing it publicly. for our
knowledge of their secret doings and our toleration of them implies that
they are not secret after all and thus our conscience is encumbered with it
before God."

--Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>>Hardly. Show me one shred of evidence that says Hitler was a bona fide
>>Christian. Show me one shred of evidence that says Christianity
>>supports genocide of Jews.
>
>
> The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews
> and their religion. In his book, _On the Jews and their Lies_, Luther set
> the standard for anti-semitism in Protestant Germany up until World War 2.
> Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther, often quoting his
> works and beliefs.
>
> "He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or
> else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away."
>
> "But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews' synagogues and
> forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God's name?
> They will still keep doing it in secret. If we know that they are doing this
> in secret, it is the same as if they were doing it publicly. for our
> knowledge of their secret doings and our toleration of them implies that
> they are not secret after all and thus our conscience is encumbered with it
> before God."
>
> --Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
>
>

OK, can you point out the passage that says you should kill Jews? I
read the above twice and just don't see it.

Matt

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Kimod.70165$V41.9053@attbi_s52...
> > ONE OF THE PIECES WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR WHY ALL PEOPLE WITH THE SPIRIT OF
> > PHILOSOPHY FIND THE RELIGIONS OF THE MASSES OFFENSIVE.
>

"Religion is a primitive form of philosophy, [the] attempt to offer a
comprehensive view of reality. Philosophy is the goal toward which religion
was only a helplessly blind groping." -- (Ayn Rand; The Objectivist Feb
1966)


> (Big Snip)
>
> Wow.
>
> I've seen few Usenet posts worthy of getting saved on my hard drive.
>
> This is one of them.
>
> Thanks for sharing that.

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
> > > Learning right from wrong comes from evolution.
> >
> > Evolution comes from learning right from wrong.
>
> Both are correct. Populations of organisms "learn" the right way to
survive
> in their environments or they perish.

That's nice, but that's not "right from wrong" except on the most extreme
fringe. We're talking morality (self preservation) and ethics (conduct
towards others) which are intellectual pursuits, not biological (though they
are linked).

> The ability to do this is coded into
> their genes. The coding changes over time due to a combination of
mutation
> and natural selection, i.e., by evolution.

Animals have instincts that have developed from evolution. Humans have
reason and, from that, develop principles.

Just so we're straight here, I'm not talking Darwinian evolution. Modern
civilized man is beyond survival of the fittest since everybody survives
(well, almost) due to advances in medicine. The only genetic evolutionary
steps we really have left are through genetic engineering.

There are no modern cultures (and by modern, I mean technically advanced)
that practice cannibalism that I know of. Any aboriginal cultures (removed
from technical advances) are still evolving both in the Darwinian sense and
intellectually.

Did you indoctrinate your kids in religion from the time they were born or
did you wait until they were old enough to make their own choices? I'm
betting that if you have kids, you raised them in your religion, like all
the middle eastern religions do. Don't want to risk them forming their own
opinions of reality now, do you?

mike regish
(and that IS my real name)

BTW, I don't really give a rats ass what grade you give me.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> It would if we didn't have religion indoctrinating hatred and bigotry
>> from day 1.
>
> Nice excuse, but lacks creativity. I'll give it a D+. There are cultures
> that have virtually no organized religion, but engage in things such as
> cannibalism. Is that one of the moral values that evolution produces?
>
>
> Matt
>

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:Kimod.70165$V41.9053@attbi_s52...
>
>>>ONE OF THE PIECES WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR WHY ALL PEOPLE WITH THE SPIRIT OF
>>>PHILOSOPHY FIND THE RELIGIONS OF THE MASSES OFFENSIVE.
>>
>
> "Religion is a primitive form of philosophy, [the] attempt to offer a
> comprehensive view of reality. Philosophy is the goal toward which religion
> was only a helplessly blind groping." -- (Ayn Rand; The Objectivist Feb
> 1966)

Ayn had it backwards, unfortunately.

Matt

mike regish wrote:

> Just so we're straight here, I'm not talking Darwinian evolution. Modern
> civilized man is beyond survival of the fittest since everybody survives
> (well, almost) due to advances in medicine. The only genetic evolutionary
> steps we really have left are through genetic engineering.
>
> There are no modern cultures (and by modern, I mean technically advanced)
> that practice cannibalism that I know of. Any aboriginal cultures (removed
> from technical advances) are still evolving both in the Darwinian sense and
> intellectually.
>
> Did you indoctrinate your kids in religion from the time they were born or
> did you wait until they were old enough to make their own choices? I'm
> betting that if you have kids, you raised them in your religion, like all
> the middle eastern religions do. Don't want to risk them forming their own
> opinions of reality now, do you?

Sure. What did you indoctrinate your kids into?


> mike regish
> (and that IS my real name)
>
> BTW, I don't really give a rats ass what grade you give me.

Really? Then why does it bother you so much? I'll give you a B+ on
grammar, but you need to add an apostrophe to rat's.

Matt

Not this one. In Texas, no less.

"Dena Schlosser, 35, was charged with capital murder Monday after calmly
telling a 911 operator that she had cut off the arms of 11-month old
Margaret. Police found Schlosser sitting in her living room, covered in
blood, a church hymn playing in the background."

See
http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1110_AP_Online_Regional___National__US_/347b15af-01be-4960-a6be-8a1e5519814b.html

Ahhh...sweet religion.

mike regish

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:RLIod.382261$wV.315770@attbi_s54...

>
> There have been plenty of people killed by atheists and agnostics.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sure. What did you indoctrinate your kids into?

Nothing. They can make their own choices whenever they wish. I give them all
the answers I can and find out the ones I can't. They are very curious kids
and I have always been a pretty curious and scientifically oriented person.
And I know how to say "I don't know." It has been a learning experience for
all of us. And their teachers and all their friends mothers have always
commented on how well behaved they are. I guess my athiestic morals can't be
all that bad.

>
>
>> mike regish
>> (and that IS my real name)
>>
>> BTW, I don't really give a rats ass what grade you give me.
>
> Really? Then why does it bother you so much?

I'm curious as to what makes you think it bothers me.

I'll give you a B+ on
> grammar, but you need to add an apostrophe to rat's.

The mark of the desperately wrong. Pointing out typos.

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
in message ...
>> Both are correct. Populations of organisms "learn" the right way to
> survive
>> in their environments or they perish.
>
> That's nice, but that's not "right from wrong" except on the most
> extreme
> fringe. We're talking morality (self preservation) and ethics (conduct
> towards others) which are intellectual pursuits, not biological
> (though they
> are linked).

What's the difference? They are both behaviors. Behavior in all
animals is a combination of instinct and learning. It's all biological.

>> The ability to do this is coded into
>> their genes. The coding changes over time due to a combination of
> mutation
>> and natural selection, i.e., by evolution.
>
> Animals have instincts that have developed from evolution. Humans have
> reason and, from that, develop principles.

Humans have instincts; other animals can reason. It's only a matter of
degree. "Principles" is a fancy name for social behavior useful to the
species.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

> OK, can you point out the passage that says you should kill Jews? I
> read the above twice and just don't see it.

"But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews' synagogues and
forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God's
name? They will still keep doing it in secret."

What do you suppose Luther is implying should be done about those nasty
Jews, if burning down their synagogues wasn't enough?

And just in case that lovely sentiment doesn't sufficiently impress you
that genocide marks many pages in Christian history, try this one:

(The following excerpt is from Las Casas' book _A Short Account Of The
Destruction Of the Indies_, Penguin Books, Edited and Translated by
Nigel Griffin.)

"They forced their way into native settlements, slaughtering everyone
they found there, including small children, old men, pregnant women, and
even women who had just given birth. ...They spared no one, erecting
especially wide gibbets on which they could string their victims up with
their feet just off the ground and then burn them alive thirteen at a
time, in honor of our Savior and the twelve Apostles, or tie dry straw
to their bodies and set fire to it. Some they chose to keep alive and
simply cut their wrists, leaving their hands dangling, saying to them:
'Take this letter' -- meaning that their sorry condition would as a
warning to those hiding in the hills...."

There's lots, lots more, if you care to look.

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
> I'm no supporter of the Catholic church, so I won't argue with you
> there. The Catholic church doesn't follow the Bible in many ways and
> much of what they believe in and do is simply not supported by
> scripture and often outright condemned.
>
> I know most Catholics would disagree, but I don't consider Catholicism
> to be Christianity as they tend to elevate Mary to a level equal to or
> even higher than Christ.

In discussions like this it usually isn't long before the retreating
Christian pulls out the old "no true Scotsman" argument.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 06:03:09 -0700, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:

>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > So very true.
>> >
>> > The world is overrunning with immoral religious types.
>
>Sort of, but the proper term is "ethics" (pertaining to others), not
>"morality" (pertaining to self).

My dictionary doesn't quite see the distinction here.

Moral: Relating tot he principles or right and wrong in behavior.
conforming to a standard. Operating on one's conscience or *ethical*
judgment.

"Moral" implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted
notions of right and wrong;

"Ethical" may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle
questions of rightness, fairness, or equity.

Ethical: of or relating to ethics. Involving or expressing moral
approval or disapproval.

Mores: The fixed morally binding customs of a particular group.

In essence, what is considered moral varies from group to group, but
those moral values tend to be fixed within the groups.
I would say that ethics is the performance to a moral standard.

For example. When doing business in many countries it is normal and
considered ethical to help out the favorite causes of the officials to
speed up or get things done (IE greasing the palms). In other areas
of the world such conduct is not considered unethical and even
criminal.

I once attended a seminar where those present were told that if they
accepted assignments in some areas of the world they would be expected
to conduct themselves according to the local ethics. If they had a
problem with that then they should either request they not be assigned
overseas assignments, or seek employment elsewhere. You should not go
into another country and expect your ethics to be considered normal.
Doing so can bring about a great deal of strife and even personal
discomfort.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

mike regish wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Sure. What did you indoctrinate your kids into?
>
>
> Nothing. They can make their own choices whenever they wish. I give them all
> the answers I can and find out the ones I can't. They are very curious kids
> and I have always been a pretty curious and scientifically oriented person.
> And I know how to say "I don't know." It has been a learning experience for
> all of us. And their teachers and all their friends mothers have always
> commented on how well behaved they are. I guess my athiestic morals can't be
> all that bad.

So you indoctrinate them into the religion of "free thinking",
philosophy, etc. I was just curious.


>>>mike regish
>>>(and that IS my real name)
>>>
>>>BTW, I don't really give a rats ass what grade you give me.
>>
>>Really? Then why does it bother you so much?
>
>
> I'm curious as to what makes you think it bothers me.

Because you bothered to reply to it.


> I'll give you a B+ on
>
>>grammar, but you need to add an apostrophe to rat's.
>
>
> The mark of the desperately wrong. Pointing out typos.

The mark of the arrogantly wrong.


Matt

wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:05:20 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:16:34 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>And there is a recent christian culture that gassed and burned 6
>>>>>million human beings.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure what a christian culture is, but a Christian culture didn't
>>>>do that. It was a Christian culture that came to the defense of the Jews.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You need to pick up a good history book and spend a little time with
>>>it.
>>
>>Hardly. Show me one shred of evidence that says Hitler was a bona fide
>>Christian. Show me one shred of evidence that says Christianity
>>supports genocide of Jews.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> Take your pick.
>
>
>
>
> “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”
>
> ( Adolf Hitler, from John Toland [Pulitzer Prize winner], Adolf
> Hitler, New York: Anchor Publishing, 1992, p. 507. )
>
> “The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in
> his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially
> of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word
> be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and
> their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the
> Lord's creation, the divine will.”
>
> ( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner
> Books, 1999, p. 562. )
>
> “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of
> the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am
> fighting for the work of the Lord.”
>
> ( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner
> Books, 1999, p. 65. )
>
> “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
> fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
> only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
> summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest
> not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian
> and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at
> last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the
> Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight
> against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with
> deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact
> that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As
> a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have
> the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have
> the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same
> catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world
> some two thousand years ago — a civilization which was driven to its
> ruin through this same Jewish people.
>
> “Then indeed when Rome collapsed there were endless streams of new
> German bands flowing into the Empire from the North; but, if Germany
> collapses today, who is there to come after us? German blood upon this
> earth is on the way to gradual exhaustion unless we pull ourselves
> together and make ourselves free!
>
> “And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting
> rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I
> have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see
> them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they
> have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in
> the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into
> their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a
> very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord
> two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor
> people are plundered and exploited.”
>
> ( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered at Munich, April 12, 1922; from
> Norman H. Baynes, ed., The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August
> 1939, Vol. 1, New York: Oxford University Press, 1942, pp. 19-20. )
>
> “For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last
> newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising
> pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this
> one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor
> patriots: ‘Lord, make us free!’ is transformed in the brain of the
> smallest boy into the burning plea: ‘Almighty God, bless our arms when
> the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we
> be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!’”
>
> ( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner
> Books, 1999, pp. 632-633. )
>
> “I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a
> pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the
> natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be
> deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings
> of Providence.”
>
> ( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered on July 5, 1944; from Charles
> Bracelen Flood, Hitler: The Path to Power, Boston, Mass: Houghton
> Mifflin Company, 1989, p. 208. )
>
> “I say: my Christian feeling tells me that my lord and savior is a
> warrior. It calls my attention to the man who, lonely and surrounded
> by only a few supporters, recognized what they [the Jews] were, and
> called for a battle against them, and who, by God, was not the
> greatest sufferer, but the greatest warrior. . .
>
> “As a human being it is my duty to see to it that humanity will not
> suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did that old civilization two
> thousand years ago, a civilization which was driven to its ruin by the
> Jews. . . I am convinced that I am really a devil and not a Christian
> if I do not feel compassion and do not wage war, as Christ did two
> thousand years ago, against those who are steeling and exploiting
> these poverty-stricken people.
>
> “Two thousand years ago a man was similarly denounced by this
> particular race which today denounces and blasphememes all over the
> place. . . That man was dragged before a court and they said: he is
> arousing the people! So he, too, was an agitator!”
>
> ( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered on April 12, 1922; from Charles
> Bracelen Flood, Hitler: The Path to Power, Boston, Mass: Houghton
> Mifflin Company, 1989, pp. 261-262. )

Claiming something doesn't make it so. The Bible says that by their
works you will know them. Hitler's works clearly weren't Christian,
therefore he wasn't. I can claim to be the President of the United
States, but that doesn't make it so.


Matt

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>>I'm no supporter of the Catholic church, so I won't argue with you
>>there. The Catholic church doesn't follow the Bible in many ways and
>>much of what they believe in and do is simply not supported by
>>scripture and often outright condemned.
>>
>>I know most Catholics would disagree, but I don't consider Catholicism
>>to be Christianity as they tend to elevate Mary to a level equal to or
>>even higher than Christ.
>
>
> In discussions like this it usually isn't long before the retreating
> Christian pulls out the old "no true Scotsman" argument.

You can believe whatever you want. But Baptists haven't agreed with
Catholic views for a lot longer than I've been around.


Matt

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:40:15 GMT, wrote:

>>>>>And there is a recent christian culture that gassed and burned 6
>>>>>million human beings.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure what a christian culture is, but a Christian culture didn't
>>>>do that. It was a Christian culture that came to the defense of the Jews.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You need to pick up a good history book and spend a little time with
>>> it.
>>
>>Hardly. Show me one shred of evidence that says Hitler was a bona fide
>>Christian. Show me one shred of evidence that says Christianity
>>supports genocide of Jews.
>>
>>
>>Matt

*** Snip of 11 sentences or paragraphs from Hitlers writings or
speeches confirming his belief in God***

>Matt says:
>Claiming something doesn't make it so. The Bible says that by their
>works you will know them. Hitler's works clearly weren't Christian,
>therefore he wasn't. I can claim to be the President of the United
>States, but that doesn't make it so.

Matt this is pathetic. It's disingenuous to argue that recorded
authenticated evidence doesn't count just because you don't think it
should.

You asked the man to show you one shred of evidence. He did far more
than requested, he showed you a whole bundle, which by the way must
have taken some time to research and record. From his (Hitler's)
writings, it's obvious he professed to be a Christian. It doesn't
matter that you think he did not behave as a Christian, you have the
evidence you asked for.

History is replete with people who professed to be Christians and/or
believers in God, but behaved like apostles of evil. How they behaved
does not alter the fact that they thought of themselves as members of
a religion, believers in God.

Sure, you can say (paraphrasing): "well they did evil so obviously
they weren't true believers because true believers would not do evil".
But how do you know this? Is God omniscient or not? If He/She/It is,
then the centuries of slaughter in God's name, which continue to this
day, have been explicitly condoned by this holy being. But wait, the
sixth Commandment is: "Thou shalt not kill". Uh oh, how does that
work?

Corky (Oooohhh too much information!!!) Scott

PS, double Uh oh:
>Claiming something doesn't make it so. The Bible says that by their
>works you will know them. Hitler's works clearly weren't Christian,
>therefore he wasn't. I can claim to be the President of the United
>States, but that doesn't make it so.

Speaking of the president, does he profess to believe in God? Ok, ha
ha, retorical question we all know he REALLY believes in God, or,
going with your argument, says he does. But did he not sign the death
warrants for many people on death row in Texas? Did he not send
thousands of troops into harms way which resulted in hundreds of
thousands of deaths. If he did, then he was directly responsible for
their deaths. Is this ok? A little justifiable killing here and
there for protection's sake?

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

"No true Scotsman..."

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
> So you indoctrinate them into the religion of "free thinking",
> philosophy, etc. I was just curious.

Another tired argument commonly used by dogmatists. "Everything is
religion, so my religion makes just as much sense as anything else."

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 07:20:43 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>Claiming something doesn't make it so. The Bible says that by their
>works you will know them. Hitler's works clearly weren't Christian,
>therefore he wasn't. I can claim to be the President of the United
>States, but that doesn't make it so.
>
>
>Matt



"Show me a shred of evidence" he says, "that Hitler was a Christian".

So I shows him several shreds, I does.

"Evidence don't mean anything" he now says. "I believe what I want to
believe".

An essential trait for the religious, I think.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:49:32 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>"Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>"No true Scotsman..."
>


You know, I don't know how we overlooked, in all this discussion, that
great American christian group known as the White Knights of the Ku
Klux Klan.

Now there's a fine collection of religious fellows if there ever was
one.

> I'm no supporter of the Catholic church, so I won't argue with you there.
> The Catholic church doesn't follow the Bible in many ways and much of what
> they believe in and do is simply not supported by scripture and often
> outright condemned.
>
> I know most Catholics would disagree, but I don't consider Catholicism to
> be Christianity as they tend to elevate Mary to a level equal to or even
> higher than Christ.

Whoo-whee!

Man, if only I had the guts to have said something like this to the nuns
back at good ol' St. Catherine's High School, in Racine, WI. (Class of '76)

Dang, I'd STILL be walking with a limp...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Not this one. In Texas, no less.
>
> "Dena Schlosser, 35, was charged with capital murder Monday after calmly
> telling a 911 operator that she had cut off the arms of 11-month old
> Margaret. Police found Schlosser sitting in her living room, covered in
> blood, a church hymn playing in the background."

Now, come on. I think it's safe to say that people of ALL religions and
beliefs would classify this lady as mentally ill.

Although some might call it "possessed"?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article >,
wrote:

> "Show me a shred of evidence" he says, "that Hitler was a Christian".
>
> So I shows him several shreds, I does.

Wrong. You showed him quotes of Hilter claiming he was a Christian.
Claiming to be something and actually being something are two
entirely different things.

--
Bob Noel

In article >,
wrote:

> >Now, come on. I think it's safe to say that people of ALL religions and
> >beliefs would classify this lady as mentally ill.
> >
> >Although some might call it "possessed"?
>
> Funny.
>
> I would say that all people of all religions are mentally ill.

even Uniterian Universalists?

>
> After all, isn't that what we call people who go around talking to
> people they can't see or touch?

I haven't seen or touched Jay, but I believe he exists. Am I mentally
ill?

--
Bob Noel

In article >,
wrote:

> >Wrong. You showed him quotes of Hilter claiming he was a Christian.
> >Claiming to be something and actually being something are two
> >entirely different things.
>
> Ah, another believer who refuses to consider any evidence which
> contradicts his preconceived notions, no doubt.

wow - you really leap ....

>
> Claiming that you believe in something is generally accepted to be
> evidence that you indeed believe in that something.

perhaps. But that wasn't what the request was about.

> Whether that eventually proves to be true is another question.

Think about what you just wrote.

> But it IS evidence, whether you like the evidence or not.

It's not a question of liking the evidence.

--
Bob Noel

Thanks for all the laughs, especially from a wit -- CFII. And of course I
enjoyed the unintended humor from Matt and Bob.

If you want to have some fun read the de-conversion stories at
www.positiveatheism.org, which is also a great site for the freethinker.

Happy Thanksgiving. I think I'll give thanks to Eros and Bacchus this
year.
*****************


A man came up to me on the street and said I used to be messed up out of my
mind on drugs but now I'm messed up out of my mind on Jeeesus Chriiist.
George Carlin

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Show me a shred of evidence" he says, "that Hitler was a Christian".
>>
>>So I shows him several shreds, I does.
>
>
> Wrong. You showed him quotes of Hilter claiming he was a Christian.
> Claiming to be something and actually being something are two
> entirely different things.
>

Bob, right you are, but he or she will never understand this. I've
given up trying to reason with an anonymous poster who can't even tell
the difference between a claim and a fact.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Noel wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Show me a shred of evidence" he says, "that Hitler was a Christian".
> >>
> >>So I shows him several shreds, I does.
> >
> >
> > Wrong. You showed him quotes of Hilter claiming he was a Christian.
> > Claiming to be something and actually being something are two
> > entirely different things.
> >
>
> Bob, right you are, but he or she will never understand this. I've
> given up trying to reason with an anonymous poster who can't even tell
> the difference between a claim and a fact.
>
> Matt
>
Both of you make claims and no facts, like your boogie man in the sky and
your denial of A. Hitler's catholicism. One of you even cobbled up a
ridiculous analogy between the absent invisible god and the absent invisible
Jay. There are credible reports that Jay exists. I can fly to Iowa and
find him, he exists, but not your god. Your god is not in any of the
states, not even in the red ones. Jay writes here; your god doesn't. Jay
has an inn; your god has zip. Go fly on the angel's sides of the clouds.
Go play with your angels. And finally Adolf was a christian; get used to
it.

Larry --- Giving thanks to Bacchus, the God of Mirth, today for characters
like you
:)

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Noel wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Show me a shred of evidence" he says, "that Hitler was a Christian".
> >>
> >>So I shows him several shreds, I does.
> >
> >
> > Wrong. You showed him quotes of Hilter claiming he was a Christian.
> > Claiming to be something and actually being something are two
> > entirely different things.
> >
>
> Bob, right you are, but he or she will never understand this. I've
> given up trying to reason with an anonymous poster

It might be best to be anonymous with so many superstitious, hateful violent
xian kooks out there. True story in Alabama: a Jewish family requested
that their children opt out of school prayers and devotions. The children
were then abused by teachers and other children alike. Suffering from
vandalism and violence the family were terrorized by the good golden rule
xians of the community and constantly under the threat of bodily harm.
They finally had to leave town and move away. Series of articles in George
Magazine several years ago. If you want a reference, I'll find it for you.

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:00:01 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
> >Bob Noel wrote:
> >
> >> In article >,
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Show me a shred of evidence" he says, "that Hitler was a Christian".
> >>>
> >>>So I shows him several shreds, I does.
> >>
> >>
> >> Wrong. You showed him quotes of Hilter claiming he was a Christian.
> >> Claiming to be something and actually being something are two
> >> entirely different things.
> >>
> >
> >Bob, right you are, but he or she will never understand this. I've
> >given up trying to reason with an anonymous poster who can't even tell
> >the difference between a claim and a fact.
> >
> >Matt
>
>
> Would you be referring to the kind of difference between the fact that
> the universe is hundreds of billions of years old, and the claim of
> born-agains that it is only 12,000 years old, and started with two
> nudists in a garden conversing with a talking snake?
>
> Those kinds of claims and factrs?
>
> Or some other kind of claims and facts?
>
The snake was quite a beautiful creature, but then to punish it for serving
as a tool of Satan, God decreed it would thenceforth crawl on its belly and
that man would bruise its head and it would bruise man's heel. That sure
does explain it all for me. It would be blasphemous to consider otherwise,
like the fossil record.

I hate to disagree with you because you are obviously the most knowledgeable
person involved in this conversation and I have learned a great deal from
your posts and gotten muh more food for thought, but latest scientific
estimates put the universe at something like 12 to 15 billion years old.

Just a minor correction, but your point is just as valid regardless. I've
always gotten a kick out of that whole lump of clay and a rib thing myself.
If it wasn't so scary, it would actually be funny what some otherwise
intelligent people believe.

mike regish

> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Would you be referring to the kind of difference between the fact that
> the universe is hundreds of billions of years old, and the claim of
> born-agains that it is only 12,000 years old, and started with two
> nudists in a garden conversing with a talking snake?
>
> Those kinds of claims and factrs?
>
> Or some other kind of claims and facts?
>
>

ROTFLMAO.
What year is this?
I really hope you don't hold any position involving any kind of authority or
importance.

mike regish

" jls" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
> The snake was quite a beautiful creature, but then to punish it for
> serving
> as a tool of Satan, God decreed it would thenceforth crawl on its belly
> and
> that man would bruise its head and it would bruise man's heel. That sure
> does explain it all for me. It would be blasphemous to consider
> otherwise,
> like the fossil record.
>
>

mike regish wrote:

> I hate to disagree with you because you are obviously the most knowledgeable
> person involved in this conversation and I have learned a great deal from
> your posts and gotten muh more food for thought, but latest scientific
> estimates put the universe at something like 12 to 15 billion years old.
>
> Just a minor correction, but your point is just as valid regardless. I've
> always gotten a kick out of that whole lump of clay and a rib thing myself.
> If it wasn't so scary, it would actually be funny what some otherwise
> intelligent people believe.

I agree. It is almost as funny as believing that the universe started
from a big bang (where did the stuff for the big bang come from?) and
the intelligent beings evolved from random processes. That is really
funny, but a fair number of otherwise intelligent people believe it.

Matt

Well, most physicists agree that there is no such thing as "before" the big
bang since time can't exist without space. But while they are able to say "I
don't know...yet." about what the singularity was or how it was, you have
all the answers, don't you. If you need simple explanations to wrap your
simple mind around, good for you. I'm glad you can admit your intellectual
limitations. Some people prefer evidence over faith. It's a lot harder to
do, but to some it's worth it.

As far as people believing in evolution and the big bang, believe it or not,
there is abundant evidence for both. But then, I keep forgetting that
evidence and facts just keep muddling up your simple mind. Sorry. I won't
try to confuse you with knowledge again.

You just keep that enlightened smile on your face and everything will be
alright. OK Matt? Go to sleep now. You must be very tired after such a busy
day.

mike

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> I hate to disagree with you because you are obviously the most
>> knowledgeable person involved in this conversation and I have learned a
>> great deal from your posts and gotten muh more food for thought, but
>> latest scientific estimates put the universe at something like 12 to 15
>> billion years old.
>>
>> Just a minor correction, but your point is just as valid regardless. I've
>> always gotten a kick out of that whole lump of clay and a rib thing
>> myself. If it wasn't so scary, it would actually be funny what some
>> otherwise intelligent people believe.
>
> I agree. It is almost as funny as believing that the universe started
> from a big bang (where did the stuff for the big bang come from?) and the
> intelligent beings evolved from random processes. That is really funny,
> but a fair number of otherwise intelligent people believe it.
>
> Matt
>

mike regish wrote:
> Well, most physicists agree that there is no such thing as "before" the big
> bang since time can't exist without space. But while they are able to say "I
> don't know...yet." about what the singularity was or how it was, you have
> all the answers, don't you. If you need simple explanations to wrap your
> simple mind around, good for you. I'm glad you can admit your intellectual
> limitations. Some people prefer evidence over faith. It's a lot harder to
> do, but to some it's worth it.

Singularity. A nice sophisticated way to say "we don't know." There
are a lot of things I don't know and that the Bible doesn't explain, but
there is a lot it does explain as well.


> As far as people believing in evolution and the big bang, believe it or not,
> there is abundant evidence for both. But then, I keep forgetting that
> evidence and facts just keep muddling up your simple mind. Sorry. I won't
> try to confuse you with knowledge again.

And there is a lot of evidence, archeological and otherwise, that
supports the accounts in the Bible ... and more is discovered every day.


> You just keep that enlightened smile on your face and everything will be
> alright. OK Matt? Go to sleep now. You must be very tired after such a busy
> day.

Actually, discussion with you aren't taxing at all...


Matt

Ah...sorry. Didn't notice the from line and this is just the kind of thing
that the bible beaters actually spout.

mike regish

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:19:05 GMT, "mike regish" >
> wrote:
>
>>ROTFLMAO.
>>What year is this?
>>I really hope you don't hold any position involving any kind of authority
>>or
>>importance.
>>
>>mike regish
>>
>>" jls" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>>
>>> The snake was quite a beautiful creature, but then to punish it for
>>> serving
>>> as a tool of Satan, God decreed it would thenceforth crawl on its belly
>>> and
>>> that man would bruise its head and it would bruise man's heel. That
>>> sure
>>> does explain it all for me. It would be blasphemous to consider
>>> otherwise,
>>> like the fossil record.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> It's sarcasm, m'lad

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:29:03 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>>And there is a lot of evidence, archeological and otherwise, that
>>supports the accounts in the Bible ... and more is discovered every day.
>>
>
>
> Could you provide a few examples of this?
>

There was a movie about it - you might remember "Indiana Jones?" Sheesh,
you must live in a closet.

(sarcasm)

This is a losing conversation - these bible guys will not give in and
nothing you can say will change that.

I just shook my head when a friend at work whom rejoiced at most of the Penn
and Teller "Bull****" shows, was appalled and upset when they took on the
bible. I tried to point out that believeing in aliens was about equivalent
to believeing in walking on water and turning water into wine. Neither have
any proof and you can blast the other folks when your own unfounded beliefs
are as odd.



>

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Sure. What did you indoctrinate your kids into?
>>
>>
>> Nothing. They can make their own choices whenever they wish. I give them
>> all the answers I can and find out the ones I can't. They are very
>> curious kids and I have always been a pretty curious and scientifically
>> oriented person. And I know how to say "I don't know." It has been a
>> learning experience for all of us. And their teachers and all their
>> friends mothers have always commented on how well behaved they are. I
>> guess my athiestic morals can't be all that bad.
>
> So you indoctrinate them into the religion of "free thinking", philosophy,
> etc. I was just curious.

That is not a religion. Find a dictionary.

>
>
>>>>mike regish
>>>>(and that IS my real name)
>>>>
>>>>BTW, I don't really give a rats ass what grade you give me.
>>>
>>>Really? Then why does it bother you so much?
>>
>>
>> I'm curious as to what makes you think it bothers me.
>
> Because you bothered to reply to it.
>
>
>> I'll give you a B+ on
>>
>>>grammar, but you need to add an apostrophe to rat's.
>>
>>
>> The mark of the desperately wrong. Pointing out typos.
>
> The mark of the arrogantly wrong.
>
>
> Matt
>

One question...

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH FLYING????

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:58:34 -0500, "Dick" > wrote:
>
>>This is a losing conversation - these bible guys will not give in and
>>nothing you can say will change that.
>
>
> Oh, I have no illusions.
>
> One cannot overcome nonevidentiary, nonrational beliefs with evidence
> and reason.
>
>
>
>

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:59:36 GMT, "Joe Herman"
> wrote:

>
>One question...
>
>WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH FLYING????
>

They belive in faith. I believe in placing my faith in a good aviation
mechanic?

Roger

> wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:58:34 -0500, "Dick" > wrote:
>>
>>>This is a losing conversation - these bible guys will not give in and
>>>nothing you can say will change that.
>>
>>
>> Oh, I have no illusions.
>>
>> One cannot overcome nonevidentiary, nonrational beliefs with evidence
>> and reason.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Roger

"Joe Herman" > wrote in message
...
>
> One question...
>
> WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH FLYING????
>

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds, - and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,
I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air. . . .

Up, up the long, delirious burning blue
I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark, or ever eagle flew -
And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untresspassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.
________________^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
> And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
> Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
> Of sun-split clouds, - and done a hundred things
> You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung
> High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,
> I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
> My eager craft through footless halls of air. . . .
>
> Up, up the long, delirious burning blue
> I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
> Where never lark, or ever eagle flew -
> And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
> The high untresspassed sanctity of space,
> Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

It's hard to imagine, but this poem is even better when Dwayne O'Brien sings
it.

See "Song Pilot" at http://www.flightsongrecords.com/ or buy it at the inn.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Stan Prevost wrote:
> "Joe Herman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>One question...
>>
>>WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH FLYING????
>>
>
>
> Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
> And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
> Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
> Of sun-split clouds, - and done a hundred things
> You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung
> High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,
> I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
> My eager craft through footless halls of air. . . .
>
> Up, up the long, delirious burning blue
> I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
> Where never lark, or ever eagle flew -
> And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
> The high untresspassed sanctity of space,
> Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.
> ________________^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Stan, this is one of those "I wish I'd have thought of that" moments.
Excellent comeback.

Matt

Most democrats I know are HYPOCRITES who espouse public education for everyone
else while they and their descendents enjoy an all expenses paid trip to the
IVY LEAGUE
where they polish their liberal agendas for the "common man".
Greg PP-ASEL-IA