jesus_is_hitler twiz Myth: Neither Jesus of Hitler employed groups of goblins as assassins Fact: Both Jesus AND Hitler employed groups of goblins as assassins -Both are closet homosexuals. They both promote anti-gay propaganda, and both hate gays, even though BOTH were caught on tape giving Batman a blowjob. 050216 ... batman hitler was better 050216 ... Ladies and gentleman, I give you the future. Pray. Pray for annihilation before these nihilistic and morally effete poseurs come to inhabit the world they despise and hasten The End of Days. 050216 ... dislikes shock effect blasphemy What I don't like about Jesus and Hitler jokes is that they make no sense, even humour sense which is by nature twisty and shapeshifty. Any name could supplant Jesus or Hitler and the joke would still be of equal value. The point of a racial or religious nasty joke is that there is some kind of basis, even a stereotypical one, behind it. 050216 ... p2 although i did not write this "joke" and only found it mildly amusing in my own cynically jaded way i feel i must disagree with you on your points supplanting the names with any other names would not give the joke equal value for precisely the reason you said this is shock effect blasphemy intended to shock via extreme blasphemy substitute the names and you lose the effect though it did not elicit much reaction from me any other two names would most likely have had even less impact therefore jesus and hitler are necessary to the "joke" 050217 ... Hmmm I think hates blasphemy boy may have been referring to the inherent value and or incoherence of the joke. The laughter quotient you know is pretty much nil. Then of course I could be waaaaaaaaaay off. But then I have to say such a comment and the paucity of rebukes said comment engendered are a sympton of a modern age that has cast all of its icons into the fire, an age where a generation bereft of a guiding talismanic spiritual and or moral ethos stands poised over the brink of the abyss with no golden horn raised to summon them back to the cultural and historical anchors..a kind of atavistic anchor representative and in homage to the shared historicity of earlier generations. blah I don't think Batman an albeit cultural figurant, a true post-modern hero, a truly existential hero that navigates the world of shadow more easily than the starched button down world of light, quite occupies the place in the collective cultural memory and of course the religious significance that JChrist does. However, nor is Batman simply the stool of a shallow secular construction of projected value to give voice to what is inarticulate, to what frustrates man about his own lack of capacity to amke sound moral choices w/r/t his interactions with the rest of society. Still... 050217 ... minnesota_chris batman's cool. I don't defend God, since God is big and doesn't need my defending. Plus I just don't imagine Jesus logged on to Blather saying "Ooh, look at what that jerk wrote about me!" I imagine him looking at the wonderful or horrible things around the world, and how to send people to make the world a better place. 050217 ... twiz I pooped a hammer. 050217 ... jane when did blather get so fucking uptight? it's not fucking blasphemy. chill out. 050217 ... god everything is everything 050217 ... J Kessler jane, i'm sorry, but you are a god damn idiot. of course it is fucking blasphemy! The definition: Main Entry: blas·phe·my Pronunciation: 'blas-f&-mE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -mies 1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity 2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable Don't say something isn't what it is just because you disagree with someone... find a decent argument. 050217 ... god if you don't believe in that shit, then who cares? 050218 ... .nom we_are_the_universe 050218 ... jane right. it's all subjective, buddy. first of all, somebody wrote that definition; it is invariably subjective to a flawed human mind. second of all, some may say that was not an insult, and to have a complete definition, you would have to define all terms utilized in the definition, including "reverence" and "God." using words to define words is like answering a question with a question: it gets you somewhere, but never to an exact destination. third of all (on this train of subjectivity), some may consider jesus not to be sacred; some may think of him as just a man. what is "sacred?" if you're going to throw out definitions, be prepared to back them up, not just copy and paste some dictionary.com definition. goddamn idiot. 050218 ... jane all i was saying to begin with was that obviously this person is writing something silly about jesus and hitler and goblins and batman. there's no need to get all up in arms about blasphemy and heretics and witch burning. calm down. 050218 ... oldephebe Yes well, there is no need for YOU to get upset by comments that are equivelent ot defecating on a tradition, a cultural and spiritual amniotic soup of others inner life, that wich shaped character in the crysalis of faith and devotion and lived experience. I guess we all are making statements that are valid for ech one of us but they in no uncertain terms constitute some kind of dictate or instruction or alternative for anyone else. The condition of acceptance is primarily the will, and ones personal opinion. We assume positions of authority to defend or articulate our sense of pique at a cultural/spiritual convention that in some intangible and usually idioyncratic way represents a threat or a negation of our own fierce fealty to the conventions or anti-confluential streams that feed us, that run in our innermost depths. I would not want to restrain anyone's right to speak out of the experience of thier own lives. I was merely evaluating comment that I personally found offensive but I wouldn't obstruct anyone from making such a comment. For me Batman and J Christ represent two (not neccessarily equivalent) incarnations of an existential mode of being, a wisdom, a strategy a means of getting along in a world where the harshness of human nature asserts itself indescriminatley and brutally upon the soul, the body and the spirit. Sure, part of being yong, part of shaping any new epoch results in the shattering of conventions Right I get that. And we can debate with meticulous clarity the methodolgy of constructing an epistemological argument or refutation or basis of argument. But I think beneath it, beneath that, at least for me there is a passion a sense of outrage at seeing the thing that fed you in the crucibles of your experience being subjected to that kind of irreverance. I'm just saying is all ... 050218 ... p2 wheee what fun! i like how the focus shifted from jesus & hitler to jesus & batman all blasphemy is subjective so let's all blaspheme away and live happily knowing that someone somewhere is condemning your soul while others will give a shrug and a 'meh' and move on to continue with the actual topic though if god is within us all and jesus is god then jesus was in hitler thus jesus was/is hitler furthermore i submit that hitler and jesus were both devout christians defining a christian as one who believes that jesus is/was the son of god and a devout christian as one who tries to live as they believe jesus would have (in their own demented mind) so you can label me a blasphemer or a heretic but expect a shrug and a 'meh' as my response 050218 ... oldephebe oh yeah hitler see how easily my focus shifted? i can't discuss hitler so i probably just blocked him out and then batman opined and i guess i just kind of let that be a cognitive illusion and use it as pretend plank in my argument i wouldn't say that i'm a devout christian...haven't been one for a long time...but..yeah okay this was temporarily diverting not EVEN going to try to respond to your last blathe you're in a kind of turn over all the totems and cast the icons from the highest precipice and watch them shatter kind of mood eh? meh...is that some kind of eris referance or something? does it connote a kind of surly or pro-forma dismissal...some shorthand catchechism to insulate the conscience the mind, to keep one from drowning in anothers imposed moral values...like saying no aquiesence of the will here friend...no not today. meh i'm doin' my own thing..and this here this ain't for you to understand ... 050218 ... p2 heheh i only learned of eris after coming to blather and have seen no reference elsewhere 'meh' is simply my "too lazy to come up with a coherent response because it doesn't really affect me either way" response as for my previous blathe i was simply blathing according to the topic allowing my mind to flow when trying to equate the two historical figures the totems got knocked down simply because they were in the way 050218 ... jane oe, i do understand what you're saying. i guess i'm just saying that the first blathe was graffiti on the wall of christianity, which is a big wall with a lot of graffiti on it anyway, so why should another silly comment get everyone so worked up? but yeah i do understand the need to defend one's values when they are challenged. or at least i would if i had values 050218 ... jane also i don't take well to people gratuitously calling me an idiot 050218 ... jane also, p2: good point. well said 050218 ... twiz I had sex with 7 cattle. 050219 ... J Kessler “Jane, you ignorant slut!” as one comic icon put it. You are not helping your case with me. Defining all terms isn’t necessary for the argument you made. And I quote, “It’s not fucking blasphemy. Chill out” Obviously for us to fit in your world we’d have to define what ‘it’ is ‘not fucking’ and then what exactly ‘chilling out’ would be but, of course, we couldn’t actually use other words to define our meanings but instead would have to adopt a system of rock throwing demonstrations or perhaps an image transference machine? That dream aside we’ll have to live in reality and use some sort of authority to help guide us. I will assume that for practical purposes an English dictionary will suffice as a suitable authority when it comes to say, word definitions? As you said, “it’s all subjective, buddy.” which means that there is a group of people that feel Jesus is sacred and to be revered while another doesn’t. Which means that somebody takes what is being said as blasphemy therefore it is blasphemy. But that little bit aside, I want to get to the heart of the matter, which is, you are still a god damn idiot. If we are to follow you and after we “throw out definitions” we must “be prepared to back them up” then I have to say apart from being stupid you are also being illogical. How can one “back” something up if the only resource possible cannot be used because it must be “backed up” with yet more of what must be “backed up”. The process goes on forever so how exactly do we come to an agreement? Oh, that’s right! Humans solved that eons ago when we decided that learned men would create a codex of words, which used other words to define those words! I believe we called it a dictionary? The point being that if you are going to make a statement like, “It’s not fucking blasphemy.” Then you take on the burden of defining blasphemy, which you did not. Personally, I’m not religious and I believe that Christ was just a man and so have no problem using his name in vain. I also don’t mind using the word ‘god’ in vain as I do not care if it is blasphemy. So, the next time you make a statement you must also be prepared to “back it up” though I’m not sure how you can as according to you no mechanism exists whereby a definition can be agreed upon. 050219 ... J Kessler As to the theological argument being made by p2… Protestant Christian as well as Roman Catholic Theology believe that God doesn’t exist in all of us but only in those that have accepted Christ as the Son of God and Redeemer of Mankind, Second Entity of the Trinity. At no point does the Bible or any other mainstream Christian teaching (that I am aware of) say that Christ indwells you, it is always the Holy Spirit. This means that the Holy Spirit is only in those that have accept the Apostolic Creed (or the Trinity for Protestants). Though I will grant you that Hitler was a Catholic and therefore must have adopted the Apostolic Creed, the Church will tell you that since he did not practice his ‘professed beliefs’ he would not have been indwelt by God. 050219 ... .. . 050219 ... twiz jesus and hitler have never been spotted in the same place 050219 ... jane i hope you're having fun 050219 ... Jesus Hitler Christ I don't believe in Hitler. 050219 ... oldephebe wow talk about passion underlying the excruciatingly exacting clarity... p2 - you're a riot jane - you DO have values, you know that, they may not be mine or p2's or j kesslers (that's gotta be a sobriquet)still though your writings flow from them...ironic skepticism and nihilistic postures aside the obsolescance and moral poverty of the patriarchical society and its mores that held sway over america up until the mid sixties taught us that it's okay to divest yourself or even eschew the values parroted by our parents and grandparents, i don't know what constitutes anyone's spirtual ballast but my own and i know that without it i'd sink like a stone...so while provocative juxtapositions of icons and the inevitable scatological connotations that inhere and the giddy pride at having stabbed a figurative spear in the eye of icons or defecating in the mouth of sacred totems and gods and whatever.... given all of that and i hope i can say this w/o sounding pompous or pretentious but aside from the genocidal and patriarchal and cultural and economic hegemony and throw in some enslavement too..aside from all of those attribute that without wich this country would not have existed at least not in the way it does now...aside from all of that..there is one thing that has remained sacrosanct in this country..this one thing that has inspired and even enabled unlikely people to defy the odds and build kingdoms out of the sod is this..the sacredness of individuality...the right to boldly affirm oneself and ones values or paucity thereof, and even that can be a value or an ethos. like i said we can debate the correct methodology of crafting an epistemological validation for our relative arguments but underneath all of that and even transcending that is the belief the belief that impells the passion and resists attempts and codification and logical justification ...this is the basis the bedrock of being an american, of being vitally engaged in the heteroganaeity that is sometimes savage and coarse and natural but it is the will that will prevent us from being binded, or bound by the dictates of another...so...we won't all agree..cool..why have a aneurism over it? ... 050219 ... two steps short though for some, hitler_is_jesus so, once we have turned the full circle, batman gets crucified by the greeks, the gremlins victimise the christian minority and incarcerate them in australian desert death camps, and jesus and hitler, who are the same person, pick up pompoms and cheer them on: and there too will be ufo's, coming to take us away continue as you were, children 050219 ... phil I have to agree with Jane all the way. 050219 ... Church lady Well, isn't this wonderful. I suppose blasephmy would be like pornography... "I don't know what it is but I know it when I see it." 050221 ... Teenage Jesus Hitler: "...und die Flegende Hollander; haben zie einer cigaretten, biter!" Jesus: "I bet with a hat like that, you get a bowl of soup...but it looks good on you." I know this guy who named his son Adolf. Geez; Adolf!?! He calls him 'Dolf.' I mean, if you know you're going to have to call your son some variation of the name you've given him, shouldn't that be enough cause to reconsider the name. Guess not. 050221 ... damien it's a pretty name 050221 ... p2 google the phrase "god is in all of us" it seems that there are others who would disagree with your statement i was working on that premise which while you don't believe in others do i would also like to submit that as our alleged creator god has put himself/herself into us as an artist puts himself/herself into their works to deny this would be to deny the love of god it would mean that the creation of man the creation of that which is in his own image was a passionless work so in that sense too god is in all of us because he put himself into us when he created us that is if you believe the stories to be true 050222 ... J Kessler You miss my point. You said, 'Jesus' was in Hitler and therefore Hitler was Jesus. I said that no mainline denomination asks the literal Christ into their hearts and therefore Hitler was not indwelt by Christ and therefore Hitler was not Jesus. You could say that Hitler was God but Hitler was not Jesus. 050222 ... Hitler Eureka!!! Given is Jesus... 050222 ... Jesus Then is Hitler... 050222 ... ... show one why_NOT... And_I_will_tell_you_how_wonder_you_are... 050222 ... 42 usc 1983 Then again, God didn't stop the Holocaust. Yes, I guess that was a manifestation of Hitler's free will, but God was the one who decided to sit on his hands because he deemed free will to be so valuable. Millions of lives later, one must question that value, because even if free will is generally worth the price we pay for it, there's no reason why God, being omnipotent and all, couldn't have stepped in just that one time. 050222 ... m21k Jesus +, -, * or / Hilter = ? 050222 ... m21k a "M" Test:- Jesus +, -, * or / Hitler = ? 050222 ... Ft LoT Without free will life would have no value. If we accept the Christian Theology then we must accept that God created man to worship Him but that God chose to have this worship come as a willing gift/sacrifice. After all, what fun would it be to have robots worship? So, He chose to create Earth and the Universe as a place to dwell but free will would mean nothing unless choices were available, hence, He creates a 'tree' and tells man not to eat of it. Man has free will and eventually disobeys. Punishment must be inflicted otherwise what point would there be to seek God and worship Him if nothing was bad and everything worked out? So time goes by and some men are good and some are bad but eventually man's depravity gets worse and worse and worse. To step in at anytime would mean to destroy the system. If that Theology is correct than God cannot step in without destroying that which He wishes to protect. Therefore God cannot interfere. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle 050223 ... 42 usc 1983 If the free will theodicy satisfies you, then fine. I don't believe free will is worth the price. Some have responded to the free will defense by saying that God, being omnipotent, could have created mankind with free will but nevertheless set up a world where people wouldn't make the wrong decisions. It's not logically impossible, after all, and isn't that what an all-loving, all-powerful deity would do? Some would say that would only be an illusion of free will, but to me it seems no less free than the reality of free will, which is always constrained and influenced by extraneous factors. I would simply say that preventing the Holocaust or similar massive human evil does not strip humanity of free will. It just limits it slightly in very specific instances. But think about it: free will is always limited to some extent. Natural law (presumably created by God) already limits what human beings can accomplish, regardless of their willpower. I can will myself to fly but I remain grounded. This doesn't limit my free will, but only how I manifest it. You can choose to become God, but you will never become God. So since we're already limited in manifesting our will, what's the big deal with God stepping in once in a while and stopping something really terrible from happening? You're probably worried that it would essentially "force" people to believe in God, thus stripping humanity of the essential choice of choosing God. First of all, he could make it look like an accident. It wouldn't have to appear to be an obvious miracle. Give Hitler a heart attack, for instance. Seems like it would be easy for God to do, no? Then again, it's not like (in the Bible) God was too concerned with robbing people of their free will by impressing them with miraculous flaming shubbery, giant killers, men who were impervious to flame, and parted seas. Even if you're satisfied with the free will defense, there's still the problem of natural evil, such as the recent tsunami. Hundreds of thousands dead, and preventing it has nothing to do with limiting free will. But anyway, that's another facet of the problem of evil... 050223 ... 42 usc 1983 Also, I think the Heisenberg uncertainty analogy is a bit shaky. Heisenberg said that you can't simultaneously measure the momentum and position of a particle. When you measure one more accurately, the measure of the other is less accurate and vice versa. The truism that people generalize from Heisenberg is that attempts to measure certain things fail for the intrusiveness of the measurement device. This is true enough. When you're observing people, you can't obtain a completely accurate picture because people will act differently knowing that you're observing them. I think it's quite a stretch to say that God stepping in and preventing evil is analogous. I guess you could say that God is interfering by preventing evil and that he's "measuring" in the sense that he's evaluating conduct for its morality or immorality. However, God doesn't thwart his ability to "measure" by stepping in. Hitler had evil thoughts, wanted to manifest his evil will. God knew this. Once Hitler had given the order to kill the Jews, God presumably didn't need to see 6 million die before he knew that Hitler had chosen evil. Basically, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle doesn't apply to God, since God is omniscient. By definition, God knows the momentum and velocity of all particles. 050223 ... p2 it said that the father the son and the holy spirit are simply 3 facets of the same being therefore i submit jesus is god you have aquiesced that i can say hitler was god so then by conjunctive extension hitler was jesus QED 050223 ... p2 and to ft lot god did interfere many times it's called the old testament you should read it sometime though i know most christians prefer to ignore those parts but old testament aside the holy interference that you probably know best is jesus himself jesus not only died for our sins he was sent specifically to die for our sins it's a subtle distinction but important in case you decide to reject the whole 'jesus is god' thing 050223 ... oldephebe again we come to this articulation or substantion of god through the architecture of epistemological validation and the heuristics of really rigorously aquired reasoning a fundamental element of acceptance of a religion especially the christian one is faith..simple pure child like faith... i guess the person who started this page really outdid himself what with all the reactions this thig has garnered? no illicited? no..generated. Yeah! that's it. i guess the person who started this page is really pleased with himself what with all the responses this thing has generated ... 050223 ... p2 oE i admit my part in the mess i should have blathed my previous one under holy_interference or something afterall it is off topic and in response to the other part of what you said see: annoying_anti_atheist_arguments 050224 ... stork daddy if there is a god, i think it's safe to say that none of us understand it. 050224 ... oldephebe damn hermeneutical rubric or something or other...that's what i was trying to get out... yeah so it's pretty safe to say that geez.. my finite and fuzzy mind, my uninspired shallow breathing serrated soul does NOT understand what I by faith (wich is by now or at this juncture pretty tenuous at best)call GOD. ... ... 050224 ... twiz I'm naked. 050225 ... mon uow i'm_a_little_teapot 050225 ... carp short_and_stout 050226 ... Hitler in Munich in 1933 i'm gonna bitch it up like hitler in Munich in 1933! 050522 ... twitch ummmmm yea....... 050522 ... bitch i'm bitchin the bitch at the bitch party of the bitch people of the bitch place of Munich at the bitchin bad time of the bitch, bitch, bitch (1933). bitch 050528 ... . . 060312 ... we can get together and be very co-operative 060312 what's it to you? who go blather from