How long does it take...?

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Any cunt who suggests cities like New Orleans or London have simply suffered a punishment from God because of their sinful ways and/or tolerance of homosexuality (like those behind the charming godhatesfags.com website claim) should be put against a wall and fucking shot.

To hell with "freedom of expression" in cases like this. Such cunts don't have a right of expression.

Agree. Anyone who thinks that the aforementioned acts were anything other than climatically based or the acts of evil men needs their head examining.

Former Member

CptCoatHanger wrote:

Original sin gives us a healthy amount of sin points from the off.

It's a Catholic concept though, isn't it? It's not a Christian one generally...

Also, is it possible to repent original sin?

Fuctifino.

That said, Catholics do have the option of confession - which covers the repent issue...

Former Member

CptCoatHanger wrote:

Also, is it possible to repent original sin?

Yes.

MoK it's a christian thing, it's actually in the bible, though not explicitly refered to as original sin, or the fall.

Former Member

Fiend_85 wrote:

Yes.

MoK it's a christian thing, it's actually in the bible, though not explicitly refered to as original sin, or the fall.

Does repenting effectively wipe the slate clean?

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

It's a Catholic concept though, isn't it? It's not a Christian one generally...



Fuctifino.

That said, Catholics do have the option of confession - which covers the repent issue...

Expect when one is too young to confess, say a 6 month baby, in which case they would go straight to hell and burn for all eternity like the sinners they are.

This was certainly the case for those who died before receiving baptism. So grieving mothers who experienced the tragedy of having their baby die at 3 days old had the added bonus of being told/believing their child would rot in hell for ever- or at very best spend eternity in "limbo".

Even the Catholic Church eventually saw what bullshit this was, and changed the official story to "non-baptised babies and children will be allowed to the Kingdom of Heaven by the mercy of God".

How good of him eh?

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Expect when one is too young to confess, say a 6 month baby, in which case they would go straight to hell and burn for all eternity like the sinners they are.

This was certainly the case for those who died before receiving baptism. So grieving mothers who experienced the tragedy of having their baby die at 3 days old had the added bonus of being told/believing their child would rot in hell for ever- or at very best spend eternity in "limbo".

Even the Catholic Church eventually saw what bullshit this was, and changed the official story to "non-baptised babies and children will be allowed to the Kingdom of Heaven by the mercy of God".

How good of him eh?

the baptism/chrisitning of children is a form of kidnapping and brainwashing.

Former Member

CptCoatHanger wrote:

Don't patronise me.

why not ...what you do to expect special treament?

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

why not ...what you do to expect special treament?

fair, harsh, but fair.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Any cunt who suggests cities like New Orleans or London have simply suffered a punishment from God because of their sinful ways and/or tolerance of homosexuality (like those behind the charming godhatesfags.com website claim) should be put against a wall and fucking shot.

To hell with "freedom of expression" in cases like this. Such cunts don't have a right of expression.

I'd agree with you to a point, they don't DESSERVE the right to freedom of expresion, but they still have the right to it. They're bastards all the same.

Former Member

turlough wrote:

Nah he got a hammering the last time he went there..I think he's at the pearly gate now

I actually find that quite offensive.

Former Member

That's nice for you. I thought it was fairly amusing.

Former Member

*DEVIL* wrote:

I actually find that quite offensive.

I find your signature quite offensive on the eye.

Former Member

CptCoatHanger wrote:

I find your signature quite offensive on the eye.

It's offensive generally, because The Patriot is about a racist slave owner... obviously the film glosses over that part...

Former Member

*DEVIL* wrote:

I actually find that quite offensive.

if you're worried about being offended you had better stop talking to other people, they have a tendency to do that.

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

It's offensive generally, because The Patriot is about a racist slave owner... obviously the film glosses over that part...

but he was also a brilliant leader. I suppose this leads into the "is the fact that racism was common place back then an acceptable e excuse...?" debate. Frankly I don't know the answer.

Former Member

The trouble with historical figures is that they don't think like us. At the time few saw slave-owning as wrong and racism was a fact of life (as was religious discrimination, homophobia and a dozen other discriminations which we scream at today). You can only judge historical figures by the standard of their times.

which isn't to say they were regarded as perfect even then. There were too many murdered Tory families and executed prisoners for any of the rebel guerilla leaders to be regarded as decent upstanding individuals - though perhaps the American Revolution, like all wars and revolutions, needs sonofbitches to do the killing business.

Former Member

I can stomach the fact that times and attitudes change.

What I cannot stomach is that such a man is turned into a hero, without mentioning that aspect of his life.

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

I can stomach the fact that times and attitudes change.

What I cannot stomach is that such a man is turned into a hero, without mentioning that aspect of his life.

but ...he was a hero in his time.
in his time and for most of mans time here it would seem ...the domination and abuse of other tribes and peoples was the norm.
i'm sure there are many black african heroes who took other black people as slaves in the past.
we cannot realy condem people for the practices that were normal way back when can we?

Former Member

But he is portrayed as a hero in ours. His "heroism" is shown in a context of British actions which are clearly horrendous.

Why is it okay to show them as "evil" but not to show that he was flawed too.

There is no context of their bad actions but there isn't even any mention of his.

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

But he is portrayed as a hero in ours. His "heroism" is shown in a context of British actions which are clearly horrendous.

Why is it okay to show them as "evil" but not to show that he was flawed too.

There is no context of their bad actions but there isn't even any mention of his.

ok ...i understand now.

i thought we might be going down the line of calling cavemen sexist for dragging their bird about by the hair ...

Former Member

Whilst I understand that most people here hold little regard for a white Christian i find that remark offensive, and had it been aimed at any other person the mods would have at least commented on the remark being out of place.

As a Christian I personally find that particular comment offensive.

Former Member

*DEVIL* wrote:

Whilst I understand that most people here hold little regard for a white Christian i find that remark offensive, and had it been aimed at any other person the mods would have at least commented on the remark being out of place.

As a Christian I personally find that particular comment offensive.

tough shit, is the phrase I think I am looking for.

People will tell jokes about your lord in public places. Just like they make jokes about the USA, about Britain, about Buddhists (i have now clue how that is spelled sorry to all the Buddhists), and just about everything else. The problem with the world today is that no one seems to be able to take a joke

Former Member

*DEVIL* wrote:

Whilst I understand that most people here hold little regard for a white Christian i find that remark offensive, and had it been aimed at any other person the mods would have at least commented on the remark being out of place.

As a Christian I personally find that particular comment offensive.

hahahaha

nothing personal petal, but the things you say on here, don't make you sound like a very serious christian. From one christian to another, get a sense of humour.

Former Member

*DEVIL* wrote:

Whilst I understand that most people here hold little regard for a white Christian i find that remark offensive, and had it been aimed at any other person the mods would have at least commented on the remark being out of place.

That genuinely made me laugh out loud.

< southern drawl >We don't take kindly to your type round here. The only thing i hate more than a white guy, is a Christian one.< / southern drawl >

As a Christian I personally find that particular comment offensive.

You're taking offence quite easily these days.

Former Member

*DEVIL* wrote:

Whilst I understand that most people here hold little regard for a white Christian i find that remark offensive, and had it been aimed at any other person the mods would have at least commented on the remark being out of place..

Sorry, we only wanted to offend black christians.

Former Member

*DEVIL* wrote:

As a Christian I personally find that particular comment offensive.

again!
have you had much to do with the real world?
being offended often must be a miserable corner to be in ...stand and fight for what you believe in ...strengthens you.

Former Member

True, the bible tells us that, God's strength is made perfect in us when we are weak.

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

But he is portrayed as a hero in ours. His "heroism" is shown in a context of British actions which are clearly horrendous.

Why is it okay to show them as "evil" but not to show that he was flawed too.

There is no context of their bad actions but there isn't even any mention of his.

To be fair its a film - a lot of the evil redcoat actions attributed in this and other films are just a way to sell movies. Just think of it as a historical version of star wars with Mel Gibson as the Luke Skywalker and the Redcoats as the Stormtroopers. If you start to look at historical accuracy in films you'll go mad...

Former Member

Absolutely NQA, however, when people like *Devil* start to believe the hype and take those figures portrayed as heroes to admire, then we should worry.

Just don't get me started on Braveheart and U Boat...

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

Absolutely NQA, however, when people like *Devil* start to believe the hype and take those figures portrayed as heroes to admire, then we should worry.

But she's probably admiring the film character not the real life slave owner. And the character in the film is to be admired.