Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Peter Puffers,In A Tissy..................

7 Saum



Some people mistakenly assume that Hitler was a Christian. While he was certainly knowledgeable about Christianity, his doctrine of racial superiority, more land mass and space for these peoples and the resulting invasions of numerous countries to meet this end, was in no way related to any established religion. Christianity was tolerated by the fascists as long as it did not interfere with his goals. The Jews were only one group of many the fascists set out to exterminate. International Jewery and communism he tied together as a political allegiance. If you will talk to a European elder who lived in the times before the war, they will tell you people tried to box you in as communist or fascist. There was little middle ground. WW I was fought over a silly incident. The resulting harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles and it's dire economic consequences for Germany resulted in the Nazi movement taking power and as so many movements do, they search for scapegoats-Jews, communists, etc. to rally the populace. The Russians and the Polish had their pogroms against the Jews as have many other countries through the centuries. This was nothing new. The Third Reich and Emperor worship in Japan was not related to any established religions. They were a form of religion only in the sense of a perverted devotion to the mother country(fatherland) and it's ruler. People were willing to die for the Fuehrer(Germany) and the Emperor(Japan). There is good evidence that Hitler had Jewish blood and he knew it.

I wasn't saying that Hitler was a Christian because his actions would obviously disqualify him.

However, he was not an athiest either.

My point was to comment on the statement that religion was irrelevant to Hitler's war mongering. He obviously had a big problem with the Jews.

Anti-semitism seems to be a historical favorite pastime of numerous countries and millions through the years. It is on the rise again.



The Brown Shirts of the Nazi party was loaded with sexual deviants by the way. They were instrumental in Hitler's rise to power. Hitler had many killed but not for being deviant-because they were a possible political threat. Hitler was sexually deviant with his golden showers-that is the enjoyment of being urinated upon by another. Some of this kind of makes my point. Stalin was a deviant, too.



No jokes about golden showers please.

If Lance can marry Bruce, what's so special about the number "2"?

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=33528
..........................................................................................

I really hate to bring this all to the top again, but just couldn't let a couple of statements go without commenting on them. (Of course, it looks like a lot of folks here couldn't let this thread go without commenting on it).

First, I disagree about there being any evidence in the bible regarding homosexual fornication being any worse than heterosexual fornication. Obviously there was plenty of sin in Sodom, and the place was destroyed. But I don't think you can interpret Lot's actions with the certainty you have.

Lot had a couple of visitors coming from God. They were there to see what was up and weigh in on whether or not the whole place should be destroyed. Maybe Lot was offering his daughters because he knew there was no chance of the place being saved if the witnesses were gang raped, and was simply attempting to protect his visitors. Truth be told, his offering of his daughters may have had nothing to do with what kind of sex was going to be had, and everything to do with his perceived obligation to protect his visitors. Just as an example, if you are ever in court - saunter on up and rape the judge or several jury members. Take some friends along and have them join in. Then see how easy they are on you.

Also, I have to protest the alcoholic example. An alcoholic doesn't know they are one and have no compulsion to drink until they've already started. If you want to compare being an alcoholic to being gay, compare it to being an alcoholic who has been drunk for 5 years and is trying to quit. Gays don't become that way because they tried it once and became addicted. They started out that way.

An even better comparison is a man who is heterosexual, never marries, and yet never has sex...with anyone...ever. Don't tell me that he won't be attracted to women. Whether or not he chooses to act on those attractions is another matter entirely.

I have no difficulty agreeing with the concept that homosexual acts are a sin. But it isn't the only sin. And I don't necessarily believe it to be any worse than fornication or adultery.

I have a lot of difficulty with people who say homosexuals should just "choose" to be heterosexual, or who compare it to many other vices. I still think the best example is taking a heterosexual and seeing it from reverse. If you are a man who likes women. Try telling yourself that it is a sin and that from now on you have to be sexually attracted to men. See how that may be difficult for you? THAT is what many gays are dealing with.

Now, there may be some who can play both sides of the fence - and I don't know what to make of them. But the majority of homosexual people are just wired wrong and are attracted to the wrong sex. They did not choose to be that way.

I stick by my guns....................

Does it say Adam and Eve? ..... NOT ADAM AND STEVE!!!!!!

My wife has the best comment on this subject that I've ever heard...
"You silly [bleep], dicks are for chics"

LMAO!!

I've seen the T-shirt.

AND savvy the notion.....................

Its really quiet simple. If it doesnt have potential to create babies, it aint right!!!

Eddie, I do not have a dog in this fight, as I can see both sides of the argument. I do have a question though that I have never quite understood. We easily accept the idea of one man being married to one wife, although it is against the basic instincts of man. Yet, we as a society have no problem saying a man must live/sleep with only one woman. Yet many say that gays can not / should not change their behavior, because that is their basic instinct?

On the one hand, we say they can not change, yet say the heterosexual man must change what is basic behaviour. Am I the only one who thinks there is something wrong with that?

Again, no attempt here to stir the pot. Just something I am honestly curious about. TM

Who dug this one up? Anyway, there's a lot of sheisters out there, some of 'em just have a license to do it.

BTW, on topic, a judge just ruled that it is not defamatory to label someone as gay, that sheister, that idiot, more like. The context was one of Madonna's old boy friends who didn't like the epithet. I agree with him, but then anyone who would date her probably deserves the grief.

Regards, sse

Woe be unto those that call evil good.Lust is an example of a God given instinct exeeding it's intended purpose.Queers are an example of perverted lust.So are pedophiles.
The slippery slope goes like this:
Pornography is protected speech.
Laws against sodomy are struck down as restricting rights of consenting adults.
Queers are born the way they are so have right to marry and adopt children.
There is no evil except the evil of intolerance.
Biggest bunch of Crap I ever heard.The idea that if I'm opposed to queers I must be one is ridiculous.
I think the bible writers used queers as an example of depravity because they couldn't think of a worse one and the readers of their day recognized it as such.
ST. Augustine said the world is a safe judge and when heathen and religious alike condemn an action it is the height of arrogance to defend it on the basis of"I don't have a problem with what consenting adults do".

I've never heard such drivel around a real campfire.'course about the only campfires I frequent are fueled by outdoorsmen.