To hate Jews is to hate God

by Greatest I am Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:22 pm

First topic message reminder :

To hate Jews is to hate God.

If you believe in the sacrifice of Jesus, then you must believe that God planned for it and set the conditions even before the earth was formed. If as most believe, the Jews were the cause of the sacrifice, then one must believe that God put the notion and desire to kill Jesus in the Jewish hearts. Jews then were God’s tools in carrying out God’s plan. Jews then should be venerated just as Jesus is because Jesus and Jews were required and caused by God to participate in the sacrifice. They were all doing God’s will and not their own.

Jesus was a Jew and to hate Jews means that Jesus is also hated. The church has historically persecuted Jews and only repented for their actions in 2011 with the pope acknowledging that not all Jews should be hated. Just those directly involved in the sacrifice of Jesus. Ignoring of course that they were charged directly by God to be and do what God wanted.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/jews-not-responsible-for-death-of-christ-pope-says-49267/

Why then have Christians historically hated Jews, and by inference, hate the Jew part of God/Jesus the Jew?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKg4HLsu5gE&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

The weird twist to this history is that the Christian right who hates Jews the most, is now the ones pushing for funding of the Jewish homeland to fulfill prophesy.

Most Jews do not believe that Jesus was the messiah. Is the Christian right just funding Jews to help drive them to destruction at the hands of God?

Jews tend not to read the O. T. the way Christians do. Are Christian interpretations of Jewish text superior or inferior to the Jewish interpretation of their own myths?

Regards
DL

by Shirina Sun May 05, 2013 9:36 pm

You see they themselves believed 'remote viewing was genuine,such is that they spent billions on it. Ex director in remote viewing (CIA) has done lectures in London.

Seconded.

What Jsmythe said is true. It was called the "Stargate Project."

CIA-Initiated Remote Viewing At Stanford Research Institute

Finally, a recent unclassified report [23] prepared for the CIA by the American Institutes for Research (AIR), concerning a remote viewing effort carried out under a DIA program called Star Gate (discussed in detail elsewhere in this volume), cites the roles of the CIA and DIA in the history of the program, including acknowledgment that a cadre of full-time government employees used remote viewing techniques to respond to tasking from operational military organizations

Regardless of one's a priori position, however, an unimpassioned observer cannot help but attest to the following fact. Despite the ambiguities inherent in the type of exploration covered in these programs, the integrated results appear to provide unequivocal evidence of a human capacity to access events remote in space and time, however falteringly, by some cognitive process not yet understood.

LINK

It should be pointed out, however, that "remote viewing" is NOT the same thing as an "out of body experience." The ability to remotely view distant places does not indicate that a "soul" ever left the body or that the physical human brain is not responsible for this phenomenon.

In addition, all of the "remote viewers" I have personally heard (many of them keep blogs) have failed utterly to predict anything outside of expected statistical accuracy. Much of what they claim to "see" cannot be proven either way. After all, it's impossible to verify if a crashed UFO in the Russian hinterlands actually exists, for example.

As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out but leaning heavily toward finding the defendant guilty of nonexistence.

by Tosh Sun May 05, 2013 9:39 pm

As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out but leaning heavily toward finding the defendant guilty of nonexistence.

I mourn for your mind and being, and no, I don't love you.

by Shirina Sun May 05, 2013 9:42 pm

I mourn for your mind and being, and no, I don't love you.

Well, I'm going to be just like YHWH and be jealous that Snowy has someone who loves her, but you don't love me ... me, me, me!. *harumph*

by Tosh Sun May 05, 2013 9:46 pm

Well, I'm going to be just like YHWH and be jealous that Snowy has someone who loves her, but you don't love me ... me, me, me!.

Is that YHWH with a " J " ? Very Happy

Only kidding Texas.

by Guest Mon May 06, 2013 2:44 am

Shirina wrote:
Well, I'm going to be just like YHWH and be jealous that **** has someone who loves her, but you don't love me ... me, me, me!. *harumph*

Actually, I do. On an occasion when you opened up, you touched my heart forever.

by Tosh Mon May 06, 2013 12:07 pm

Actually, I do. On an occasion when you opened up, you touched my heart forever.

I opened up on you and I didn't touch your heart forever, now that hurts.

by oftenwrong Mon May 06, 2013 5:14 pm

Is it time to throw a bucket of water over this thread?

by Tosh Mon May 06, 2013 9:23 pm

Is it time to throw a bucket of water over this thread?

I mourn for your heart and soul.

by polyglide Tue May 07, 2013 2:30 pm

At last Snowyflake I have it.

Most men have hitches during life that can affect their behaviour, no doubt certified by somer posts.

I realy thought you were in your first childhood and not the second.

Females of the human kind have a pause and this can affect them in different ways, some recover and lead a normal life, others take up activities in a biased and less that truethful manner, irrespective of any other consideration.

They seem to loose all sense of reason and reality.

I realy feel for them.

by Tosh Tue May 07, 2013 4:33 pm

polyglide, you are slime.

by Guest Thu May 09, 2013 1:06 am

United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama II, AIPAC speech, 2 March 2007, Chicago, Illinois. Text as prepared for delivery.
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama As Prepared for Delivery, AIPAC Policy Forum, March 2, 2007, Chicago, Illinois

Back in January of 2006, I made my first trip to the Holy Land.

On my journey that January day, I flew on an IDF helicopter to the border zone.

I could truly see how close everything is and why peace through security is the only way for Israel.

Our helicopter landed in the town of Kiryat Shmona on the border.

I saw a house that had been hit with one of Hezbollah’s Katyusha rockets.

The family who lived in the house was lucky to be alive. They had been asleep in another part when the rocket hit. They described the explosion. They talked about the fire and the shrapnel.

… six months after I visited, Hezbollah launched four thousand rocket attacks…

… peace through security is the only way for Israel…

Israel had unilaterally withdrawn from Lebanon only to have Iran supply Hezbollah with thousands of rockets.

Our job is to… help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision.

That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy.

By Lynn Sweet on March 2, 2007 2:35 PM

Retrieved 31 March 2012 from http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/obamas_aipac_speech_text_as_pr.html

Thread topic: To hate Jews is to hate God

United States President Barack Hussein Obama II does not hate God.

by polyglide Fri May 10, 2013 10:50 am

There is only one hope for the world and the chances are that the end will come before the the majority realise the fact.

That is for no one to hate anyone.

by Tosh Fri May 10, 2013 12:00 pm

There is only one hope for the world and the chances are that the end will come before the the majority realise the fact.That is for no one to hate anyone.

Humans have been around for at least 100,000 years, the majority hated everyone but their tribe and we are still here, God must not care that much.

You apocalyptics are just bad guessers.

by snowyflake Fri May 10, 2013 7:38 pm

Females of the human kind have a pause and this can affect them in different ways, some recover and lead a normal life, others take up activities in a biased and less that truethful manner, irrespective of any other consideration.

Hmmmm. Since you are not an expert and probably have had limited contact, due to several restraining orders, of 'females of the human kind', we can all take this comment with a nanogram of sodium chloride.

If you can't debate with facts, there is no point in debating. Facts are verifiable information with evidence to support the statement. So far you lose on all counts. You present no facts, no supporting arguments and you try to resort to petty childish insults that actually make you look stupid.

As a teacher, Shirina would write 'Must do better' on your report.

by polyglide Sat May 11, 2013 11:15 am

Yes, Yes, Snowyflake you just prove my point over and over and over again and again.

No originality, no common sense and unable to reply in any sensible manner to anything.

If Shirina is, or was, a good teacher your report would be.

Is very TRYING.

by oftenwrong Sat May 11, 2013 11:25 am

A resort to ad hominem cricism is an admission that the argument is lost.

by polyglide Sat May 11, 2013 11:28 am

Yes, just look at Snowyflakes previous posts

by snowyflake Sat May 11, 2013 11:38 am

A resort to ad hominem cricism is an admission that the argument is lost.

It's preferable to have a discussion rather than an argument. Arguments come down to an is-not-is-too format, which is what most interactions with polyglide are.

So I'm going to challenge polyglide to come up with one verifiable fact about Jesus and God that we can discuss in a civilised manner.

I'm going to file my nails. Smile

by polyglide Sat May 11, 2013 12:23 pm

Snowyflake, at last you have said something with which I agree 100%.

Unfortunately, I have to go and feed my animals, rest assured I will take you up on this and trust there will be no sarcastic remarks involved on either side.

regards.

by Tosh Sat May 11, 2013 1:08 pm

rest assured I will take you up on this

You are making false promises, if there was one verifiable fact about God or Jesus then there would be no need for faith.

by snowyflake Sat May 11, 2013 1:51 pm

You are making false promises, if there was one verifiable fact about God or Jesus then there would be no need for faith.

Of course, he can't find a verifiable fact about God or Jesus. Delusion is a psychological protection system. At the heart of religious belief is fear. Fear of death, fear of not being. And denial. Denial of facts and evidence. In some ways, believers are arrogant beyond comprehension because they believe they are SOOOO important to a GOD that God takes a personal interest in their own lives and God does this with billions of people over the course of our history. How far up your own bum do you have to be to think that an invisible friend is watching over you and your petty problems? My guess is pretty far.

by polyglide Mon May 13, 2013 3:21 pm

Snowyflake, I have replied to your request on another site, please read and consider without sarcasm as we agreed.

by snowyflake Mon May 13, 2013 8:46 pm

Snowyflake, I have replied to your request on another site, please read and consider without sarcasm as we agreed.

Sarcastic? Me?? Never. Smile

by polyglide Tue May 14, 2013 2:43 pm

How can anyone be adamant about a subject they reject out of hand?

I doubt if Snowyflake understands Christianity, she obviously has doubts and fears about death or she would not keep mentioning it.

Whilst I am sure most Christians would like to enjoy a long and fruitful life, after having condsidered all the pomises made by God they also have little fear of death.

It is those with no future either on earth or in heaven who are fearful.

Einstein's best quote was ' The armament industry is indeed one of the greatest dangers that beset mankind.

It is the hidden power behind the nationalism which is rampant everywhere.

Along with the above he could have added the athiests.

by Tosh Tue May 14, 2013 6:15 pm

Whilst I am sure most Christians would like to enjoy a long and fruitful life, after having condsidered all the pomises made by God they also have little fear of death.

The reason you embrace primitive immortal beliefs is because you are scared of mortality, its obvious.

by snowyflake Tue May 14, 2013 7:40 pm

How can anyone be adamant about a subject they reject out of hand?

LOL!! Hilarious.

I doubt if Snowyflake understands Christianity, she obviously has doubts and fears about death or she would not keep mentioning it.

My worst fears were during my Christianity. Having accepted that the existence of supernatural beings is unlikely and highly improbable, I do not fear death. I will die one day hopefully having lived a full and happy life that has been filled with the love of my family, friends and my husband.

Whilst I am sure most Christians would like to enjoy a long and fruitful life, after having condsidered all the pomises made by God they also have little fear of death.

They believe that they will have eternal life with God. It's delusion. You are lying to yourself and you lie to others so they will believe as you do. There is comfort in numbers.

It is those with no future either on earth or in heaven who are fearful.

When you die you die. When your brain dies, you die. That's it. I don't mind if it makes you more comfortable with your death to believe that when you die you will go somewhere nice and live happily ever after. But don't kid yourself that it is anything other than delusion. And what you believe should be a private matter and you shouldn't be lying to others just to bump up your own belief system.

Einstein's best quote was ' The armament industry is indeed one of the greatest dangers that beset mankind.

Hmmmm.

It is the hidden power behind the nationalism which is rampant everywhere.

Hmmmmm.

Along with the above he could have added the athiests.

Atheists don't generally go around arming themselves to the teeth and killing others in the name of atheism. For that kind of craziness you need to go to America where the believers are better armed than the police.

by Shirina Tue May 14, 2013 9:57 pm

Along with the above he could have added the athiests.

Right ... because the most commonly heard words shouted by a terrorist before blowing himself up is, "For atheism! For science!"

by starlight07 Tue May 14, 2013 10:03 pm

To hate humanity is to hate God.

by Guest Wed May 15, 2013 1:28 pm

snowyflake wrote:
They believe that they will have eternal life with God. It's delusion.

Since you are one who chooses not to follow Y’shua’s teachings, you have no experiential knowledge upon which to base your conclusion; accordingly, your conclusion is based upon speculation rather than expertise.

by Guest Wed May 15, 2013 2:04 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Atheists don't generally go around arming themselves to the teeth and killing others in the name of atheism. For that kind of craziness you need to go to America where the believers are better armed than the police.

Each of the following statements is truth.

A person armed himself to the teeth and massacred humans in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. It is unclear at this time whether or not he is an atheist.

A person armed himself to the teeth and massacred humans in Aurora, Colorado. It is unclear at this time whether or not he is an atheist.

Two gunmen, both atheists, armed themselves to the teeth and massacred humans in Columbine, Colorado. A young woman identified herself as a Christian; she was murdered by the two atheists because she so identified herself.

Joseph Stalin was an atheist. Pol Pot was an atheist. Joseph Stalin exterminated millions in the name (onoma) of atheism. Pol Pot exterminated millions in the name (onoma) of atheism. I do not know if either armed himself to the teeth.

By definition, atheists are believers; thus, the Columbine atheists who armed themselves to the teeth and massacred humans provide a chilling example of “believers [that] are better armed than the police” in “America.”

by Tosh Wed May 15, 2013 3:49 pm

Joseph Stalin was an atheist. Pol Pot was an atheist. Joseph Stalin exterminated millions in the name (onoma) of atheism. Pol Pot exterminated millions in the name (onoma) of atheism. I do not know if either armed himself to the teeth.

Why do you repeat the same drivel even after it has been proven many times over to be sheer drivel.

Clueless.

by Shirina Wed May 15, 2013 5:12 pm

Pol Pot was an atheist.

Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist.

Joseph Stalin exterminated millions in the name (onoma) of atheism.

Joseph Stalin was raised to be a Catholic Priest and I remain curious as to why his Christianity is shoved aside in all these arguments. Yes, there is no way to get around the fact that in his early career, Stalin made a vast effort to rid Russia of religion, but that had nothing to do with atheism. It was the only way he knew to seize power of the country.

For generations the entire populace of Russia had been taught that the head of state was supposed to be close to god. At the time in question, the head of the church in Russia was a tyrant. The Russians were already disposed to servility and all Stalin did was exploit these two facts, and place himself in the position of god. Once Stalin was firmly seated in office, he revived the Russian Orthodox Church in order to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. Stalin was part of a council convened to elected a new church Patriarch. Then the Russian theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. Even the Moscow Theological Academy Seminary was re-opened, after being closed since 1918.

So, while Stalin was no peach, he was not exactly what you would call a died-in-the-wool atheist. He was more a secular minded religious opportunist, which is a personal character trait. He did not use atheism to gain control, but religious principles that were modified to fit his own, sick and twisted method of revolution.

LINK

By definition, atheists are believers

I have heard the argument so many times from believers who think that atheism is a belief. They compare it to a religion. They say it takes faith. They accuse us of hating god. Believers really need to find another line of fire, as all of these arguments only serve to make them look like complete idiots, which is unnecessary, as many believers are otherwise intelligent individuals. I will not bother to extrapolate the reasons why these are illegitimate arguments, as many of you already know the details.

LINK

by oftenwrong Wed May 15, 2013 5:44 pm

Is it true that atheist canvassers hand out blank tracts?

by Guest Wed May 15, 2013 6:56 pm

Shirina wrote:
I have heard the argument so many times from believers who think that atheism is a belief. They compare it to a religion. They say it takes faith. They accuse us of hating god. Believers really need to find another line of fire, as all of these arguments only serve to make them look like complete idiots, which is unnecessary, as many believers are otherwise intelligent individuals. I will not bother to extrapolate the reasons why these are illegitimate arguments, as many of you already know the details.

LINK

atheist

athe•ist noun \ˈā-thē-ist\

Definition of ATHEIST

: one who believes that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

By definition, an atheist is “one who believes that there is no deity”; thus, by definition, an atheist is a believer.

by Shirina Wed May 15, 2013 7:08 pm

By definition, an atheist is “one who believes that there is no deity”; thus, by definition, an atheist is a believer.

It's a biased definition, one that gives credence to the possibility of a deity. This is the result of a society inculcated into the idea of religious belief.

People are so fearful of giving even accidental insult to religion that even dictionary authors have to pad their definitions with nods to religion.

Even the word "atheist" itself is biased. After all, there are no words describing someone who doesn't believe in fairies, ghosts, UFOs, astrology or the infamous orbiting teapot. So why do we need a word describing those who refuse to accept God on the basis of the evidence (or lack thereof)?

by Guest Wed May 15, 2013 7:17 pm

Shirina wrote:
Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist.

[Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, effective 25 May 2012, states “You are free to: Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge. Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses. Full texts of Terms of Use available below.]
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Pol Pot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General Secretary of the Communist Party of Kampuchea

In office
February 1963 – 1981 (party dissolved)
Deputy - Nuon Chea (as vice-secretary)
Preceded by - Tou Samouth
Succeeded by - None (party dissolved)

Prime Minister of Democratic Kampuchea

In office
17 April 1975 – 27 September 1976
President - Khieu Samphan
Preceded by - Khieu Samphan
Succeeded by - Nuon Chea

In office
25 October 1976 – January 7, 1979
President - Khieu Samphan
Preceded by - Nuon Chea
Succeeded by - Pen Sovan

Personal details

Born - 19 May 1925^[1][2], Kampong Thom Province, French Indochina
Died - 15 April 1998 (aged 72), Anlong Veng, Kingdom of Cambodia
Political party - Communist Party of Kampuchea
Spouse(s) - 1) Khieu Ponnary (div.), 2) Mea Son
Religion - None (atheist)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Terms of Use (Wikipedia), effective May 25, 2012

You are free to:

● Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge.
● Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses.

Terms of Use, full legal text: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_(2012)/en#Our_Terms_of_Use

by Guest Wed May 15, 2013 7:22 pm

Shirina wrote:
I have heard the argument so many times from believers who think that atheism is a belief. They compare it to a religion. They say it takes faith. They accuse us of hating god. Believers really need to find another line of fire, as all of these arguments only serve to make them look like complete idiots, which is unnecessary, as many believers are otherwise intelligent individuals. I will not bother to extrapolate the reasons why these are illegitimate arguments, as many of you already know the details.

LINK

RockOnBrother wrote:
atheist

athe•ist noun \ˈā-thē-ist\

Definition of ATHEIST

: one who believes that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

By definition, an atheist is “one who believes that there is no deity”; thus, by definition, an atheist is a believer.

Shirina wrote:
It's a biased definition, one that gives credence to the possibility of a deity. This is the result of a society inculcated into the idea of religious belief.

People are so fearful of giving even accidental insult to religion that even dictionary authors have to pad their definitions with nods to religion.

Even the word "atheist" itself is biased. After all, there are no words describing someone who doesn't believe in fairies, ghosts, UFOs, astrology or the infamous orbiting teapot. So why do we need a word describing those who refuse to accept God on the basis of the evidence (or lack thereof)?

atheist

athe•ist noun \ˈā-thē-ist\

Definition of ATHEIST

: one who believes that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

by Guest Wed May 15, 2013 7:56 pm

Shirina wrote:
Joseph Stalin was raised to be a Catholic Priest and I remain curious as to why his Christianity is shoved aside in all these arguments. Yes, there is no way to get around the fact that in his early career, Stalin made a vast effort to rid Russia of religion, but that had nothing to do with atheism. It was the only way he knew to seize power of the country.

For generations the entire populace of Russia had been taught that the head of state was supposed to be close to god. At the time in question, the head of the church in Russia was a tyrant. The Russians were already disposed to servility and all Stalin did was exploit these two facts, and place himself in the position of god. Once Stalin was firmly seated in office, he revived the Russian Orthodox Church in order to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. Stalin was part of a council convened to elected a new church Patriarch. Then the Russian theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. Even the Moscow Theological Academy Seminary was re-opened, after being closed since 1918.

So, while Stalin was no peach, he was not exactly what you would call a died-in-the-wool atheist. He was more a secular minded religious opportunist, which is a personal character trait. He did not use atheism to gain control, but religious principles that were modified to fit his own, sick and twisted method of revolution.

LINK

[Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, effective 25 May 2012, states “You are free to: Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge. Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses. Full texts of Terms of Use available below.]
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Joseph Stalin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joseph Stalin
Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин
(Russian)
იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე სტალინი
(Georgian

General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

In office
3 April 1922 – 16 October 1952
Preceded by - Vyacheslav Molotov (as Responsible Secretary)
Succeeded by - Nikita Khrushchev (office reestablished)

Chairman of the Council of Ministers

In office
6 May 1941 – 5 March 1953
First Deputies - Nikolai Voznesensky, Vyacheslav Molotov
Preceded by - Vyacheslav Molotov
Succeeded by - Georgy Malenkov

People's Commissar for Defense of the Soviet Union

In office
19 July 1941 – 25 February 1946
Premier - Himself
Preceded by - Semyon Timoshenko
Succeeded by - Nikolai Bulganin after vacancy

Member of the Secretariat

In office
3 April 1922 – 5 March 1953

Full member of the Presidium

In office
25 March 1919 – 5 March 1953

Member of the Orgburo

In office
16 January 1919 – 5 March 1953

Personal details

Born - 18 December 1878, Gori, Tiflis Governorate, Russian Empire
Died - 5 March 1953 (aged 74), Kuntsevo Dacha near Moscow, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union
Resting place - Lenin's Mausoleum, Moscow, Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (9 March 1953 - 31 October 1961), Kremlin Wall Necropolis, Moscow, Russian Federation (from 31 October 1961)
Nationality - Georgian
Political party - Communist Party of the Soviet Union
Spouse(s) - Ekaterina Svanidze (1906–1907), Nadezhda Alliluyeva (1919–1932)
Children - Yakov Dzhugashvili, Vasily Dzhugashvili, Svetlana Alliluyeva
Religion - None (atheist), formerly Georgian Orthodox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Terms of Use (Wikipedia), effective May 25, 2012

You are free to:

● Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge.
● Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses.

Terms of Use, full legal text: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_(2012)/en#Our_Terms_of_Use

by snowyflake Wed May 15, 2013 8:06 pm

What's the definition of a religious fanatic?

by Guest Wed May 15, 2013 8:18 pm

snowyflake wrote:
What's the definition of a religious fanatic?

religious fanatic

You are seeing web results for religious fanatic because there's not a match on Dictionary.com

http://ask.reference.com/web?s=t&q=religious%20fanatic&l=dir&qsrc=2891&o=10616

by Shirina Wed May 15, 2013 8:43 pm

Pol Pot targeted not just different religions as differences, but education, science and medicine too. Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge were composed of Buddhists and Pol Pot himself was a communist and Theravada Buddhist. Pol Pot studied at a Buddhist monastery (1 year) and then later at a Catholic school (8 years). As for “Collège Preah Sihanouk” and “Lycée Sisowath” I don’t know if they were secular or Buddhist oriented education institutions. Cambodia’s communism was influenced by Theravada Buddhism (the belief system of 95% of the Khmer people) and its teaching to renunciation of the material world as Pol Pot with his followers organized perfectly by smashing cars and modern industrial equipment with hammers.

Buddhists may not believe in God, but Atheists, by comparison, don't believe in anything beyond the natural and observable, heaven included (and Pol Pot’s comparison fellow Hitler in Sihanouk’s description was not an Atheist either). It seems that Pol Pot was not so big an Atheist as some Christians would like to present, mixing communism (social relations between humans) with atheism (humans relations with god) - they are two separate ideologies. The inflammatory comparison between the two is a logical fallacy in which the secular nature of Communism is assumed to justify the conclusion that all secularists are Communists, which is clearly not the case since an attribute of one system may also be an attribute of other systems. The American constitutional republic, for example, is also secular in nature.

LINK

Religion - None (atheist)

P.S. Saying that someone has no religion does NOT make someone an atheist. Even in religious polls here in the US, "atheist" and "non-religious" are two distinct categories.

by Sponsored content