Bart wrote:

BTW she died of typhus, she was not gassed. Not that that is a better way to die, but at least she did not have her modesty abused at the time of her death.

To booktalk.org members:

I have been active in chat rooms, message groups and blogs for about 9 years. I have witnesses some truly silly, stupid, scarey and utterly crazy comments from those who claim Christianity as their belief.

But I will declare here and now, without reservation that the above quote, when coupled with the defense of an indefensibly cruel doctrine, is the most dispicable display if insensitivity, the most grotesque example of twisted thinking, the most hideous lack of a basic sense of human empathy that I ever seen proffered by anyone.

And what makes it doubley dispicable, is the person who wrote that statement and defends that doctrine is incapable of understanding this.

I am grateful that Chris has that rolling menu on the side that tells you who posted last to any discussion thread. This at least permits one to avoid reading complete postings from those who warrant zero attention, and who's postings, in any normal person's parlance, are obscene in their irrationallity.

Bart
aka Dromedary Hump

BArt is an expert at hiding. First he hids behind Chris, then another member, now his inability to deal with discussions. He has yet to explain why his Chapter 2 was not in error.

The modesty I referred to was that she did not have to take her clothse off and be gassed naked.

Your attacks on me were expected.
Your denials of the Bible were expected.
Neither changes the circumstances.


BTW, there is no such thing as a Christian who has not been born again.

Your attacks on me were expected.
Your denials of the Bible were expected.
Neither changes the circumstances.

It is unfortunate that you are not willing to listen to or respect other people's ideas.

I came to this particular topic because it was labelled 'The Diary of Anne Frank', and as I'm Dutch this is one particular subject that is very close to me. Almost every year I am taught something new about World War II. I have read the diary itself three times and last year I visited Camp Westerbork.
So naturally I was very unpleasantly surprised when I realised it wasn't about Anne Frank herself or the diary at all (why name the topic thus?), but about religion.
I'm an atheist myself, but everyone should have the right to believe anything he or she wants, provided people do not hurt each other with violence or hate for religious purposes.

Suzanne said:

I now have a visual of people in white, listening to harps, floating on clouds, eating ambrosia, all the while sniggering about the torture of innocent people. It suggests to me, that those in “heaven”, without “watching” receive satisfaction somehow from the suffering of those in “hell”. This leads me to the conclusion, that believers here on Earth, get satisfaction from the sufferings of people here on Earth.

I had the exact same visual and then I wondered, 'Shouldn't Christians, out of all people, be forgiving?'
After all, Anne Frank was a girl who did believe in God, just not in Jesus Christ. And I absolutely agree with CTW36:

Think about how it is only by chance of fate that you weren't born into those same circumstances, to be raised as a Jew, to be taken prisoner, to be tortured and die and then be tortured eternally in hell only because you believed the faith that you were taught by your parents.

“The modesty I referred to was that she did not have to take her close off and be gassed naked.”

I find it interesting how, when discussing the relative horrors of being gassed to death versus the slower, but still awful expiry due to Typhus, our religious advocate has zoomed in to the issue of nudity.

This seems to me to be a common thread in religious thought. Christians are pretty obsessive about covering up; this is no small issue for them. Officials at CBS got a taste of what it was like to be crucified after singer Janet Jackson’s micro-exposure stunt during a football game a few years back. This debate moved beyond comment about good taste and into the truly dysfunctional, before it ran its course. And if Christians are obsessive, then Muslims border on psychotic. Women covered from head to toe, because men can’t stand to look at ankles and wrists, never mind anything else? This is pretty weird stuff.

When twisting and squirming to escape reality, some confrontations are easier than others to get away from. If our spiritual advisor stahrwe decided he has had enough debate, he could just not tune in to BT again, for example. We can withdraw from ideas, from people or locations. We don’t have to read what we don’t want, and can eliminate what we don’t want to see from the media stream, for the most part. If things get extreme enough, we can drop friends, move away from family, change jobs, and set up in another city.

But one thing that is very hard to escape from is our bodies, and in close proximity, our sexuality. We can run, but these will keep pace with us. What we can’t escape takes on more importance. You might be able to tolerate that obnoxious bore at the party, because you are leaving in an hour, but if he moves in next door, emotions ratchet up to another level. Maybe this is what the religious segment feels so defensive about. This is reality, and a reality that is very close to home, and it can’t be changed. These are physical facts we are stuck with, and they diverge from religious dogma at a number of points. This crashes their well constructed environment, an assertive and challenging guest at an otherwise sedate and subdued garden party, and one that won’t leave, even after being threatened with police eviction.

Well, I’m just ruminating, but I think there must be something going on here. Throwing in nudity with the gruesome events surrounding Anne Frank seems to me a red flag.

Etudiant,

imagine... arrested, sent to a concentration camp, watching your sibling die, then suffering death by disease, then according to christianity's loving doctrine burning in hell forever... an innocent teenage girl vitimized by horrific people and a horrific doctrine.

And all that is considered is her nudity and modesty. And so happy she didn't have to suffer that indignity.
Yes, you are correct. That that insignifcant in the scheme of things issue is raised and held as a primary focus is beyond peculiar, it's fucking sick... and so Christian.

In a nut shell it comes down to : "She gets what she deserves in Hell, but at least she wasn't naked in her last moments on earth."

So much for the christian claim to holding the high ground on morality, ethics, or loving kindness. I'm disgusted.

You bring up a good point etudiant about red flags. I have found more than one in this thread. I for one, do not appreciate seeing traps set for members here at BT, and this thread is just that.

lottebeertje wrote:

I came to this particular topic because it was labelled 'The Diary of Anne Frank', and as I'm Dutch this is one particular subject that is very close to me. Almost every year I am taught something new about World War II. I have read the diary itself three times and last year I visited Camp Westerbork.
So naturally I was very unpleasantly surprised when I realised it wasn't about Anne Frank herself or the diary at all (why name the topic thus?), but about religion.
I'm an atheist myself, but everyone should have the right to believe anything he or she wants, provided people do not hurt each other with violence or hate for religious purposes.

I clicked onto this thread because I too believed it was about Anne Frank. What a suprise. This is upsetting to me. Weeks ago, a thread was started disussing the "Narnia" books, and how two fantasy writers knew each other. The discussion quickly turned towards religion by stahrwe, it turned off topic, it could have been interesting, but was distroyed. Religion has its place here, but it's not right for one member to hide it in a thread called, "The Diary of Anne Frank" for unwary members to stumble into, much like a trap.

Seespot made the comment when this tread started that it may have been used to get people riled up. I believe this to be true. BT is an arena where many topics are discussed, it disturbs me to realize that a member can click onto a topic, such as "The Diary of Anne Frank" and be bombarded with a religious discussion and a perverted one at that. I view the comments from stahrwe about Anne Frank to be twisted and perverted and I do not see that this perverse mentality will ever change.

Bart wrote:

I am grateful that Chris has that rolling menu on the side that tells you who posted last to any discussion thread. This at least permits one to avoid reading complete postings from those who warrant zero attention, and who's postings, in any normal person's parlance, are obscene in their irrationallity.

I agree!

Bart wrote: In a nut shell it comes down to : "She gets what she deserves in Hell, but at least she wasn't naked in her last moments on earth."

So much for the christian claim to holding the high ground on morality, ethics, or loving kindness. I'm disgusted.

Granted, this is probably the view of only a small minority of Christians, right? Let's not generalize based on what a YEC says.

You are right Geo.

This topic has been very upsetting to me. I did my own little poll on this question, and across the board, Christians, including many catholics answered that no, Anne Frank is not suffering in hell. In fact, many people were disgusted at the thought. My husband, a catholic, thought this stance is very judgemental. Two people, including my husband, mentioned that the Jewish religion worships the same God as Christians. Why would the same God have two sets of rules. Also, when I was a child, attending a Methodist Church, I was instructed that Jesus was just an ordinary man, a human man. This view would also warrant a trip to hell, I suppose.

I have taken comfort in these responses, and it has reinforced my belief in humankind.

Geo said:

Granted, this is probably the view of only a small minority of Christians, right? Let's not generalize based on what a YEC says.

Suzanne said:

I did my own little poll on this question

Geo, Suzanne,

I fear you are not seeing the whole truth of the matter. Suzanne, I'm thinking your informal poll isn't broad enough to be meaningful / accurate.

Christian Universalists, those who have modified New Testament doctrine so that eveyone gets to heaven, is a very small minority of Christians. It is looked at as a heretical position by the vast majority of Christian churches and their followers.

Adopting that view is seen as trying to water down, modernize belief, and make it warm and fuzzy / kinder gentler in direct contradiction to the words of Jesus and the apostles that the only way to the Father is through the Son.

While there are conflcting passages about good works being a way to heaven, and good works accounting for nothing without belief in Jesus as saviour, the latter is the dominant and prevailing Christian belief.

Google "Christian Universalism". Wiki has a good short synopisis on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Universalism

Naturally, I'd like to think that Christians who focus more on the nudity/modesty of a Holocaust victim, than the horror of Xtian doctrine are in a very small minority of sickos. But when it comes to expressing what happens to non-believers after death, he is simply being truthful to Christian doctrine.

Suzanne , just an FYI... while your Methodist pastor may have said Jesus was just a man, you may have mis intepretted it . That, or it is in contradiction to official Methodist doctrine in which Jesus is viewed as "fully human and fully God" to Methodists, just as he is for Catholics.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/ponti ... on_en.html