I like your Christ
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.” — Gandhi
(Westboro Baptist Church members)
picture: irulez. lol caption: SH313
You May Like:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous You win this round, Blagojevich | Vatican carnival game Next »
First
Come on, bring on those useful tidbits. I dare you…
Try putting the hard drive in the freezer for an hour or so. Then connect it up real quick and you could have ten to twenty minutes where the data will be recoverable.
Don’t forget to put it in a ziploc bag. You don’t want moisture in the connectors!
Technology is a cold mistress!
badum tshh
With very pointy nipples and blue lips…
And her breath is fresh! Fresh like a north pole breeze…
and Mentos!
This is no longer likely to work with modern hard drives. If the problem is loose or damaged electronics, it may work, but this has never been a common reason for hard drive failure. Head stack misalignment was another possible cause, but today’s drives have superior servo motors that usually negate this problem. If the problem is stiction, i.e. the heads sticking to the platter, this may work. However, modern hard drives have several mechanisms that make this problem unlikely. First, they no longer use the same lubricant. In older drives, the lubricant would break down and get sticky. Freezing it made it easier for the head to break free. Second, and more importantly, newer hard drives have a ramp on the landing zone that raises the head away from the platters when the drive powers down or goes idle.
Nowadays, the recommended home remedy is known as ‘percussive therapy.’ Yes, you get to play Fonzie and smack the thing to make it work.
I had a hard drive that died in a house fire. It wouldn’t turn, so we tried the freezing AND whacking method, but, alas, the disc still wouldn’t turn.
I think your only option in such a case is a seance. XD
If the metal got hot enough to let the magnetic domains wiggle around, there’s simply nothing you can do in a case like this. However, the electronics would be damaged far before that point, so the solution in that case is to find an identical drive, remove the circuit boards from both, and replace the burnt one with the good one. Then, if the data is still on the drive, you can get at it.
Well, the circuit board was ok. The computer could read its existence as a slave drive, but couldn’t actually access the disk. I think the seance is my only option.
I use the four-inch-drop technique. I had a drive last four years after I used that trick. I doubt everyone is that lucky.
ummmm……
From Martha Stewart’s website:
Cut, fresh oranges to slough dry skin off heels, knees, and elbows.
How will cutting oranges have any effect on my heels, knees and elbows?
LOL touche!
While this was a callous response, I loofah’d my ass off.
*facepalm*
Sorry, didn’t mean to be rough on the guy.
In which case, I’d say making another sloughing
pumice in poor form …
Please, please, stop the abrasive comments!
Why, are you not thick-skinned?
Too many oranges…
Do it too much and you get the whole ‘Hellraiser’ thing going on…
THATS WHAT SHE SAID!
By the way, everyone, these are not Christians in any way or form.
To be Christian is to be Christ-like. That is where the word comes from. Now if you look in the bible and see what Christ was like, he never condemned anyone, and he loved everyone.
These people are ignorant, extremist bigots who give a terrible name to Christians.
You can’t just call yourself a Christian and be one. You have to walk the walk.
And the walk is love. For everyone regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, political view, etc.
Then there are very, very few Christians.
We try.
I’m sure.
I mean – I am sure there are people under all “labels” who try to live in a way that they are sure is the best for everyone.
But.
There are many Christians who don’t try to disregard “race, gender, sexual orientation, political view, etc.”
(Sorry – just got hung up on your “We” there.)
You’re right. There aren’t that many.
But then again, I’m not a Christian, but I follow Christ.
Labels bring baggage.
I figure just following Jesus’ ideals is good enough for me.
But you don’t believe in Jesus Christ as the son of (and aspect of) God or that he died to absolve sins, and all that?
(now I’m just curious, not just getting anywhere with this, I think)
i believe in the bible as the irrefutable word of God.
i just find that corporate religion usually leads to religious corruption.
i attend church. at my church we have a viewpoint that is we should love everyone unconditionally.
no matter what person walks through the door, they will find peace, comfort, and brotherly (or sisterly) love.
Now I’m utterly confused.
How are you not a Christian?
Unitarian…
*aahs and oohs*
Thanks, that seems a plausible answer.
Oh wow, I thought I was the only Unitarian on here. I don’t feel so alone any more.
I need to work on loving the people who hate me, though. I’ve gotten to ‘You live your life, I’ll live mine, and we can get along’; but haven’t gotten
past returning fire to those who condemn me.
Oh well, it should come in time.
It turned out Jojo is not a Unitarian, but a Christian who prefers not to go by the label Christian. You’ll have to keep looking, in other words. There might well be others here.
Because what the world defines as Christian is what
you see in the picture above. I jumped that ship so that I wouldn’t
be lumped in with the very small percentage of “Christians” in the world
who are really just bigots or nutjobs who hold on to the label
because they have a misconstrued idea of what it means.
You managed to be both bigoted and an nutjob all on your own then…:)
Congrats!
Okay, so you are really a Christian, but don’t call yourself that?
The whole lake of fire apologia suggest you are correct!
Well, if Fester’s arguments are correct, if you were accused of being a hateful bigot every time someone found out you had a religion, would you want to be lumped in with that? Not that I agree with that strategy, but I understand it.
Oh, I understand it too.
I think that Jojo later establishes that
1) She’s pretending not to be a Christian when she cleraly is… so much for courage of convictions
2) Holds most of the nastiest of the mainstream views and several the civilised world kicked out as ‘barbaric’ during the Enlightenment.
-
So, she’s not only a liar and a hypocrite, but a coward…
Can you see no good in anybody or anything at all? Why do you always think the worst?
Are you pessimistic because you’re old? What’s wrong with being optimistic or at least givng somebody the benefit of the doubt?
OK, little Mary Sunshine, spin that harridan’s bile into something positive…
“We should love everyone unconditionally.”
Says she. That sounds fairly positive.
That’s it? one poxy line? Well, you’ve swayed me… I was all wrong about her…
Actually, that buys nothing against the back drop of just nastiness down the line, unless you buy that view too…
Ok, that’s the first thing I saw. I wasn’t searching hugely as (at 1300+ comments) This is a long page. (Longest ever?)
-
I read Jojo’s comments to find the nastiness you mentioned. I found some stuff about unconditional love. Ok. I found some stuff about why she didn’t like the label Christian and some stuff about God’s love that didn’t seem particularly offensive. (People may not agree with it but it wasn’t hate filled.)
-
I did find one instance where she patronised Starrfade: (“lamb’s wool”) that was mean. However, I don’t think your problem was with that one comment, I think it was because she said that “belittling people of faith,” as you do, was just as bad as hating gays.
Mostly I get a sense of confusion from them (selection of quotes):
“at my church we have a viewpoint that is we should love everyone unconditionally”
“Now in my church, I am strictly against gay marriage. But outside of my church, in this great nation of ours, which my church does not control, I am indifferent.”
“Don’t blame your own sinful nature on God.”
“But if you don’t follow God, you follow Satan. /…/Satan and all of his followers will be cast into the lake of fire.”
…and a final, more specifically directed sample:
“Uncle Fester once again shows how ignorant he can be.
He is like a festering scab on the skin of society. One that should just be pluck off and flicked into the trash, where he belongs.”
Find the bit about Hell? There’s some pretty unpleasant stuff in there
I offered to save her a seat, but TBH, I think she’s already in one of her own making…
And belittling people of ‘faith’ isn’t the same thing, unless you subscribe to the notion that ‘gay’ is as much a choice as ‘faith’…
@Danbala: Jings, I missed that last quote… Yeah, that’s nasty…
@Fester: my 4:47am post was, originally, meant to mean in general…
Erm, I’d beg to differ. We were talking only of Jojo’s psychosis, and there is no indication you meant it as ‘general’ when you typed it…
Thus, I repeat, does Jojo’s single, rather rote, mouthing of ‘unconditional this and that’ really ring true with the rest of her output?
She had no right to call you a “festering scab on the skin of society,” but seriously, Fester, how do you expect her to react, how do you
expect someone to react when you viciously attack her core beliefs? I think she reacted exactly as you expected her to; you pushed until she snapped.
I think the point here is that Jojo starts out by being very Love-oriented, saying that the Westboro Baptist Nutjobs are not Christian, because it’s not meant to be about hatred, but it takes only a couple of posts on the Internet to show a very different set of core beliefs in behaviour.
.
But then, if I lived with beliefs based on a god of unconditional love and also that everyone who does not follow said god would burn in a lake of fire, I’d probably be very near snapping-level most of the time.
Doesn’t something have to be flawless and non-contradictory
to be irrefutable?
Never understood that one as it was always thrown up there like, flawless, bla bla, words that were handed down from god, bla bla bla.
If that was the case, are you telling me that the god inspired Moses to write
in the first and third person? As well as about his whole life up until after he died.
Which version/edition of the Bible is the irrefutable word of God? Which printing press is the irrefutable printing press of God? Which font is the irrefutable font of God? Which contradictory passages from any of several of the hundreds of versions of the irrefutable word of God is the correct and irrefutable passage that contradicts the other irrefutable, and yet somehow contradictory, word of God?
Color me Baffled by this adherence to the edited, revised, translated, assumed and poorly understood work of historical fiction. It is a rich fountain of knowledge that has been filtered and altered innumerable times so that the original language of the original story is lost to the ages. When God hands me a copy of his word I will believe it is his word. When Pat Robertson asks for my Mother’s money at the same time he is condemning me to Hell with that manufactured, man made, buy it off of any bookstore shelf, commercial product, forgive me if I am absolutely certain that any godliness it might have contained in posterity, has been leached away and replaced with a profitable publication that is useful for controlling the sheep.
Honestly.
Amen.
Cheers to that!
I’m not Christian.. but I wish more could all be like what you just said. Because you are right, they give you guys a truly horrible name. THESE are the “Christians” that you see everywhere, and these are the people I think of when I think of someone who is Christian, as bad as it sounds. They really do ruin an image that shouldn’t be.
Make love, not war! For we are all the same species when it comes down to it.
There honestly aren’t a many of them as you seem to think – there are more than there need to be, to be sure, but the fact is that one stupid, loudmouthed jerk gets more press than a dozen quiet, unassuming folks ever will. He’s a charicature, not a representative.
Quiet and unassuming in their bigotry, safe in the knowledge of who god told them to hate
It is a bigoted thought to assume another bigoted and hateful in the quiet of their mind.
Or someone who’s had practical experience of the same sort of mealy mouthed apologist you appear to be, certainly judging by the level of post you come up with…
Could you elucidate your meaning, Uncle Fester? nlphippps didn’t seem particularly “mealy-mouthed” (“avoiding the use of direct and plain language, as from timidity, excessive delicacy, or hypocrisy; inclined to mince words; insincere, devious, or compromising”) to me. And one way or another almost everyone on this site could qualify as an “apologist.”
Since you appear to be the same cloth, I’m not overly surprised…
It’s one of those ‘trying to teach a pig to sing’ problems… I would simply waste my time and annoy the pig…
That seems rather unfair to me. Honestly, it’s responses like this that make me want to just say “to Hell with it.” Assuming sincerity on your part, Fester (and I have no reason yet to doubt you), I can’t help but observe the irony of condemning prejudice while at the same time directing it against another group. With a welcome like this, it’s no wonder more moderate and liberal Christians aren’t vocalizing their support.
Westboro Baptist Church is not an accurate representation of Christianity in general, nor even of Baptists in particular. As has been pointed out, most of his “church” are also members of his family. Which is not to say that homophobia and bigotry aren’t problems within the institutions of the religion, but people like this tool escalate it to incredible levels.
I could try to make all sorts of arguments against this sort of attitude, attempt to present examples that Christian ideology isn’t nearly as unilateral on these issues as you seem to prefer to think…
Eh, have it your way. The world’s a simple division of “Us” and “Them” with no ambiguity or complexity to make your head hurt. Don’t mind me, I’ll just go misspell an offensive banner and practice my mouth-breathing.
TBH, I’ve not seen a Liberal Christian (other than Spong) who, when you scratch the surface are any more egalitarian than the Westboro lot… so why do you think I should treat them differently than I would the Westboro crowd?
You have not met my mom. I am not a Christian (or Catholic) myslef any longer, but I have always been able to respect my mom’s belief and practice as a devout Catholic that ignores the homophobia and bigotry that the leadership and other members often spout. It is possible Fester- just because you have not met them does not mean they are not real. They are not common I would have to agree though- to give you some support in your POV, the homophobia and bigotry are usually only slightly disguised under hyperbolic rhetoric. Chris woudl probably not be thrilled- but that is assuming I know God and Christ’s thoughts- and I don’t, that is why I left the church- pretending that one group KNOWS thought their prayer that another groups is wrong even though their prayer tells them they are right—-we do not actually know. period.
nice to know the Normal distribution curve does have a far end…
Uncle Fester! The ‘your mom’ joke was right there!
I was leaving that to the more desperate Christians who need the points on this thread…
The benefit of a doubt, maybe? The moral high ground. Common courtesy. Political expedience. The Golden Rule. A general acknowledgement that a person is a little bit more than the sum of his labels. I don’t know, I just always sort of thought that’s how tolerance and understanding worked. Of course, I’m only assuming those are at all desirable values.
Doesn’t look like you’re trying very hard to scratch the surface, ATM; looks to me more like you’re spoiling for a fight.
But, in deference to your obviously superior experience, I’m not going to push it. I’m not going to agree that anyone who calls himself Christian and claims to have no problem with same-sex love (or just same-sex sex) is just deluding himself about at least one of these two ideas, but I’m not pursue this meaningless debate any further; if I fight you on it, I’m only reinforcing the image of intolerance an self-righteousness, and if I remain silent I only contribute to the absence of evidence for an “egalitarian” Christian.
Given that I lose either way, I’ll opt for the one that’s less work.
Have a nice day
Well, Matt,
that was a lot of words to say nothing much while admitting that the dear old Christian is basically an intolerant, judgemental SOB who seems to get off on classing everyone as a sinner in the name of their despotic, undead, god….
Yes, Christians classify EVERYONE (including THEMSELVES) as sinners). The only difference is that they are forgiven of their sin.
And, as a Christian, I don’t hate anyone, especially those with sexual kinks. Because then I’d be a hypocrite and have to hate myself.
You missed the despotic undead god part…
And while ever you call anyone but your self a sinner then you have a problem…it’s called being an arsehole…
Blatant hypocrisy FTL
Indeed, that would the the case…
Yeah, the WBC is pretty small…but they make such an impact you see em everywhere. It is pretty much Fred Phelps and his family. Their website scares the pants off me. I wish God would be ironic and smite them with fire.
Eerrrrr… I don’t wish bad things on people.
But it would SO ironic.
were u dropped as a child?
So utterly this.
The Bible in 12 words: Book One: Do what God says; Book Two: Be NICE to people. = )
There is the third law of robotics… except where it contradicts book 1
Show me the contradictions.
Oh, Lord, please don’t get into that argument. There are too many contradictios to mention.
Mention them. Keep them in context. You can’t win a debate or argument by saying “there are too many to list”.
No one is likely to win an argument or a debate when the the problem has been resolved to no one satifaction since the canon was decided at Trentino…
TBH, no one really want to hear you preach on the subject, but Frou is too polite to say, Yo! Arsewipe, we’ve all heard it before…
You lost what few manners I have with zealots when you claimed historical veracity and invariance with time… so I have few qualms about saying, Yo! arsewipe, we’ve all heard it before and we don’t need another mono-braincelled muppet who’d drag us back to the bronze age to tell us it again…
I’m sorry, but that is completely untrue. If you look in the Bible, Jesus condemned many people to Hell, mainly anyone that didn’t follow him. He said it was better to abandon your children, parents, wife, husband, etc. and follow him than to stay with them and not follow him.
Thankyou xxx
You are totally and utterly incorrect. Show me one verse where Jesus condemns anyone or anything. (Minus the Fig tree, that’s the only time he ever condemned anything.)
What about the sin of omission?
What he *didn’t* condemn, e.g. slavery?
What omission? When did He approve slavery?
Why do you think he was silent on the matter?
Silence often condones the actions of others.
Right. Because Jesus had his own slave and wanted to keep him, right?
Hey it’s a fair question.
The question is fair, yes. The “silence is consent” comment is an assumtion.
As I understand the historical context, Jesus did not condemn slavery because it is directly sanctioned in the Old Testament. Remember, Jesus was not technically a Christian in a historical sense. He was a Jewish radical reformist, and as such he was trying to get other Jewish people to interpret the Torah and other holy books in a different way, not trying to start a new and separate religion.
And to be fair, Jesus also condemned the money-changers in the temple. Maybe not in specific words, but I don’t think you can get much more condemned than being driven out with a whip.
Well, Jesus actually does comment on slavery… he does not disapprove of it in the comment. Also, the bible does outright condone slavery… A point which the Bible and Qur’an agree on nearly word for word is that when you sell slaves, male slaves are worth about twice as much as female slaves.
that…does not condone slavery. If you want something to not exist, you don’t normally make a business plan for it
Wha? Yeah, it was condoned, so they made a business plan for it. Nothing incongruous about that.
@FaileV: … Are you thinking “condemn” instead of “condone” there, or something?
.
(Hur, hur, I ALMOST said condome, hur, hur.)
And you’re going to take a *ribbing* for it …
can you refer me to those verses that describe Jesus condoning or not condemning slavery?
He certainly didn’t mention to the Centurion that slavery wasn’t a good thing, now did he? And there was a great moment for it… Paul more or less tells people to suck it up on the whole slavery thing, and the OT has vast rules about how to own slaves, people selling their family as slaves and what price God said to take for them…
Over all, the white slave owners used the bible to great effect in their justification of the ownership, and husbandry, of slaves until the War of Northern Aggression (I can only assume you’re a southerner) ended all that in the great American tradition of War as business by other means…
But the OT also said that slaves had to be freed in the “Jubilee” year (every 50th year in the Jewish calendar). Also, all property had to be returned to the original owner if it was taken for payment of debt.
Um… isnt the bible a book written by a second party “source”.. basically revised thousands of times over the eons? Wouldnt that mean that some of the content has been edited, omitted or even just plain wrong because some guy in the 14th century decided that because everyone in his country was white, or bearded, or tall, that jesus should be too? I really dont put much stock in the bible as a reference source. its a book of short stories thats interesting to read, but not meant to be a “life for dummies” manual IMO. The great thing about life is that we’re all entitled to our opinion, even these Westboro ppl. If i remember correctly, these actions they perpetrate against others will come to justice when its time for them to be judged. For me, God is pretty cool, but I’m not a church person. My mother is what some like to call a “Jesus freak”. that turned me from the church. Doesnt mean one cant believe in God.
Jesus’s main point to all of his teachings was to love one another! He lived among the sinners, the prostitutes, the untouchables, for it is not the healthy that need a doctor, but the sick. He said that the greatest commandment was LOVE. “Christians” who preach hate and fear bother me sooo much.
however, Jesus/God also hates evil: Satan and sin. he does condemn those who sin against him, BUT HE ALSO FORGIVES. a billion times. The Bible says he’s like our Father, so when we disobey his laws (which he has in place to protect us, because he loves us) he gets upset (like our parents) but he still loves you unconditionally (like our parents… ideally).
“He said it was better to abandon your children, parents, wife, husband, etc. and follow him than to stay with them and not follow him.” what he meant by this was that you must love God above anyone else on Earth
if you want to know for yourself, read the Bible. don’t judge what you haven’t read. and pleeease don’t judge “Christians” by those who preach hatred to others.
that was much longer than i planned… but i’m done now. lol.
I have read. It’s a monstrous book.
Again, please look at more historical context before you toss out the whole thing. There are many actions and teachings, especially in the Old Testament, that seem “monstrous” to us, but were the only option the person/people had at the time.
Case-in-point: Lot. According to the courtesy and hospitality laws and customs of that era, once you invite a guest into your home, it was a sin to allow harm to come to them. He literally had no choice but to do everything in his power, including offering the mob his daughters, if he was to fulfill his obligations. But no one bothers to figure out that part anymore. Do you really think the angels would have saved him if that had been a terrible thing to do?
Okay, off my history soap-box.
Then lot had sex with his daughters and made babies. Really, one of the more hear t warming tales in the bible… although, who could ever forget that tale of love and endurance that resulted in Moses commanding his troops to rape or kill everyone in the city they had just conquered. Side note, the Muslims leave the part about Lot having sex with his daughters out due to the belief that Lot was a man of God and having sex with your children is bad.
I know the historical context… even then, it’s a monstrous book…
Uncle Festor, you are worse than those you incorrectly judge into condemnation. I feel for you, I really do, that something somewhere happened in your life to pull you away from God. If you really think the Christian Faith is based on hate, you are ignorant to no end. I have been taught, as a Christian, to love everyone but hate any and all sin, including that within myself. No, I am far from perfect. But your constant attack on Christianity is vile and putrid, and you are speaking against God.
something somewhere happened in your life to pull you away from God
What do you mean? Everyone is originally born as Christians and then get torn away from that? Right.
and you are speaking against God.
Somehow, I don’t think that’s a worry.
Yeah, have to agree with you there, Danbala. Making faith based arguments with Fester is perhaps the most futile exercise in the world. But the argument that Fester’s spewing of hatred is vile is valid.
If I went around spewing the vitriol Fester did, I would be screamed off this board in a second by everyone here. And rightly so. But somehow when the hateful atheist does it, it’s OK. Not even gonna pretend that makes sense.
Oh, put on your big girl panties, God boy…
As to spewing vitriol, you try and fail… how many times have you tried to introduce the Democrat victory into this conversation now? When religion is almost exlcusively a right wing stick to beat the masses with and has been since Roman times…
So, I’d say, you’re pretty much in my league, troll boy, whether you like it or not… just at the ineffectual end of it…
I don’t want to spew vitriol at all, if possible. As for the Democrat victory, I’m pretty sure only once, and then couching it in terms of possibility for changes to civil union laws and little out. And in my experience, religion is a stick the left wing uses to win without fighting. Scream “Hate” loud and long enough and people scurry like roaches.
And you calling me a troll is especially comical, since you start most of the crap that happens here. The difference between you and I is that you get off on being a jerk, whereas the only person I’ve ever been unkind to here is you. In fact, I’ve tried to be fairly conciliatory most of the time.
Now, let’s see how the text wrap destroyed my sentences…
No, generally you’ve used it in your usual weaselling fashion…
You really are a boring little man who spend most of his time defending that which should need no defence, yet does at every turn…
And as to trolling, you’re the one who chose to follow me around and shout banalities, while not making a single point… So, Fidei Defensor, what now, more defensive boring prose?
Yeah, have to agree with you there, Danbala. Making faith based arguments with Fester is perhaps the most futile exercise in the world.
Umm, that was not really my point, but possibly a subset of my point.
Faith-based arguments like “you are speaking against god” is not an argument at all.
I’m Robert’s bête noire… If it wasn’t so irritating, I’d be flattered…
Danbala: Ahhh…I see. I’d have to agree, stupid argument. My point was that it is especially worthless in this particular setting.
Fester: So trying to get along with people is weaseling? Explains a lot about you. My point is and will continue to be that being a raging ass to everyone you disagree with is about as useless as the argument that you’re “speaking against God.” As for following you around and shouting banalities, as someone who rips apart anyone you disagree with, whether they said anything to you or not (see Machelle @ the bottom of this thread, or, for that matter, me), I figure you have little ground to stand on in that regard. I engaged you because you started it. Perhaps immature, but it is what it is.
Finally, you not an anathema at all, Fester. You are something of a figurehead, however. I have this (crazy) idea that maybe, if people treat each other with just the tiniest bit of human decency, maybe relations between all groups, be they age, race, creed, or ethnicity, would improve. You have put yourself squarely with the Westboro bunch in my personal hierarchy. You run around, flinging about nastiness, accomplishing nothing but driving the wedge deeper. The difference between you and the Westboro bunch is that I can’t engage them. You seem to be more than willing to continue. So, yeah, more prose.
And you really don’t get the joke…
Well now I’m just sad…I didn’t realize it was an attempt at humor.
In your opinion… I’d suggest that your God comes and tells me he has an issue, since, tbh, I doubt your opinions deviate much from the party line…
Although feel free to tell me that being gay isn’t a sin…
I’ve read the bible, knew it’s context, and it’s what pushed me out of religion completely, but that’s a different matter. The part i find odd is when people equate God to being Parental and Hell is a punishment.
To me a good parent punishes the child so they learn a lesson. You get grounded for breaking the lamp and when your punishment is over you know not to play baseball in the house.
With Hell however, it’s eternal. there is no lesson to learn, you don’t get to come out later and know better, it isn’t punishment, it’s torture, and what kind of loving parent tortures their children.
This is mostly assuming you actually did sin somehow or had the bad luck not to accept jesus (poor lads born in the middle of nowhere) Original sin adds a whole new level of ghastly outlook to it.
That’s the way I’ve always felt– I can’t worship a god who’s so obsessed with everyone worshipping him (without even supplying proof he’s real) and then torturing his “children” who he supposedly “loves” for not worshipping him, even if they’re good people. I can’t worship a god who would send innocent people, and especially CHILDREN, to burn in hell for eternity just because they never heard of him.
you’d think an all knowing, all powerful, all good being would have a better system than people trusting in one human being to keep them from burning for eternity. You’d think it would be the thought that counts. if some poor sap happens to be born in the middle of nowhere and spends his whole life practically acting like a saint and dies, he’s gonna burn because he didn’t have the good fortune of being born in a place where he could hear about a guy that died two millenia ago. Better luck next time kid, at least it would be if your soul wasn’t being tortured for eternity.
You can live like christ all you like, loving your neighbor, being a good wholesome and honest person, but you’re screwed if you never heard of the guy.
Try this picture [link]
Or this one (a favourite of mine…)
*sigh*
General consensus (in the bible and elsewhere) is that if you have not heard of him but are doing you’re best to follow God (‘cos you’ve seen the wonders of creation and whatnot) and do good, it’s close enough…
Chapter and verse please…
i don’t have my bible on me… but it is mentioned in revelations… the jews who died before jesus was born do have a chance to enter heaven…
yes but…aren’t jews a different matter from those of use that are not jewish. The jewish people were god’s chosen. When i read revelations I didn’t take it as everyone has a chance. I read it that they were special. Anyway before Jesus all god’s people would need to be jewish so…i suppose they got grandfathered in, but those that were say on the other end of the world and not privy to the jewish tennets or jesus’ sermons, what are they supposed to do?
Paul said something about it, I think… I can’t think of any keywords to search for but I’ll go look…
My Dad helped! Round about Romans 1:20.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Pope JPII also said he believed those who hadn’t had a chance to hear of Christ could be justified by Paul’s reasoning…
So effectively you’re taking something out of context and leverage it into a meaning you want it to… that’s cool…
I’m familair with most of the arguments…
There isn’t one that actually unequivocally
says what you want it to say… You came up with a common one, but it’s really not swayed that many of the faithful…
Swayed the pope…
Also, question: (not an insult) why are you so grumpy?
Do you really actually hate everyone?
Somehow, I don’t think you’re any more impressed with the posturing of a Pope than I am… JPII was a politician, more than a theologian. He was trying to deal with Jews, Islam, AND get over the PR nightmare that was the forced conversions scandal, not to mention the Franciscan behaviour during WW2.
On the whole, he’d say anything to get some of the bad light off the church (pretty much like any other pontiff who couldn’t raise an army to wipe out the people who were complaining)
and the number of idiots does little for my sunny good nature…
Why are you so wet?
Why are you so wet?
Because it’s raining!
I don’t really use the adjective “wet” so I wasn’t sure what you meant… Here’s what wiki gave me. [LINK] I hope you weren’t calling me a moderate conservative…
No, I was using not uncommon British slang…
‘Wet’, ‘bit of a damp rag’, ‘waffy’, ‘ditzy’, ‘not the sharpest tool in the box’, the flickering light bulb on the Christmas tree’…
In this case it was mostly ’silly little girl’….
Ooooohhh… You meant “glaikit numpty.” (Sorry, my silly little self isn’t familiar with such regional word usage) I probably better classed as “dippit.”
Honestly, there’s no need to hate me. I wasn’t even trying to insult you. I was honestly wondering why you felt the need to insult everyone else…
Hate is a strong term… I don’t ‘hate’ anyone. Level of passion I’m probably physically incapable of… nothing here has raised my blood pressue per se… I just play whack-a-mole with people who are clearly fools.
fair enough, It’s just hard to understand how people think sometimes. . Why is God so jealous? It is not as if his power is dependent on his name (considering few people actually use it because translation issues. So if someone worships one all powerful god and called it “billy” and billy created this beautiful world, wanting them to be good and kind, and they were, they would still burn for not getting the name right?
Then there’s the idea that morals comes only from religion (christian in the cases i am familiar with) It strikes me as…strange that there are people that believe the only thing stopping them from being an amoral druggie murderer is the word of god, that an atheist in my case has no internal ability to determine what is and is not a morally alright. meh i should end this before i start to rant about ethical naturalism and…retconning and meh
I know! But, the kind of people who think that The Fear Of God is the only possible reason humans would be treating each other civilly, tend to be too daft to realise that they just admitted that they would be bastards if they thought their God “wasn’t looking”. Meh. :p More seriously though, most people I’ve asked about that, tend to say “well I would be able to behave even without my religion, but it’s more generally speaking”. (Which I interpret as a “it’s all dem dar other people wot need to be under god’s thumb”.)
I’m just extremely bitter on that matter. I’ve had more than one person tell me to my face I have no morals because i don’t believe in their god. that I am selfish to think that good things can happen without god wanting them to happen…so on and so forth. it’s annoying, particularly since ethics is one of my favorite things to study.
I have faced some of that, as well. But mostly I just get to hear that my life has no meaning and that my days are full of futility since I don’t believe in an afterlife. The logic behind that also eludes me. :p
That’s because there is no logic, just people propping up a world view they know is basically wrong…
“your life has no meaning because you don’t believe in the next one” ?
I rather find my life full of meaning, it’s mine. selfish i know but that is meaning enough for me.
Yeah…there’s really no excuse to be hostile when talking to people about religion. As I’ve already said, I think the best way to make people more accepting of your view is to be the best person possible. You’re an emmisary of your group, and when you act like a pompous ass, like whoever you talked to FaileV (or Fester, for that matter), you weaken your argument and alienate others who don’t share your view.
i enjoy that ideal. I have quite a few religious friends because i don’t really care what people believe so long as they don’t push it on others by crafting laws to their doctrine or doing things like…well the picture above. They have the decency not to try and convert me. It all works out and i get to learn things about the way others think
I always figured that if one of my friends that weren’t religious wanted to talk to me about it, they could always ask me.
@Robert:
Yeah…there’s really no excuse to be hostile when talking to people about religion.
Oh, the most beautiful part is that it’s made in a Christianly Loving way. “I feel so sorry for you, but some day you will find God too. I will pray for you.”
It’s like finding yourself in a fight with an irate lamb who tries to FLUFF you to death. It’s vitriol and loathing disguised as Love and Care.
FLUFFed to death, FTW!!
I LOLed muchly, D., and will blatantly steal
your line. (My former “sugar-coated black
widow spider” needs to be retired, due to
overuse.)
Hmm. That sounds crunchy and nice, though, as a snack.
Well, I suppose context and tone matters, but how can you be sure they don’t care about you?
Yes, content and tone is all that does it here. I am not offended if Random Dude who has a habit of saying “I’ll pray for you” or “god loves you” does that. (It’s not something one usually does in Sweden – but we get our share of forn people, like merkins and stuff, who occasionally do that – like one guy that I used t
o buy “Faktum” from (the paper that homeless people here make), who was just of the opinion that his customers were doing a good deed and that was his way of thanking them).
.
No, it mostly comes up after any form of religious discussion where it’s clear we have disparate views, and very often after I have explained that I find it offensive that people think my life is useless because I don’t believe.
.
If believers really cared and wanted to pray for me, they’d not have to say it. ;p
“No, it mostly comes up after any form of religious discussion where it’s clear we have disparate views, and very often after I have explained that I find it offensive that people think my life is useless because I don’t believe. If believers really cared and wanted to pray for me, they’d not have to say it. ;p
That logic is unassailable.
Casting demons into pigs so they drown themselves is condemning pigs.
Just saying.
He also, by omission, condemns non-believers to a lack of eternal life, at the “softest” level of interpretation, or “hell” at the hardest.
The Year of Living Biblically, by A.J. Jacobs. You might enjoy it. You obviously have much to learn from it.
More Hallmark card frippery for the hard of thinking…
Oh come on Fester, can you honestly tell me you have never had the urge to stone someone for working on Sunday? Think about it, if we brought back stoning for everything they stoned people for in the bible, we could solve global warming, food, space and over population problems over night!
D: but then once a month i would have to go live at the edge of town…it’s cold out there.
I’d visit while I was digging a hole to crap into…
Bring some jars? they keep breaking mine.
Not sure I can, you being ‘unclean’ and all… If I have a nocturnal emmision, then I’ll be sure to…
don’t let the succubi get you, they like to tempt priests in their sleep.
I hope you’re keeping your head covered! that can tempt men and angels according to Paul…
Given that the gospels were not even eyewitness accounts; the closest thing TO an eyewitness account (the gospel of Thomas) was declared blasphemous by the church, along with the gnostic movement which had a much stronger claim to be following in the footsteps of Jesus than Paul’s little death cult; the Council of Nicaea was so politicised and agenda-laden that it more or less rewrote the bible from the ground up; and the Vatican still dedicates itself, in part, to suppressing anything that might emerge to contradict its official position on what Christianity means…
How do we know?
The G. Thomas’ problem is that Jesus tells the disciples to go to James, not Peter.
Thank you for saving me the time to make this same comment.
(((Jojo)))
I think the comment was largely dismissed as wishful thinking…
Amen
Try reading the rebuttles before beginning… you look less of a tosser that wayu.
Try reading your comments before replying… you might look like less rude that wayu.
Thanks for poiniting up my typing error. as you know it happens from time to time…
As to ‘less rude’, you one eyed, web footed, pile of foetid pig’s offal, why would I want to be ‘less rude’?
People might be more inclined to listen to you?
Why on EARTH would people listen even then? They have their book or rules, and will vote to preserves, have killed to preserve it, and will do so again…
I’m nothing more than a noise whether I’m rude as I like, or polite and studious…
I’m nothing more than a noise whether I’m rude as I like, or polite and studious…
Then why do you try and change people’s views? If you’re going to try and argue your point then why jeopardise it by acting the way you do? You sound as though you’ve given up or something.
I don’t try to change people’s views, since it’s a waste of my time… I Point out that their idiotic for my own amusement, much like I do everything else…#
-
Behind my name, a Dilbert cartoon that explains my position…
You have given up. You’ve given up treating other humans nicely because you’ve encountered idiots in the past and can’t see that everyone’s different. I think you underestimate people if you claim that insults are the only thing they can understand.
And I’m going to make a guess. It may be wrong but I think it makes sense. I don’t think it’s true that you don’t care. You wouldn’t still be in a discussion on this thread if you weren’t trying to change people’s minds. And I don’t think it’s true that you insult people because it’s like “playing whack-a-mole.” You reserve the most invective for those who won’t rise to it and those who genuinely wish to debate with you. And I don’t think it’s true that you are just looking down at other posters. I think you wear this superior air because you are afraid your views may not stand up in an argument and want to distance yourself from the possibility by pretending you don’t give a damn about what happens on this site. I could be wrong but that’s what I think.
NO, I gave up along time ago… now it is my own amusement…
Well, why give up? If you’re got something to share why not share it? If someone disagrees with you why give up at once? Why are you still on this thread? Most of the”amusement” has moved on. Why does it amuse you to sit there insulting people when you could talk to them instead?
*you’ve
Robert is sort of amusing… You’re still flogging a dead horse…
Jojo I nailed to the floor, as I did phipps and Brad, but that was mostly with history they couldn’t actually argue with, without the faith card, and they knew the faith card means they’ve not got a leg to stand on…
I may still be flogging a dead horse but you’re still not answering the things I asked.
Robert may amuse you but why not share with him the superior knowledge you claim to posess (and which, it seems, he’s curious to know) instead of typing numerous posts telling him he’s stupid?
Read the Dilbert cartoon…
What part of ‘neither the experience nor education needed’? Don’t you get?
You know your problem? You’re too ignorant to know you are…
Same with the Defender of the Faithful…
I read the cartoon. How can you judge someone when you only know them through a few posts on a forum? What makes you so able to look down from on high and tell people of the knowledge you’re witholding which they could never understand? Why are you so certain that this knowledge cements your superiority? Why do you think everybody is the same?
I know my ignorance, plenty others do too. I want to know things. I get the impression you don’t as you are, seemingly, convinced of your monopoly on truth.
Actually, you don’t… otherwise you’d not be asking the fool questions…
Addendum: As a Christian, you’ve claimed the monopoly on truth…
You may not know Origen, Irenaeus, Marcion, Arius, Athenasueus, Eusebius, Constantine, Theodoseus and Augustine… but that simply because you’ll not be told by your clergy the history, if they’ll discuss them at all. you have ‘faith’…
Hell, you don’t even know when Paul’s letters became popular in the church… and from whom… I could write pages and pages, detailing the social and political back drop of 1st Century Judea, and you’d not be interested, since it’s not what’s in your damned book (there were a lot more people in Jerusalem than Romans and Jews… it was the confluence of the Spice and Silk Roads with the Greco-Romano trade routes that extended to Iceland… It was where Chinese dealt with Viking… but that’s not your ‘history’… ) Christianity only benefits from the ignorance of its followers and its cultural mass to prevent major dissent.
And all the foregoing is pissing in the wind…
I don’t believe we have a monopoly on truth. I am sure of a particular truth and I believe it is an essential truth but I know that there are smart people and perceptive people everywhere.
I don’t think you know what I will or will not be interested in. You don’t know me but you have judged me.
I know a little of what you are speaking about. The information came from theolgians actually. God gave us brains and, presumably, expects us to use them. Christians such as my father have often introduced me to complexity, confusion and more doubt than atheists ever have.
Also, your 7:34 post? Are you saying that, if I think I’m ignorant, I shouldn’t ask questions to get answers?
I think that you need to get the grounding to be able ask a meaningful question on the subject, rather than simply the party line…
Patronising people without answering them? You’re not a politician by any chance?
I answered as best I could… if you don’t understand the answer, no need to get pissy with me… I suggest you do more reading… I was about your age when I embarked on my research… but then, I knew I didn’t know enough to frmae a question that wasn’t rapidly going to get me out of my depth…
You don’t have even the elementary reading… and if you want being ‘partonising’ the comment about ‘Church you made above was patronising tosh, but I chose not to rip you a new on then… you’re now just irritating.
The only thing in your post that I didn’t understand was your idea that only the enlightened may ask questions. Indeed, I wasn’t aware that questions regarding your motivations and attitude could “rapidly… get me out of my depth.” I got “pissy” because of your continued assumptions as to who I am, what I know and what I think…. And I’m still looking for this Church comment of which you speak. Glad to see you chose not to “rip me a new one” (new what btw?) it seems you haven’t given up entirely.
Technically, these ppl can be Christians. To be Christian is not to be Christ-like. To be Christian means you believe in Jesus Christ as your savior, repent of your sins, and ask Him into your life and heart. As Christians we ARE CALLED TO BE CHRIST-LIKE
…(sorry for the break in comments) but our actions do not define our faith.
I am not condoning these people’s actions. They are a horrible representations of the Christian faith. They will be judged for what they do, but it’s not our job to be their judge.
So, do you hold the personal opinion that people who are gay are sinners, or do you hold it because a book tells you this?
God’s word (not “a book”) tells me that ALL people have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I am no better than anyone who may be condemned for their actions, simply because I am straight.
And where do you get God’s word from, exactly?
…A book?
No sh!t, Sherlock. I’m trying to get nlphipps to realize that his religion comes from a book, unless God speaks to him directly. In that case, I suggest anti-psychotic medication.
Rather, the “book” comes from what you call religion.
‘The Book’ was written down years after the religion started. Nice ry, but when a confirmed Christian such as myself can easily shoot down your arguments as being stupid, then you need to really look at what you believe and try to figure out WHY you believe what you do, rather than just thinking ‘well, the Bible says it’s true, so it must be’.
And who wrote it?
I am curious how you are a “confirmed” Christian. Is there some right of passage through which you went? I don’t believe you’ve “shot down my arguments as being stupid”. You’re simply saying I’m wrong, which is very interesting to me since, as you put it, you are a confirmed Christian.
I know WHY I believe what I believe. If the bible says it, it IS true. But there is abundant grace and mercy from God in my life to confirm His presence.
As a confirmed Christian, where do you get your truth, if not necessarily the bible?
You don’t want to go down the road of who wrote the Bible, because you’ll get answers that range in scope from the Council at Nicea to anyone who had a vested interest in making over Christ in their own image. There are so
many different authors, most of whom took out pieces of Scripture they didn’t like and added things they did like that the Bible is no longer close to the form it started out in. The first Scriptures were mostly rote, given by word
of mouth, not written down. The Old Testament as a whole is almost pre-dated by the Epic of Gilgamesh, if you want to get really picky. Anything
before that was simply oral stories handed down.
-
Now, you say you believe in the Bible because the Bible says to believe in it. I think you should believe that grass is purple, not green, and the
reason you should believe me is because I say so. Does that make sense? Of course not. You can’t believe something because that particular something
says you have to. There needs to be outside proof. You say that you have received grace and mercy from God as your proof. That’s great, but it’s
nothing that will stand up in court. You can use the Bible as a road map for your beliefs, but don’t expect someone else who was not raised
in the same life as you were raised to take you as anything but a brainwashed idiot.
-
As far as your statement: If the bible says it, it IS true, I refer you back to my previous example of the purple grass. The Bible was inspired
by God, but it was written and changed by man. You have to glean your knowledge from what God is showing you as real, not ‘it says what it says
so I must therefore believe it’.
-
I didn’t go through any ‘rite of passage’ other than confessing my sins, accepting the grace of God and Jesus into my heart, and being baptized
in order to become a Christian. I have, through many friendships with both Christian and atheist, realized that you can’t believe the Bible because it
says to. You also can’t believe an atheist because he calls you an idiot. You have to form what you know by using other things, such as your personal
revelations. You can not, however, use a logical fallacy in your arguments and be expected to be taken as anything but a Bible-thumping idiot,
just like the Phelps’.
Authorship varies wildly. which part are you asking about?
The OT is a late version of oral tales that had been recorded about 400BC and then revised and re-revised to fit changing times as the Rabbis saw fit
The earliest NT is 1Thessalonians, which written in the period AD50-60, and is primero-Pauline. The Gospels earliest writing appears to be post AD70 due the Greek theatrical structure of the text. John, from internal evidence was the last one to be recorded in that form, and seems to be largely an anti-Thomas diatribe
So the book arose from oral trad, then became canon in the 1500s and thus the source of the current religion…
I didn’t ask “who revised it?”. Uncle Fester’s reply is much more correct that yours, froofrou. How is it, that in the original text, many different people penned it, over many years and on many different continents and there is not one contradiction within?
Personally, I don’t care that “God’s grace and mercy in my life” will not stand up in court. (Where I would be swearing on a Bible, btw.) God’s grace and mercy in my life IS WHY I believe Christ is our savior. I did not say “I beleive the bible to be true because the bible says it’s true”. Therefore, most of your argument is invalid. You may question why I know Jesus. That is fine. But you are not the One to whom I owe my life. I don’t expect someone as confused as you seem to be to understand me or my beliefs.
I rather enjoy reading someone’s argument with self.
A quote from you, my dear: I know WHY I believe what I believe. If the bible says it, it IS true.
-
You just said that the Bible says it to be true, so it must be true. It’s a logical fallacy, and doesn’t explain why you believe what you believe. If you stick with your personal revelations, fine, but don’t try to throw logic into an argument where no logic you are using can stand.
-
Trust me, my religious views are anything but confused. It’s taken me a long time to get to where I am, and there is no way I can take the word of man as the perfect word of God. Not when King James basically made up what he wanted to make up, kept what he wanted of the ‘original’ Bible, and threw out the rest. Perhaps you need to go back and research a little more. ‘Revising’ is not all that was done to the Bible over the years.
-
I also do not expect someone as bull-headed as you are to understand that just because you say it, it must be true. Go back and read the teachings of Christ, and leave Paul out of it. Jesus was a bit of a hippie, and was all about peace and love.
-
As far as no contradictions in the Bible, please don’t go there. I haven’t the time to point out the contradictions between the first four books of the New Testament alone. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe the story, however, I don’t believe the details, because those change depending on who wrote thebook and who he wrote it to.
Frou, We’re dealing with a ‘drity stinking ape
without God’ er… We’re both wasting our
breath, since it’s like talking to a fence post,
but at least the fence post tries to
comprehend what is being said, rather than
this creature, that is composing his response
(never an answer) to what it thinks is being said…
@Broken sinner boy – Go peddle crazy somewhere else, we’re all stocked up here and about to have a fire sale on it…
And I was reinforcing that idea?
You might want to try to focus less energy on me and more on getting your comment in the right spot. Of course, it might just be my computer playing tricks on my mind by putting your post at the bottom.
And it was…haha. Funny.
Nice. I’m sure you enjoy making people look stupid. However, I believe you understand what I meant. I haven’t gone down to the nearest Barnes & Noble, picked up a copy of any old fiction novel and believed it to be the word of God. The bible is historical, traceable, unchanging in its original text.
In all honesty, I did laugh at froofrou and The…’s comments.
Glad that I could make you laugh. And I should extend my thanks to you as well. This is keeping me busy from an otherwise uneventful night.
You’re on crack, or dumber than a fence post if you actually believe that…
Well, it is traceable, technically. You can trace all the changes they purposefully made from the original manuscripts.
True. So read the original manuscripts.
And which would those be? There are several books not considered canon in the Dead Sea Scrolls which would be thrown out by any self-respecting fundamentalist Christian as ‘adding to the Bible’. So what original manuscripts are you referring to?
The ones that none of us can actually read anyway because they’re all in Aramaeic or Ancient Greek or some other language that hasn’t been spoken, let alone read, in hundreds of years.
Say what? So much for *my* classical
education …
semantically his argument is correct because it all hinges off the phrase “original text”.
conceptually, he’s full of sh!t.
Blah, original text my foot. I might believe half of what the Bible said if even remotely looked like the original text…in which case I firmly blieve it doesn’t, which is sad to think, but I fairly certain it’s true.
*if it even
Then I’m pretty good at studying history while I’m on crack.
Actually no… you’re nearly wholly delusional if you think what you’re spouting is anything resembling ‘historic fact’… it may sway the semi-literates you pull into your tent revivials, but anyone with a brain and the will to use it, can quickly establish you’re talking rot…
b.b.but he graduated with a 4.0 GPA from Bible College!
Thinking, socially liberal, bisexual female here and I believe the Bible in most cases. Then again, I’m usually the exception to the rule….
Christians that are not like Christ are not Christians at all.
Suffix
“-ian”
1. (as an adjective) From, related to, or like.
2. (as a noun) One from, belonging to, relating to, or like.
If you claim to be like the man that Jesus was, but act the dire opposite, then you are a fraud. Just like these people.
Anyways why are we so caught up in labels?
Hitler called himself a Christian.
Technically, these ppl can be Christians. To be Christian is not to be Christ-like. To be Christian means you believe in Jesus Christ as your savior, repent of your sins, and ask Him into your life and heart. As Christians we ARE CALLED TO BE CHRIST-LIKE,
Considering the many different groups, sects, divisions, etc. that call themselves Christians, it’s impossible to give any one definition/ instruction manual. In your defense, you do present a view of Christianity, but it’s not necessarily the *right* or *correct* view.
What is incorrect about it?
You misunderstand me. I was simply pointing out that there are many definitions of “being a Christian.” In this case, it really is impossible to say that you are incorrect, but likewise the same holds true for everyone else. Though, as the name of the religious grouping implies, I do agree that being a Christian requires that something in your belief has something to do with Christ.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. The one, true definition of being Christian is in the bible. We can not reach God through our actions, only by our faith in Jesus. There is ONE path to salvation. Not many.
Tis ok, mon cher.
I am too illiterate of the Bible to enter in to this argument. I’d just like to ask a question of a Christian whom I will most likely never meet: based on the ‘We can not reach God through our actions, only by our faith in Jesus. There is ONE path to salvation. Not many’ thought, is Gandhi then not a man of God?
According to the Christian belief, no, Ghandi was not a man of God in the sense that he was a Christian and was saved as such.
-
He did, however, do God’s work, and there is some debate as to whether that’s what you need to do in order to reach Heaven. It really depends on who you ask.
Oh. So there is more than one way to get to heaven.
Based on common dogma, Gandhi burns in Hell… It seems even God has to follow the rules…
I’m sorry. That came out more sarcastically than I meant it.
Like I said, it depends on who you ask
If you ask a Christian Southern Baptist, Methodist, or COC, there is one way to Heaven and that’s it. If you ask a Jehovah’s Witness, a Mormon, or a Pentecostal, there is a different way to Heaven. If we’re talking a Catholic-type religion, there is another way. But if you get down to cut and dried, straight out of Jesus mouth (if you believe the Bible literally), “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, the only way to Heaven is through Me,” then there is only one way.
-
and there we have it… Gandhi burns in hell forever, since he no only knew of Jesus, but chose not to follow him, despite mostly liking the cut of his jib…
-
Behind my name, an artistic creation depicting it… [link]
There are a few definitions of ‘Christian’.
You say it is anyone like Jesus.
I say it is anyone who believes Jesus to be the son of God.
Many others say it is anyone who believes Jesus is the son of God and follows his teachings.
No, there is only one true definition of a Christian. One who does exactly as Jesus did.
The other “definitions” are called “misconceptions”, based on centuries of corporate religious corruption and misusing the term “Christian”.
Cool… does that mean if you don’t get better after being nailed to a tree, you’re not a Christian?
That is what you believe. But words change and evolve.
That may be what Christian meant originally, but that isn’t what it is accepted to mean now. And words only mean what people say they mean.
Nuh-uh! Gay means happy and happy only! I have been miserably married and am therefore TOTALLY against gay marriages!
(If I couldn’t have it, why should anyone!)
.
On a related note – “kåt” once meant “happy” in Swedish, and now means “horny”.
I would make the argument that to be horny is to be happy in some respects. Slang amuses me, sometimes.
Hehe, my friends and I use “happy” to mean either horny or homosexual. The only difference in the use is the inflection.
See why aren’t there more people in this world like Jojo. I’m not a christian, but
if I was, I would hope to be more like you. These people you see here are the Westborough baptist Church. They not only give Christians a bad name, but the whole human race. According to them, God hates gay people, the USA, China, the UK, Australia, Sweden, Southeast Asia, the rest of Asia, Muslims, Buddhists, Russia, most of Europe, every country in Africa, every country in South
America, Canada and Obama is the antichrist. If all those things are true, then God has done a really, really bad job.
Btw, we’re all going to hell for condoning gay relationships. But our countries
don’t really. But we’re going to hell anyway. Apparently “condoning” gay relationships means not burning gay people at the stake. I have a gay friend who was very offended by these people, they make me kinda sick.
The biggest fault with these Westborough Baptist people’s ideology is that God cannot hate. God is love and his perfect love casts out all fear.
Hate is a sin, and its is bred in darkness and fear.
So if God casts out all fear with his perfect love, how could he possibly hate?
Its illogical.
These people use God as an accessory to assist their ignorant cause(s).
God loves them but he is sure saddened by their making his name filthy in the eyes of the world.
Since God created gays, Americans, soldiers, etc., he loves them all the same. See, God doesn’t see labels such as ‘gay’ or ’straight’. God sees the heart. As long as your heart is in the right place, then you don’t need to fear judgment. Anyways, who cares what these people say. They’re extremist bigots, sure, but haven’t we learned anything in elementary school?
I’m rubber, you’re glue…
Hate to break it to you, Ryan, but most Christians are fairly mellow, and I’ve never met anybody like these jokers. They should be offensive to anyone, instead their straw men set up to make all Christians look bad by bigots like Fester.
“they’re”
Apparently I can’t spell tonight.
And the Social conservative can never deal when his coin is paid back with interest…
But thanks for the name check, means I’m pissing you off… You want to stick your nose in other folk’s lives playing the culture card, then expect no quarter from me
How was the cross burning?
Wait…what? I have no earthly idea what you’re talking about. What coin are you paying back with interest? You don’t piss me off, Fester, you make me tired. I don’t understand how a human being can be so incredibly hateful, for one, and you don’t even seem to realize it, which aggravates the problem. Finally, I don’t want to stick my nose in anyone else’s life. But, and here’s the crux of the issue, I don’t want anyone else sticking their nose (or any other part of their anatomy) into my life, either. And quite frankly, I’d expect quarter for Santa Ana or Franco before I expect it from you.
The cross burning wasn’t quite as good as the lynching last week, but at least I had a clean robe. You’re a moron. You know that, right?
OH it seems you do… the ‘Progressive’ card earlier showed that the ‘Social conservative’ is a live and well… Only perpose of a social conservative is to make everyone equally miserable as they are.
I enjoy upsetting them… and you’re really very easy to get to dance to my tune…
But please, give me your ‘liberal’ qualifications…
I simply pointed out that Progress for the sake of progress is really stupid. And, I’m still not sure what you’re talking about. I never said I had any “liberal” qualifications. I’m pretty sure in order to qualify as a social conservative I’d have to be against civil unions and homosexual adoptions, though, and I’m not, so yeah….I’d probably also have to be against the legalization of most drugs, and I’m not that, either. I tend to run more or less libertarian, truth be told.
And conservatives are happier than liberals. [LINK]
And here’s the Google search page, too, just for giggles.
http://www.google.com/search?q=conservatives+happier+than+liberals&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
That’s because they have liberals to make miserable…
(
-
I’d tend to run politically libertarian, but for this particular point, it’s a lot morefun to have pungent opinion, since no one takes notice of a balanced approach anyway, do they?
-
And conservatism is railing against change for changes sake, or does that only apply to points that you’re not much in favour of, after all you’ve established that the drug use is why you seem to think that way… It appears to be change for changes sake only when it doesn’t affect your liberties, otherwise it’s an acceptable change… Least that’s the subtext of what you’ve written above
I’m not sure what your point was, but I’m gonna try to address it anyway. I’ve never used anything harder than alcohol, for starters. And my reasons for drug legalization are various. It’s a waste of money to chase around non-violent drug users, it does nothing but dump money into Mexican cartels and deals more damage to inner cities than chasing it down helps. I think that whatever someone wants to do to their own body is their right. And finally, for the most practical reason, because outlawing something that someone with a heat lamp and fertilizer can grow in their house is ridiculous and a waste of time.
So, it’s change for nothing more than rights
that can be taxed and other fiscal reasons…
and that’s a ‘good’ reason to change a long
standing culture… I see…
I could start a tax debate here, but that would be silly. And I generally consider “long-standing” to be more in the neighborhood of thousands of years, not thiry. I’m generally against the government legislating the crap out of anything, though, be it drugs or whether you can use your phone in the car, so there you go.
The problem of ‘recreational’ drugs goes back to the time of Luther…
I think you’re now pulling arbitrary figures to justify position that really is just you pulling the Eww!
I’m not sure what “the Eww!” is, but I know that pot and cocaine were outlawed in the US either very end of the 60’s or early 70’s.
The cultural backdrop is a lot longer and we both know it… however, you will play the dumb card like it gets you out of jail… ho hum…
I know that once upon a time soldiers used cocaine to stay awake and active, and now popping positive on the piss test will get you dishonorably discharged. I know that some cultures have used mj as a “mind expander” for longer than most cultures have even been around. I’ll talk with you, Fester, but you’re gonna have to give me more that “you know what I’m talking about” as if I’m not only clairvoyant but have an antenna that’ll get me 10,000ish miles to read your brain waves.
Actually, they have new uppers in the Armed forces… but if a civillian has them, they’re illegal. Nothing changes, just the way the culture back flips…
As to other cultures, strawman. We’re not discussing ‘other cultures’;, just the one you want to support right up until it affects you negatively…
Playing ignorant really doesn’t cut it… and you’re just hedging.
There’s really nothing to discuss, and you playing the ‘obtuse’ game really just gets the ‘cretin’ card played back…
You’re doing it again. If I’m ignorant of something, I’d love for you to enlighten me. You wanted to know why I felt one way about one thing, and another on something else. I did my best to answer you. But, you being the way you are, I could have written a frickin’ doctoral thesis and you wouldn’t be satisfied. I’ve said my piece as best I can. If you have a question/attack/actual statement, I’m happy to respond to it, but if you keep being vague I can’t really help you right now.
And other cultures is more of a red herring or a non sequitor, in that it either a)distracts from the actual point or b)doesn’t really apply to the conversation. I didn’t really intend it as such, I was just trying to explain my thought process to you. But if you’re going to accuse me of logical fallacies, at least accuse me of the right one, k?
You can’t really ‘help’ me, since
1) you’re reasonably thick headed
2) you really have no idea what is being discussed, but you know the answers you want to give…
I’m getting tired of basically arguing the toss with a fractious child…
Robert,
You need to get out more. There are a lot of “Christians” everywhere that are just like Phelps and his bunch. They are bigots and don’t ‘need’ anyone like Unc Fester to make them look bad, but they thrive on the attention they recieve by the media (not caring if it is good or bad, just lots of it). BTW, speaking as someone who knows bigots and bigotry up close and personal, Unc Fester, while being many things, is no bigot (unless you fail into the catagory of stupid).
And to address a comment you make further down the thread about conservatives being happier than liberals – hah, and double hah! Happiness is subjective, and perspective has much more to do with the state of a person’s happiness quotient than their socio-political leanings.
And there are many, many more who are nothing like them. I’ve been around Christians my whole life and have never encountered that kind of hate. It sickens me. And yes, Fester is a bigot, in that he has overarching incorrect views of a certain group, and instead of having at the very least the tiniest bit of human decency to people he disagrees with. If I was to come onto PK and scream “Homosexuality is a mental illness!” or “All British women are hideous” or “Non-vaginal sex is sexual deviance that should be punishable by death!” I would be attacked by everyone on this board. If someone else did it, I’d be right there telling the to STFU. But Fester comes on an calls everyone who disagrees with him every name under the sun, but it’s OK because he’s part of the majority here. It’s BS. Bigotry is bigotry, whether it’s against a racial minority or people of faith.
Ah, the argument of persecuted majority… the defence since Diocletian’s time…
You really should try a new script… It always rings hollow…
Just because you choose not to see you’re an idiot doens’t mean it’s not apprent.
Your name should be Robert Fidei Defensor… although it’s the idiotic defending the indefensible… you just plug away with ‘they’re not ALL bar stewards!’ defence… when while ever they follow the dogma, they’re exactly what I say…
This is the last time I’m even gonna respond to this assinine comment.
As was pointed out by another of our fellow PKers earlier, this isn’t the world. This is the internet. And on PK, I’m no more the majority than purple Lithuanians are than Arkansas, so you saying it over and over again doesn’t make it true.
And it’s more “the actually persecuted.” We live in a society where you don’t need to be the majority to persecute someone, you just have to be loud and obnoxious enough to cow everyone else.
Oh God! It that were but true…
And I love the implication that you’re some how not ‘cowed’ by follwoing me around telling me what a nasty man I am… You really are a sad, empty child.
As I say, the Christian has played the ‘persecution’ card all the way donw its history… it still does, while voting down other people’s equality,and spreading ignorance with more virulence than tuberculosis…
You can’t be persecuted, you won, you moron…
Like I said Robert, you need to get out more! Try exploring the PNW – there is a church in Seattle that uses Phelps as their training manual. There is a United Methodist Church in Spokane that, while not as vocal, follows similar tenets. There are churches all over N. Idaho that makes Phelps and his bunch of crack-pots look and sound down-right liberal, and the same for parts of Montana & Utah.
For that matter of fact, try listening to the evangelical southern Baptist preachers on tv for a few days. (I seem to remember one of those tolerant, loving preachers claiming how 9-11 was the Christian G*d’s punishment on us because we allowed that gays were human too, or some such thing)
Or if you really want to walk on the wild side, go to a white supremist (sp?) rally – they sure claim to be Christians.
I hope you never do run into these sorts of people, but do some research – they do exist, and in more communities than you can probably imagine.
“supremacist”
Oh, I know that those people are out there. My argument is that they’re in the minority. In fact, I’m of the opinion that the most vocal, obnoxious members of any group, be they gay, baptist, squirrel farmers, or what have you, are in the minority. I’ve seen hate, but when there’s a 24-hour “news” cycle that feeds off of conflict and anger, I can only take it with a grain of salt. More importantly, I am not that way, and it infuriates me when anyone paints in broad brush strokes to satisfy their pre-existing belief structure. As for white supremacists claiming to be Christian, I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen the passage “Love thy neighbor as yourself-unless he’s got a different skin tone. In that case, hang that spook!” Just sayin’.
Minority?
Ever been to the bible belt?
Lived in northern Texas for a year. Still never saw anything approaching this level of hate. And I would add that everyone’s a majority somewhere.
With the White supremacy thing. I have heard it argued before that dark skin is the mark of Cain, and there’s a passage about not tolerating those that have the mark of cain. If there isn’t fine, i didn’t bother to find the passage for this, my point is they just have other way of looking at the same text.
I’ve heard that argument, but obviously anyone who’s using that as an excuse hasn’t read this:
14Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
15And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
I think the real point to this particular thread of discussion, though, si that anyone will take anything and twist it anyway in order to justify themselves.
These people ARE indeed Christian. They believe that the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God, and they believe that Christ died for their sins (although, apparently, they only believe that he died to save THEIR sins, if you start looking at their twisted logic). Believing Christ is God is the only prerequisite for calling oneself Christian. Anyone who has an argument with them about the veracity of their Christianity will surely lose, these people know the Bible better than anyone , so they know what the actual doctrine contains. Christ will preach tolerance and forgiveness, and then on the next page, he’ll be smashing on anyone who doubts that a human could actually walk on water.
I don’t mean to be unkind, but the fact is, calling these people the “false” version of Christianity only serves to make moderate Christians feel better about skipping over about 3/4s of their professed doctrine and believing some pretty improbable things. Given the accuracy of their scriptural interpretations and knowledge, the WBC is the closest thing to true Christianity I’ve ever witnessed. (I say the “closest thing to” rather than “the true” Christianity because it is impossible to follow every tenet/passage in the Bible, since they contradict each other on several occasions.)
When people start throwing around the cant that nlphipps is, then you’re on the same continuum… I don’t see the difference.
By their fruits ye shall know them… well, most of the professing Christians and ‘Christ followers’ just leave me puzzled as to how they live in something that small and delusional. I came to the conclusion that it some how prevents them from random acts of violence…
Thanks for this piece of good reading. I was trying to compose something vaguley similar the other night, but failed and then went to sleep instead. Now I’m glad mine remained unwritten, you expressed it far better than my attempt.
I very much agree.
“I do not want hypocritical religion. I want love.” – Jesus Christ (Message Translation)
The Message has little leverage with the ‘True Christian’ since it’s a paraphrase, not a translation…
Interesting, Jojo. Would THEY consider YOU to be a real Christian? The sad truth is that your particular denomination or interpretation does not have any particular monopoly on the term. As much as I GREATLY appreciate that you feel a clear sense of revulsion towards these people, unfortunately they do fall under the hierarchy of ‘Christian’ since they believe in and worship Jesus Christ as the messiah/savior (however divergent their views of him might be).
The funny thing is that what you seem to figure is a REAL Christian is a fairly modern invention. For much of history it was more like these folks, except with swords and inquisitions, so by way of tradition they might have a stronger claim to the label than you do.
The Bible seems to function as a ‘Build Your Own God’ construction kit, because the various sects pick and choose what is literal truth, what is symbolic, and what is best glossed over entirely. So one can end up like you (thankfully), focusing on his good works and compassion, or one can read in all of the smiting, jealousy, intolerance, genocide, and take Genesis as an excuse to suppress science to boot. In the end they all believe in and worship Jesus Christ as the son of God, and it’s mighty hard to prove that you’re the TRUE Christian (and they aren’t), because JC just didn’t stick around long enough to exercise editorial control.
I would like to say that he would have some harsh words to say about it, but you know… it’s been a mere 60+ years since they started worshiping a fellow named John Frum on Tanu, and there’s already wildly differing interpretations of who he was, where he is, and how best to honor him (and indeed significant question as to whether he existed in the first place). Imagine how the legends and exagerations must have flown about over a charismatic iconoclast like Jesus Christ.
Oh, now I want to repeat that other post I just wrote, but that’d be dull, so… Cheers at you for a well written post, expressing things I tried to write before, but actually managing to do it, and do it excellently.
The “no true Christian” response… fail.
Most Recent, Visible Example: See previous entry re: Palin, and similar.
Those guys in the pic reaffirm my hatred of organized religion. If they’re right about God, then I want nothing to do with Him.
We think alike my friend.
They manager to affirm my faith in human nature…
Don’t you love when people live down to your expectations.
Oh they mostly exceed my expectations…
Ah, I see, if you expect the worst you go through life always being pleasantly surprised!
They’re usually nastier and more stupid than I expect
I don’t know where these people come from… But I’m like you n8. I’d want nothing to do with THAT God.
Fortunately, you get to make up your own god, so you can have a just, kind, loving god if you want. Unfortunately, these people have a damn good handle on what the Abrahamic god is actually supposed to be like. You have a choice: reject the psychotic god of the Bible, or join Westboro Baptist Church. Decisions, decisions!
Try Landover Baptist instead. LOL
They have WWJD thongs!
Amongst a variety of other parody items.
It’s a parody? I was going to convert! It just made so much *sense*…
Shocking, sorry to break it to you.
And THAT God wants nothing to do with these actions. HE did not tell them to condemn.
But he told you you’re a broken sinner with just enough intelligence to be venal…
Nice guy… Still sounds like an abusive parent to me…
I live in the same town as the a**holes. Let me assure you that even the people here that are participants of organized religion think these guys are f**king crazy. In fact, the town has taken to ignoring them for the most part and the Girl Scouts of America chapters in town like to chase them off of the street corners by choosing to set up cookie stands right where these dicks like to protest.
This is a small group of idiots (mostly related) and they have quite a bit of money because most of them are lawyers and they never participate in violent protests (and wait for people to physically attack them) so that they can later sue and they have made craploads of money doing this. Pretty sure that this “church” is hungry for attention and in no way, should you draw a parallel between this group of insane fascists and organized religion in general.
You Go Girl(s Scouts!)
Yeah, these “people” are in no way a representation of the majority of Christians in this country. It’s like saying the jihadists are a true reflection of Isalm. Not gonna buy it.
“they never participate in violent protests (and wait for people to physically attack them) so that they can later sue and they have made craploads of money doing this.”
They can’t sue if they’re dead!
No one does the job right these days
My way would be to start a mini “gay pride/Flying spaghetti monster” rally right next to them, while pretending they weren’t there make out with a few girls, just to get them going.
Ramen.
You would think their God would protect them from a horde of angry Girl Scouts…
@Jane – yes, really, especially if they are “right” and all the rest of us are “wrong”. D!ckwads.
This problem is nothing that a Firetruck and powerful stream of water couldn’t solve.
Girl Scouts… I’d have thought they’d be promoting God’s dislike of Gays along with the Westboro team…
They don’t have time for that! Dear god man, it’s the height of the cookie season! Those cookies aren’t going to sell themselves, get on the corner and shake your money makers girls!
So they leave the Chrisitan bigotry to the Boy Scouts of America…
the boy scouts just don’t like gays and atheists… everyone else is fine…
It’s still a nice bit of bigotry for an outfit who goes to town
councils with the begging bowl…
Do they refuse the tax money of gays and atheists too? I seem to remeber that not being the case in several large cities where they got reduced rent at the tax payer’s expense…
You certainly like to throw around the word bigot a lot. But when you generalize an entire group of people based on the actions of a few, isn’t that bigotry?
Well, let’s find out.
Bigotry:
1 : the state of mind of a bigot
2 : acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot
Bigot:
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
Taken from Merriam-Webster.com
Then yes. He is a bigot.
=P Glad I could be of service.
Statler and Waldorf were operated by one person too…
Huh? =P Implying that I be a sock, do ye?
And, if not, my humblest apologies.
Um, “bigotry” is being ascribed to an “outfit” that
is known to exclude gays. Or did you think he meant
“outfit” as in a yellow striped top with blue paisley
pants and green cowboy boots?
That is FIERCE girl!
Grrarrrr!
reduced rent at tax payer’s expense? since when do boy scouts have to pay rent? most boy scout troops are operated out of churches of different kinds and are considered a nonprofit organization…
.
speaking as an eagle scout we never went before the city or any other government agency looking or money…
There have been a number of Cases where they’ve finally been turned out of reduced rate city owned property… A simple google pulls up the cases…
Since when was Most=all?
Just for ubr
Philadelphia – (BSoA are issuing a counter suit for the right toi have low rent and bigotry)
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303420,00.html
msnbc.msn.com/id/21367636/
San Diego – Park rental at $1 a year?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes-Wallace_v._Boy_Scouts_of_America
That’s pretty much it. The Girl Scouts very specifically do NOT discriminate against gays and atheists. And, they have cookies. Much cooler all around.
It’s because of the cookies that the Girl Scouts can afford to not discriminate against gays and atheists. They don’t have to depend on the deep pockets of others for donations – they go out and earn it.
*years for some Tagalongs*
*years=yearns
Read over post, then submit, Elbie.
Perhaps I’m chocolate-deprived.
Well, the boyscouts sell popcorn, but it’s overpriced & it sucks. The girl scout cookie talk is killing me. I need cookies…I should have gotten my cookie order today but our receptionist was out sick, the stupid cow…
Boy Scout popcorn, bleck.
Dammit, now I’m craving Thin Mints.
i got kicked out of boy scouts because i ate a brownie.
and ended up on the child sex register for 10 years
I was a boy scout. I wasn’t even a boy. (Still am not.)
You must have eaten a special brownie…
I volunteered to quit the Brownies. I took offense when my scout leader made me walk home at night in Alaska in the freaking winter without snowpants just because I forgot to bring the rest of the calendars I didn’t sell.
@Jane: Good thing you got out before ubr’s
brownie eating spree…!
Tagalongs FTW!
In this case I take “related” to mean “inbred for at least the last five generations.”
At last! Some reasibabke insight into their family structure. Oh, and don’t forget the next 5 generations of inbreeding, they are probably working on it already. (Yuck!)
I myself am a Christian and wouldn’t associate with the people in this image, I forget the name of them, but something something baptist church group, it’s been a long time since I’ve seen them on the news or the paper so I forget their name, but anyways, they always appear at soldier’s funerals, I really think these idiots make all the other Christians look bad to the rest of the country.
Westboro, name’s Westboro. They say “God hates you’re tears” and some crap that is best left ignored. People like this are pretty much the reason religion SEEMS stupid to some.
Virgin births, zombie who are magically their own father and will cast you into a fiery pit for all eternity for torture if you don’t accept the gift of god sacrificing himself to god, since god wouldn’t forgive mankind with out a sacrifice, all over a piece of fruit…
You’re saying that only ’seems’ unreasonable? Did I miss a memo, or them handing out some powerful psychoactive drugs?
you have a right to disbelieve, but when you belittle others for their beliefs you are just as bad as the group of bigots in question.
kudos Jojo
I think Chrisitans got there first, with the “sinner this” and
“sinner that” and ‘You’re going to hell…”
Well, if there’s a hell, I’ll save you a seat…
To add my two cents to the lovely flames, the church I was raised in doesn’t think the conception was immaculate, doesn’t believe in unity of the trinity, doesn’t have original sin, and lastly, doesn’t have hell.
Whoo! All the good bits!
I assume you are very comfortable knowing there is nothing to worry about then? Does the lamb’s wool fit nicely over your eyes?
How is Starrfade’s worldview any more bewool’d than your own?
It doesn’t need as much magic God dust…
I was just trying to point out that not all forms of Christianity have the same tenets. There are still ways of being and not being a good Christian, but how is free will free if you must pay for the sins of your fathers?
There are lots of bits that aren’t nearly so nice, there is a reason I said I was _raised_ in that church.
Knowing English isn’t your first language…
Mary is the target of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. This means, that despite Saint Anne doing the nasty with her husband, she was free of the taint of Original Sin.
Jesus was a Miraculous conception, since Mary didn’t do the nasty with anyone… It’s all popeish frippery anyway, but I thought I’d mention it since most of the Christians here didn’t seem to know the difference…
I knew! It was on QI!
I knew since I’m familiar with the workings of the Church of Rome…
Since English _is_ my first language, I meant what I said. I was taught that God has a corporeal form, and Jesus was made in the normal way one makes a baby (although they tend not to stress that bit when talking to others). The original sin bit was referring to us all being born as sinners due to Adam and Eve.
Oh, sorry… That’s an interesting dogma… not seen it applied to Jesus.
Interesting how ‘original’ sin is a feature…
Ah, I made that too confusing…. what I meant was that there _isn’t_ original sin, I was attempting to clarify what I meant by original sin above.
It seemed something of a handbrake turn… sounds pretty Unitarian…
Mormon, actually
Sorry, the kitten decided that the mouse
needed to be moved as I was hitting enter.
It just goes to show how much of a
difference cherry picking can make when
describing aspects of religions.
I knew it!
and Jesus was made in the normal way one makes a baby
Yeah, the outright deny it, loudly and stridently. I dated a Mormon, once upon a time. Great people.
People like this are pretty much the reason religion SEEMS stupid to some.
I’m glad you added the “to some”. I think most people who find religion stupid do not base that on these guys.
Well you can be re-assured that He ain’t like that. These people, well there isn’t much you can say about them that you can’t gather from just looking at them. Anyway, they are wrong, cause the only thing God hates, is sin. He loves everybody.
p.s:I am a Christian, but even I think someone should shoot them.
“I am a Christian, but even I think someone should shoot them.”
Yeah, Jesus was really big on shooting people. Way to represent!
RhoRho… ouch…
I think he was joking, though we all feel that way about certain people in our lives, if we could do it, we really wouldnt.
I think the best thing is to inform people, these guys are self proclaimed Christians, not actually followers of Christ. Also, everyone should just ignore these nuts, the news, the public, everyone, dont look at them, dont get into it, just IGNORE them, they will go away if people stopped giving them attention like they want. These people arent out to just make soldiers look bad, but to hurt the image of Christians in America.
They hold a sign saying “God hates fags”, God wouldnt hate someone for who they are, but actions they do, he hates the things they do, but loves them anyways because created them. Everyone has free will, they can choose to do stupid things, or smart things, it’s sorta like Michael Phelps, everyone loved him for how great he was and how many medals he won, but when a photo of him doing drugs was released, people looked down on that, everyone still thought he was great and awesome, but disagreed with his choice to do certain drugs. Even I may not agree with certain things people do, but it’s their own business, not mine, you dont see me holding signs with radical messages.
Thanks for defending me, and yes I was kidding. I wouldn’t shoot them, nor do anything that would physically hurt them.
So, being gay and in love is fine. but to physically act on it is ’stupid’… and God made them that way… I see…
Now, now… Athanatheus had his religious apostates tortured to death and he’s now a Saint, so, don’t be so quick to judge…
Jesus would knee Fred Phelps in the nuts so hard they would fly out of his mouth.
Why? Point out where he’s doing anything the Lord wouldn’t, if he had the facts of the matter…
Considering the fact that Jesus hung out with sinners, tax collectors, hookers, and various other rabble that was socially unacceptable at the time, I think that Forge has it pretty much right on.
and I repeat… point out where the Phelps have got their theology wrong, especially knowing your strident views on the gay community.
Point out one time, ONE TIME Fester, where I have ever bashed the gay community, or said anything other than they should live in peace just like everyone else. I may not agree with it, but that’s a personal thing and THAT’S IT. My strident views on the gay community begin and end with ‘They are adults, they can do what they damn well please.’
-
The Phelp’s klan have their theology wrong in that when Jesus was casitagted by His own followers by hanging out with the riff raff and the sinners, He told them to shove off. He had no problem being friends with them. He wanted them to repent.
You’ve repeatedly said you think it’s a sin… based not
on your own opinion, but that of a book… At the risk
of dragging DWN off his bed of pain, I’d say it was like
forming one’s opinion on the behaviour of Jews from
Mein Kampf, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and
the tale of the Martyrdom of William of Norwich.
-
Basically, God said it, I agree with it, isn’t an argument
from a position of strength, simply one from the point
of view of someone who is prepared to be told their
opinion…
I think that overeating is a sin, but that doesn’t mean I condemn those who do it nor stop myself from eating too much at the dinner table when I’m presented with ham, sweet potatoes, and Sunday yeast rolls.
-
I think you’ve mistaken me for a fundie, Fester. I’m not a Bible-thumper, nor do I condemn people for doing things that I do not do. I’ll admit to being bloodthirsty, but a bigot I’m not.
and why is being gay a sin? Overeating, is
taking other’s resource when people are dying
in the streets.
Homosexuality, takes nothing from anyone… in
fact it’s no one’s business but the people
involved, so why is it a sin?
Please pardon my interruption, but I feel
compelled to say that, with almost 7 billion
humans on the planet, I could easily argue
homosexuality to be a practice that deserves
promotion, and certainly not chastisement.
On that note, there was a study among chimpanzees that pointed to a connection between overpopulation and homosexuality.
It’s possible that homosexuality is a mechanism to combat overpopulation, if this study was indeed true.
Ooh! I’ll play! Homosexuality is atrociously ineffecient, and spreads STDs faster than any other lifestyle (see link-not the point, you’ll have to read down a bit). But that doesn’t kill you immediately-you suffer and waste away. If we’re really interested in knocking down the population quick, let’s just start nuking major cities! We could set up some sort of lottery! It’d be great!
Of course, before Fester accuses me of being a “bellicose monster” I’d like to point out that I say that purely to show the absurdity of your argument for homosexuality. I’m gonna say the same thing I say about marijuana-I don’t care what you do on your own time, but please stop trying to convince me that it’s somehow a superior lifestyle, k?
Actually in studies of Bonobo chimpanzees,
the most successful groups have between
1 in 7 and 1 in 10 proprortion of gay couples.
The Gay females do breed, but the males
tend not to. The males also stay close to the
group, and defend it.
It has been also found that the young males
fare better if the perimeter is breeched by
an invader, since they have more ‘play fight’
training with the local ‘gay’ males who don’t
venture as far, than groups with foraging
males only.
Who is saying that being gay is superior… I’d say equal, but no it has to be less…
@Robert: Please paste the passage from your
article indicating that STDs are spread faster
through homosexual sex than through
heterosexual sex. I’m not finding it.
Please also expand on how homosexuality is
“inefficient.”
Your nuclear alternative suggests going
against nature, rather than going *with*
nature, which is what I’m suggesting.
I made no claim as to the superiority of
homosexuality. Is that what you’re claiming?
If so, please indicate what I wrote that gave
you that impression.
Umm… Rho, the nuke thing was a joke, I think… At our (very liberal) school we were told that HIV is spread more easily through gay sex…
At our (very liberal) school we were told that HIV is spread more easily through gay sex…
Did they explain why?
There’s more likely to be contact with blood, apparently.
That all depends on how you do it. Unprotected sex is more likely to to spread STDs, and more so if there’s bleeding, which is a bit more common in penetration anally than vaginally (if that’s not a word it is so now ;p). Seems to me that saying “gay sex spreads HIV more easily” is rather dangerous. (The false sense of security for those that do hetero sex, for instance.)
And lo my illness continues for its sixth day and my wang shall no falter, despite the delay… I shall club the nonbelievers like whimpering baby seals with the wang of truth…
That said, saying gay sex spreads HIV more is a bit ignorant but makes some kind of sense. A gay man is still a man and men have a higher sex drive. However, this is oversimplification. Sex is sex. Amount of sex or gender is irrelevant. It is the level or lack of level of protection involved and precaution. Choice in lovers also factors in since their choices compound with your own.
But yea, I’m still mentally deficient so I will let it drop here.
Just to be clear on the virology:
.
HIV is most easily transmitted by infected body fluids getting into the bloodstream. This more likely during anal sex as the rectum can get small tears relatively easily if there’s not enough lube. Also, contraception isn’t necessary, so a condom might
not be used.
.
Hmmm… if men had vaginas, the rate of HIV probably wouldn’t have spread the way it did in past decades — before we became aware of the virus — and it wouldn’t be seen as a ‘gay disease’…
I’m still waiting to hear from Robert. The
“inefficient” comment intrigues me more
than the others. Frankly, it’s funny: Do gay
people need to be taught to conduct their
relationships more efficiently somehow?
Will there be sexual time management
seminars for gay couples hoping to “catch
up to heterosexuals?
One comment on the STD thing: He didn’t
limit the discussion to HIV/AIDS, either.
Just a thought, there.
It’s inefficient as a means of limiting populations, hence the suggestion to use nukes. Since most of the particularly nasty STDs are viral (HIV, herpes, etc.), they spread at a similar rate.
And yes, the nuke thing was tongue in cheek-I don’t approve ofnuking cities in an effort to limit populations.
I don’t recall the study, but it was done by a Gay scientist. It was in Time magazine in early 2008, I believe. It showed that homosexual couples are 3 times more likely than heterosexual couples to break up. Which could be interpreted that Gay people have 3 times more partners than heterosexuals do.
It was in Time magazine in early 2008, I believe.
With that many partners it greatly increases the rate
at which STDs are spread.
Thats all I will say.
I’m remaining objective, and I haven’t given an opinion on the
subject of Homosexuality.
So flamers (forum trolls, not gay people) you can’t fire a rebuttle
at me, since I am being so neutral.
Didn’t mean to post the line:
“It was in Time magazine in early 2008, I believe.” two times.
I don’t know how that happened. Oh well.
Dang it, I missed one…
It’s only thought of as a gay disease in the US, and mostly cuz it is here. In Africa, it’s pretty indiscriminate (no condoms), in other parts of the world, it doesn’t seem to spread as much period. I’d imagine it has something to do with the gay culture’s idea in the US that having as much unprotected sex with anonymous partners is somehow desirable. Add to the that previously mentioned increase virulence of the disease and you have a serious problem.
@Robert:
Do you have statistics on the hiv-spreading in the US? (Tried to find earlier but was probably too tired then to have any success.)
Alas, not handy, and they’re hard to find, for some reason. I had a friend who did a report a couple years ago, and I read through his stuff. That’s the only reason I even know that the stats are different here than in comparable European countries.
Here’s the 2001 CDC stats…
Thanks.
Robert, you still have not produced the
excerpt from your link or any other backing
up what you have said, so your argument
about STD vectoring is wiped out. “Previ-
ously mentioned” is sloppy, and moot.
Your sentence beginning with “I’d imagine”
isn’t suitable for horse water. You assume
way too much in that statement.
Of course I understood that your “nuke”
suggestion wasn’t serious. It was a useless
comparison, as well.
What I’m suggesting is that society should
recognize homosexuality as a natural
phenomenon. As it is, much grief is born of
the denial, desperation and violence
associated with calling it “wrong.” If homo-
sexuality were accepted, there wouldn’t be
so many children born of gay people trying
desperately to fit into the norm by getting
married, then divorcing after having
children. Gay couples should also be able to
arrange to have their own children and adopt
children, if they want. Many good homes for
children are wasted, again due to ignorance
and prejudice.
“The high risk of contracting infection with HIV among homosexual men is usually attributed to contact with semen during unprotected receptive anal intercourse or other practices associated with the exchange of body fluids. Efforts to educate gay men in safe-sex practices to prevent HIV infection have been only partially effective in changing behavior20. Those who continue to engage in unprotected anal intercourse with multiple partners tend to be younger, to belong to minority groups, to engage in sexual acts more frequently, to use drugs or alcohol in connection with sex, to have psychiatric disorders, and if previously tested for HIV, to be seronegative21,22. Such men may have adequate cognitive information about HIV transmission but may entertain a false notion that they personally are “safe” when they engage in high-risk sexual behavior. Lapses in safe-sex precautions by men who ordinarily do practice safe sex are also common — in 45 percent over the previous six months in one study23.”
So, basically driving a group underground
has made it more counter culture in all
areas… Quelle surprise.
And then people go pell-mell to vote into
legislation something that actually defines
something that wasn’t defined in state law,
to ensure that the group knows it’s marginal,
second class, status, then bleats that they
don’t like their morals. I see… makes
complete sense…
Havign said that, Robert is simply a stupid,
bigoted, redneck who feels threatened
by any change, other than to his lower taxes…
@Robert: Your quote *still* doesn’t address
the difference in STD (not just HIV/AIDS)
vectoring between straight and gay sex.
It just doesn’t.
Unc’s point about the underground status of
gays in our culture at large accounts for
much of the difference.
If you cling to what you’ve just posted as
the only proof needed, then, in your own
weird way, you’ve just proven my point:
Gay sex, by virtue of spreading deadly
disease, is far more efficient than straight
sex in population control.
Glad you finally came around.
Sorry, rho, misunderstood what you were saying. I’m willing to concede that the only real difference for other STDs is the insistence of gay men on having multiple anonymous unprotected partners. And I wasn’t arguing gay sex vs straight sex, just gay sex versus war, plague, settling in a flood plain, etc.. No, you’d be quite right, it would be a much more efficient population control by virtue of spreading disease.
Okay, and would you be willing to entertain
the notion that, if our culture at large were
more accepting of homosexuality that the
“insistence of gay men on having multiple
anonymous unprotected partners” would
likely change, by virtue of not being driven
underground and treated as loathsome and
despicable?
I’m being nice here, so you’ll know. I don’t
agree with the way you phrased the passage
quoted above. Frankly, it made my skin
crawl, but I’m refraining from slinging poo
because it looks like we’re nearing a type of
consensus.
I’m willing to accept the possibility, but given the empirical evidence to the contrary, it seems somewhat unlikely. San Francisco is one of the worst places for the disease, and it’s the most open city for them. I live less than a 4 hour drive from San Francisco. Quite frankly, the way they act there is absurd. If they’d stop acting like animals at every Gay Pride parade, that in and of itself would change a lot of minds. But, much like what Fester does, people see that and they make assumptions. It’s not right, but if you want to combat a negative image, running around and acting like a bunch of sexual deviants in public is perhaps not the best way to do it.
Sorry to get on a tangent. Yes, to sum it up rho, I can agree to the possibility. I’m sorry if I made your skin crawl, but I answer phones for one of the HIV clinics in San Francisco and it’s amazing some of the things I’ve heard.
Well I suppose that’s one way of coping
with those all-too-scary
wet dreams that keep recurring no matter
how many Hustler mags you fall asleep
with…
Face it Robert, you are no less bisexual than
the rest of us “heterosexuals” – you know
part of you lurves teh ghey – even if only
in your dreams. It’s delicious and that
scares you. Big deal. Get over it. Your
homophobia and intolerance of your own
nature makes you a bigoted creep.
Are we putting people here up on the Kinsey scale? That should be a fun exercise…
As someone who frequents a gay bar, I say it is bigoted to say that HIV is a gay disease or say that it targets gays, or to suggest that gay culture encourages rampant sexual activity. It’s certainly no worse than the way most young straight guys act… you really just can’t paint them with that broad brush.
There are, however, some gay guys who are turned on by the “damning” effect of HIV. (My personal analysis of these guys is that they’re miserable, suicidal and stupid, or they’re already pos.) My friend was propositioned at the bar we go to with a “hey, do you do positives?” To which he said “hell no!”
I guess you could say that’s part of gay culture, but that’s like saying anti-gay protests at funerals are part of Christian culture.
I agree it’s a bigoted statement. As far as I know, the actual statistics show the disease is fastest growing amongst hetero black females, at the present time, People tend to overgeneralize because they are uninformed.
I’ll admit my ignorance of the current fastest growing group, but proper protection would eliminate the disease completely, which implies that people are making a decision that is likely to lead to getting a fatal disease. Seems unwise.
And I don’t recall identifying my sexuality. I’m bi in the sense that the idea of the act is intriguing, but I find men on the whole completely sexually unattractive.
I agree people should just keep it in their pants or at least use rubbers, but before making blanket statements, you should know the facts. That’s all I was trying to say.
Noted, but I did say at the start of this stretch that my figures were a few years old. And we get back to the issue of this is a disease that is spread largely through irresponsibility. It’s not like it’s gonna float across the room and get you. So I guess that’s my biggest point.
So you expect a vilified and excluded part of the community to behave ‘responsibly’ by the mores of the ‘culture’ you seem so keen to preserve? I’d say they’re damned no matter what. The behaviour isn’t that unusual in certain segments of the straight culture… although ’swingers’ are always at pains to point up their great record of low HIV infection, there is a segment that bare rides are a speciality…
When you have a culture that forces a self loathing paradigm onto a segment of community, then I’d suggest nihilist behaviour is the best your going to get from some parts… Now, I’m left with the cleft stick of you being naive of stupid, and based on your tax arguments, you’re too cynical to be naive…
*sigh* Vilified and excluded, huh? Whatever. This go around grows tiresome.
I know I always blame society for the self-destructive life choices I make, though, so I guess you’re right there.
Simply your sociological ignorance shines through… Group behaviours are something of a closed book, eh? Ah well, I tried to play like you’re a nominally intelligent human, and you simply throw it back in my face…
-
you’re not related to clergy are you?
@Robert: The extreme (to some) behaviors
that you described in San Francisco are not
happening in a gay vacuum, where no one
had childhoods elsewhere, and no one has
ever been exposed to cultural bias against
homosexuality.
Anti-gay sentiment, through both implicit and
explicit means, is pervasive. It’s naive to
think that as soon as a gay person crosses
the border into San Francisco that no
memory of intolerance crosses with him or
her.
I’m getting back to what I said earlier about
homosexuality being accepted in culture as
a means of (1) affirming the natural state of
it and (2) diminishing extreme behavior on
both “sides.”
Benefits: Reduced number of fake hetero-
sexual marriages/relationships, reduced
number of hate crimes, increased harmony,
reduced number of unplaced orphans,
increased wisdom, increased prosperity,
decreased teenage suicides, decreased
depression, decreased drug abuse, increased wisdom and cultural enrichment in general.
Robert has not the first idea of how groups work… or at least gives every impression he doesn’t.
I understand what you’re saying about socialized behaviors, but I have to argue that people have the ability to make their own decisions about their lives, and blaming the world around them for their choices. I would still make the argument that the intolerance you’re talking about is less pervasive than some people think. Of course discrimination exists. But you have to make the decision to overcome it or capitulate to it.
Course, if we shipped people like the picture to a small island of their own where they could all be obnoxious to each other, that might help, too.
I’d also like to add that, although I don’t think the kind of behaviors seen at the gay pride parade are representative of the culture, it also makes them very poor emissaries of tolerance.
See, you can make sense from time to time…
Fester, a backhanded compliment from you is worth a parade and a float from anyone else. That wasn’t even completely backhanded.
I have warm fuzzies now…
You spoilt it by not shutting up while you were ahead…
@Robert: Point taken, but I would say that
you have to bring your own “ick” factor with
you. Other cultures (at large) would certainly
be more accepting than ours.
The point you made about “blaming the
world around them for their choices” is
lame for one, and possibly two reasons:
1. Nurture: The culture in which one is
raised has much to do with the values and
attitudes one has. I used the word “perva-
sive” there. It’s not a matter of *blame,*
certainly. You need a second thought on
what I said there.
2. Choices: Please don’t tell me you’re one
of those people who believe that sexuality
is a choice, and that gay people can just
erase their check mark beside one sexuality
and check the other. If that’s what you
meant by “choice,” you’re too far gone for
repair.
@UF:
“you’re not related to clergy are you?”
Oi. There’s nothing wrong with us wot are. :p
One of my antecendents was a missionary in the Middle East in the early part of the 20th Century.. Broke the back of the local Arab slave trade, despite the warnings not to interfere. The Methodist church fired him from their missionary corps for ignoring their ‘advice’. Still, it stopped the trade for five years, which was something…
-
So really, I shouldn’t say stuff like that…
There are some modern clergymen who are awesome, too. The last archbishop of Sweden, K.G. Hammar*, is one of the most interesting Christians I have ever heard talk. (I am not trying to imply that I’m related to him). Of course, not popular amongst all other Christians. :p
.
*) That wiki-article is a bit out of date, it says “He cited personal reasons, but declined to comment further. K.G. Hammar is married and has five adult children.”
while one of the reasons (if not the only reason) he quit was that his wife died.
rho:
I understand what you mean about socialization. I’m just of the opinion that you shouldn’t let your past rule you. Easier said then done, to be sure, but an attempt should be made.
As for sexuality, as something as complex as the mix of hormones, childhood, genetics, and culture is decidedly more than I’m prepared to tackle without a ridiculously bloated research grant. That said, even if I was of the opinion it was truly a matter of choice, I don’t believe in hosing people for how they choose to live their lives. I might have (or attempt to have, for that matter) an intelligent discussion, but that’s only because I’m curious about other people’s pasts-where they come from, their ethnicity, core beliefs, etc.
Wow…I totally wandered off topic there.
Summary: I feel that question is beyond my pay grade and will not make any judgments based on something I don’t fully understand.
Not that I think we’ll ever know for sure-way too much politics involved.
If God loves everybody, then what’s up with throwing people in a lake of fire to burn for all eternity? “I love you, but I’m going to sentence you to an eternity of agony for turning out the way I knew you would when I created you.” Uh, thanks God… really feelin’ the love!
it wasn’t his idea! how do you think he feels about it??? he loves you more than any and every thing and people just hate him in return! Its our fault we end up where we end up when we die! so don’t blame him…. he just wants you to love him that’s all.. I mean he gave you life that should be enough
It wasn’t his idea? His hands are tied? The -omnipotent creator of everything- is powerless to deviate from the course?
It’s all so clear to me now. THIS is how George W. Bush happened.
He/she is only Christian4life, not Christian4FieryEternalAfterlife.
Actually, they appear to be Chirstian4life, which may possibly be something entirely different.
Or it could just be a typo.
Maybe she’s just saying her name is Chirstian and she doesn’t care if you want her to change it.
She seems to be a retard of some sort, no matter how you spell her name…
A retard by any other name still sounds just as stupid.
Man, why’d you go and say that? Everyone else was just bringing the lols, and you just have to call names.
You’re the only one whining here…
Wet blanket much?
I’m going to have to agree with Christain4life, but I will say this was God’s idea. God created a Heaven and a Hell. Those who trust that his son Jesus Christ died on the cross to forgive them of their sins will go to heaven for eternity. But those who ignore it and believe their good works build them up o heaven will still go to hell because they ignore and pushed God out of their lives.
God doesnt care if you cure cancer or cure aids or something else awesome in life, if you dont trust and love him, you are undeserving of Heaven. Even the most brutal killers about sentenced to death will realize they need God because death is scary, many have asked for forgiveness before they were put to death in jail, and even though, they stole, killed, commit crimes all their life, that one moment of being a man and asking God for his forgiveness saved his soul for eternity.
So he loves everybody, and sends people who don’t love him back to hell?
God does love everybody. That’s why he allows each person to choose where they want to spend eternity. Those who accept God’s love choose to stay with him in Heaven. Those who reject God’s love choose to spend eternity without him in Hell.
It’s as simple as that.
Massed retard alert… Short brutal and nasty, and that’s just their family life….
Fester, this Sunday, why don’t you go to Church.
You have previously said that you only attend for funerals/christenings etc. and that you don’t like it because someone was nasty to your Mother. Maybe you have been and didn’t like the sermon. I don’t know.
Possibly, If you went and then said why it was bad, these discussions could be saner.
I do know that you never miss a chance to spew hatred (possibly as great as that of the WBC) at the mention (or opportunity to mention) religion.
Seriously, it seems like you stubbornly refuse to see the good in anything.
If you go to Church, I’ll read The God Delusion.
I’d not inflict Dawkins on anyone… not even I was convinced by the God delusion
I’ve been to church… numerous ones… I’ve yet to be impressed.
I’d recommend ‘Deconstructing Jesus’ by Robert M Price…
Yeah, Dawkins was the first one I could think of…
You’ll have to forgive me for assuming that you weren’t a churchgoer. The only things I can recall you basing your dislike of church on are from bad examples like the WBC.
I don’t know what the churches in your area are like so I can’t comment. I don’t have “Deconstructing Jesus” lying about the house at the moment, so I can’t comment on that either.
However, you can’t say there’s no good in this worthy old cliche. [LINK]
Gah! Guess who forgot to add the link…
I like high church, since it’s more or less the procession of Osris (thanks to the Alexandrian church), but I have to tune out the clergy, since they usually have a no grasp of the historical context of what they’re spouting, otherwise they’d not be able to do it straight faced…
I’ve never seen high church, being a dour presbyterian in the kirk…
the low church is just dull…
Full-in-yer-face-latin-RCC-mass-with-full-choir-and-tinkling-belss.
That’s ace… means nothing but God’s death, it’s theatre…
Rituals?
Bells?
High and Low churches?
Heirarchy?
Gosh, my little kirky soul gasps at the thought…
We’re sometimes lively… when the baptists and evangelicals are over for holy week or something…
Alistair the minister always said you could spot the presbyterians in a crowd -they always sit at the back. Seriously, once, at the evangelical, they’d blocked off the back pews… the back of the room was filled with traumatisedkirk folk realising they’d have to take a pew further forward.
not to mention: Incense!
i’m an anglican (fester you can translate for the masses) we have smells and bells on high holy days… it pretty much looks like a catholic mass except we don’t praiy to the virgin mary and we don’t talk about the infallibility of the pope…
We don’t even do altars…
Ubr is what is commonly termed ‘Episcopalian’ but a specific sub-variant which is the Church of England (They have Bishop Rowan Williams has head, rahter than someone else). All a schism of the RCC, and claims Apostolic Descent from Peter.
actually we’re not epsicopals anymore… after ECUSA instilled a bishop who was openly adulterous my church (and many others) split from the episcopal church of the united states. we are now members of the anglican communion directly… for a while we were actually members of the diocese of uganda…
Episcopal just means you have bishops…
technically yes… but here it has turned into a dirty word…
That’s because Christians are worse than ferrets. If they don’t have apostates to fight against, they fight each other…
Seems like a great system. Go with it!
*backs away slowly*
So:
So he loves everybody, and sends people who don’t love him … back to hell?
.
By the way, I’d be willing to consider accepting some gods’ love if said gods offered it to me (not by proxy.)
That ellipsis was misplaced, making my whole post daft. (The devil within me made me do it.)
.
(Should’ve been
“So he loves everybody, and sends people who don’t love him back … to hell?”
of course.)
John 3:18
You keep citing that. To be honest, I don’t think it contains the damning proof of God’s evil that you think it does. You choose darkness, you gain darkness.
you don’t choose Jesus, you get darkness… it’s like the King parable…
Personally, I think all the people making a lot of money off religion should take a long look at John 2:15-16…
The enemies dead come judgement time…
Exactly, having read the passage you will know that Jesus is described as the light. i.e. not the darkness.
when ever I hear of people making a fortune off religion, I usually think of W.C. Fields…
Above was @ UF.
@Diss: absolutely!
It’s either “tough love” or he’s bipolar: Your call.
There ain’t no devil, just god when he’s drunk’ Tom Waits
Hehe.
I’m glad I don’t have to bother with deciding which one to choose. ;p
He’s really jealous and conceited that way.
“So he loves everybody, and sends people who don’t love him back to hell?”
`
That’s pretty much what I’d do if I were all-powerful, but then, I’m not a very nice person.
Then obviously your god has his priorities way out of order. Why is your god such an attention whore?
Does this mean… Paris Hilton is God?!
Just what I wanted! To spend my afterlife with crazy psycho killers who only remorse because they don’t want JUSTICE for what they’ve done in their life!
In my opinion, this is absolutely ridiculous. Let’s say there is a doctor who has performed many, many surgeries and procedures throughout his life, such as transplants or heart bypass surgeries, things that have SAVED people’s lives — but he is atheist or agnostic, and though he saved many of “God’s creations” and blessed them with health and a longer life, he is going to hell? Yet some knife-wielding, bloodthirsty, greedy psychopath who rapes, robs, and kills the same amount of people gets absolved and live a fluttery happy afterlife because in a split second he wants “forgiveness”, just in case?
I see no justice in your God’s way of thinking, if this is the case.
There is no justice, only submission.
That makes absolutely no sense.
It makes perfect sense in terms of the meme… Danbala was affirming your point that it’s maggoty dingo’s kidneys, in a wet pile…
Oh. Sorry. :/ It made perfect sense in my head when I wrote it. ;p
I meant that the god of such rules is not primarily aiming for justice as one would usually like to see it – as consequences to actions towards fellow humans (and animals) – but that it’s far more important to be submissive to said god. (All expressed in a “There is no X, only Y”-pattern that goes back to … Ghostbusters, I believe.)
I hope that what you just said is just you being insane, and not a true representation of Christianity. Because if that’s the Christian God, I’d rather cure AIDS and go to hell.
I don’t hate your god, just as I don’t hate unicorns, elves, hobbits, fairies and Santa.
I DO hate elves, those uppity bastards.
Fairies: nasty, whispering, tittering, thieving creatures…
Ow! It bit me!
I’m with Lady Cottingley…
[link]
I had a calendar full of these several years ago… pressed fairies..
Oh, I’m sorry. I naively expected that people would be able to tell the difference between literature and [lewisblack]REALITY!!![/lewisblack]
She was joking… Sake…
Ok. Apologies.
@ “It wasn’t his idea…it’s our fault…”
No offense intended, but you sound like a battered housewife making excuses for an abusive husband.
It’s not “loving…you more than any and every thing” to require following and obedience with the threat of eternal torture for non-acceptance of said “love”.
Zing! That’s it exactly.
Yep… their God is like a creepy stalker who sends you roses… if you don’t want the roses, then he, or one of his employees with carve a smile into your face and then throw acid in your eyes…
Yeah, I’ve been of the opinion for some time, that this Jehova/Yahweh/Allah creature of the abrahamic religions, is, in fact, an evil god. Possibly one who jealously usurped power from any more benevolent nature powers or earth mother type deities that existed in the region before. Probably was some political maneuver of whatever his cult was trying to accomplish and they’ve ruined religion for most of the western world since. …
you Gnostic you…
LOL I’ll just go back to my corner and philosophize with so-crates and Bill&Ted.
Dust…wind….dude.
Every rose… has a thorn!
There is no lake of fire. The early church made it up, just as they made up most of the canon that is considered the “inspired word of god.”
Prepare to be ignored by the faithful masses gathered here, despite you hitting it squarely on the head…
There’s something very Orwellian about the religious. You can change their “history ” and they deny it was ever any different…
Yes, this makes sense. The omnipotent ruler of the cosmos, who created everything, can’t save his own creation. How does that compute? The way I see it, this god of yours is one of two things: either a) he’s not all powerful since he can’t save his own creations, or b) he’s a sadistic #&^$ for creating human beings with certain normal needs and desires, then telling them to deny said needs all their lives on pain of eternal torture. Not the sort I’m wanting to spend eternity with.
Cthulu on a plane, if I hadn’t been practically born a pagan I would be one now because of all the lunacy associated with major religions.
“It wasn’t his idea”? Isn’t he supposed to be the all-powerful, omnipotent being and creator? So then whose idea was it? O_o
God’s Boss: God, we need to have a fiery infernal pit where people who don’t believe in you burn for all of eternity.
God: What? NO WAI! I don’t want to do that! I heart everybody!
God’s Boss: Too bad, God, I’m the BOSS and you do as I say.
God: Well…all right…I’ll do it but I don’t like it…
God’s Boss: By the way, I’m going to need you to come in on Saturday…
It isn’t for all eternity. There is a way out of Hell. You just have to honestly repent your sins and ask for forgiveness. However, since Hell was invented by Catholics, who wear guilt like a sweater and refuse to take it off, Hell lasts for all eternity. For the rest of us, all God asks is that you honestly repent and he will make clean your soul and welcome you into Heaven. Honesty, of course, being key.
“I was raised Catholic. Then i reached the age of reason.” – Dennis Miller
“I was raised Catholic. Then i reached the age of reason.” – Dennis Miller
um…wasn’t that George Carlin?
Dark Dragon lowers the collective IQ of the species by 12 points with stuff that appears NO WHERE in the bible…
God, it must be like the Dark Ages in his head every waking hour of the day…
Wait, so Catholics invented hell, and can’t escape from it because they loves them some guilt…but everyone could end up in hell, even though apparently it’s an invention of man (specifically Catholics, those incense burning bastards)…I’m so confused.
Seems like bad form on the part of the Catholics to make hell last for all enternity when everyone else can just, um, honestly repent…especially since they’re always going to confession and everything. Poor form, Catholics!
The Pagans invented hell, the Early Christians made it a place of schriving, and the RCC made it a permanent place of torment…
I believe under-/netherworlds are one of those ever-migrating myths in mankind’s history. The Catholiic take on hell was of course the Catholic invention. But yes, of course, it’s an invention of Man, just like the God that’s punishing them.
I love the Sandman comics on this bit – Lucifer moaning about having to try to punish people who want nothing more than to be punished. Quite a dilemma. :p
It’s a very well wrought SM-contract, religion. It even has that safeword mechanism. :p
God doesn’t throw anyone into the lake of fire. We throw ourselves by choosing to sin.
Don’t blame your own sinful nature on God.
You can’t blame the government if you commit a crime.
Oh please, you need an abusive father to keep you good and you know it…
You can’t even compose a logical argument as to why ‘eternal’ punishment is needed, other than a sinful nature that your God, as the only creator in town, made…
*UUUUUUHUUUUUUUNNNN*
Want to go for double Jeopardy, where things can really change?
God didn’t create sin. We did.
God is an everloving father. He gave us free will so that we would choose to love him. (You would rather someone choose to love you, than force them, right?) We created sin out of our own free will.
Hell is a place for Satan. It is the punishment of Satan. Hell was not created for people to go to. But if you don’t follow God, you follow Satan. There are only 2 paths.
Satan and all of his followers will be cast into the lake of fire.
So… If you’re reading this, than it means you’re alive and still have the choice of who you would like to follow.
But your god did make sin, if you think about it. He makes naturally curious creatures, tells them ‘don’t eat off that tree’ and stands back to see what happens. Big surprise, the creatures take a bite. And your god, rather than saying, ‘oh well, I guess that was bound to happen’, blows his stack and condemns not only the creatures but all of their ensuing progeny. Thus sin only exists because your god made it be so. And don’t give me the ‘free will’ bull. If a person had free will to choose between loving your god and not loving your god then there wouldn’t be any negative outcome for not choosing him. Otherwise it’s like saying ‘love me or I disfigure you with this pen knife.’
It’s like playing russian roulette, but with 5 bullets, not 1
So anything you do wrong can ultimately be blamed on
someone else? Isn’t that what you’re saying?
The very idea of free will, is that we are masters of our own
destiny. God created us and gave us the earth. We created sin
by disobeying.
So what you’re saying is by giving us the option to sin, God
created sin?
Does that really make any sense to you?
Say you have a child, and you give them the option to touch
anything they want in your house, but you tell them not to touch
the stove, because it is hot and they will get burned.
Say they, out of curiosity, go and touch the stove and get burned.
Are you responsible for the burn?
Or are they?
I’d say God telling us not to eat from the tree did the opposite of
create sin, it warned us against it.
We took it upon ourselves to sin.
To create it out of disobedience.
So, mankind gets punished forever for one error of judgement…
-
To take the stove analogy, child touches stove, gets
burned. Burn heals. But God as parent, reburns the
same place. Heals-reburns… child grows up has kids
Grandpa God not only keeps the burn fresh on mom,
but burns the kids too. Forever…
-
Tell me, do you not actually think before you post, or does faith somehow remove your critical faculties?
I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying.
Because Adam and Eve sinned does not mean you are
condemned to hell.
That was the original sin, but the only relation it has to you, is
that because of it, you are aware of sin.
You know the choice you have.
You mentioned that God “reburns”. Does that mean after Adam
sinned by eating the apple, God is forcing more apples down his
throat?
I’m having trouble understanding your point, if any.
No, you’re not understanding it since, essentially, you’re a stuiptd zealot who tries to spread the stupid like it’s truth, rather than the social coping mechanis of a m an emotional cripple…
curse that touch pad!
* – the social coping mechanisms of an emotional cripple…
Says the guy who can’t have a civil discourse but instead devolves into cursing and name-calling if you dare disagree with him.
No different to you, pal, no different to you…
I manage just fine with everyone else…
You need to get out more…
perhaps it is different in your denomination, but there are those that believe a child, unbaptized, goes to hell for original sin. so reburning.
there is also the great pains during childbirth thing. If you believe that is a punishment god gave women then you believe that all women are still being punished for a lack of judgement from eve. So…reburning.
It isn’t just that we are now aware of sin, it is that man will never go back to a time when they are not being punished for it.
I don’t know who believes that. Even old-school Catholics believe tehy go to Purgatory, which wouldn’t be all bad cuz you could hang out with Plato and Socrates.
now i suppose. I was under the impression they went to limbo, which was technically a part of hell, until the pope said there wasn’t purgatory
‘Limbo’ isn’t a part of Hell. It really isn’t a part of anything. In the OT it is described as ‘the bosom of Abraham’, which is pretty close to Heaven ifyou read the Parable of the Slave from the NT. Jesus tells about a slave who went to the ‘bosom of Abraham’ instead of (or on his way to) Heaven.
The idea of Limbo being a part of Hell comes straight from Dante (who also said that’s where unbaptized infants went).
Which Pope said there wasn’t a purgatory? My familiarity w/Catholic dogma is a little sketchy of late.
Canon gets iffy, especially with the catholic doctrine (to me anyway) bI am willing to believe that limbo isn’t part of hell, i’m no expert, but iit’s still a form of punishment so far as I understand. From what I know the…real punishment of hell is to know of the presence of god and be seperated from it. babies in limbo could not get to heaven.
Limbo isn’t purgatory, in purgatory you work off your sins, the only ones that do not go to purgatory first are saints. so the babies went to limbo, and never went to heaven. Now i assume they go to purgatory and work off their baby sins…
Link in my name to an article on the recent decision (2007) of the latest pope to abolish limbo.
“Pope Benedict XVI has reversed centuries of traditional Roman Catholic teaching on limbo, approving a Vatican report released Friday that says there were “serious” grounds to hope that children who die without being baptized can go to heaven. ”
~So unless i critically misunderstand the catholic doctrine, the unbaptized babies were being punished for original sin
Seems valid, but it does eliminate the argument that you go to Hell for original sin, which is what it seemed like to me was being bandied about earlier.
IT ‘eliminated’ the argument, since infant mortality was so damned high that people were falling from the church since they didn’t fancy that god…… so, as with so much of the canon and dogma, they made something up on the spur of the moment.
Now, Limbo has a bad press,so, what the RCC invented, the RCC did away with…
Ever noticed how this sounds a lot like discussing the rules of AD&D? There is a reason… It’s cos four men in a room with a drink and paper made the whiole thing up… Unless you think AD&D is divinely inspired… It’s certainly had as much work put into it as canon…
Original Sin was inveneted as a catchall and is still part of canon…
It wasn’t that the babies were going to Hell, it was that they were being punished at all that really bothers me about original sin. The babies used to go to limbo where they suffered for eternity. perhaps not as much as one would in hell, but still they suffered. Now I’m not sure what happens to them, but i’m guessing purgatory, where they would still be punished, but for original sin so eventually they get to heaven.
I don’t like the idea of sinful babies. I find original sin to be a cruel joke on the part of God, that simply by existing to take part in his wonderful creation that he made for you, you have done wrong and you are unclean.
It strikes me as a parent making a room just for you, but you’re grounded if you ever go in it.
It’s more a case of “Don’t touch this thing, because I say so.”
You, as a parent, are obviously responsible if the child gets burned after that. And if you, to add to that, punishes the child for its mistake, you are despicable.
Furthermore, your idea that there shouldn’t be a
negative consequence is merely wishful thinking. Wouldn’t it
be nice if nothing we did in life had negative consequences?
I go back to my example of the stove and the child.
Its like God telling us as the child to either not touch the stove,
or touch it. Of course there has to be a negative consequence,
otherwise he wouldn’t tell us not to touch it.
One thing non-believers have the biggest struggle with,
when it comes to being open-minded about our beliefs, is that
there are very real negative consequences for our decisions
in life. Modern society raises you to think that there is nothing that
you could do that can’t be fixed by medicine, meditation, or money.
My beliefs say that there is good and there is evil. If you choose to be evil, you accept the consequences that go with it.
I know its hard to deal with the fact that there is ultimately a fiery destination for people who choose to be evil, and its sad to think that we all can’t go on living with no consequences for our actions, but that’s just how it is.
See above, you’re a cretin.
And you’re ignorant. End of story I suppose.
Oh, my dear thing, you beat me on the ignorance stakes… I’m perhaps a fool for bandy words with someone clearly as impaired as you are, but uoi beat me on ignorance every time… hammered in to the ground I am…
that’s a very blanket statement. I for one know there are serious concequences for my actions. I can’t stab my best friend and expect money and meditation to fix our friendship, or fix my life after i have been thrown in jail. I believe an action is bad because of the negative effects it has on myself and others, and an action is good for it’s positive effects. I find it…mildly disturbing at times that there are people that do not consider the consequences of this world, but only the outcome in a next one. If the only thing preventing you from doing evil is the idea of self preservation, you are many levels below a person that does good f for the sake of others…just my opinion anyway.
I’m not sure who you have met that’s admitted they do not believe in consequences.
I’ve never, ever come across that. Most people are well aware of negative consequences, and as far as non-believers go, “we” can focus on the very real consequences that happen in response to our actions, and not get diverted by any ideas about what a fantasy higher power might do in the afterlife. For instance, I have no reasons to treat people badly to score points with a god. The “heaven/hell”-thing is not real consequences.
Fact, eh? Funny use of word. I know it’s very much harder to deal with the actuality that your actions here and now, in this world, amongst living people, matter here and now, and that is the only thing worth focusing on. I feel sorry for anyone who can’t see what’s right and wrong without pondering whether it’s a “send to heaven”/”send to hell”-action.
looking this over again i had a thought “One thing non-believers have the biggest struggle with,
when it comes to being open-minded about our beliefs, is that
there are very real negative consequences for our decisions
in life.”
that’s like saying “the problem with theists and their struggle to be open minded is that they all think that everyone and everything is really a small part of one giant elephant god” sounds silly doesn’t it? it isn’t even accurate to the group belief that i’m basing my assumption on
All that hell Satan demons lake of fire stuff was thought up after the fact. K’reck me if I am wrong but Jesus never spoke much of eternal damnation, at least not in graphic specifics.
Not specifics, but John and Synoptics both contain clauses that say “but if ya don’t follow me I’m gonna cut you so bad your momma won’t know ya, and if she don’t believe, then I’ll cut her up too…’ (paraphrasing heavily)…
The lake of fire wasn’t created for humans. It was created for Satan. After judgment day, when God sends Satan into the lake of fire, Satan will bring all of his followers with him.
There are only two paths to choose in this life.
Follow God, or follow Satan.
God isn’t sending anyone into the lake of fire. Those people are gladly walking that path on their own.
Most don’t know it, and that’s why I’m telling them.
God is saddened when people ignore him and skip down the path into the lake of fire.
He intended it only for Satan.
Its really up to you which path you take.
Its not up to God.
He’s merely given us a guidebook.
God’s stripes and wounds, but you live in a nasty, Hamburger universe… God in the top bun, watching for you to screw up, Satan in the bottom bun trying to make you screw up… It’s like a breath of the 1400s…
What’s really sad is, this mouth-breather gets a vote.
@what what?
i’m not a Christian but i am glad someone else had the same reaction as me
As a Baptist, let me tell you, there is nothing ‘Christian’ about Westboro Baptist Church (The people in the picture).
Organized religion isn’t the problem, it’s organized bigotry and hatred.
I believe God hates some of the things we do, but he loves us. (things such as murder, terrorism, abuse, failure to love and help others). However, His message is about forgiveness and compassion.
He wants us to love eachother. I shudder to think that people equate my loving, giving, welcoming church with this evil doctrine.
(First Corinthians 13)
11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is LOVE.
“I even went so far as to become a Southern Baptist for a while, until I realized that they didn’t hold ‘em under long enough.” –Kinky Friedman
since when was Paul the word of God? Ah right… about 200 years after everyone involved was dead…
Spare us the bollocks, since there are passages that countermand all that…
20 years or so, was it not?
A fair bit of the new testament was written MUCH later. Plus, the ancient went through a “pick and choose” phase where they “decided” what would be official canon and what was to be thrown out according to what THEY thought should be in there. The whole modern faith is based on what a bunch of these early priests thought should be in the bible.
…and a bunch of creative translations, as well, iirc?
Translations, transcriptions, re-transcriptions… you name it. I saw a comic strip once that featured a monk proofreading something over the shoulder of another one saying something like “Oh, no, it was supposed to say “celebrate”, not “celibate.”
Bart D Erhman: Misquoting Jesus.
According to Wiki: “The Acts of Paul is one of the major works from the New Testament apocrypha, an approximate date given to the
Acts of Paul is 160 C.E.”
Paul’s letters tho, were earlier, were they not?
[LINK]
Wow, I quoted a passage saying the greatest thing we could do was love, and you argue about the writer of that passage?
Fester, there is something wrong with you.
“Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all other philosophers are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.” H. Mencken
By the ’same’ writer who wrote most of the stuff that people have
been given the biggest collection of reasons to oppress and hate…
so forgive me if one swallow doesn’t make a summer, you cherry
picking loon…
“Do you believe in god?” “No.” *BOOM*
“Do you believe in god?” “Yes.” “Do you believe in MY god?” “No.” *BOOM*
“My god has a bigger dick than your god!”
- George Carlin
The man was always right.
George Carlin abides. (Apologies, Dude).
In my version of reality, he’s on the eternal UFO tour with Bill Hicks… there’s a line up I’d have paid a lot to see…
I think I’d be standing right behind you (that way if, for some reason, we had to turn around and run, I’d be in front)
1. Partake in religion founded by a man who taught his followers to love one another before anything else
2. Hate other people
3. Employ cognitive dissonance
4. …
5. Profit, apparently.
It’s worked for everyone from Eusebius to L. Ron Hubbard…
one of the funniest stories i ever heard was about a bet that l ron hubbard and isaac asimov had… their wager was: who could start their first religion and have a thousand followers… hubbard definitely collected on that one…
Hubbard cheated some, since he got hints from Aleister Crowley and Jack Parsons…
well then obviosly the only remaining option is that they are wrong about God.
One of the many reasons I gave up on organized religion.
They are not. Everyone is a hypocrite but these people make it into an art form. They hide behind “god” to push their ignorant views on the populace while conveniently ignoring everything about God that contradicts their beliefs.
Bit like everyone who’s been twitching that ‘they’re not “True Chrisitans”‘
Splinters and planks one feels…
Religion is not right about God. God did not invent religion. Man did. The bible is the true and living Word of God. In it you will find Jesus condemning the “religious”.
Man invented God in his own image… disprove…
Maybe that was God’s plan all along! Just wait for man to invent him….
Prove…
prove…
prove any of your counter-theories.
prove anything.
or just continue being a forum troll.
I think I’ve pretty much nailed your sorry ass to the floor several times, Godbotherer…
All you’ve done is shown that you have nothing backing your disbelief but spite for people who do believe. Pretty counterproductive if you ask me. Unless you’re just trying to annoy people. Which you have done quite well.
Actually I have
1) the origin of scripture, which I have reference
2) the unhistoricity of the bible, which I have referenced
-
you’ve brought
1) Post Augustinian exegesis, which I recognised as such, but you really just played the ‘faith’ card…
In the end, Twain had it about right, and you’re just a nasty person hiding dehind an imaginary god that forgives you for thinking stuff you can’t forgive yourself for, based on a crappy book that you have no idea of the history for, since you’re programmed not to ask…
If it’s any consolation, you have my pity, while I regard you as the human version of human nuclear waste… dangerous and contaging in equal measure
But then Christianity is a religion…right?
In ur pictur, makin broad generalizations.
Get the hence to LOLcats you moron…
Screw off you bigot. See? I can do it too!
you can talk you mouth breathing spaniel lick turd…
westboro baptist church = widely known for being extremist.
the vast majority of christians = not like that.
Prop 8 begs to differ…
I would like to see the numbers of the groups that consisted of the people who voted for prop 8, but that’s unlikely to happen.
All I know is that not all of them were Christians.
In fact, I would wager to guess not a lot of them were Christians.
They were just people.
Many different kinds of people.
With many different reasons to vote on that proposition.
I don’t know why they did it.
But don’t blame that prop passing on Christians.
If you believe in equal rights for all, how about stop playing the blame game and perhaps work on a project or cause that will help equal rights?
All that I’ve seen since the prop passed is a bunch of people sitting around complaining about it and not doing anything.
So go do something about it.
If it matters to you stop blaming the church and start blaming yourself for not doing what you could to stop it.
If you care to know, although I am a person that believes being gay is a sin, I did not vote for prop 8. Because I believe in freedom for everyone. Regardless if that freedom contradicts some of my personal beliefs.
Now in my church, I am strictly against gay marriage. But outside of my church, in this great nation of ours, which my church does not control, I am indifferent.
If I ever feel the need to judge someone, I just go back to Matthew 7:1-2
“Judge not, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
So there… you now know my viewpoint.
Lots of Obama voters, as it turns out-blacks and Hispanics. And you should have seen some of the slurs that the left wing blogs (you know, the bastions of tolerance and equalities) were throwing around after the vote. Of course, the Mormons got the blame, but they were a relatively small portion, at the end of the day. So basically, we have Barry to thank for Prop 8 passing. That, ladies and gentleman, is known as irony.
Someone call Alanis Morrisette.
and blacks and Hispanics tend to be Baptist, Catholic or Islamic
As to it being Obama’s fault, I’ll blame their bigoted superstitions over their choice of president, rather like I blame your parents repeated blows to you head making you such a loudly stupid redneck…
Don’t you have a cross burning to attend?
Uncle Fester once again shows how ignorant he can be.
He is like a festering scab on the skin of society. One that should just be pluck off and flicked into the trash, where he belongs.
Yeah, you must be new, Jojo. See, Fester’s quite loud and stupid himself, so when he runs out of anything that resembles substance, he resorts to what he learned on the playground beating up kids smaller than him-if you just call enough names, maybe you’ll demoralize your opponent into giving up. Since this only actually works on the weak and the stupid, I could really care less, beyond that he doesn’t further the dialog by being an insufferable ass.
And so, the Chrisitan reveals their true nature… I knew it was there…
And since when has the ‘bully’ been on the loser’s side, Roberto?
Dunno if you’ve noticed, Fester, but you seem to bring out the worst in people. Maybe it’s cuz you show all the restraint of a baby with a shotgun?
Oh, yeah, Fester, cuz shouting down people who disagree with you in an environment where you’re in the majority view is the pinnacle of bravery, right?
Awww diddums… do I offwend you?
Good… about time some one did…
-
I’ll try and make my point so it won’t dent your little tin brain…
Nothing I say will ever make a jot of difference. Now, I could be nice and courteous and studious and be ignored, or I can have fun pissing off the zelots and still be ignored…
Jojo is a cretin. I know it, you at the bottom of you, know it… but it’s easier to hide behind being offended than it is to address points… After all, what sort of retard pulls the race card and then says ‘blame the President’? Ah, right, that would be you…
And again, Fester, you offend me only in the sense that you’re a member of the human race who doesn’t seem to want to talk. I don’t care that you disagree with me. I don’t care that you think religion is silly. And I’m more than willing to pay attention to me. But if you have a discourse, rather than fling around insults, I might listen to what you say. Let me rephrase that. I’ll listen either way, cuz I actually like to know what other people think people think about stuff. But other people might listen, too, if you treated them like human beings.
Oi….I’m not done. Jojo has her opinions. I don’t agree with everything she’s said, but I’m not gonna call her a moron cuz she believes it. And it’s hard to address points when you don’t make any, you just fling bile.
It’s hard to make points when people just
fling bronze age superstition over laid with
hatred of the species like it’s fact.
I’ve made points, but you choose to address
the insults, therefore it must be the insults
that interest you…
I address the points you make. The insults frustrate me. I know you’re capable of intelligent conversation when you choose to be.
And rereading my freaking post again, I grow to loathe the poore text wrapping on PK.
No, you get but hurt over being called a cretinous redneck…
“butt”
And, a) I’m neither a cretin, nor a redneck, and b) I grow tired o fthe loud idiot who won’t have a conversation but instead flings around insults, and c) which of your “points” have I not responded to?
Use the web page search function… you’ll see them. And remeber, faith means somewhere between nothing and an indication of some sort of mental impairment
Yeah, I know better than to argue with you on the basis of faith. If you won’t answer my question, I suppose that means this particular thread has reached a dead end.
they are like, soooooooooo unlike christ lol.
Let’s see
Jesus – Dead, those lads – not
Jesus – supposed son of god, those lads – not
Jesus – had a naked youth with him in the Garden at Gethsemane, those lads – strangely silent on the matter
Jesus – strangely silent on his dislike of gay golk, those lads -not
Nope, they’re not like Jesus. Paul, they are a lot like…
::gahahaha:: I hate Paul so much. Preachy hypocritical bastard!
Concur!!!
Yeah, those aren’t Christians. They’re more like a cult than anything. And not even a legitimate cult like Scientology…
Find the fault their theology before you say that… they have the same amount of exegesis to make their assertions, and are more convincing in them than anyone who states ‘They’re not Christians’…
Because according to Christian dogma, a stance of hatred is pretty much the opposite of what the Christ would have done, and because anyone who says they are “Christian” are in every literal way saying “I am like Christ,” anyone who follows such a path would most definitely NOT be a Christian. It’s a paradox, and oxymoron.
Also,
cult –noun
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
They use the name term “God” which is unequivocally religious. Their posters certainly seem extreme and unorthodox to me. We can argue the whole “Jesus loves me”/”God wants to smite me” contradiction, but even considering that, what they’re promoting here seems just a tab bit over kill and uncalled for in any social group that claims to be civilized.
I’m afraid you’ve not actually disproved their theology, just given me an opinion, which is largely specious in terms of observed behaviour of the large group of Christians…
You really must try harder to understand what you claim to believe…
It’s a matter for debate. Some read Leviticus as laws for everyone to abide by, others read them as a code for ancient Israelite priests. It is argued that the laws existed to distinguish Jews from Canaanites who practiced temple prostitution as part of their religion, and that it’s that act that is condemned, so it is not applicable to stable, loving homosexual relationships.
Then there’s the whole Sodom story. God promised Abraham he would spare the entire city if there were righteous people in it. He sent 2 angels to see if there were, and they find only Lot’s family. While the angels are in his house, the men of Sodom demand Lot hand them over so they can rape them. Lot refuses and instead offers them his virgin daughters. Some read that as God destroying Sodom because they were homosexuals. An alternative interpretation asks why would a guy who knew them offer a bunch of gays his daughters to stop them raping his guests? This interpretation argues that the men wanted to rape the angels not because they were gay, but because it was a way of establishing dominance over them. Given that male on male rape is frequently carried out by men who would only be interested in consensual sex with women and that rape has been used to establish dominance for many centuries, this would seem a very plausible explanation.
Then there’s the whole question of the applicability of the Old Testament laws. It can be argued they apply only to Jews, the stringency of the laws is why Rabbis are required to try to dissuade people from converting to Judaism, being a Jew carries special obligations that don’t apply to Gentiles. Then you have to consider the belief that since the coming of Christ the Old Testament law no longer applies, there’s numerous references to that in the New Testament. Galatians is largely about just that, for instance. Or maybe take Christ’s assertion that all the Old Testament laws can be summed up in two commandments, love God and love your fellow man.
Romans 1 is also part of the issue… so basically, we can now eat rabbits, have tattoos but if two people of the same gender fall for each other, they are under Levitican law… simple really… next…
I love you. I have made that argument about Sodom many times but most people refuse to hear it.
*returns to lurking*
I’m afraid anthropology has little sway with most folks… they’ve been otld what it means and that the end of the game…
*told
Westboro baptist “church” is simply nuts. They are a small church and do not have any members outside of their extended family.
As to whether they are “Christian,” this is an interesting debate. For a long time Protestants did not believe that Catholics were “Christians” and vice versa. It’s not a terribly useful term.
It’s all besides the point anyway. It’s a logical fallacy to say “some of group X are dumb, therefore all of group X are dumb.” Westboro baptist church is equally scorned by conservatives and liberal, Christian and not.
IF you look at Chrisitan beleifs from the outside, it’s all pretty nuts, from the bit with the two people in the nip at the start to the bit at the end with all the mad stuff with the beast and the end of the world and dead people getting better and digging themselves up…
‘No true Scotsman?’
Very much so…
In what way are they not Christians?
Because they’re putting their own prejudice before the word of God. The New Testament rejects the laws of the Old Testament and sums them up in 2 commandments, love God and love others as yourself. It also brinks in annoying little things like not judging others. They’re doing just that, and using God’s name to do it. They’re using God’s name to attack people they don’t like. You could easily argue that is hurting their fellow man and showing disrespect to God by using his name to do it. By doing that, they’re breaking the two commandments with which Jesus replaced all the Old Testament laws.
Aren’t they interpreting the word of God to tell them to do what they do?
No, they’re cherry picking the bits they want to to justify attacking a group they don’t like. There’s no real merit behind their theology, it’s just hatred wrapped up in a thing veil of Christianity.
Heaven forbid that a believer would cherry-pick from a religious text or use their religion to justify their own prejudices! Mercy!
I know, shocking isn’t it?
you mean like people above are cherry picking to distance themselves from the group while actually holding pretty much the same views on most of the tihngs they do…
“Using God’s name to attack people they don’t like.” This is a perfectly apt description of the history of the three “great faiths”, if not all deistic religion!
Ah, so I followup with a second reply to this same post, since I’ve had more time to think now.
I’ve heard lots and lots of people say that they are against homosexuality in one way or another because of their Christian faith. It ranges from “at least they shouldn’t be allowed top get married in Church” up towards the Phelps-insanity. Are they all not Christian – is there a limit where the way you express your hatred “in the name of God”* makes you not a Christian?
.
Isn’t it more a case of “good” Christians and “bad” Christians (being a case of “in the eye of the beholder”)?
.
*) I am fairly convinced that many of those would be as homophobic even if there were no Bible to blame it on.
Amen! Testify!!!
They are a f***ing insane family from tennesee (?) I think. they have no church members beyond their family. Also, ALL they do is protest shit in the most offensive way possible. Like they protest the funerals of dead American soldiers because the Army lets in gay people. Ask yourselves: would the Christians you know do such a thing?
google westboro baptist church.
No, no, no — we have plenty of nuts of our own in Tennessee! The Phelps a-holes are from Kansas, thankyouverymuch!
aye, one of the things that sucks about living in kansas is dealing with the Phelps family… as they are the only people from kansas who get in any form of national media
You guys have Bob Dole and Kathleen Sebelius.
Amelia Earhart was from Kansas, too, right?
Dust in the Wind?
Yeah, I know what they do and I certainly agree that they are twats.
“Ask yourselves: would the Christians you know do such a thing?”
That would seem fairly irrelevant to the question.
Christian = Christ-like.
Did Jesus ever hold signs and protest against gays?
No.
In fact he spent most of his time with people that society would consider “unclean”.
He hardly spent time with the people who followed him because they already knew the truth and were following him.
So he would spend his time with people that actually needed him.
And he loved every single person he met.
A complete, irrefutable, indiscriminate, perfect love.
Christian = Christ-like.
Where do you get this definition of the word Christian? It’s certainly not the most common one, and suddenly using this meaning of the word changes the question s well. (into a question I couldn’t care less about.)
It’s the usual semantic rubbish one gets when you corner a cultist… it’s a bit like a black rat, just with fewer scruples about accuracy…
You know, of all things that person just said up there, you focused on the one thing that wasn’t the most important part. Christian actually does derive from those that claim to be followers of Jesus Christ. The implication was that their goal was to be like Christ. Now, if you’d get past that little bit of semantics, you’d see that over all, they were pointing out that the ‘Christians’ in this photograph are not what a Christian should be. Keep in mind, that the term Christian is just another way to bunch us all together, because there’s a lot of us. The problem is, Christianity was never meant to be about being an organized religion, but because we are human, we don’t know how to do anything but jump together and make up crap. The faith is what is at the center of it. It’s supposed to be about an individual faith and relationship with Jesus Christ. It all boils down with what you do with the resurrection.
UF will ask someone to clarify and then call it semantics…
The invective is just refusal to acknowledge that someone else may have a point.
Generally speaking, it is a semantic back flip to make a word mean something it clearly doesn’t from the context…
But then, I’d not expect that to make sense to you… since in most debates you’re a cornered rat…
Oh, so to be on top of an argument, you must be rude and abrasive, while the context of your argument has little to do with whether you are “winning” or not. I think I would prefer to be the cornered rat that makes interesting points than the bigot that ignores valid points, instead point out semantics.
i agree! all uncle fester has done is make off based insults and show a general lack of knowledge.
You’re wrong-Fester knows a lot. That just makes him more frustrating. You’d think someone who knows that much would be just a little more level-headed, but nope.
Jojo relies a little too much on faith to be actually much use in an agrument… that and an IQ in the low 60s…
And, Redneck, facts seem to get ignored unless back with mustard gas and loud explosions here… it’s the culture I’m afraid…
Why do you constantly fall back on ‘redneck’ as your only means of insulting people who don’t agree with you. Sounds like
someone probably grew up getting abused and harassed by rednecks.
Why do you prop up your inability to deal with the real world by claiming everyone who believes differently to you is going to hell?
Everyone else abuse you?
As to the redneck insult, I speak as I find… Some are rednecks, you’re a cretin…
Why does it matter what she believes? How does it affect you? Why do you prop up the inability to deal with the real world by claiming everyone whoe believes differently than you is a raving moron? Everyone else abuse you?
Ah, the parrot method of trolling… you really are some sort of cretin… to think it acutally works on me… but since you bother, oh white knight of the “oppressed” majority, I’ll indulge you, although you are really devoid of seeing the horror that Jojo really is at heart…
Basically, what she believes it the mental version of plague.
She came to spread it here.
You seem to have no problem with her poison, almost like you enjoy it…biology boy… Seems I’m pissing in the wind as I said I was… A red neck cretin and a delusional self loather… a match made in heaven…
I’m sorry if turning your own words against you makes you so unhappy, Fester. I don’t know anything more about Jojo than you do. I’m just not prepared to indite anyone based on their belief system. And again, I’m here where I’m about as far from the majority as one can get. You run around, spouting intolerant inanities, and then claim to be some sort of hero for the downtrodden. I think she has the right to believe what she wants, as do you. I just have this crazy idea that groups shouldn’t be impugned for the actions of an obnoxious minority. Which is why I don’t hate all atheists even though you’re an enormous douchebag.
Oh, and you seem to get much more in the way of jollies from her “poison” than i do. I just have this crazy idea that people have the right to express their beliefs, whereas you seem to think that anyone who believes differently than you is a syphilis-addled mental case.
Hell…
“indict”
No, it was an important part. People are saying that these nutjobs aren’t Christian. The common meaning of “being Christian” is to believe that Jesus was the son of God (and God), the saviour of man and he died for humans’ sins etc.
Yes, there are many different flavours of Christianity, but the question that it’s okay for any other Christian to judge these at not Christian because of their behaviour is not answered by talking about “Christian” as “behaving like Christ” instead.
*sigh*
This atheist, at this point, would dearly love to lamp you into the middle of next week’s Quaker meeting. You’re giving all of us as bad a name as the Westboro lot give Christians. For the love of humanity, please stop.
How do you mean that Uncle Fester’s comments give you a bad name?
Good catch. I don’t much appreciate having my feelings
spoken for, if I haven’t even been asked to portray them.
Gwenwhatever should not speak for a crowd, without
consulting them first.
Perhaps because he’s an intolerant ass?
Ah, but the question is not about Uncle Fester’s style of discussion, but how it gives her a bad name.
I understand, but I think that’s her point-she doesn’t want people to think athiests are all that way, in the same vein that I’m not really wild about the Phelps clan being held up as some sort of example of Christians.
Yes, I would also interpret that as her point. But I wanted to ask her how she meant before I started discussing it. Alas, she seems to have left the thread.
It’s possible that she didn’t click the “Subscribe the Thread” box. Happened to me when I first got here.
Do you mean the “Notify me of follow-up comments via em
ail.”? Does that send a mail for every comment in the thread, or just for the direct followups, or for every comment hierarchally (hierarchicly? hierarchicacally? herionymically?) under your post? I never click it – seems spammy. ;p
That’s the one. Yeah, it is a little spammy, but it’s easier (for me) to just wade through all the comments that come through rather than try to remember what I posted on what, when, and then try to track it down after a week or two.
Yes… I’ll try it some time.
Suffix
-ian
1. (as an adjective) From, related to, or like.
2. (as a noun) One from, belonging to, relating to, or like.
Ah yes, my question was poorly phrased – I meant it more in a “why this – not the definition we’re using here”, but I worded it as a question about etymology. My bad, sorry.
.
(“Christian” stems from Latin/Greek (kristianus/kristianos).)
You do realize that all religions are “cults,” don’t you? A cult is simply defined as an organization with a specific set of beliefs. Christianity is a cult. The military is most certainly a cult. It’s only in recent times that we’ve given a negative association to the word “cult” after various doomsday cults have been put into the limelight. Granted, groups like WBC do fall into that category of nut job religions, but that doesn’t make them any more or less a cult than mainstream Christianity.
this is a devastatingly stupid post. Is the democratic party a cult? Are the New Atheists a cult? Is the boyscouts a cult?
The boy scouts certainly are. They have their set beliefs, you have to be inducted in via a means of proving yourself, and they alter the way in which you think about things. In a GOOD way, yes, but altering none the less. It just depends on how broadly you want to apply the word. Random House Unabridged Dictionary offers the following as a definition of cult: A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. Would you not agree that all 3 groups you mentioned could fall under that definition? They all 3 have their specific ideals that the venerate.
Not that atheism requires the veneration of anything. Not reason. Not the scientific method. Not even (gasp!) Richard Dawkins! All that’s required is a lack of belief in gods.
One could argue that the staunch declaration of a lack of anything in the afterlife is also an ideal, and thus qualifies as a cult belief. Saying that there is no chance for anything to exist is most certainly a belief.
*is getting a distinct sense of deja vu*
“Saying that there is no chance for anything to exist is most certainly a belief.”
That depends on how narrowly you define the “anything” that one won’t believe in.
Comparing the statement of “there is nothing” to the statement “there could be something,” which is the generic atheist vs agnostic comparison, means that the atheists are in fact stating a belief. A belief in nothing, but a belief nonetheless. The New Atheists have a belief that main stream religion has a negative effect on science and education. Their “ideal” is to combat this, prevent it from happening. As such, they are a cult. Neither good nor bad, they simply are.
Hm. But the belief is on par with “my sock drawer does not contain an obscure sock stealing mini-micro-pygmy tribe”. Not believing that such a tribe doesn’t exist isn’t the same as a belief in their nonexistance.
.
Well, technically it is. I believe that Santa doesn’t exist, Hogwarts is just a magical school in a fantasy book etc. I cannot know they don’t, because proving something’s nonexistence is kinda tricky.
.
I guess I just don’t see how “There could be a Santa” is less a belief than saying “There is no Santa”.
WIN.
There’s a difference for sure. If someone says, “Everyone who believes that Santa exists, stand over here, and everyone who believes that Santa does _not_ exist, stand over there.”
.
Where does the person who can’t decide what they believe stand? They’re in a third, separate category.
.
I’m not trying to extend the analogy here, btw
Yes, absolutely – they’re a third category, but that was not what I was “arguing” against.
My stance is the Buddhist stance: it simply doesn’t matter if there is a God or not. Or, more precisely, it may matter, but no one can prove that it does, therefore, it is pointless to worry about whether God exists or not. As no human can prove there is a God, and God himself hasn’t proven His existence to me, God’s existence or lack thereof can have no possible bearing on how I live my life. Oh, it could if I chose to let it matter, but then I would have to decide on WHICH God I believe in. The chances of getting it wrong are obviously greater than the chances of picking the right, One True God. There is simply no way to logically decide which of the thousands of Gods humans have imagined over the years is the real one. So, along with other completely unanswerable questions such as ‘do I have a soul?’ and ‘what happens to me after I die?’ I choose not to waste any energy obsessing over the issue.
Wonderfully put, as always Seth.
Great post, Seth… pissing in the wind… but as always, great…
ALSO WIN.
Yes. One thing I’ve noticed is that many people who have a faith seem to interpret atheism as a stance against their particular god, which is rarely the case, I think. I’m not a non-Christian – I don’t go outside and see the wonderful nature and go “Oh, what a beautiful world the abrahamitic god has not made for us” (nor any other god). Atheism, to me, is not a “I will not be a Christian”-stance, though it seems like Christians have a tendency to think that’s how it works.
I personally think that has a lot to do with the way these two groups collectively view one another. Generally, atheists see Christians like this Westboro lot of halfwits, while Christians see atheists as a lot of anti-Christian half-wits.
It’s more just the impression we get from hearing the loudest members of the group, ya know?
I am sure that this is true for some cases. I am not sure that the “Generally, atheists see Christians like this Westboro lot of halfwits” is correct, though. But I am under the impression that “while Christians see atheists as a lot of anti-Christian half-wits” is correct. For some atheists it probably is true too, because the only religion they find themselves having to go head to head with is Christianity. Most atheists aren’t non-christian, though, they’re non-religious.
.
All this, just in my experience, ofc.
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
–Stephen Roberts
Perfect quote!
Brilliant! I’m putting this on my screensaver immediately!
Indeed.
Atheism is merely the lack of belief in gods. It is not a positive belief that there are no gods. If you believe, you are a theist. If you do not believe, you are an atheist. If you claim to know that something is true, you are gnostic. If you do not claim to know, you are agnostic. I am an agnostic atheist, as are the vast majority of atheists. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Notwithstanding the above, only a total fuckwit would refuse to accept that teaching creationism in biology classes undermines science education. But that is a separate issue to the agnosticism of atheists. Don’t try to conflate the two.
Atheism is a religion like not-stamp collecting is a hobby…
I hate sound bite comments, but that is pretty much true…
It’s a position of pure faith that lacks substantive proof-sounds like a religion to me, there, boss.
And in your instance, Atheism is a religion the way running around screaming about what morons stamp collectors are is a hobby.
“A-” means “non,” whereas “Anti-” means
“against.”
Big difference: The first is a state, whereas
the second requires pursuit.
Anyway, perhaps that is what is confusing
you.
How is not believing in something that there’s no proof for a position of pure faith?
If atheism is a religion, does that mean theism is a religion too?
You could be atheist and believe widely different things from other atheists, just as you can be theist and have your beliefs differ widely from other theists.
You can be atheist and believe Darth Vader created the solar system. You can be atheist and believe nothing is real at all. You can be atheist and have no morals, you can be atheist and have very strong ones. It’s not a religion. It’s a lack of belief in a diety.
Also I agree with Danbala – the default is “nonexistant” and substantial evidence is needed for me to think otherwise.
If I told you there’s a tiger in front of you, but you can’t feel it, see it, hear it, etc. would you believe it?
Also (sorry for the triple post) I’ll point out a very real example: LaVeyan Satanism is an atheistic religion. Not all atheists are Satanists.
It’s cool, I don’t mind. In the instance of a tiger, depends on the environment, but I understand what you’re saying. What I’m saying is that since you can’t prove a deity exists any more than you can prove one does, you’re acting on faith. I have a feeling that this particular discussion will devolve into semanticss, though. Quite frankly, though, seeing as how the odds of life spontaneously arising at all, much less developing into the complex life forms we see today, purely by chance, is astronomical. In my opinion, it certainly creates doubt that there is no deity.
And I would make the argument that a Satanist religion just uses Satan as their deity. Now…Taoists, I think?…are a atheistic religion. I would say Fester goes the extra mile and is an Antitheist, but that’s more of a mission statement than a belief system.
In my opinion it certainly isn’t. The chance is astronomical, the space and time environment our current Earth is placed in is … astronomical.
.
And no, this is not a question of semantics – the difference between believeing in something despite the lack of proof, or not believeing in things that lack proof is … well, astronomical, if you will.
The odds of life happening aren’t so small. Scientists have been able to replicate the earth’s early atmosphere and have watched tiny RNAs form, and oily bubbles, and amino acids… and that’s just in a short amount of time. Give it millions of years (longer than is really imaginable) and you get cells, and cells that form symbiotic relationships with other cells, cells that fold in on themselfes, etc.
Sort of a lots of monkeys on lots of typewriters over lots of years will type coherent sentences thing.
LaVeyan Satanism looks at Satan as more a force of human nature, not an independent diety. Taoism is a fair example, although you could argue that it’s pantheistic.
@Aedriel:
It’s a lack of belief in a diety.
I don’t believe in dieties either. I’ll eat what I want, when I want and as much as I want, thankyouverymuch.
.
Sorry. Sometimes I just can’t resist. :p
Danbala:
Their both positions of Faith. I can’t prove there’s a supreme being (especially if you actively don’t want to be convinced). But no one else can prove that there is no supreme being. Agnostics are the most intellectually honest in the sense that they are open to the idea of a god, but they don’t say they know for a fact.
Aedriel:
You’re talking about the Miller-Urey experiment [LINK]. What was actually generated was organic molecules, not actual RNA. These still don’t explaine how the complex structures that make up a cell developed. In fact, the more they learn about the inside in the cell, the more questions arise. It’s amazing stuff.
Meh, you want to believe in intelligent design, fine. Just keep it out of my public schools.
@Robert:
I can’t prove a lot of things. I can’t prove non-existence of any make-up creature you can come up with – be that gnomes, unicorns or gods. That’s not a position of faith.
Danbala – dangit! Good catch.
Robert – “Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA nucleobases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry” – taken off your link. I’m impressed that you know of the experiment… Again, you must take into account the scale of it, the millions of years and how many locations on the planet it could occur.
It is amazing stuff, but I don’t think there’s a higher power involved.
Also for the record the only argument I have against Deism is that I disagree – I’m agnostic in the sense that I don’t think there is enough proof to determine the existence of a god, I’m atheist because I don’t believe in a god. [link]
Last part was unclear. Take the dash out and make that a new section. I hope you can sort it out
It’s OK, I get it. Of course I know about the experiment-I’m a biolgoy major. And that doesn’t change the fact that under “wild” conditions the genesis of life is incredibly unlikely, and the structures of the cell is amazingly complex.
SON OF A WHORE!
Biology.
Oooh, a biology major. Scary.
I teach Bio undergrads a few times a week…
At this point, I suppose all there is to do is agree to disagree. I’ve stated my point.
Perfectly acceptable to me. I wasn’t trying to be scary. But I love the subject to death. And it’s not necessarily something that, say, a Chem major might now. What do you teach?
I teach first-year bio majors, just basics. I’m not actually a professor, nor do I plan to be… working on the MD thing, might change over to DO.
I just want to cut people
note to self: do not stand near aedriel when she has anything sharp.
Don’t worry, I’m quite docile these days…
And I always have something sharp. I keep a dissection kit in my bag and I just feel naked without my knife…
you _need_ a knife?
I’ve carried it for years, it’s like a part of me
I don’t really need it, but it’s nice to have.
@Aedriel: You’re selling yourself short. Not
only do you want to cut people, but you
want to cut unconscious people, and
rearrange their innards…
You vicious thing, you!
Unconscious?
Well, you know, preferably restrained somehow, but I never said anything about unconscious…
Long as you don’t rely on it being there, that’s ok…
It isn’t like a security blanket, if that’s what you mean… my wristwatch is the same way, I just feel awkward if I don’t have it.
I meant in a fight…
In a fight… I don’t know. Despite my twisted mind and dark sense of humor, I’m terribly non-violent. I haven’t fought anyone since I was in grade school, unless you count my ex… which gets rather personal, and I sort of doubt you or anyone else here wants to know :/
What kind of surgeon are you going for? I want to be a cardiothorasic surgeon, myself. I like the whole idea of cutting someone open and repairing an error in someone’s system.
To be honest, I’m not sure. There’s a variety of things I’m into.
Reconstructive, neuro, and orthopaedic are the main ones I’m looking at… I joke that one day I’ll build a cyberdemon (my first 2.5 years of uni were in comp engineering)…
OMFG! That’s awesome! The only thing you’d need is a physicist with no morals and you’ll be set!
I think neurosurgery would be great, but that’s almost more complicated than even I want to get into.
you’re 12! That explains SO much…
Physicist with no morals? I know quite a few
Almost became one of them, too…
Neuro stuff is sorta complicated, I guess, but it’s so much fun!
And, it’s everything.
Congrats, Aedriel–
Yours is Comment #1300 on this LOL!
I think you will have great success, regard-
less of what specialty you get into. My vote
is for neuro. You’ll need the knowledge for
your cyberdemon, after all…
Would this be a Doom II Cyber demon, Doom III or something more Simon Bisley-esgue?
The mental image was more Doom III… I’m willing to accept some creative input, butonly if you volunteer for some experiments
Too late… there’s not much left to ‘experiment’ on [link]
Yes, my knowledge of DOOM automatically makes me 12. That’s makes perfect sense. And your knowledge of
Fester: Yes, my knowledge of DOOM automatically makes me 12. That’s makes perfect sense. And your knowledge of DOOM makes you…13? It would have to be the DOOM 3 cyberdemon. Although the original was quite bad-ass, the new version makes him look like a pussy.
*sigh* Heavy Metal…I used to by that from the newsstand every month. Unfortunately, I don’t know of a place that carries it anymore. I suppose, however, it would be cheaper to get a subscription, anyway.
Doom II being over 13 years old, that wouldn’t make sense…
Fester’s just being himself, Robert. He’s here for his own entertainment, just like the rest of us. If you don’t want to argue with him, then… well, don’t.
And Fester, I see both hands… that means you’ve still got room for a rocket launcher…
I know. Honestly, part of me enjoys the back and forth. I’m not used to anyone keeping up with my raging bull-headedness. It’s a welcome change.
OK, Blarg made a good point, and you’re just loudly stupid…
O.o
/screenshot
I…
agree…
with Blarg…
*head explodes*
*glues n8’s head back together*
It’s okay, Dear. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
He gave logical reasoning for why the boy scouts are a cult. That gave me a warm happy feeling inside.
It’s okay, n8, I try my best to talk to as many sides as possible. But not in an Uncle Fester way where I just disagree with everyone, I actually try to speak TO them and WITH them.
rhorho, please show me where I’ve ever been “broken.”
Jane, seeing something in a new light is often humorous, and can generate those warm fuzzies.
Blarg… best post EVER above… EVER… bar none. EVER!
did I mention EVER!
If I didn’t think the Fester cooties would kill you, I’d kiss you on the forehead… it was THAT good…
What was that?
Was it sarcasm?
Reading it did strange things to my brain….
No… unalloyed admiration for a glimmer of light…
I’ll point it out to you in future.
If I forget it, please do
Hey! Get your own guy! He asked me first!!
Lol Sci-fi-tology..
I would expect this from Scientologists, but who in their -right- minds would seriously rally to these messages? oo I mean, I know all the “love thy neighbor” stuff is a little far into the bible, but come one people, keep reading, it gets better ><
Know John 3:16? It’s always amazing to me that when they’re selling the religion they sort of stop there, when John 3:18 is a lot more the truth of the matter…
I figure if you’re gonna go ahead and look up John 3:16, you won’t stop after 1 sentence *shrugs* Besides, I personally feel Mathew 5 is a much better sample of the Bible than anything in John. Even if you are not a Christian, if more people adapted the teachings in this chapter, maybe scenes like that depicted above would happen less.
Beatitudes! We had to memorise them in Sunday School.
Well, yes, those too, but I was more after the stuff after that XP
Iraneaus, whose dogma is used today, basically said that John was the arbiter.
See now… -you’re- the one who brought up the book of John, so all you’re really doing is arguing with anything anyone says.
You haven’t realized that yet? You must be new to PK. WELCOME! My name is Blarg, and I’ll be your tour guide for this afternoon. To you left, you see the giant hamsters running on wheels that power the innertubez. To your right, you see Uncle Fester, our resident devil’s advocate and recipient of the Argue for the Sake of Arguing Award 5 years running! Enjoy your stay!
To continue with Blarg’s tour…
Here we have Blarg, who always says, “WHARRGARBBLE!!”
I’ve seen y’all use that term before, but what does it mean? I must’ve missed reading the lol that started it. . .
Google it.
Well, since you asked so nicely… Originally n8 said that anytime someone starts a phrase with the words, “you libs” you might as well follow the text with WHARRBARRBLE and the meaning will be the same. It has evolved to mean someone who repeats the same rhetoric all the time.
There’s a rather neat section in UrbanDictionary.com explaining it. (It seems to be at least half a year old.)
(WHARRGARBL)
I did not know that. I was more attempting to explain it’s recent popularity on PK.
Yeah, I saw it first time about a week ago, but I’m a google addict, so I looked it up. (I liked the angry, water drinking dog.)
Yeah, I don’t claim to be the inventor of WHARRGARBL, I’m just putting it to use and adapting it for this environment.
Yep. My comments were not to try to show that “nuh-uh, not n8’s invention”, just to show that WHARRGARBL has a glorious history. ;p
That it does, Danbala, that it does.
Thanks! I try to stay away from Urban Dictionary, anything I’ve ever looked up there has made no sense.
Yeah, it has a pretty bad signal-to-noise-ratio, but a few useful gems do hide in there.
The difference is, I actually THINK before I come up with my whargarbles. But I’d love to see what you say about the times I’m not, by definition below, lib bashing whargarbling. I’d love to see how your confirmation bias addresses that discrepancy.
That would be “by definition above,” the jumping boxes in firefox confused my poor little whargarbling brain. My apologies.
NP, and, as I’ve said elsewhere, I’ll gladly show those
to you as they occur. I’m delighted that you seek the
knowledge.
John, in all Christian cults is the arbiter… 3:18 and you’re a retard…
What was it Ben Franklin said? Something like “Lighthouses are more useful than churches?”
“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”–Benjamin Franklin
NOOOOOO, that can’t be right, all our founding fathers were christian, and we’rea christian nation!!!!
Yer rite!!
George Washington, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and others were all evangelicals, not Deists, like them nasty *books* say!
Yup…those’re the words of an person who believes in the cosmic watchmaker, right there. [LINK]
Course, even if allow they were Deists, that still shows belief in the divine.
Still doesn’t make them christian and in no way implies they wanted anything but a secular government.
I would make the argument that they wanted a government that was unmarred by any prejudices, be they religious or anti-religious. We have swung way into the anti-religious territory, though, where saying prayer in a public school is cause for a national incident. I’m not gonna make the argument that the founders wanted a theocracy, cuz it would be silly.
I am, however, prepared to argue that if Washington, Jefferson, and Adams spontaneously rose from the grave, and weren’t flesh eating zombies, there would be another Revolution within a few years.
Right. Because the constitution doesn’t lay out precisely a secular government. Separation of church and state was specifically addressed. They stupidly assumed it was a common-sense given. That people didn’t need it spelled out. The neo-con branch made up of evangelicals has repeatedly tried to re-write history.
In the diverse culture we have now, demands you keep your prayers to yorself, fine with me. the jewish and moslem, wiccan, hindu etc kids in the class DON”T WANT to say a christian prayer. nor should they be forced to. Religion is supposed to be between you and your deity, so why force it on others? You want your kids taught intelligent design? Fine. teach it at home or in sunday school. Why is this so hard for people.
Franky, I think it’s a few loudmouths like Bill O’Reilly who insist this remain an issue in the spotlight at all. Most people can roll their eyes and get over it.
The only separation that was ever intended was to keep the government from mandating people’s religion. Jefferson said the constitution was designed for a religious people because “no document exists that may curb the passions of man.” (I think I quoted that right, but I can’t find it right off the top of my head.
And I’d except your “diverse culture” argument except we’ve started putting foot baths in schools for Muslims and allowing them breaks and providing rooms for their prayers. Which is fine, as long as all the other religions get the same amount of time and rooms of their own.
Bill O’Reilly’s frustration is the anti-Christian drive. Keep in mind, that O’reilly is a hard-core traditionalist, though, more than anything, so he can go overboard. But he does try to remain impartial. I don’t like O’Reilly because I don’t agree with his Populism, but most people don’t like him because he makes his guests answer questions. Course, after that softball he gave Obama, he may have lost his credibility there, too.
Christianity shows very little signs of anything divine… I think that’s why the deists really wanted no part of it, although Jefferson did try to rehabilitate the New Testament.
Given what we know now, I think Franklin would see the universe and its content are process, not artefact, and sticking another causeless cause on top of a process just makes no sense…
You can’t lump all Christians in with these peons. They’re an attention-whoring cult, and nothing less.
Maybe it’s a demonstration. Like, they don’t mean it, they’re just doing something shocking to get peoples attention like someone being blatantly racist to show that racism is still an issue.
Also, there are a lot of “God”(s) Who say’s they’re specifically Christian, maybe they’re Catholic, or Jewish, or… oh who am I kidding? =_= It’s times like this when I wanna tell people like that “Stop being on my side, you make us look bad!” … which I’m sure is exactly what the Church of Scientology told Tom Cruise XD
I’d recommend what Athanatheus of Alexandria did to the Arians, if you want to resolve the problems…
This is obviously your first encounter with the WBC.
Catholics *are* christians. Roman catholicism was synonymous with christianism until the East-West schism which gave birth to Orthodox christianism.
Protestantism also stems from catholicism.
Theology and history fail.
This said, these bozos should be shot and put out of their misery.
What’s that about fail? Technically, All christian sects are cults — variations of a larger religion — of Catholicism, which itself is a cult of Judaism. This becomes especially apparent when you realize that Catholicism and most Christian sects are fundamentally paradoxical in the fact that they break their own rules and assimilate many foreign beliefs and rituals to make themselves more palatable to a wider range of cultures.
Now, I would have ignored your correction, if you hadn’t gone ahead and gotten drunk on your own ego and tried to be funny with that little “fail” punctuation… lets try to be less funny and a little more poignant, please?
You wanted poignant…
I think you actually meant ‘pertinent’, thus I present
I wish I could believe that. Ballot boxes across the country say otherwise, though.
The problem with the Phelps Clan is not what they say, but HOW they say it. They’re too loud, too harsh.
Most Christians prefer to hide behind weasel words like “love the sinner and hate the sin.” The Phelpses are upfront about hating both.
and I say a pox on Augustinian bollocks…
Good Lord Hairy! What Fools Those Mortals Be!
Please specify what you believe is “right” about what they say.
Unlike you, I have a problem from the get-go about the things that pass
for “thoughts” in this group.
They are right in that the Hebrew God only condones sex between a man and his wife/wives. They are right in the sense that the Hebrew God hates those who are not his people.
Regular Christians, in my experience, don’t have a problem with the base of Phelps’ message, only with the expression of it.
This message is why I left Christianity and found better gods.
That’s part of the “pick-and-choose” bible they edited together in the early church. Not everything in the bible is clear as night/day about homosexuality. Also, reading much of the bible, women would appear to be nothing but prostitutes and adulteresses, etc. A lot that might have been good things to say about women probably got removed by those early priests, who, for some reason, vowed celibacy?
In reality, they were just bookworms that couldn’t get any. Celibacy was just their excuse.
“You can’t fire me ‘cuz I quit!”
Excommunication doesn’t really hold the weight it used to =/
I have no idea who the WBC is unless you’re walking about the World Boxing Council. But if that’s them, then I don’t really wanna know T_T
Westboro Baptist Church…
Check out the Westboro Church website…unfortunately, this is not an unusual demonstration for them. They came to our area a couple of times to protest a local church who had an openly gay pastor, and then came back to demonstrate the funeral of a local soldier killed in Iraq. Same signs, same idiotic dogma…
They came to our city to protest because one of our college’s theater departments put on a play about a young homosexual boy who was alienated and murdered for being gay. (It’s an informative thing) A lot of us from our high school came too, just to counter-protest WBC. It was pretty exciting.
(Which is of course not to say that WBC was exciting, but the opportunity to argue against them was exciting. Ignorance is a huge pet peeve of mine, therefore the WBC pisses me off to no end.)
They mean it, but they are a loser fringe group of wackos. They have like less than 20 members, all the extended family members of the head of the “Church.”"”
wiki westboro baptist church.
Same book. Pretty much the exegesis that the church has put forth since the 1600s… I don’t see one can fault their opinion of what God “says”…
I’d say that we’re pissing in the wind to deny, based on what was for a long time and accepted reading, and still is, in a less ’standing on street corner’ way by the bulk of Christians, that God does indeed hate Gay folks. If Christians DIDN’T believe that God hates gay folks, then prop 8 and the like wouldn’t have been voted in with so much gay abandon (pun intended)
BTW, if you invoke Augustine at this point, I shall be forced to hunt you down and strike you repeatedly, then burn down your house…
Fester, my coffee hasn’t kicked in, so please forgive me for being dense. Are you saying that it’s stupid to deny that God hates gay people, or that it’s stupid to deny that these people believe that God hates gay people?
Based on the bible and accepted exegeses, God hates homosexual behaviour…
Based on the bible, god does not hate. period end stop. He is saddened and dissapointed by behaviour that goes against his teachings. He does not homosexuality any more than he hates, lying, stealing, or not respecting your parents. Actually all of those made his top ten list and homosexuality barely gets a mention. So one would be inclined to believe that rebellious teenagers who do not honor their fathers and mothers get more of gods ire than homosexuals.
How come everyone knows what God “loves” “hates” “thinks” “says” etc?
Has anyone spoken to him recently? Or do you assume all of the above because of what was written in a book by people who claim to know what God “loves” “hates” “thinks” “says” etc?
I don’t think Thou Shalt Not Be Teh Ghay is one of the commandments.
I’m pretty sure there’s one about not coveting your neighbor’s ass, though…
“…an abomination before the Lord…” a bit more than him sucking on his pipe, hunkering down in his easy chair, and getting lower behind his news paper with a resigned ‘Kids today…’
God arbitrarily kills people (Sodom and Gomorrah to Ananis and Sappia), or just screws with their life for a bet (Job), while having the HR abilities of a slowly boiled newt (Solomon, David, Peter, Judas)
Have you taken a double dose of some medication that should be reported?
Here’s the problem, anyone who goes around speaking -FOR- God, needs a kick in the ass, but that’s not our place to deliver. See, God knows what he does and doesn’t like, and he’s pretty much spelled it all out with a neat little clause that essentially tells his people to go ahead and let him to the judging thing and to limit our job to basically spreading the word. So while, yes, the bible has a few specific words on homosexuality, it is not our “job” to go around and tell every person who is homosexual that God hates em and they’re gonna burn in hell for ever… Furthermore “Than God for Dead Soldiers” … what exactly is that promoting? Yay for sending people to die for something they have absolutely no legitimate reason to be involved in? Where in the Bible does it explain that god smiles when someone dies “for their country” because some people in that country don’t follow every letter of his word?
Ah, the ever nauseating apologia of the person who clings to superstitious bollock like it’s real…
Just cuz you’re a faithless, intolerant twit doesn’t mean you have to go around screaming that everyone who’s not is an idiot. While we’re painting with your broad brush, let’s compare all Germans to Nazis, all Britons to Jack the Ripper, all gays to Jeffery Dahmer, all blacks to Jeremiah Wright, all actors to Ben Affleck, all lesbians to Rosie O’Donnell, all conservatives to Michael Savage, all liberals to Michael Moore, and all atheists to you. That seems about as fair, on the whole.
On a completely different note, where’s a drunken illegal immigrant when you need one, huh?
Oh God damn it Robert! Did you REALLY have to say Nazi? Frick…
“all actors to Ben Affleck, all lesbians to Rosie O’Donnel”
I loled.
Though I am ill, I shall not recoil in my duties. For while this fool walks in the shadow of my wang, he shall fear no sodomy for he embraces it with all his quivering anus and thus does it to himself.
And lo, my wang saw this as odd but it saved him the trouble telling him to f#ck himself.
That must be some kicka$$ cold medicine, DWN!
*applauds and wolf whistles* You Go!
-
P.S. And get better soon!
*awestruck by the courage of the feverish Wang, coming
back, against all odds, to do battle against the Wangable*
@Diss: Just taking some Dayquil, I wish I had time and money for doctors…
@Jane: Doing what I can, your ladyship.
@rhorho: I keep my word as best I can. *goes to lay back down*
BTW, we need a singularly nasty, painful death scenario down the thread a way…
I said you were by far the best man for ‘down home EWWWW!’ on the board…
O_O… I’m honored?
I am at work but still a bit out of it. I will see where DWN or my Username is mentioned and try to find it from there.
“I am Cornholio! You have awakened my bunghole!”
Sorry, that was the first thing that popped into my mind when I ran across DWN’s post. I’m new here.
Good job there, Robert. Insulting a man for his beliefs just proves that your religion hasn’t done jack squat for your sense of tolerance, acceptance, loving the sinner while hating the sin, or anything else worthwhile your religion has tried to teach you. If this were uncommon, I would blame you. As it is SADLY common for Christians to lash out in anger against non-believers, I blame Christianity. Thanks for providing yet more evidence that your religion is morally bankrupt, and no sane person should ever pay attention to it.
Go easy, Seth…he missed that day in Sunday School…
I did too, I heard we were making sheep out of cinnamon sticks and cotton balls. Then after snack we got to color a picture of Jeebus.
You missed my point. I’m tired of people doing exactly what you’re doing-calling other people bigots while acting like a bigot yourself. If Fester wants to believe there’s not God, that’s his choice. My issue is when he points at idiots like the picture above and says “yep, there’s your Christianity, right there.” It’s assinine and it grows old.
I think most Christians beat me on intolerant, and if you want faithless, look up how many are pro-death penalty… seems they don’t trust their own god to sort his house…
Red herring, ahoy! You’d be wrong. Most Christians just don’t want putzes like yourself to point at the idiots in the picture and go “Look at the Christians!” as if that’s representative of the group as a whole. It’s not. I don’t know about other people, but I personally support the death penalty because I’m tired of rapists and murderers who get out of prison for good behavior, or whatever, and go out and rape and murder some more. I think the life of a criminal is worth protecting the life of the innocent. I know, the idea that a woman shouldn’t have to be afraid that some psycho’s gonna accost her on her way home is kind of a heady concept, but try to wrap your head around it.
Ah, the god like omniscience… I too agree with the death penalty, but I also want to know how many wrongly accused people it’s ok to kill… I say ‘none’… how many do you say, apologist? 1,5, 50, 500, ? You want to kill the bad guys at what cost?
Speaking of tired arguments, the old “how many innocent people are you willing to kill?” Do you have any idea how long it takes for someone to actually be put to death? Probably not. Let me put it this way: the leading cause of death for someone on death row is old age. More importantly, most appeals are trying to change their sentence, not overturning the conviction. I’m sure that you think the police just run around, bopping innocent people on the head and throwing them in prison, but the court system is really stacked in the favor of the defendant. Amusingly, calling someone an apologist because they make a distinction between different circumstances is kind of ridiculous. How many innocents do you want to be harmed by criminals who shouldn’t even be on the streets? 1, 5, 50, 500? Your argument is an innocent might be put to death-mine is that an innocent will certainly be harmed by continuing to set these people loose.
Yes, I have every knowledge of how long it takes, and they STILL Get it wrong…
So how many?
I don’t want a single innocent person to be killed. Whether it’s by the justice system or a criminal is immaterial to me. I prefer to weigh the odds in favor of the justice system and not the criminal. Yeah, the system’s not perfect, but it also doesn’t show a propensity towards harming the innocent, as Johnny Rapist tends to. Of course, we could set criminals loose and arm the populace. I’m perfectly OK with that. Course, after one or two attempted rapists gets blown away, I’d imagine the crime rate would drop like a stone…
Ah, the every strident cry of ‘Kill them all,
god shall know his own’. Always a crowd pleaser
Actually not what was said, you nit. Do you ever get tired of using the same tired phrases over and over again? I could have a more meaningful discussion with a tape recorder. It’s written, so you should probably just reread it, but let me make it easy for you-I prefer the odds of the justice system over the odds of the person who’s already shown a propensity to do harm to their fellow human beings.
I feel the same about you, you screaming idiot…
“Do you ever get tired of using the same tired phrases over and over again?”
Actually, I’ve been reading the PK comments for a few months now, and I usually find Fester’s phraseology both original and apt.
No, they don’t beat you. Christians vary in the breadth and depth of their tolerance. You are just intolerant of everything.
That being said, you do amuse me at times.
I’ve never voted down someone’s equality under the law,
I’ve never asked for the parents of someone beaten to
death for his sexual preference to ‘plead for clemency’,
I’ve never told people that they are damned sinners due
to a quirk of fate, I’ve not tried to tell single mothers
what they can and cannot do with their reproductive
rights. I’ve never stood in the street with a bull horn
telling all and sundry they’re going to be damned for
eternity if they don’t have the right imaginary friend… I
have told people my opinion that they’re ignorant,
bellicose, bigoted monsters, with no more ground for
their opinion than the ravings of a psychotic Jew who
threw a fit on the road to Damascus, and that they are
wilfully ignorant of the history of their own cult. We’ve not
got into he people I’ve not historically slandered and
killed in the name of my cult… There’s a reason that some
cultures killed Missionaries on sight, and it wasn’t Satan’s
doing…
So, based on one man against a religion, I’d say the
mass of Christianity has me beaten for into ground on
the bigoted, nastiness…
Although, I do agree with him on one point. Mr Fester, you’re not the end of all wisdom, and no one is really impressed with your swiftness to rebut -everyone’s- opinion. Opinions fall outside the realm of fact and fiction, they are opinions, and that’s exactly what religion comes down to in the end, it is YOUR opinion. The problem arrives when you act on that with malevolence. All religion aside, can we all agree that living your life on a platform of hate is a bad thing? Because that’s what we’re dealing with here, no matter what you believe, when you take that opinion to a violent end, it becomes wrong.
He didn’t spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called “mister,” thank you very much….
I gave up with the history, since you’re an apologist, and bordering on a prosletyser… being a pusher for God, is just a pusher, and you spead ignorance and misery in your wake…
That’s why I don’t like it… so shove that up your Augustinian arse and like it, god botherer…
Vagabond, UF’s just insulting you. That means that he doesn’t know what to say next and that your point was probably quite good.
Anyway, your post:
All religion aside, can we all agree that living your life on a platform of hate is a bad thing?
Absolutely.
AC,
with due respect, I knew what to say next, and there was no point.
It’s like trying to discuss things with you… a pointless exercise, akin to having one head smacked repeatedly into a wall… In the end, I toned it down to waht was comprehensible… same as I do with you….
By “toning it down” you mean that you say something along the lines of “stuff your ideas up your ill informed arse -you retard!”
There’s no need to be uncivil.
you want to get into sotto voce commentary about me, expect me to piss down your leg.
And no, I meant generally speaking, he’d not have understood the import of what I was saying and I’d lost interest in being nice to savages…
As to uncivil, I don’t see ‘playing nice’ over an allegedly functional adult’s imaginary friend as being ‘civil’, just indulging a delusion I don’t share…
Wow… you’re really high and mighty for someone who trolls a political satire image blog. Truly I will never know the high honor and sophistication you must feel every time you pound out yet another poignant, intellectual comments.
_
Ah, how depressed you must feel at your own futile attempts to educate us filthy peasants. Surely we will never be so burdened with such vast knowledge and understanding… no, we just doomed to a simple life, full of happiness and care-free living, never to be forced into conversation with people so painfullt below our own intelligence; as pitiful as it obviously is.
_
Though I do wonder sometimes, between wallowing in my own filth and talking to myself… just what it must feel like to be someone like you… so what does it feel like, Mr Fester, to be a god among insects?
Pretty good actually… you may kiss my ring (_*_)
Gotta pull your head outta there first, Mr Fester
Only if you pull you head out of your’s first… but that’s not likely to happen before Skynet becomes self aware…
Now see, that’s where you’ve made your fatal mistake. While you take it upon yourself to argue with anything anyone says, I do just the opposite. I support the loosing side of an argument no matter my personal views because in the end I just like to debate. If I see a good point, I make it.
I am not a “pusher” of God in any sense of the word. I have my set of beliefs, and for the most part they fall outside the religious mainstream. I do believe in god, but I don’t call myself Christian, because I’m not and I don’t want people to view me with their prejudice notions of what a Christian is. I don’t go to church, I don’t make it my job to spread the word or convert people. If someone asks me a question, I’ll share what I know, but that’s as far as I go, and I try my very best to treat people kindly; though I make sure that my ass is covered at all times.
I don’t see that you’re doing much more with that post than again, pushing a world view that supports a delusional mind set… so, where was that mistake again?
Oh, I’ll be more than happy to explain *adjusts his glasses* See, you assume to much.
and I quote, “… being a pusher for God, is just a pusher, and you spead ignorance and misery in your wake…”
to which I replied “I am not a “pusher” of God in any sense of the word. I have my set of beliefs, and for the most part they fall outside the religious mainstream. I do believe in god, but I don’t call myself Christian…”
You assume because I have the gall to defend Christianity, that I must be a Christian, and as such, I must be the same as all other Christian are in your mind. On the contrary, however, I am -not- a Christian. On the other hand, I did say that I believe in God, so I can see your confusion. You must just lump every one who believes in some form of higher power as some sort of mental case… It’s really quite adorable how frightened you are of the unknown.
No confusion… walks like a duck, quacks like a
duck… it’s a duck…
and no, I have little fear of the unknown, since I
don’t have a God. To have a God is to have the
catch all answer to everything, that explains
nothing… that simply belies that you can’t face an
unknown or uncertain, randomly driven, future…
There has to be a controller and creator for your
world to make sense. That, sir, is true fear of the
unknown… Still, it stops you hurting other people.
I’d suggest that if the voices start telling you to kill,
then get help…
So I’m a Christian because I defend them?
Unc’s not too keen on freedom of speech.
I’m not too keen on idiots… but they can say what they like.
Still with the sotto voce comments I see… have some more piss down your leg…
All religion aside, can we all agree that living your life on a platform of hate is a bad thing? Because that’s what we’re dealing with here, no matter what you believe, when you take that opinion to a violent end, it becomes wrong.
Well, no, I’d rather see people living their life on a platform of hatred and not hurt other people, than see people Doing Good by killing, hurting, or otherwise making others suffer.
Any opinion taken to a violent end ends violently. (And okay – that is a bad thing “in my book” too.)
Or, to put it in other terms:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
:p
One of my grandmother’s favorite phrases.
what’s the pun?
“gay abandon,” voting against Prop 8…
That should have been *for* Prop 8, which was *against* gay rights.
It’s ok, they probably had it flipped around in the British papers…
No, we understood what people were voting on… limiting peoples legal rights by legislation driven by a religious agenda. TBH, I don’t think anyone was either surprise or disappointed over here… we just expect it…
I was just kidding. But I can imagine what the rest of the world must think of the puritanization (yes, I just made that word up) of America. Makes me sick. The