An atheist perspective

[mivona]

http://www.americanatheist.org/win98-99/T2/silverman.html

I love Douglas Adams. His writing was so wonderfully quirky, and I am currently listening to "The Salmon of Doubt", and it contained this interview which I thought was fascinating.

I am going to excerpt only a bit of it, but it is the bit that got me to thinking, "Yes, he has a point." I guess as I age, my believe is moving away from a "God", and more towards the order of science as an explanation of life, the universe and everything. With the principle of conservation of energy, I can believe that the "afterlife" is really just our inherent life energy merging once again into the malestrom of the universe.

THE INTERVIEW

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a “radical Atheist.” Is this accurate?

DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously. It’s funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.

People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)

Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know? Isn’t belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don’t see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don’t believe my four-year old daughter when she tells me that she didn’t make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don’t know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it’s the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.

I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” - then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: How long have you been a nonbeliever, and what brought you to that realization?

DNA: Well, it’s a rather corny story. As a teenager I was a committed Christian. It was in my background. I used to work for the school chapel in fact. Then one day when I was about eighteen I was walking down the street when I heard a street evangelist and, dutifully, stopped to listen. As I listened it began to be borne in on me that he was talking complete nonsense, and that I had better have a bit of a think about it.

I’ve put that a bit glibly. When I say I realized he was talking nonsense, what I mean is this. In the years I’d spent learning History, Physics, Latin, Math, I’d learnt (the hard way) something about standards of argument, standards of proof, standards of logic, etc. In fact we had just been learning how to spot the different types of logical fallacy, and it suddenly became apparent to me that these standards simply didn’t seem to apply in religious matters. In religious education we were asked to listen respectfully to arguments which, if they had been put forward in support of a view of, say, why the Corn Laws came to be abolished when they were, would have been laughed at as silly and childish and - in terms of logic and proof -just plain wrong. Why was this?

Well, in history, even though the understanding of events, of cause and effect, is a matter of interpretation, and even though interpretation is in many ways a matter of opinion, nevertheless those opinions and interpretations are honed to within an inch of their lives in the withering crossfire of argument and counterargument, and those that are still standing are then subjected to a whole new round of challenges of fact and logic from the next generation of historians - and so on. All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.

So, I was already familiar with and (I’m afraid) accepting of, the view that you couldn’t apply the logic of physics to religion, that they were dealing with different types of ‘truth’. (I now think this is baloney, but to continue...) What astonished me, however, was the realization that the arguments in favor of religious ideas were so feeble and silly next to the robust arguments of something as interpretative and opinionated as history. In fact they were embarrassingly childish. They were never subject to the kind of outright challenge which was the normal stock in trade of any other area of intellectual endeavor whatsoever. Why not? Because they wouldn’t stand up to it. So I became an Agnostic. And I thought and thought and thought. But I just did not have enough to go on, so I didn’t really come to any resolution. I was extremely doubtful about the idea of god, but I just didn’t know enough about anything to have a good working model of any other explanation for, well, life, the universe and everything to put in its place. But I kept at it, and I kept reading and I kept thinking. Sometime around my early thirties I stumbled upon evolutionary biology, particularly in the form of Richard Dawkins’s books The Selfish Gene and then The Blind Watchmaker and suddenly (on, I think the second reading of The Selfish Gene) it all fell into place. It was a concept of such stunning simplicity, but it gave rise, naturally, to all of the infinite and baffling complexity of life. The awe it inspired in me made the awe that people talk about in respect of religious experience seem, frankly, silly beside it. I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.

Has anyone read Dawkins' books? I know he can be incredibly irritating, but I admire his commitment to promoting rationalism over faith.

[mivona]

p.s. Adams loved the fact that his initials were DNA.

How utterly appropriate.

[toke]

Well, duh. :rolleyes:

Christianity has far too much sadomasochism to please me, so if I decided I needed to choose a belief system...I think I'd go for the Greek gods. A lot of raw passion, fun and general excitement with that group.

[agogoboots]

I don't think you can chose a belief system. I believe a belief system choses you.

[Bard77]

Well, duh. :rolleyes:

Christianity has far too much sadomasochism to please me, so if I decided I needed to choose a belief system...I think I'd go for the Greek gods. A lot of raw passion, fun and general excitement with that group.

'Christianity'
As laid out in the NEW Testament & covenant
Are TOTALY different than todays Christians 'in name'
Represent.

Christ taught love, unconditional.

The church doses out judgement and hautiness.

THEY dont follow the Bible in most cases.

[mivona]

It would be quite liberating if more chose to not worry about which God to worship, but to decide that there is no God to worship.

[mivona]

Maybe human intelligence did not come from God, but from our cuisine.

http://www.livescience.com/culture/080811-brain-evolution.html

When humans began cooking their food, this allowed more energy to be diverted to their brains rather than being used for digestion.

After two tremendous growth spurts — one in size, followed by an even more important one in cognitive ability — the human brain is now a lot like a teenage boy.

It consumes huge amounts of calories, is rather temperamental and, when harnessed just right, exhibits incredible prowess. The brain's roaring metabolism, possibly stimulated by early man's invention of cooking, may be the main factor behind our most critical cognitive leap, new research suggests.

About 2 million years ago, the human brain rapidly increased its mass until it was double the size of other primate brains.

"This happened because we started to eat better food, like eating more meat," said researcher Philipp Khaitovich of the Partner Institute for Computational Biology in Shanghai.

But the increase in size, Khaitovich continued, "did not make humans as smart as they are today."

The early shift

For a long time, we were pretty dumb. Humans did little but make "the same very boring stone tools for almost 2 million years," he said. Then, only about 150,000 years ago, a different type of spurt happened — our big brains suddenly got smart. We started innovating. We tried different materials, such as bone, and invented many new tools, including needles for beadwork. Responding to, presumably, our first abstract thoughts, we started creating art and maybe even religion.

To understand what caused the cognitive spurt, Khaitovich and colleagues examined chemical brain processes known to have changed in the past 200,000 years. Comparing apes and humans, they found the most robust differences were for processes involved in energy metabolism.

The finding suggests that increased access to calories spurred our cognitive advances, said Khaitovich, carefully adding that definitive claims of causation are premature.

The research is detailed in the August 2008 issue of Genome Biology.

The extra calories may not have come from more food, but rather from the emergence of pre-historic "Iron Chefs;" the first hearths also arose about 200,000 years ago.

In most animals, the gut needs a lot of energy to grind out nourishment from food sources. But cooking, by breaking down fibers and making nutrients more readily available, is a way of processing food outside the body. Eating (mostly) cooked meals would have lessened the energy needs of our digestion systems, Khaitovich explained, thereby freeing up calories for our brains.

Instead of growing even larger (which would have made birth even more problematic), the human brain most likely used the additional calories to grease the wheels of its internal functioning.

Digestion question

Today, humans have relatively small digestive systems and burn 20-25 percent of their calories running their brains. For comparison, other vertebrate brains use as little as 2 percent of the animal's caloric intake.

Does this mean renewing our subscriptions to Bon Appetit will make our brains more efficient? No, but we probably should avoid diving into the raw food movement. Devoted followers end up, said Khaitovich, "with very severe health problems."

Scientists wonder if our cognitive spurt happened too fast. Some of our most common mental health problems, ranging from depression and bipolar disorder to autism and schizophrenia, may be by-products of the metabolic changes that happened in an evolutionary "blink of an eye," Khaitovich said.

While other theories for the brain's cognitive spurt have not been ruled out (one involves the introduction of fish to the human diet), the finding sheds light on what made us, as Khaitovich put it, "so strange compared to other animals."

[Bard77]

It would be quite liberating if more chose to not worry about which God to worship, but to decide that there is no God to worship.


well, i dissagree, but, each have their own personal persuasion

[newslady]

well, i dissagree, but, each have their own personal persuasion

ayep, gotta agree here. BTY, Hi Bardmeister :1clap8:

[Bard77]

ayep, gotta agree here. BTY, Hi Bardmeister :1clap8:''

HIYA newslady


Damn I missed you....lol

Trusting & believing Gods best be yours.
Cool to see ya

Thanks for shouting out

Old timer..lol

Great reunion going on!

[kim]

..."For a long time, we were pretty dumb"...

pshaw...

- we are STILL pretty dumb...

p.s. arrogant idiots bah thinking we are all that...

p.p.s. i'm really really wishing for one of those big leaps that occur every once in awhile (we should try to figure out why exactly and then perhaps we could trigger it) evolution in general seems to go soooooooooo slowly...

p.p.p.s. civilization what a laugh hahaha we are a mere micro sliver away from barbaric hoardish-ness just give a nod or a yell (or toss some shit) and watch us revert in an instant...

- cynical what / who me...?

[kim]

extra p.s. "pretty dumb" there's a blonde (or fill in the blank) pun in there somewhere...

[Bard77]

..."For a long time, we were pretty dumb"...

pshaw...

- we are STILL pretty dumb...

p.s. arrogant idiots bah thinking we are all that...

p.p.s. i'm really really wishing for one of those big leaps that occur every once in awhile (we should try to figure out why exactly and then perhaps we could trigger it) evolution in general seems to go soooooooooo slowly...

p.p.p.s. civilization what a laugh hahaha we are a mere micro sliver away from barbaric hoardish-ness just give a nod or a yell (or toss some shit) and watch us revert in an instant...

- cynical what / who me...?

yeppers, amen.

[Maggie]

..."For a long time, we were pretty dumb"...

pshaw...

- we are STILL pretty dumb...

p.s. arrogant idiots bah thinking we are all that...

p.p.s. i'm really really wishing for one of those big leaps that occur every once in awhile (we should try to figure out why exactly and then perhaps we could trigger it) evolution in general seems to go soooooooooo slowly...

p.p.p.s. civilization what a laugh hahaha we are a mere micro sliver away from barbaric hoardish-ness just give a nod or a yell (or toss some shit) and watch us revert in an instant...

- cynical what / who me...?

Excellent Post Kim!!!!!!!!!!!!

Terri... about a belief system choosing you... do I take this to mean that as a child you are taught the religion your parents choose for you, but when you mature, you start to think on your own and then through exploration the belief system best for you evolves?

[Bard77]

Excellent Post Kim!!!!!!!!!!!!

Terri... about a belief system choosing you... do I take this to mean that as a child you are taught the religion your parents choose for you, but when you mature, you start to think on your own and then through exploration the belief system best for you evolves?

I believe in free choice in belief sytems
So does God
Its why he gave man free-will.
By the way, athieism
is a belief system too,And,
their desciples are EVERY bit as fervent as Christians imho.
Both error in judging in haste.
Both are too pushy and dogmatic at times imo.

[toke]

Zeus rules. :)

[Bard77]

Zeus rules. :)



lol

[mivona]

No way! Kali, for sure.

[krisinluck]

I think that would piss Hecate off...

[MarginallyInvolved]

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/KellyesDad/Funny/Demotivation/Christianity.jpg

I'm probably going to hell for this (if it exists)

[kim]

lol MI...

- yes mivona i've read one of dawkins books (many years ago) i don't recall the name of it at the moment (i've got several more on my amazon wish list...

[kim]

dang it / edit: missing half of parenthesis...

- i enjoyed the book (whichever on it was / it was an early one)...

[kim]

argh and of course i messed up my edit too / on = one...

[Bard77]

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/KellyesDad/Funny/Demotivation/Christianity.jpg

I'm probably going to hell for this (if it exists)


Interesting thing is this.
You seldom see folk take cheap shots at OTHER religions

Just Christians.

Where are the Budda mockers?

Just a thought.

I saw NONE mock athiesm?

I always thought oit odd...

[kim]

- oh heck bard people mock paganism (that used to bother me / not so much anymore other than mocking in general is a bothersome thing and btw there has been a bit of mocking of islam lately too haven't you noticed methinks perhaps your objections / or whatever you aare in a bit of a huff about is / are selective) anyway all religion seems to me to be quite illogical so imo i figure what the hell...

[kim]

edit: double aa - skippy keyboard...

[kim]

p.s. hisssssss hisssss hisssssss (!) atheism IS mocked by some (one of my sons was stuck in a closet at a public school for objection to the attempted christianisation being forced upon him we also received harassing phone calls from the school because we objected to the attempted forced involvement in the christmas program)...

[Bard77]

- oh heck bard people mock paganism (that used to bother me / not so much anymore other than mocking in general is a bothersome thing and btw there has been a bit of mocking of islam lately too haven't you noticed methinks perhaps your objections / or whatever you aare in a bit of a huff about is / are selective) anyway all religion seems to me to be quite illogical so imo i figure what the hell...


Naa kim, ]no huffing' invoved here.
Merely a personal observation of mine over the years.
we all walk differing roads
revealing differing things to each
According to their path.
vantage points, if you please.

Too old to huff here.
i can barely observe anymore...lol

[kim]

- lol okay bard i'll just go off and huff and puff somewhere else perhaps or perhaps not / am tired as well myself... :D

[mivona]

I think it is worth making fun of any and all religions. What puts them beyond the mark when it comes to discussing ideas, concepts and beliefs? It is absolutely fine to challenge someone's political belief, or which football team they support, and yet when it comes down to religion we are supposed to say "Oh, ok..."?

Any examination of the beliefs that underpin it are seen as "making fun of it"... well, duh! Of course it is making fun of it - because it is without logic or evidence. Christians feel a vague sense of unease because they feel that they ought to be able to come up with some response to this unravelling of their faith, and they simply can't explain why their religion is the way to go.

As we learn more and more about our place in the universe, it becomes more and more untenable that someone "made" it just for us. When we were without the means to explore so far outside of our world, and to understand the microscopic nature of the Earth in the vastness of galaxies, it was so much simpler to believe in a guy in the sky.

When we learned about the intricacies of the sub-atomic world and its order and complexity of it, it also re-aligned our views of our place in the order of the universe.

For some, religion has become a safe haven so that they simply don't have to think about the vastness of the universe or the microscopic, and it just puts to one side the question of why, if God exists, he has put us on a fragile fast-spinning ball with a thin layer of gaseous atmosphere, hurtling around a fireball that will, without doubt, one day explode.

[Bard77]

I think it is worth making fun of any and all religions. What puts them beyond the mark when it comes to discussing ideas, concepts and beliefs? It is absolutely fine to challenge someone's political belief, or which football team they support, and yet when it comes down to religion we are supposed to say "Oh, ok..."?

Any examination of the beliefs that underpin it are seen as "making fun of it"... well, duh! Of course it is making fun of it - because it is without logic or evidence. Christians feel a vague sense of unease because they feel that they ought to be able to come up with some response to this unravelling of their faith, and they simply can't explain why their religion is the way to go.

As we learn more and more about our place in the universe, it becomes more and more untenable that someone "made" it just for us. When we were without the means to explore so far outside of our world, and to understand the microscopic nature of the Earth in the vastness of galaxies, it was so much simpler to believe in a guy in the sky.

When we learned about the intricacies of the sub-atomic world and its order and complexity of it, it also re-aligned our views of our place in the order of the universe.

For some, religion has become a safe haven so that they simply don't have to think about the vastness of the universe or the microscopic, and it just puts to one side the question of why, if God exists, he has put us on a fragile fast-spinning ball with a thin layer of gaseous atmosphere, hurtling around a fireball that will, without doubt, one day explode.


"I think it is worth making fun of any and all religions. What puts them beyond the mark when it comes to discussing ideas, concepts and beliefs? It is absolutely fine to challenge someone's political belief, or which football team they support, and yet when it comes down to religion we are supposed to say "Oh, ok..."?

Any examination of the beliefs that underpin it are seen as "making fun of it"... well, duh! Of course it is making fun of it - because it is without logic or evidence. Christians feel a vague sense of unease because they feel that they ought to be able to come up with some response to this unravelling of their faith, and they simply can't explain why their religion is the way to go."

Presumption and bigoted view in my opinion.
Presumptious to a fault.

You cast ANY, who have a 'belief system' as odd, or foolish
Or dirt-dumb.

That attitude is what offends believers imho.

I believe because its REAL to me.

Personal as well.

It requires no explaination.

[mivona]

Well, you have the right to believe whatever you wish, Bard. Anything at all.

But there is nothing, anywhere, which dictates that because what you believe is "faith", it puts it beyond the scrutiny of logic and evidence.

I understand that it may make you uncomfortable, feeling as if you have to somehow justify something that is outside the parameters of reason, and I guess it makes it easier to see any questioning of faith as bigoted and presumptuous.

What exactly is it that makes the questioning of how we got here and where we are going so impossible to discuss?

[Bard77]

Well, you have the right to believe whatever you wish, Bard. Anything at all.

But there is nothing, anywhere, which dictates that because what you believe is "faith", it puts it beyond the scrutiny of logic and evidence.

I understand that it may make you uncomfortable, feeling as if you have to somehow justify something that is outside the parameters of reason, and I guess it makes it easier to see any questioning of faith as bigoted and presumptuous.

What exactly is it that makes the questioning of how we got here and where we are going so impossible to discuss?


What exactly is it that makes the questioning of how we got here and where we are going so impossible to discuss?

Please show me, where I even hinted at such an absurd implication miv.

i think its a fine topic.

And as far as presuming goes..

I'm not the least bit uncomfortable.

Not a tad.

[Bard77]

Well, you have the right to believe whatever you wish, Bard. Anything at all.

But there is nothing, anywhere, which dictates that because what you believe is "faith", it puts it beyond the scrutiny of logic and evidence.

I understand that it may make you uncomfortable, feeling as if you have to somehow justify something that is outside the parameters of reason, and I guess it makes it easier to see any questioning of faith as bigoted and presumptuous.

What exactly is it that makes the questioning of how we got here and where we are going so impossible to discuss?


I am sorry mivona

Apologies extended, I was remiss I fear, in not thanking you properly for this
God-Given freedom, 'you extended' in such grace, eloquence garbed in downright magnanimus(spelcheck) .






Well, you have the right to believe whatever you wish, Bard. Anything at all.

Thank you.

[mivona]

You cast ANY, who have a 'belief system' as odd, or foolish
Or dirt-dumb.

Really, I don't as a matter of course cast any belief system as odd, or foolish or dirt-dumb. But when that belief system is held as being "the" answer, when it really has no evidence as to the validity of the answer, then yeah, I feel justified in ridiculing it, or pointing out its foolishness.

[Bard77]

Really, I don't as a matter of course cast any belief system as odd, or foolish or dirt-dumb. But when that belief system is held as being "the" answer, when it really has no evidence as to the validity of the answer, then yeah, I feel justified in ridiculing it, or pointing out its foolishness.

Thank you.

[MarginallyInvolved]

I once knew a dyslexic atheist.







He didn't believe in dogs

[mivona]

You are more than welcome.

[Flutterbees]

well, i dissagree, but, each have their own personal persuasion

Gotta agree with Bards sentiments here too

[mivona]

Fair enough.

[Bard77]

You are more than welcome.

lol.

[Bard77]

Really, I don't as a matter of course cast any belief system as odd, or foolish or dirt-dumb. But when that belief system is held as being "the" answer, when it really has no evidence as to the validity of the answer, then yeah, I feel justified in ridiculing it, or pointing out its foolishness.


By the way miv, just curious.

Since when, in a a civilized nation, and when speaking of refined circles
did it ever become acceptable to RIDICULE ANY, for having
a differing belief or opinion than yours.

i find it pedestrian and rude, and just
Plain 'Old fashioned mean'

Dont you agree?
Just my personal opinion naturally

A notion based on the

"Golden Rule"

How could you not.

[Bard77]

rid·i·cule (rd-kyl)
n.
Words or actions intended to evoke contemptuous laughter at or feelings toward a person or thing: "I know that ridicule may be a shield, but it is not a weapon" Dorothy Parker.
tr.v. rid·i·culed, rid·i·cul·ing, rid·i·cules
To expose to ridicule; make fun of.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[French, from Latin rdiculum, joke, from neuter of rdiculus, laughable; see ridiculous.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ridi·culer n.
Synonyms: ridicule, mock, taunt1, twit, deride
These verbs refer to making another the butt of amusement or mirth. Ridicule implies purposeful disparagement: "My father discouraged me by ridiculing my performances" Benjamin Franklin.
To mock is to poke fun at someone, often by mimicking and caricaturing speech or actions: "Seldom he smiles, and smiles in such a sort/As if he mock'd himself, and scorn'd his spirit" Shakespeare.
Taunt suggests mocking, insulting, or scornful reproach: "taunting him with want of courage to leap into the great pit" Daniel Defoe.
To twit is to taunt by calling attention to something embarrassing: "The schoolmaster was twitted about the lady who threw him over" J.M. Barrie.
Deride implies scorn and contempt: "Was all the world in a conspiracy to deride his failure?" Edith Wharton.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ridicule
Noun
language or behaviour intended to humiliate or mock
Verb
[-culing, -culed]
to make fun of or mock [Latin ridere to laugh]
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. ridicule - language or behavior intended to mock or humiliate
discourtesy, disrespect - an expression of lack of respect
2. ridicule - the act of deriding or treating with contempt
derision
offense, offensive activity, discourtesy, offence - a lack of politeness; a failure to show regard for others; wounding the feelings or others
mock - the act of mocking or ridiculing; "they made a mock of him"
Verb 1. ridicule - subject to laughter or ridicule; "The satirists ridiculed the plans for a new opera house"; "The students poked fun at the inexperienced teacher"; "His former students roasted the professor at his 60th birthday"
blackguard, guy, jest at, laugh at, make fun, poke fun, rib, roast
bemock, mock - treat with contempt; "The new constitution mocks all democratic principles"
tease - mock or make fun of playfully; "the flirting man teased the young woman"
lampoon, satirise, satirize - ridicule with satire; "The writer satirized the politician's proposal"
debunk, expose - expose while ridiculing; especially of pretentious or false claims and ideas; "The physicist debunked the psychic's claims"
stultify - cause to appear foolish; "He stultified himself by contradicting himself and being inconsistent"

Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ridicule
verb 1. laugh at, mock, make fun of, make a fool of, humiliate, taunt, sneer at, parody, caricature, jeer at, scoff at, deride, send up Brit. (informal) lampoon, poke fun at, chaff, take the mickey out of (informal) satirize, pooh-pooh, laugh out of court, make a monkey out of, make someone a laughing stock, laugh to scorn
noun 2. mockery, scorn, derision, laughter, irony, rib, taunting, sneer, satire, jeer, banter, sarcasm, chaff, gibe, raillery

[Bard77]

Boardieland Brats and Bullies~

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boardieland Brats and Bullies~

They hail from Westport Connecticut, to the streets of LA, Boardieland Brats and Bullies. Some wield a pen in excellence, clothed in education, unraveled in eloquence. They pound the hammer just as hard as the brash, brazen, name calling, bully.

The Power Posters, the stars, if you please of the boards, those of quick mind, witty character, laced in poison pen mastery. The bullies no different, than the loud mouthed bully at the local pub. His solution to every challenge, a severe pounding and beating behind course, campy and base words, tossed in reckless abandonment. The name caller. Simply that and no more. One who has honed the ability of demeaning others verbally. They execute their art in streety, posture and form, while the haughty well educated brat, fire their jabs, in like barbary on the wings of words floating in eloquence.

We revere and we fear, each one and all. We have cliques based on our alliegence to, and association with, these same posters. Interaction and intermingling often discouraged by these machete wielding gurus of Boardieland. Who gives them the power? The silent majority, that sits by, and in saying nothing, endorses all of their antics?

Those that fear their words won't stand as tall because they're not dressed as pretty in educated pomp, and adorned in Nellie Olson flavor and tone? Some just don't have the knack of being mean spirited. It's just not in their nature. Can't be honed, learned, nor taught. So sadly, these sensitive of heart, incapable of equal verbal retaliation, end up victim to those aggressive, barbarous, bully type posters.

What magic masks, the words of these, that wield such seeming power among us? Do they indeed wield the power? Or do we give it to them, paved on the road of our silence?

When will we learn that what etches words in power is when they are spawned in sincerity, and what encases words in blazed glory and hinges them to time, is when they are spoken in truth, whether wrapped in simple, or adorned in garish, truth always stands tall, and stilted in the midst of civilized man, and shall always be detected, and discerned, by the seeing and hearing among us.



The Bard

[paleryder]

Center

[mivona]

I am quite familiar with English and its definition and usage.

I laugh at, mock, poke fun at and even disparage things that I find ridiculous.

Don't like it?

Ok. That's a point of view. A rather unusual point of view in judging me on a board that has reportage and ridicule at is core.

There's lots of board with hearts and flowers out there.

[Bard77]

I am quite familiar with English and its definition and usage.

I laugh at, mock, poke fun at and even disparage things that I find ridiculous.

Don't like it?

Ok. That's a point of view. A rather unusual point of view in judging me on a board that has reportage and ridicule at is core.

There's lots of board with hearts and flowers out there.

Weak.
At best.
Nice try though.
A for effort.
Keep atem!

[Bard77]

miv

I am quite familiar with English and its definition and usage.

P.S.
Good job!

:1clap3:

[krisinluck]

Ah, shit, Bard. Don't go getting all obnoxious on us so soon!

I have a faith, but the Christians (which I am surrounded by in rural America) think I'm nuts because it doesn't fit their God in a box. I'm so much a hybrid spiritually that I don't fit in any box at all - but am absolutely not athiest or agnostic.

The issues the Christians have in America today is brought about by their own attitudes and behavior.

Those walk through life with their SAVED banner across their chest are generally the ones who treat people they come in contact with like shit.

Example: This old guy and his wife come in the restaurant all the time. They are always sullen and bitchy, although he thinks he's a comedian at times. They used to always leave the Bloody Jesus tract (so named because that's what it looked like on the front - ack) with their dollar in it. They tipped bigger one day I waited on them because they had asked for more creamers...and promptly loaded them in her purse and took them home. I got two bucks that day. This is the same man that, while I was serving him and his church buddies at their "prayer" meeting one morning announced to the whole table that I was the best waitress ever..."almost like a white person". (Yes indeed, I did put him in his place. I asked him if Jesus would have said that to anyone of any color.)

The real Christians are the ones who treat everyone with respect and a smile and compassion - and oftentimes, until you get to know them better, you'd never know their faith was so strong.

Example: Group of three or four couples comes in on Thursday nights for dinner. Always laughing, friendly, great tippers, no tract in sight. One evening I wasn't able to get everything to the table in one load, and as I headed back, they were holding hands and praying before eating. I waited back from the table until they were finished, delivered the last items and told them how wonderful it was to see Christianity portrayed in such a fine way. And now, when I am working (and if I have time) they always ask if I would like to join them in their prayer...and I do.

These "invisible" Christians are the true warriors of Christ. They spread the message the way Jesus said to do. Unfortunately, the man in the first example here is the face of Christianity most non-believers see. They want to be noticed for their Christianity, so they are the one's up in people's faces. It's no wonder people scorn it!

That's why it's got a bad rap.

[Bard77]

Ah, shit, Bard. Don't go getting all obnoxious on us so soon!

I have a faith, but the Christians (which I am surrounded by in rural America) think I'm nuts because it doesn't fit their God in a box. I'm so much a hybrid spiritually that I don't fit in any box at all - but am absolutely not athiest or agnostic.

The issues the Christians have in America today is brought about by their own attitudes and behavior.

Those walk through life with their SAVED banner across their chest are generally the ones who treat people they come in contact with like shit.

Example: This old guy and his wife come in the restaurant all the time. They are always sullen and bitchy, although he thinks he's a comedian at times. They used to always leave the Bloody Jesus tract (so named because that's what it looked like on the front - ack) with their dollar in it. They tipped bigger one day I waited on them because they had asked for more creamers...and promptly loaded them in her purse and took them home. I got two bucks that day. This is the same man that, while I was serving him and his church buddies at their "prayer" meeting one morning announced to the whole table that I was the best waitress ever..."almost like a white person". (Yes indeed, I did put him in his place. I asked him if Jesus would have said that to anyone of any color.)

The real Christians are the ones who treat everyone with respect and a smile and compassion - and oftentimes, until you get to know them better, you'd never know their faith was so strong.

Example: Group of three or four couples comes in on Thursday nights for dinner. Always laughing, friendly, great tippers, no tract in sight. One evening I wasn't able to get everything to the table in one load, and as I headed back, they were holding hands and praying before eating. I waited back from the table until they were finished, delivered the last items and told them how wonderful it was to see Christianity portrayed in such a fine way. And now, when I am working (and if I have time) they always ask if I would like to join them in their prayer...and I do.

These "invisible" Christians are the true warriors of Christ. They spread the message the way Jesus said to do. Unfortunately, the man in the first example here is the face of Christianity most non-believers see. They want to be noticed for their Christianity, so they are the one's up in people's faces. It's no wonder people scorn it!

That's why it's got a bad rap.

Kris,

Very good post, therer is little I dissagrreee with, except me approaching the threashold of obnoxious?

I thought I'd bee rather tame, in my discourse & discussion...lol

With that said, what I object to are the ugly generalizations made about christians

Like folk, we all differ,

Christyians give God a bad rap by our shitty examples, yes I agree

Very little fragrance Of the Lord in many, hence I agree

We have deserved the bad rap.

However, I find insulting religions folk hold DEARER than anything, in poor tasete.

[Bard77]

Center

Whoops, I forgot .:)

[krisinluck]

But like I said, Bard, the reason it is held in such contempt is that those who are talking about it all the time are the ones who act like such....well, fuckwits about it. That's how it happened.

Not at all unlike Islam getting a bad rap because of their extremists.

(I'm glad you weren't getting obnoxious.)

[Bard77]

But like I said, Bard, the reason it is held in such contempt is that those who are talking about it all the time are the ones who act like such....well, fuckwits about it. That's how it happened.

Not at all unlike Islam getting a bad rap because of their extremists.

(I'm glad you weren't getting obnoxious.)


Agreed.

The same 'might' be said however of those who talk on about athiism,

Right?
We each and all, see things and words from a differing vantage point

the printed medium often, leaves us misunderstood at times.

[VocalVixen]

I am not a Christian. While I would hope that everyone would respect that and not try to save me, it rarely happens in the southern Bible belt where I live.

I respect Christianity. It is very intriguing, as is Buddhism, Kabbalah, etc.

I just think that anyone who is secure in his/her beliefs should not have to defend them.

[Bard77]

I am not a Christian. While I would hope that everyone would respect that and not try to save me, it rarely happens in the southern Bible belt where I live.

I respect Christianity. It is very intriguing, as is Buddhism, Kabbalah, etc.

I just think that anyone who is secure in his/her beliefs should not have to defend them.


Faith is something very special and personal.
My loive for my Lord Jesus Christ, surpasses any other.
Its a fervent real belif system to me.

i agree, faith needs not defending., nor is that my intent.

yet, generalizations and faith-bashing, include millions of folk.

It just seems a tad rude to do it


If we generalized about all blacks, mexicans, wed rightly be called bigots.

Should not the same PC thingy apply to religion?

i know, some Christians are overbearing AND untimely in pursuing the great commision, but are only following the instruction manual,

usually in bad form however.

Nice to see ya Vixen

[VocalVixen]

Good to see you too Bard!

I think that it really doesn't matter what religion, or lack thereof, there will always be zealots who serve as the poster children.

In my opinion, if reasonable ADULTS can sit down and discuss and agree to disagree on points of personal beliefs and/or religion, both sides can learn from each other. As I said before, I find Christianity intriguing although I have no desire to convert. Just learning about another person's belief system can lead to some interesting thinking.

:)

[Bard77]

Good to see you too Bard!

I think that it really doesn't matter what religion, or lack thereof, there will always be zealots who serve as the poster children.

In my opinion, if reasonable ADULTS can sit down and discuss and agree to disagree on points of personal beliefs and/or religion, both sides can learn from each other. As I said before, I find Christianity intriguing although I have no desire to convert. Just learning about another person's belief system can lead to some interesting thinking.

:)

Agreed & Amen.

[toke]

I found this in the Washington Post this morning...a perfect fit for this thread. In 1781, Thomas Jefferson said:

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Heh.

You'll find it within this excellent op-ed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/19/AR2008081902396.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[mivona]

I find it so astonishing that religion is seen as such a key issue in this election. It should be relegated to the sidelines where it belongs. If candidates are running for this office based on their faith, they should be relegated to the sidelines where they belong, because their faith should have nothing to do with why they are running for office.

They shouldn't see themselves as on a mission for God, but should put the well-being of the American people as of paramount interest, beyond their faith, religion or lack thereof. It just shouldn't matter at all.

This crap of trying to portray themselves as more moral, based on their faith, should cease - and they should be providing us with evidence of their morality, their goals, their vision without reference at all to their relationship to whatever God.

The Moral Majority began all this nonsense, as far as I can tell, when they began equating morality with their faith and their religion. It is time that those who have morality without an organised faith begin re-claiming some of that ground.

[Bard77]

I find it so astonishing that religion is seen as such a key issue in this election. It should be relegated to the sidelines where it belongs. If candidates are running for this office based on their faith, they should be relegated to the sidelines where they belong, because their faith should have nothing to do with why they are running for office.

They shouldn't see themselves as on a mission for God, but should put the well-being of the American people as of paramount interest, beyond their faith, religion or lack thereof. It just shouldn't matter at all.

This crap of trying to portray themselves as more moral, based on their faith, should cease - and they should be providing us with evidence of their morality, their goals, their vision without reference at all to their relationship to whatever God.

The Moral Majority began all this nonsense, as far as I can tell, when they began equating morality with their faith and their religion. It is time that those who have morality without an organised faith begin re-claiming some of that ground.

I tend you agree with you on this point Miv.

When you apply for a non profit tax exempt number As in founding & Pastoring a church

you agree, NOT to use it as a bully pulpit, ie NO politics allowed.

Some, nay, many 'have' wrongly.

Separation church & state etc.?

Yet, I seen plenty of candidates over the years toting Bibles for photo ops on Sunday morning.

My Dad said they wer all shysters, I tend to agree.

[blondieia]

I think Bard has made a couple of interesting points.

Non-belief seems to have become a belief system in itself, with its own dogma, publications and organizations.

I'm a Christian. Not the bible-carrying, bought-the-What-Would-Jesus-Do tee-shirt variety of Christian, but Christian nonetheless. I make a point of not insulting atheists or other non-believers because they feel differently about things than I do, and I would never insinuate that they are uneducated or ignorant because they do not share my beliefs. I've never understood why it is supposed to be acceptable for non-believers to insult the intelligence of people who believe in a form of organized religion, as if anyone who believes differently should be pitied. You are not superior because you are an atheist.

[mivona]

I was raised in a Christian home, and attended Christian churches. I value much of what it teaches, but do not see the Bible as a blueprint for my life.

I don't mind if others do find it to be an essential part of their lives. What really pisses me off is when they try to impose their values on me to limit my choices. Their right to believe whatever they want should not be diminished, but their right to impact on the lives of others on he basis of faith should be utterly curtailed.

[Bard77]

I was raised in a Christian home, and attended Christian churches. I value much of what it teaches, but do not see the Bible as a blueprint for my life.

I don't mind if others do find it to be an essential part of their lives. What really pisses me off is when they try to impose their values on me to limit my choices. Their right to believe whatever they want should not be diminished, but their right to impact on the lives of others on he basis of faith should be utterly curtailed.




Miv

Being raised in the faith, you are suggesting we NOT
Ensue the 'Great Commision'
We, as Christians are 'charged' to carry out.

That is not a ground of compromise my faith ALLOWS me to do.

I agree, the way some execute the charge reflects not the spirt of Jesus

Nor does it help our tainted reputation

I say tainted, because FEW Christians portray Jesus as he asked, meaning, in love and tolerance, NOT higher than you judgement!!

P.S. I (personally) do, believe the Bible to be the blueprint.

[toys-to-treasures]

There is an element of faith in any worldview, thiestic or athiestic, any honest intelligent person would admit that. There is so much more any of us don't know than we ever will know.

I think disdain for Western Christians in general is fair. I don't think it is fair to discount the fundementals or essense of Christianity (and by extension God imo) because of it. Christians screw things up because our nature, all human nature, is exactly what the Bible says it is.

That said it is easy to look at something and see what you want to see. There is plenty of good done in the name of Christ as well. There are plenty of Christians who are not big hypocrites and who do much for others.

Those on the outside of any group or with an axe to grind do tend to like to hold up the most reprehensible examples possible.

[mivona]

It would be so wonderful if those who want to promote Christianity just got on with their lives by example, and letting others make their own choices. It is completely untenable that some seek to impose their faith on others who do not share their convictions.

It is strange that those who often bleat the loudest about the dastardly Muslims attempting to impose their faith on non-believers (which I also oppose) will quite happily support the imposition of their Christian doctrine on everyone.

[Bard77]

It would be so wonderful if those who want to promote Christianity just got on with their lives by example, and letting others make their own choices. It is completely untenable that some seek to impose their faith on others who do not share their convictions.

It is strange that those who often bleat the loudest about the dastardly Muslims attempting to impose their faith on non-believers (which I also oppose) will quite happily support the imposition of their Christian doctrine on everyone.



It would be so wonderful if those who want to promote Christianity just got on with their lives by example, and letting others make their own choices. It is completely untenable that some seek to impose their faith on others who do not share their convictions.


A-damn-men.

Mirror.

[Bard77]

It would be so wonderful if those who want to promote Athiesim just got on with their lives by example, and letting others make their own choices. It is completely untenable that some seek to impose their faith on others who do not share their convictions.

Amen.

[Bard77]

P.S

Nice to see ya Toy.:)

[toys-to-treasures]

It would be so wonderful if those who want to promote Christianity just got on with their lives by example, and letting others make their own choices. It is completely untenable that some seek to impose their faith on others who do not share their convictions.

It is strange that those who often bleat the loudest about the dastardly Muslims attempting to impose their faith on non-believers (which I also oppose) will quite happily support the imposition of their Christian doctrine on everyone.

It might be wonderful (I think not in many ways) but it isn't practical. Even Snakey from the old days recognized that. There is tension and a cultural war because both sides are pushing, attempting to shape the culture. You and others act like this is a new thing. In free and semi-free societies this is ALWAYS going on to various degrees. Read your history.

If it is more noticable to you it is because the other side has been pushing back for 20 plus years after being pushed for the previous 20 plus years.

Have you ever considered that the rise of Christian Nationalists (which I think is insignificant but form many is a major boogyman) has some validity? You make excuses for the rise of militant, fascist muslims because of the way they've been treated. Perhaps you should apply some of the same thinking towards Christians and try and understand why they/we feel under assualt even if you don't think its valid.

[paleryder]

I don't push my beliefs on others and I guess that's one of my failings. That said, I won't attack your beliefs. I question some of mine though.


Wonder why I'm required to exhibit a Catholic compassion towards all when in truth........ I'd just as soon wrap a rosary around your heathen necks and stretch them from a tall cedar.


Ignore me. I just had to say that. :2poof:

http://photos.imageevent.com/joseywales/halloween/readingbible.gif

[mivona]

A-damn-men.

Mirror.

Hardly. I don't go around insisting that you don't believe in God. I don't go around insisting that you have abortions, or marry another man. I don't require all couples to use only contraception that I approve of.

All of these issues are matters that an individual should be able to decide, based on their own faith or moral values - not imposed on them because of what someone else's God requires of them.

[krisinluck]

I don't push my beliefs on others and I guess that's one of my failings. That said, I won't attack your beliefs. I question some of mine though.


Wonder why I'm required to exhibit a Catholic compassion towards all when in truth........ I'd just as soon wrap a rosary around your heathen necks and stretch them from a tall cedar.


Ignore me. I just had to say that. :2poof:

http://photos.imageevent.com/joseywales/halloween/readingbible.gifWhat he said.

[agogoboots]

I am not a Christian. While I would hope that everyone would respect that and not try to save me, it rarely happens in the southern Bible belt where I live.

I would like to suggest a new way of looking at this if I may.

It's not that Christians "do not repect [your right to freely believe]". It is just an expression of love and care on their part.

I always have to remind myself of this because as a Christian, neither am I free from what you would term "others trying to save me" in a sense. (I know... everybody is going "Duh?" bear with me.)

Several things:

1. In the Christian belief your care in the afterlife (and in the present life) is dependant upon your (personal) relationship with God/Christ. That is not a "judgment" of your goodness or lack thereof. It's just a part of the Christian belief system. So when someone tries to share with you the tenants of their faith (i.e. how to "be saved") it is an act of love and care on their part. They don't consider you "bad" in any way, they are trying to be loving caretakers of your soul.

2. The obligation to share with you and at least offer you the understanding of the requirements for [eternal care] is a requirement for their own relationship to God. Not to do so is a failure to obey God's commands on their part. If they themselves are honestly trying to live a Godly life with sinceriety, they MUST offer you that knowledge. But the Bible also teaches them that you do have the free will granted by God to reject it. They are only commended themselves to offer it.

3. If faith in God, and participation in organized religion has genuinely enriched their own lives, extending this to you is also an expression of their love and care. They want you to be rewarded as they themselves have been rewarded. What they offer you is a "gift". "I made a million dollars by joining this company. Why don't you join too?!" "I had a great time in Cancun. Why don't you go there too?!" These are not see and "pressure" but as loving suggestions. But when it's an offer of religion, people tend to view it as highly insulting and personal whereas really it's the same kind offering.

As a Christian and deeply understanding this due to having been raised in the Christian (evangelical) church, I too have to remind myself of this. I presently do not attend church or worship services. I'm constantly being "offered" this "love".

"Are you going to church anywhere?"
"Oh come go with us."
"Can I talk to you about your relationship with the Lord?"
"We hope to see you on Sunday."

I used to feel that rejecting their offers was uncomfortable, I felt pressured, judged. But then I thought through what I have just shared above, and it got easier. Now each time I hear these comments, rather than hear in my head "You aren't being a faithful Christian." or "We are judging you for your lack of devotion." or "Why aren't you attending church?" I remind myself to hear the underlying message "We love you. We care. We want you in our company."

So now, rather than squirm, I just thank them, tell them I appreciate it, I'll give it some thought, and go silent. That is usually enough for the moment.

I sincerely wish more "chosen non-believers" would try to grasp the goodness of the intentions behind the actions of evangelical Christians. Not to [extend] on their part would sincerely be not to care for you.

[agogoboots]

VocalVixen, not intended to single you out in any way. Your comment just gave me a very good way to begin what I wanted to express. Peace.

[VocalVixen]

No problem, Terri.

If your beliefs bring peace into your life, I am happy for you. I am happy for anyone who finds something, be it religion or lack thereof, to give them peace, hope and happiness.

We all need something to believe in. Your God fulfills you, while He does not do the same for me.

Different strokes for different folks.

[Bard77]

Hardly. I don't go around insisting that you don't believe in God. I don't go around insisting that you have abortions, or marry another man. I don't require all couples to use only contraception that I approve of.

All of these issues are matters that an individual should be able to decide, based on their own faith or moral values - not imposed on them because of what someone else's God requires of them.

:irollers5

YOU,(Mivona) put up the thread,????

in order to RAIL on Christianity 'imho'.

Not to discuss it, youre veiled attempts to suggest otherwise are utterly obsurd.

I, did not put up a thread on Christianity, oh no.

It was you, doing the barbing, (pushing of belief system) and evangelising sistah, not me. (mirror)

[Bard77]

Hardly. I don't go around insisting that you don't believe in God. I don't go around insisting that you have abortions, or marry another man. I don't require all couples to use only contraception that I approve of.

All of these issues are matters that an individual should be able to decide, based on their own faith or moral values - not imposed on them because of what someone else's God requires of them.

'Hardly' my ass, dang lady, are you BLIND to your own words?

Heart?

HATRED & contempt for Christianity steaming?

It appears so imho.

[Bard77]

Now miv, take ANOTHER 24 hours 'to try'to compose a respon


Its hard I know

Cus your busted!

Right out in public.

For the Christian bigot that you are.

Merely imho mind you.

[agogoboots]

I can't say that I am either at peace or fulfulled, VV. Just that I understand and have compassion that others are and their intentions are good.

I would describe my journey more as "turbulent" at best.

[mivona]

I began this thread because I had been listening to Adams' last book, and I found his bit on atheism to be very interesting. I thought it was interesting to look at what American Atheism magazine would ask of Adams' and the transatlantic difference in approach to faith. I know that Richard Dawkins gets right up the noses of "Christians" in the US, and they are frequently portrayed as pretty mindless and utterly lacking in logic.

I thought that Adams' journey from a Christian to an atheist was interesting, and how he as a writer committed to science came to see it as the only rational response not only to the lack of evidence of any omnipotent being but also to the evidence that supports incremental changes, shaped by environment and happenstance.

Feel free to read whatever you want into it, Bard, but it looks like you are likely to be wrong in your assessment of my motivations. Don't like my posts? Feel free to not read them.

[agogoboots]

One counter perspective by a different scientist.

The Director of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, is a Christian who highlights the positive aspects of genetic research, "We have caught the first glimpse of our instruction book, previously known only to God."

http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/Human-Genome-Project.htm

[agogoboots]

More about Francis Collins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)

[Bard77]

I began this thread because I had been listening to Adams' last book, and I found his bit on atheism to be very interesting. I thought it was interesting to look at what American Atheism magazine would ask of Adams' and the transatlantic difference in approach to faith. I know that Richard Dawkins gets right up the noses of "Christians" in the US, and they are frequently portrayed as pretty mindless and utterly lacking in logic.

I thought that Adams' journey from a Christian to an atheist was interesting, and how he as a writer committed to science came to see it as the only rational response not only to the lack of evidence of any omnipotent being but also to the evidence that supports incremental changes, shaped by environment and happenstance.

Feel free to read whatever you want into it, Bard, but it looks like you are likely to be wrong in your assessment of my motivations. Don't like my posts? Feel free to not read them.



Weak.

[mivona]

Weak.

Puerile.

[Bard77]

Puerile.

Overlooking the Puerile, above slam

And yes, I had to look it up.

Hoping that helps you feel a tad better.

Let us return to the topic.

You're utter contempt for Chritianity is a red GLARING flag.

I'm sorry you cannot see it.

When you deem it socially acceptable, to regularly desparge half the worlds poplulas ie (folk of faith) mivona.

It is YOU that needs to rethink your insulting manners.

[mivona]

I have no problem with Christian values of charity, kindness, helpfulness, forgiveness. I believe they are laudable.

But the point where "Christianity" begins trying to deny the filling of prescriptions, limit access to a full range of contraception, dismiss the life-long relationships that some people have, yeah, I begin to wonder about what kind of "God" they cherish.

Or why they need a god at all.

While I have long struggled with the concepts of spirituality and faith, I have long been an attender at a Quaker Meeting as a place that seems to best fit me, and married there by choice, rather than choosing a completely non-religious ceremony, but I have grown towards believing that there very well might not be a god at all. That kind of makes the question of what happens after death a whole new ball game.

I guess that you find it objectionable that someone questions faith in God. Any god. Tough.

[agogoboots]

But the point where "Christianity" begins trying to deny the filling of prescriptions, limit access to a full range of contraception, dismiss the life-long relationships that some people have,

Christianity does not do this. Human beings with free will and individual decision making ability do this.

[mivona]

Kind of like those who used their "free will" to impose their beliefs about how blacks were unsuitable classmates, etc?

What makes this religion-based disadvantaging of others different?

If Muslims gained a community majority and began insisting that no one could eat pork anymore, imagine the uproar. But somehow, it is ok for others to use their religious faith to limit the choices of others?

[agogoboots]

A. Out of bounds, unrelated to the topic.

B. N/A

C. I'd think it highly insensitive, bordering on malicious mockery even, for a group of Christians to go to a Muslim neighborhood and have a public pork roast picnic in the park.

[mivona]

A. Out of bounds, unrelated to the topic.

Really? Why? What makes the faith discriminating against blacks (and it was seen as biblically ordained once upon a time) different from the faith discriminating against gays? How does the religiously-based constraints on women's choice of contraception stack up against the limits once imposed on non-whites so they knew their place?

B. N/A

Why?


C. I'd think it highly insensitive, bordering on malicious mockery even, for a group of Christians to go to a Muslim neighborhood and have a public pork roast picnic in the park.

Really? I think that people should be free to do what they wish, unless it impacts upon someone else. My eating a bacon sandwich shouldn't bother anyone. I'm wouldn't force anyone to eat it, but equally I should have the right to eat it if I wish. If its a public park, it's everyone's to use as they wish (within the boundaries of not impacting on anyone else).

I haven't seen Jewish protests against people eating BLTs. Making choices only for themselves seems like the way to go. Others should try it.

[agogoboots]

Really? Why? What makes the faith discriminating against blacks (and it was seen as biblically ordained once upon a time) different from the faith discriminating against gays?

First, I think the association you make is insulting to blacks. To be black is not immoral. Neither is it a choice one indulges in. It is a God given trait of skin pigmentation, not an act of will.

(I'm not having this debate again, Mivona.)

How does the religiously-based constraints on women's choice of contraception stack up against the limits once imposed on non-whites so they knew their place?

I don't see where any women are being denied contraception. There are many available choices for contraception. I've yet to go in a gas station that doesn't have condoms for sale on the counter. I've yet to go in a grocery store that does not sell spermicides right next to the tampons. Abortion after conception is not contra-ception.

contra, contro: against, contravene, conflict with
ception: from the root "conception"

Contra-ception
against conception
conflict with or prevent conception

The drugs you speak of aren't against conception, they prevent implantion or abortion after conception has already occured.

Absolutely NO one is objecting to them to "keep women in their place", especially other women. People object to them because they object to murder of the unborn. They object to them in order to PROTECT the RIGHTS of those who can not protect themselves.

(But you already know this therefore you've succeeded in making me feel like an idiot for repeating what is obvious. Kundos.)

Why?

What makes the disadvantaging of others religious-based different?

Your mind can not be changed, Mivona. Despite your boisterous claims of liberal openmindedness, you aren't even opened minded enough to consider other points of view. And therefore talking to you about anything related to this topic is a waste of time for everyone who participates.


Not to mention the redundancy makes me sleepy. I am going to take a nap rather than beat my head against a brick.

[Bard77]

I have no problem with Christian values of charity, kindness, helpfulness, forgiveness. I believe they are laudable.

But the point where "Christianity" begins trying to deny the filling of prescriptions, limit access to a full range of contraception, dismiss the life-long relationships that some people have, yeah, I begin to wonder about what kind of "God" they cherish.

Or why they need a god at all.

While I have long struggled with the concepts of spirituality and faith, I have long been an attender at a Quaker Meeting as a place that seems to best fit me, and married there by choice, rather than choosing a completely non-religious ceremony, but I have grown towards believing that there very well might not be a god at all. That kind of makes the question of what happens after death a whole new ball game.

I guess that you find it objectionable that someone questions faith in God. Any god. Tough.










I have no problem with Christian values of charity, kindness, helpfulness, forgiveness. I believe they are laudable.

How utterly magnanimous of you.

But the point where "Christianity" begins trying to deny the filling of prescriptions, limit access to a full range of contraception, dismiss the life-long relationships that some people have, yeah, I begin to wonder about what kind of "God" they cherish.



PERSONAL choice remember?
None of your business really.

Or why they need a god at all.

'God', no prob, all make typos.

While I have long struggled with the concepts of spirituality and faith, I have long been an attender at a Quaker Meeting as a place that seems to best fit me, and married there by choice, rather than choosing a completely non-religious ceremony, but I have grown towards believing that there very well might not be a god at all. That kind of makes the question of what happens after death a whole new ball game.

I guess that you find it objectionable that someone questions faith in God. Any god. Tough.


You're NOT seeking nor questioning ANYTHING Miv(imho)
you ARE merely 'Christian bashing period!

And that remains the long & short of it....(IMHO)




You are a 'Christian hating bigot' Pure & simple
Most ALL can see that clearly.

Ceptin you maybe.

[Bard77]

Miv,

Just stay down......OK?
Learn to concede...lol
It's part of growing up
Knowing when youve been cornered
There is no way out of a corner.
Actually, you, cornered you, (with your own words,




Peace & love


Rodney

[mivona]

Organised religion has caused a lot of problems in the world. I do not see it as a good thing.

Once a critical eye is used on the religion, it all falls apart. I understand that those that adhere to it do not like the illogicality of it exposed.

In a world of free will, one's choice of belief must be respected (apparently) no matter how silly it is, unless one is a minority of some kind. Things have moved on a bit in Christianity, so that being from the tribes of Ham no longer are an acceptable basis for discrimination. But those who are gay are a godsend alternative scapegoat.

The idea that it is wrong to prevent implantation is gob smacking. Imagine having women collectively choosing to give up all their unwanted babies and overloading the "welfare" system. I wonder how long it would take for people to give women back the right to make their own decisions for themselves?

The idea that anyone has the right to impose their faith-based view of contraception on everyone else is wrong. The sooner such religious fascists are stopped, the better.

[Bard77]

Organised religion has caused a lot of problems in the world. I do not see it as a good thing.

Once a critical eye is used on the religion, it all falls apart. I understand that those that adhere to it do not like the illogicality of it exposed.

In a world of free will, one's choice of belief must be respected (apparently) no matter how silly it is, unless one is a minority of some kind. Things have moved on a bit in Christianity, so that being from the tribes of Ham no longer are an acceptable basis for discrimination. But those who are gay are a godsend alternative scapegoat.

The idea that it is wrong to prevent implantation is gob smacking. Imagine having women collectively choosing to give up all their unwanted babies and overloading the "welfare" system. I wonder how long it would take for people to give women back the right to make their own decisions for themselves?

The idea that anyone has the right to impose their faith-based view of contraception on everyone else is wrong. The sooner such religious fascists are stopped, the better.



Ha Ha ha, as PFR would say, I knew you wouldn'y let go of that bone...lol

I like that about you miv, you have CONVICTION, I always admired conviction, no matter, the cause, or topic, conviction or stance.

With that said, we shall then continue fellow citizen & sojuorner ( eye wink only to infuritate you icon inseted here..lol)





Organised religion has caused a lot of problems in the world.

No shit Sherloch! Finally we discover common ground




I do not see it as a good thing.


Neither do I, I dont like what organised RELIGION represents., one Damn bit!'
They' in gerneral, reflect not the New Testament one whit!I believe they should follow the maual ie 'The Holy Bible.

I just am a guy who loves the Lord Jesus Christ, & had the Lord save me, and my life many tears ago now.

I know he's real, too me.

Thats where it matters, inside the deepest region and cavern of my heart.

Once a critical eye is used on the religion, it all falls apart. I understand that those that adhere to it do not like the illogicality of it exposed.

I dont mind. I like injustice and fakes, and hypocrits to be exposed,

Yet you mivona (shamelessly SWEEP nations with your broad-brushed stroked CUTTING, INSULTING to the bone remarks) And generalizations concerning Christians and Christianity,
thats what annoys me, its unjust.

We are NOT all as you say friend.





n a world of free will, one's choice of belief must be respected (apparently) no matter how silly it is, unless one is a minority of some kind. Things have moved on a bit in Christianity, so that being from the tribes of Ham no longer are an acceptable basis for discrimination. But those who are gay are a godsend alternative scapegoat.

Let me, us be free of your harping then, LEAVE OUR belief alone!
Simple enough eh
Quit griunding your axe on My/our back.

The idea that it is wrong to prevent implantation is gob smacking. Imagine having women collectively choosing to give up all their unwanted babies and overloading the "welfare" system. I wonder how long it would take for people to give women back the right to make their own decisions for themselves?


NONE of your business how other folk conduct theior PERSONAL business.
Im an advocate of equal rights for all, including women, who are the biggest mkinority out there in my opinion.

The idea that anyone has the right to impose their faith-based view of contraception on everyone else is wrong. The sooner such religious fascists are stopped, the better.
I agree with the boldened

Then Stop!
Your the one doing it for crying out loud.

Yiou silly goose.

[mivona]

I don't believe I have ever seen all Christians as acting in the same way.

Let's separate out two strands of my views for clarity.

Firstly, I personally agree that Douglas Adams has an interesting take on the illogicality of religion - ANY religion. Science provides some raionality in answering some fundamental about life and our place on the universal stage.

Secondly, I utterly object to the imposition of faith-based constraints on someone else's life. Why can't they just worry about their own lives instead of fussing over how someone else determines theirs?

I really don't care if they feel the imperative of bringing their god's word to others. When others are completely free to accept or reject the faith-based constraints required by their interpretation of "god's intent", it's fair enough. But when some are able to use their positions as a means of imposing THEIR faith on how others live and the choices they can make, I draw a line.

[Bard77]

I don't believe I have ever seen all Christians as acting in the same way.

Let's separate out two strands of my views for clarity.

Firstly, I personally agree that Douglas Adams has an interesting take on the illogicality of religion - ANY religion. Science provides some raionality in answering some fundamental about life and our place on the universal stage.

Secondly, I utterly object to the imposition of faith-based constraints on someone else's life. Why can't they just worry about their own lives instead of fussing over how someone else determines theirs?

I really don't care if they feel the imperative of bringing their god's word to others. When others are completely free to accept or reject the faith-based constraints required by their interpretation of "god's intent", it's fair enough. But when some are able to use their positions as a means of imposing THEIR faith on how others live and the choices they can make, I draw a line.



Secondly, I utterly object to the imposition of faith-based constraints on someone else's life. Why can't they just worry about their own lives instead of fussing over how someone else determines theirs?

That is exactly what I am asking you.




But when some are able to use their positions as a means of imposing THEIR faith on how others live and the choices they can make, I draw a line.

Example por favor.

Of Christians FORCING anyone to do ANYTHING??

Have I missed a news story?


I didn't know men wielded such hypnotic power over others??

Disturbing.

[mivona]

Does it not bother you that there is a campaign among some "Christians" to limit contraceptives to only barrier methods? Have you not noticed the determined campaign to deny gay couples the right to arrange their lives in the same way as heterosexual couples, married or unmarried.

[VocalVixen]

Originally Posted by mivona
Organised religion has caused a lot of problems in the world. I do not see it as a good thing.

When I read this, I immediately thought of Jim Jones and David Koresh. While they WERE recognized as leaders of some off the wall religious groups, I would rather refer to them as cults. There will always be Christian and non-Christian extremeists who cast a bad shadow on the organization as a whole. Organized religion has also helped many. Without the routine that Christianity offers, many people would fall apart. There are some that desperately need to be included in that sort of ritual.

Originally Posted by mivona
I don't believe I have ever seen all Christians as acting in the same way.

I agree. But then again, I have never seen all humans acting in the same way.

[Whale Spirit]

It's not likely that human beings will ever be able to prove whether there is or isn't a Supreme Being, so that will always be open to speculation, argument and belief.

The human mind can understand only to a certain point. Even scientists say that the matter of the universe has always existed and had no beginning. We exist in time and can't really conceive of anything having no beginning. How could that be?

[Bard77]

When I read this, I immediately thought of Jim Jones and David Koresh. While they WERE recognized as leaders of some off the wall religious groups, I would rather refer to them as cults. There will always be Christian and non-Christian extremeists who cast a bad shadow on the organization as a whole. Organised religion has also helped many. Without the routine that Christianity offers, many people would fall apart. There are some that desperately need to be included in that sort of ritual.



I agree. But then again, I have never seen all humans acting in the same way.


Organisedreligion has also helped many.


Yes, vixen very very true, my strokes in words (about organised religion) were broad too it seems.

I promptly apolgise to organized religion today.

We/they have fed countless millions, clothed, given medcal attention, case in point

(Samaritans purse) Billy Graham's son. (could have inherited Dads ministry...but said no to fame.

From Catholics to prodestants, we covered orphans the old, downtrooden and weak.

And for EVERY bad apple behind the pulpit getting rich,

Stands countless thousands of good men and women that lived fasted lives of hardship, in order to accomplish the charge we were given.

Sincere, loving folk, that just 'want to love and help)

Like my Grandfather, missionary in Japan, at greast expence to himself and family.

They slip through the cracks when the tele-evangelists STEAL the spotlight.

In addition MANY NON Christian organizations have done the same.'

Ny Dad used to say

'"Give credit where credit is due"

Good post Vixen

[agogoboots]

Why can't they just worry about their own lives instead of fussing over how someone else determines theirs?

So you are in favor of overturning democracy then? The freedom of speech? The right to vote? Are you suggesting that individual beliefs and opinions held by Christians should be silenced?

Does it not bother you that there is a campaign among some "Christians" to limit contraceptives to only barrier methods? Have you not noticed the determined campaign to deny gay couples the right to arrange their lives in the same way as heterosexual couples, married or unmarried.

Does it not bother you that gays from out of state organized a demonstration at Mississippi College, a private Southern Baptist Christian college, where they were not invited and had no business? What gives them the right to object private policies on private property when those to whom it belongs and are participants approve?

How many other times has this been repeated across the nation?

Pot-kettle-black.

[Bard77]

So you are in favor of overturning democracy then? The freedom of speech? The right to vote? Are you suggesting that individual beliefs and opinions held by Christians should be silenced?



Does it not bother you that gays from out of state organized a demonstration at Mississippi College, a private Southern Baptist Christian college, where they were not invited and had no business? What gives them the right to object private policies on private property when those to whom it belongs and are participants approve?

How many other times has this been repeated across the nation?

Pot-kettle-black.

'Tis the bell tolling I hear....

[mivona]

What you are advocating is not democracy, but tyranny of the majority over minority views. Democracy is supposed to be about representative government, that balances the needs of all - not the travesty that we have acquired since the Reagan years when only those who voted Republican had any value.

I'm sure that the private college could take care of the invasion of its private property just fine, and on the face of what you say, I wouldn't support it either (unless the college is getting any public funding at all).

(On the other hand, I guess that Southern Baptists are seen as the epitome of close-minded fundamentalist faith, so are probably seen as a fairly legitimate target for protest. Their spokesmen get plenty of public air-time to spout their hateful nonsense, so a demo at a SB college could be seen as fair play.)

However, the SB college issue is in no way similar to that which I raised, of a concerted campaign to change what is available to others not just within their own property, but everywhere, on the basis of a particular religious view. It sucks, and I just wish they would decide for themselves how they want to deal with fertility, and let others make their own choices using their own values.

[Bard77]

What you are advocating is not democracy, but tyranny of the majority over minority views. Democracy is supposed to be about representative government, that balances the needs of all - not the travesty that we have acquired since the Reagan years when only those who voted Republican had any value.

I'm sure that the private college could take care of the invasion of its private property just fine, and on the face of what you say, I wouldn't support it either (unless the college is getting any public funding at all).

(On the other hand, I guess that Southern Baptists are seen as the epitome of close-minded fundamentalist faith, so are probably seen as a fairly legitimate target for protest. Their spokesmen get plenty of public air-time to spout their hateful nonsense, so a demo at a SB college could be seen as fair play.)

However, the SB college issue is in no way similar to that which I raised, of a concerted campaign to change what is available to others not just within their own property, but everywhere, on the basis of a particular religious view. It sucks, and I just wish they would decide for themselves how they want to deal with fertility, and let others make their own choices using their own values.


Miv

Are you advocating that Faith based folk are the majority in the planet today?

Is that what you are stating?

Please define 'majority'

[Bard77]

Miv

Are you advocating that Faith based folk are the majority in the planet today?

Is that what you are stating?

Please define 'majority'


Yeah. I didn't think you would be rushing back for this question.

You know what the follow-up question is huh?

Don't ya miv?

You are a bright lady.

Yet, I'll await yiour responce

Perhaps I've extended too lofty a praise prematurely

Who knows?...(:)smile I)

[uglimouse]

First off, Bard, at the time you last posted, presumtuously chiding Mivona's lack of possible immediate response, it was after 1 a.m. in the U.K. yes, she last posted late in the p.m., her time, but even night owls have to give it up eventually...

That said, having just returned from a month away, with only sporadic reading of this board, I have only just read this thread.

One thing that has become clearer to me, in my short absence from U.S. culture- and by default, this board- has been the relief from feeling the nearcompulsion to disguise my lack of religious belief, or "faith".

I don't know if you, and other readers here, can comprehend the strange dichotomy between, on my travels, visiting religious sites over 1000 years old and acknowledging the awe and reverence felt in those places AT THOSE TIMES in which they were created; and yet feeling personally secure in my not believing in any deity.
(I have experienced the same empathy at sites of various religions, at various times).
In other words, I accept the truth of their history, but not their historical-belief as truth.

My belief is more to do with the accumulation of knowledge through observation, research, science, empathy, psychology, recognition, application.... and a realisation of the freedom of the Presently-Unknown.
Thus, this, especially, from Mivona I can agree with entirely (especially the bolded bit)


I was raised in a Christian home, and attended Christian churches. I value much of what it teaches, but do not see the Bible as a blueprint for my life.
I don't mind if others do find it to be an essential part of their lives. What really pisses me off is when they try to impose their values on me to limit my choices. Their right to believe whatever they want should not be diminished, but their right to impact on the lives of others on he basis of faith should be utterly curtailed.

[mivona]

Miv

Are you advocating that Faith based folk are the majority in the planet today?

Is that what you are stating?

Please define 'majority'

Uglimouse is correct and I think you should consider the time zone difference before you taking umbrage. It looks silly. I am not here at your beck and call.

Um... majority is a pretty simple concept, AFAIK, and shouldn't need defining.

There is clearly a world-wide majority of people professing some kind of Christian faith, with 2.1 billion estimated, followed by those who are Muslim, some 1.5 billion. But there is also a substantial number of those who have no faith, with 1.1 billion. See http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

There is clearly a majority of "Christians" in the US (over 75% identifying themselves as Christian - though how many are "true believers" is in the eye of the beholder), and some are seeking to impose their faith-based views on others. If successful, this will impact on the of those who believe differently in a very fundamental way. I find it shocking that there can be any serious attempt to legislate away women's rights to a full range of contraception as well as legislating a lesser range of rights to those who have same sex relationships.

Such faith-based law needs to be knocked back as an assault on all those who do not share that religious belief. Those who do share that religious belief can live their lives as they wish, according to the religious laws they hold dear.

A basic check question would be "If you lived in a community which became, over time, a majority of Jews and/or Muslims, would you accept the legal banning of pork products?"

[agogoboots]

You've created a rather amusing parallel there between same sex marriage and pork products.

Not many people would have been able to tactically set that up.

[mivona]

Fundamentally, it is a good parallel, because what difference should it make to anyone else if I enjoy a BLT? Similarly, of what significance should it be to anyone else what sex people legally consent to engage in, or who they fall in love with?

[mivona]

Here's an interesting alternative view of the place of religious teaching in society - NOT IN SCHOOLS, AT ALL.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/18/godshonesttruth

The Swedish government has announced plans to clamp down hard on religious education. It will soon become illegal even for private faith schools to teach religious doctrines as if they were true. In an interesting twist on the American experience, prayer will remain legal in schools - after all, it has no truth value. But everything that takes place on the curriculum's time will have to be secular. "Pupils must be protected from every sort of fundamentalism," said the minister for schools, Jan Björklund.

Creationism and ID are explicitly banned but so is proselytising even in religious education classes. The Qur'an may not be taught as if it is true even in Muslim independent schools, nor may the Bible in Christian schools. The decision looks like a really startling attack on the right of parents to have their children taught what they would like. Of course it does not go so far as the Dawkins policy of prohibiting parents from trying to pass on their doctrines even in their own families - and, if it did, it would certainly run foul of the European convention on human rights. It does not even go as far as Nyamko Sabuni, the minister for integration - herself born in Burundi - would like: she wanted to ban all religious schools altogether. But it is still a pretty drastic measure from an English perspective.

The law is being presented in Sweden as if it mostly concerned fundamentalist Christian sects in the backwoods; but the Christian Democratic party, which represents such people if anyone does, is perfectly happy with the new regulation. There is little doubt that combating Islamic fundamentalism is the underlying aim, especially in conjunction with another new requirement that all independent schools declare all their funding sources. This would allow the inspectors - whose budget is being doubled - to concentrate their efforts on those schools most likely to be paid to break the rules.

In the background to these announcements comes the release of a frightening documentary film on Swedish jihadis, which follows young men over a period of two years on their slow conversion to homicidal lunacy.

The question is whether we in Britain will come to see this as a necessary move in the struggle to contain Islamist ideologies. Can a defence of freedom convincingly be mounted by a state that takes such a firm view of what is or is not true? Or can freedom not be preserved without such measures? The dilemma makes no sense from a completely liberal position, where it is assumed that the truth will always win out in fair competition, and that the state is almost always to be distrusted. But Swedes have never really been liberal in that sense, notwithstanding the fact that the two ministers involved here are members of the Liberal party.

Superficially, the British position could not be more different. The British government's strategy with Islam or protestant extremism in Ulster has been - so far as we have had one - flattery and corruption, or what Microsoft, in another context, calls "embracing and extending". Find the leaders, flatter them, and draw them into the ruling class in the hope that they will then cooperate and see that their followers do too. The gamble that the government is taking on faith schools is that if religious groups are given their own schools to run, they will do so in ways that will turn out for the benefit of society as a whole, as well as of their pupils. Certainly this works quite well with the Church of England. Anglican schools are happy, by and large, to teach religion as if it were not true; to put it in a more flattering light, they concentrate more on the fruits of the spirit than on dogma. However, no one supposes that society is threatened by a terrorist movement nurtured in C of E primary schools.

Demanding that Muslim, Jewish, and Catholic schools stop teaching their own religions as if they were true, which is essentially the Swedish position, looks an impossible task for a British government. But I think it might also be a necessary one. It is certainly the only way to discover whether the parents of such schools really want the "ethos" or the pseudo-factual beliefs and what exactly it is that the people who fund them think they are buying with their money.

Sounds like an excellent plan to me, in a society where there is increasing religious conflict, it seems a legitimate government action to limit the scope of religions to religious institutions only, NOT schools.

[agogoboots]

I'm not sure we have a clear line in America as to what is and is not a school. There are over 3 million homeschoolers. There are churches who operate small one room schools with may be registered as a school, or all the students may be registered as homeschoolers. Either way it may be an acredited school, or it may not. Then the latest trend, homeschool-schools cropping up in strip malls, or in homes, where licensed teachers are paid to "homeschool". What really is a school and what isn't?

I think it would be pretty hard to deny children a religious education here in America right now if the parents want it.

The article you posted just makes me very happy to be an American.

[toys-to-treasures]

"The Swedish government has announced plans to clamp down hard on religious education. It will soon become illegal even for private faith schools to teach religious doctrines as if they were true."

Sounds like an excellent plan to me, in a society where there is increasing religious conflict, it seems a legitimate government action to limit the scope of religions to religious institutions only, NOT schools.

And you complain about religious people wanting to impose their will on the rest of society? Incredible. You apparently don't mind authoritarians as long as there the right kind. It's nice to know people have the freedom to think like you comrade.

[mivona]

The flip side of freedom OF religion is freedom FROM religion, IMO.

People are free to teach their children whatever they wish, within the bounds of society's constraints, and I don't see religion as a special case for being outside those constraints.

I would definitely approve their being no special breaks being given to anything "religious". I'm sure that if there were no taxation advantage to religious organisations, there would be a sudden decline in faith.

[toys-to-treasures]

How about tolerance, the very same thing you declare religions should have?

You are free to be personally irreligious, as you want. You are free to ignore the protests and dogmas of religion. You are free from being personally religious. You are not free from being exposed in a general cultural way from religious references or influence. Not anymore than I am free from exposure to secular culture. That is a it should be.

As to "People are free to teach their children whatever they wish, within the bounds of society's constraints" no thank you. How is that freedom? It would be like me saying to my wife “you are free to do whatever I want you to do”. She would rightly reject that as anything resembling freedom.

In the Soviet Union they used to say people were free to go where ever they wanted. What they didn't say is that it was within a very limited territory. People were also free to be religious but countless were thrown into prisons for exercising that "freedom".

What you think is a good idea is the steady creep of authoritarianism.

"I'm sure that if there were no taxation advantage to religious organizations, there would be a sudden decline in faith."

I am quite sure your wrong, the opposite might even be true. I would not oppose the elimination of tax exemptions as long as it was applied evenly and across the board.

[mivona]

Do you not think that there are already cultural constraints on what we can teach our children?

[toys-to-treasures]

Do you not think that there are already cultural constraints on what we can teach our children?

Yes, there sure are. And PART of that is due to the free excercise if religion.

There has to be commom sense limitations. That is why we don't legitimize religions that believe in human sacrifice or allow secularist who think that "defective" babies should be allowed to be killed in the first year of life to hold sway.

Cultural concensus is achieved through the tension between disparate groups.

What you seem to think is a good idea is eliminating that healthy tension by government dictate. That is exactly what communists tried to do and while part of it sounded good in theory in practice it didn't and cannot work. People can change over time but when you try and force that change you often strenghten what you're trying to eliminate. Or worse yet damage one of the pillars that maintains the cultural framework.

[mivona]

Shared social mores have just as much, if not more, impact on society than religion in shaping cultural constraints. Sweden has not ever struck me as "communist", and the changes they make seem to have a fair amount of popular support. Representative and largely with consensus - what a way to go! How long have there been snide remarks about the craziness of Scandinavian social programmes? Yet, they still survive, after decades - and the ideals they have promoted have taken root elsewhere. Paternity leave, for example.

I can see the need for religion in a time when people were in need of an explanation of life and their place in the world. There was a time when people needed to have a sense of community with others, and the shared beliefs and rituals provided that.

Those beliefs and rituals are becoming more and more divisive in our modern world, and I wholly approve of having their influence constrained only to a religious arena. I don't see anything healthy about the tensions they promote, and ask how you see it as of social benefit to have those divisions.

It seems fine to me for schools to teach about different faiths, but the line should be drawn at teaching religious beliefs as truth. Individuals can accept those beliefs as truth, if they wish, but should not be allowed to promote them as truth anywhere except within a religious context.

[toys-to-treasures]

Where do you think shared social mores come from, at least in part? They are part of the sum total of the culture. We are in agreement that religion is not the only influence on society and culture. It varies by country and society.

That Sweden is not communistic by nature is granted but has nothing to do with them acting in an authoritarian manner in some regards. This proposal is authoritarian, make no mistake about it. I would remind you that public opinion is not always a good barometer as to the correct course of action. Remember the overwhelming public support for the Iraq?

The impulse in mankind to seek the divine and meaning will not go away because there are secular theories as to why they are no longer needed. Imo people are wired in their nature in a way that goes beyond cultural conditioning. We seek God because He is. We don't seek God just because we want him to be.

Again, you act as though the tension between the secular and religious is new and unique to our time. It isn't. What is good about this tension is that in free societies it tends to result in workable compromises where disparate groups are allowed to function in a way they see fit without destroying the society. In authoritarian societies it tends to lead to forced repression through violence. The genius of America is that we've largely succeeded in achieving a balance.

Now if you want to talk about public schools I agree with you, "It seems fine to me for schools to teach about different faiths, but the line should be drawn at teaching religious beliefs as truth". Unfortunately what you seem to think is great is that even private faith schools should have to abide by that same principle and that is wrong. It is an unreasonable burden on people's freedom that is divisive for no good reason except to forcibly advance secularism. Which again you seem to think is just peachy.

[MarginallyInvolved]

Unfortunately what you seem to think is great is that even private faith schools should have to abide by that same principle and that is wrong.


If the private faith school is privately funded, OK

All institutions feeding out of the public trough should be held to the same requirements, IMO

[toys-to-treasures]

If the private faith school is privately funded, OK

All institutions feeding out of the public trough should be held to the same requirements, IMO

I don't have a problem with that in principle. I think the less churches allow themselves to become directly entagled with the government the better it is for them. As long as the public schools stick to academic pursuits and not social engineering it seems reasonable to me.

[kim]

bawahahahaha brian is my god or as close to whatever a god may be so heh if i ran the world (if i only if i only if i only lalalala we're off to see the wizard heeheheee) you'd all be worshipping him... :D

- or else me... :)

[mivona]

I love the idea that kids are not going to force-fed religion, any religion, in a school setting. I think that Sweden has it right - if you are going to deal with fundamentalism in society then religious influence should be constrained to the home or in religious institutions. Once you allow anyone to begin teaching their "truth" to children as a means of shaping their thoughts and beliefs, you are helping to promulgate a divisive influence in society. If you want your kids to believe in creationism, then you teach it to them or give it to them in Sunday school - but it is not something that is going to be taught in an educational setting.

I just wanted to check that I read your post right - God is, because we think he is?

As shapers of our own environment, I can see how it would be easy for us to wonder "Who made this?" I live in awe of the beauty of our environment, but can marvel at it without feeling definite that there was a grand architect behind it. As our understanding of the vastness of time and space has grown, the idea of God and the role of God in human lives has shrunk, IMO.

Do you really think that the tension between religion and secularism really has reached a balance of sorts in the US? From the outside, I don't. I can't see how imposing a lesser status on a largish portion of the population can be seen as balance, or the imposition of their views of contraceptives through insidious legislation is balanced. The fear-mongering about Muslims doesn't smack of a calm and balanced society. All of this implies to me that the "balance" is one where a majority of "Christians" are being steered by a fundamentalist element, to the detriment of social cohesion.

[Bard77]

What you are advocating is not democracy, but tyranny of the majority over minority views. Democracy is supposed to be about representative government, that balances the needs of all - not the travesty that we have acquired since the Reagan years when only those who voted Republican had any value.

I'm sure that the private college could take care of the invasion of its private property just fine, and on the face of what you say, I wouldn't support it either (unless the college is getting any public funding at all).

(On the other hand, I guess that Southern Baptists are seen as the epitome of close-minded fundamentalist faith, so are probably seen as a fairly legitimate target for protest. Their spokesmen get plenty of public air-time to spout their hateful nonsense, so a demo at a SB college could be seen as fair play.)

However, the SB college issue is in no way similar to that which I raised, of a concerted campaign to change what is available to others not just within their own property, but everywhere, on the basis of a particular religious view. It sucks, and I just wish they would decide for themselves how they want to deal with fertility, and let others make their own choices using their own values.





What you are advocating is NOT democracy, but tyranny of the minority over the MAJORITY views. Democracy is supposed to be about representative government, that balances the needs of ALL-


agreed.




P.S., thanks gals, for the 'Big Ben' update, most all knew I think,
Yet, nevertheless, thanks, gracious of you to both to feel compelled to point out.

[toys-to-treasures]

I love the idea that kids are not going to force-fed religion, any religion, in a school setting. I think that Sweden has it right - if you are going to deal with fundamentalism in society then religious influence should be constrained to the home or in religious institutions. Once you allow anyone to begin teaching their "truth" to children as a means of shaping their thoughts and beliefs, you are helping to promulgate a divisive influence in society. If you want your kids to believe in creationism, then you teach it to them or give it to them in Sunday school - but it is not something that is going to be taught in an educational setting.


Kids are "force fed" all kinds of things in school. I think you are ok with force feeding as long as what they are being force fed meets with your approval. So schools should be able to teach my children anything that might be contrary to what my values as long as it meets your approval? If public schools stuck to academic teaching and did not try and instill "values" in kids I think we would not have the problem we do. As it is not it is not just private schools or religious thought that promotes a divisive influence.



I just wanted to check that I read your post right - God is, because we think he is?

As shapers of our own environment, I can see how it would be easy for us to wonder "Who made this?" I live in awe of the beauty of our environment, but can marvel at it without feeling definite that there was a grand architect behind it. As our understanding of the vastness of time and space has grown, the idea of God and the role of God in human lives has shrunk, IMO.


No, what I meant was that God exists whether we think He does or not. He is not an invention of human imagination. If God didn't exist I would want nothing to do with the idea and would find no comfort in it.

You would think if the God impulse was a manifestation of man's need to explain everything it would have pretty much disappeared by now. The fact is that people in general are really no less religious than ever.
That He persists is not because people are stupid and backwards but because people need God. A real God. Not some convenient fairy tale




Do you really think that the tension between religion and secularism really has reached a balance of sorts in the US? From the outside, I don't. I can't see how imposing a lesser status on a largish portion of the population can be seen as balance, or the imposition of their views of contraceptives through insidious legislation is balanced. The fear-mongering about Muslims doesn't smack of a calm and balanced society. All of this implies to me that the "balance" is one where a majority of "Christians" are being steered by a fundamentalist element, to the detriment of social cohesion.


Not reached a balance but is always balancing. It shifts towards one direction or another in constant motion. That it is in constant motion is one of the things that protects us form the most extreme elements on either side. I would not want Religion to have too much direct influence and dominate government. Nor would I want secularism to dominate to the point that it becomes hostile to religion. You know as a pratical matter and inspite of our problems we pretty much manage to function just fine on a day to day basis in the USA.

"I can't see how imposing a lesser status on a largish portion of the population can be seen as balance"

Me either but it seems to me that is exactly what you think is a good idea.

You know just us discussing this is a tiny part of the balancing process in societies. That we can civilly discuss our differences is a positive part of a larger drama.

Don't expect me or others to compartmentalize our beliefs to only certain aspects of our lives though. It is impossible to believe what I do and do that. I don't think I have to sit down and shut up while you drive the bus. So to speak anyway.

Anyway I am heading off to a show so you can have the last word.

[Bard77]

No, what I meant was that God exists whether we think He does or not. He is not an invention of human imagination. If God didn't exist I would want nothing to do with the idea and would find no comfort in it.

Well spoken.

Look, if I was an alien landing here on earth, only to find that darn near all, acquiessed too and believed in a creator ie God, and had, from the beginning,
I think i'd line-up gracefully and eagerly.

Certainly nature itself reflects Gods hand, as does the reproductive ststem so incredible to behold, as the next breath' ie gift'.

Point being this, it seems silly to me, for the athiest to fly in the face of such overwhemimg belief by so many, for so long.

Just saying is all.

Perhaps, just perhaps, most athiests are born out of disenchantment, being raised in Christianity, and as I, repelled by the stark often hypocracy and uNLIKE Christ conduct.

Yet, to allege, as a tiny majority, that all from the beginning of time, are wrong but you, suggests perhaps you might reconsider your stance, or at least the insulting aspoect of it.

Usually, when we stand against such odds in numbers dissagreeing with us
often it is a check to our spirits, to rexamine our stance.

Or at least, it would be to me.

[bluekazoo]

I think a lot of people want to believe in God because it makes life so easy ...

1. it's easier to hand things off at the end of the day to a higher power - and it's easier to blame our troubles on something bigger than our own poor decisions/judgment/bad luck.

2. it takes the edge off of that old unknown quantity: death

3. it's comforting

4. it requires little thought and even littler action



Of one studies the works of Joseph Campbell one sees that every civilization, up to and including the present day ones, has had a creation myth, a hero myth, a martyr myth, a rebirth myth, a salvation/savior myth and so on. Interesting that the themes are always the same, doesn't matter if it was a civilization 5000 years ago or today. Obviously the 'needs' of the human animal haven't changed much over time.

I don't 'knock' religion. I think it serves a purpose for most people.

But ... for myself ... I just can't wrap my head around either a vengeful, mean-spirited 'god' OR a kindly, benevolent 'god' that forgives stupidity, arrogance, nastiness - all the things people are guilty of all the time - just because somebody believes in him. There's no logic in either definition of 'god' IMO. IF there were a 'god', it seems to me he'd have gotten disgusted with people doing dispicable things in his name sometime over the last several thousand years, and would have poofed the place by now.

In my opinion, we're on our own.

YMMV, obviously.

[Bard77]

I think a lot of people want to believe in God because it makes life so easy ...

1. it's easier to hand things off at the end of the day to a higher power - and it's easier to blame our troubles on something bigger than our own poor decisions/judgment/bad luck.

2. it takes the edge off of that old unknown quantity: death

3. it's comforting

4. it requires little thought and even littler action



Of one studies the works of Joseph Campbell one sees that every civilization, up to and including the present day ones, has had a creation myth, a hero myth, a martyr myth, a rebirth myth, a salvation/savior myth and so on. Interesting that the themes are always the same, doesn't matter if it was a civilization 5000 years ago or today. Obviously the 'needs' of the human animal haven't changed much over time.

I don't 'knock' religion. I think it serves a purpose for most people.

But ... for myself ... I just can't wrap my head around either a vengeful, mean-spirited 'god' OR a kindly, benevolent 'god' that forgives stupidity, arrogance, nastiness - all the things people are guilty of all the time - just because somebody believes in him. There's no logic in either definition of 'god' IMO. IF there were a 'god', it seems to me he'd have gotten disgusted with people doing dispicable things in his name sometime over the last several thousand years, and would have poofed the place by now.

In my opinion, we're on our own.

YMMV, obviously.




I think a lot of people want to believe in God because it makes life so easy ...


Not by a longshot Blue.
Or at best, yes & no. But little ias easy about the Christian path of the devoted heart.



1. it's easier to hand things off at the end of the day to a higher power - and it's easier to blame our troubles on something bigger than our own poor decisions/judgment/bad luck.


that really is NOT at all how it works, not for me anyway, nor as the boo..ie bible teaches, the book teaches personal responsability



2. it takes the edge off of that old unknown quantity: death

Unless you been there its hard to speculate truly Blue.




3. it's comforting

Yes, true.

4. it requires little thought and even littler action

Very untrue statement, & insulting as well. Reading the book would affirm my dissent.

[mivona]

I don't feel the need to participate in organised religious stuff. I understand that others really need that structure in their lives. That's fine, if it makes them happy.

I'm not trying to make other people not believe in God. Just as I am free to not believe, so are others free to believe.

But.... the critical thing for me is their attempt to organise the lives of others who do not share their belief in accordance with their own religious values.

THAT'S WRONG.

No one should have the right to make others live according to their religious belief. It seems that you perceive my antipathy to religion is requiring you to not believe. I am not.

But equally, I expect that others should also be free to live their lives free of religious constraints that they do not share. Those who hold religious values dear are free to live their lives in accordance with them.

I think that the Swedish action is pre-emptive and seeks to halt religious conflict before it sets in. It makes clear that, no matter how "majority" a religious group becomes, there will be no teaching of religious faith as "truth". I think that is an excellent tenet for the US as well, to halt the pockets of religious fundamentalism taking over school systems and converting them to teaching creationism and ID.

I agree with BK, that God makes it easy, provides a simple explanation and takes the edge off death. It is interesting how, as things have become more complex, there has been a shift to fundamentalism in faith.

[Bard77]

I don't feel the need to participate in organised religious stuff. I understand that others really need that structure in their lives. That's fine, if it makes them happy.

I'm not trying to make other people not believe in God. Just as I am free to not believe, so are others free to believe.

But.... the critical thing for me is their attempt to organise the lives of others who do not share their belief in accordance with their own religious values.

THAT'S WRONG.

No one should have the right to make others live according to their religious belief. It seems that you perceive my antipathy to religion is requiring you to not believe. I am not.

But equally, I expect that others should also be free to live their lives free of religious constraints that they do not share. Those who hold religious values dear are free to live their lives in accordance with them.

I think that the Swedish action is pre-emptive and seeks to halt religious conflict before it sets in. It makes clear that, no matter how "majority" a religious group becomes, there will be no teaching of religious faith as "truth". I think that is an excellent tenet for the US as well, to halt the pockets of religious fundamentalism taking over school systems and converting them to teaching creationism and ID.

I agree with BK, that God makes it easy, provides a simple explanation and takes the edge off death. It is interesting how, as things have become more complex, there has been a shift to fundamentalism in faith.

Nice post.

Not buying any of it.
Your other posts on this thread miv betray the scent of this one.






I agree with BK, that God makes it easy, provides a simple explanation and takes the edge off death.

Mere speculation and conjecture on your behalf.

Presumtive, & condesecending as well.

[mivona]

Whatever, Brad.

Whatever.

[LittleRedFireAnt]

I thought that one of the rules of the new ross show was NOT bastardizing names?

Miv's been around long enough to remember the time that "Brad" was used as an insult to Bard.

You lose the argument when you resort to name calling and insults.

[krisinluck]

Point to LRFA, who I'm glad to see.

I have to be careful with that one as well, but it's getting easier. :)

[mivona]

I guess I should go and recite the Lord's Prayer and a couple of Hail Marys as contrition, eh?

Is an act of contrition required for calling Bluekazoo BK too?

:0159:

[LittleRedFireAnt]

I guess I should go and recite the Lord's Prayer and a couple of Hail Marys as contrition, eh?

Is an act of contrition required for calling Bluekazoo BK too?

:0159:

And I thought you weren't a believer :1rotflmao

[bluekazoo]

Actually, that'd be 'penance', Miv ... but none is necessary ...

I don't mind BK, tho I keep meaning to drop the blue and go back to just being 'kazoo' ... just seems like too much trouble now, though, especially since some folks call me 'blue' ...

I thought you'd just done a typo on 'bard' when I read it ... just goes to show ya I don't read 'ill intent' well at all ... must be a comprehension problem I have ...

BTW, found an interesting demographic, but can't get the chart to print (will have to retype it and no time to do that right now) ... it indicates that according to the 2000 census that the number of Americans who call themselves 'no religion/athiest/agnostic' had increased 105% since 1990. Looks like we're the countries fastest growing non-religion! :1jester:

[bluekazoo]

countries = country's

[agogoboots]

where a majority of "Christians" are being steered by a fundamentalist element, to the detriment of social cohesion.

Social cohesion would not be a goal of Christianity, in fact social cohesion would be a direct opponet of Christianity.

[mivona]

Really? So "love your neighbour" isn't the thing?

[Bard77]

Really? So "love your neighbour" isn't the thing?

Loving your neighbor and enemy as yourself, is, the thing taught.

[Helenjw]

Loving your neighbor and enemy as yourself, is, the thing taught.



Who is my Neighbor? (http://www.twopaths.com/jneighbr.htm)

Wish more people on earth including all Christians knew that story. Then we might have more compassion and empathy for people throughout the world, even those that the Bush administration considers our enemies.

Although I am an atheist now, I learned the story of the good samaritan when I was a child in Mississippi and that is probably why I am a bleeding heart liberal today. Jesus was a good teacher. :)

[Bard77]

I guess I should go and recite the Lord's Prayer and a couple of Hail Marys as contrition, eh?

Is an act of contrition required for calling Bluekazoo BK too?

:0159:


mivona,

It is that kind of OPEN shameless mockery of others belief systems
That lessens your stance as a debater, they are cheap shots, and unnessesary.

You mock what many cherish deeply, it just seems sad somehow.

Not to mention, you scoff when asked, or reminded to adhere to the same rules and guidelines of civility (and this board) that you yourself are charged with enforcing.

I see no reason why you must cut so deeply into the hearts of others in such a manner.

It's just hard to figure.

Strikes me as being very disrespectfull of other folk, and what they hold dear.

I have not seen ONE citation of any, mocking athieism here

Yet, here you stand in unbridled disregard, for many

When in fact in my opinion you truly owe an apology.

Trust me, Im not holding my breath.

Yet consideration, and common decency & lack of, is all im addressing here.

P.S. please do not attempt to pass it oiff as humor either.

[agogoboots]

I was referring to the concept "be in the world but not of the world", not "conformed by the world". And that for that reason the world hates Christians.

Of course many if not most Christians are to some degree, if not largely, conformed by the world, but that is not the Biblical teaching. And that is why as a unit Christianity fights against conformity and cohesion.

[agogoboots]

Love your neighbor (or your enemy) does not equal becoming like your neighbor or your enemy, or buying into your neighbor or your enemy's standards or beliefs.

"Love" is a separate act from "adopting likeness" or "acceptance of ways".

i.e. I love you though you are a drug addict. I need not become a drug addict to love you. I need not approve of your drug abuse to love you. I can still love you though I denounce your addiction. You as a being are separate from your behavior. I can love you while still rejecting your behavior.

Replace "drug addict" with whatever you so chose.

[Bard77]

Love your neighbor (or your enemy) does not equal becoming like your neighbor or your enemy, or buying into your neighbor or your enemy's standards or beliefs.

"Love" is a separate act from "adopting likeness" or "acceptance of ways".

i.e. I love you though you are a drug addict. I need not become a drug addict to love you. I need not approve of your drug abuse to love you. I can still love you though I denounce your addiction. You as a being are separate from your behavior. I can love you while still rejecting your behavior.

Replace "drug addict" with whatever you so chose.


Jesus denounced seldom, mostly it was addressed to the pharisical ie 'pharisees' (religious order) of the day.

He hung out with the tax collecters etc etc.

When the lady was caught in the act of adultery, he said.
Where art thy accusers now?

After they had parted, then softky said, neither do I accuse you either.

Jesus ju8st loved, seldom judged,

Thats why he was the peoples champion, and today, WE are not.

Cus we got this repelling haughty elitist better than you tude going on, that Jesus, did not, nor does possess to date.

Let those without sin, cast the first stone.

[mivona]

What is it that puts religion beyond questioning, Bard?

People's political choices (which are every bit as personal as religion) are seen as fair game for discussion, argument, even ridicule.

People's choice of music or clothes or reading material - again, all personal choices - are fertile ground for discussion.

So what is it exactly that is so fucking sancrosanct about religion?

I really don't give a damn about whether you are upset by my topic and posts here. If you don't like the discussion, you are not required to participate.

I began this thread with a quoted interview of a writer I enjoy, with his own conversion from someone who was heading for a religious vocation and who, over time, withdrew from it and came to find science offered him an adequate explanation for life, the universe and everything.

I am more than willing to "live and let live" when it comes to others choosing to believe in a God, and follow a faith. If only the fundamentalists were equally willing to let others live as they wish too.

[Bard77]

What is it that puts religion beyond questioning, Bard?

People's political choices (which are every bit as personal as religion) are seen as fair game for discussion, argument, even ridicule.

People's choice of music or clothes or reading material - again, all personal choices - are fertile ground for discussion.

So what is it exactly that is so fucking sancrosanct about religion?

I really don't give a damn about whether you are upset by my topic and posts here. If you don't like the discussion, you are not required to participate.

I began this thread with a quoted interview of a writer I enjoy, with his own conversion from someone who was heading for a religious vocation and who, over time, withdrew from it and came to find science offered him an adequate explanation for life, the universe and everything.

I am more than willing to "live and let live" when it comes to others choosing to believe in a God, and follow a faith. If only the fundamentalists were equally willing to let others live as they wish too.

mivona,

As stated twenty times prior, i Have NO problem with you questioning the faith!

My objection remains constant, it is your unbridled outright MOCKERY of it, i object to as being innecessarily hurtful and rude.

You seem unwilling to address that, my only issue here.

[Bard77]

matters not miv, you have no intentions of dealing with your blatent mocking and Christyian bashing, or, not adherering to the board guidelines.

That is apparent to most all by now.

Therefore I'll no longer waste words.

You are mistaken to think, all cannot see, how you dodge all these issues.

You refuse to own up to any of the uncivilty you have spewed during this thread.

So be it.

[mivona]

What else you got in there?

:buttsearch:

[Bard77]

What else you got in there?

:buttsearch:



Ha ha ha...lol...lol:1rotflmao

[mivona]

"Love" is a separate act from "likeness" or "acceptance of ways".


I'm still trying to get my head around this. I truly do not believe that the "love" that tells people they can't get their partner's health insurance, or inheritance, or pensions is something that we need. We don't need the "love" that decides that God really doesn't want us to use contraceptive pills or IUDs.They can keep that love for themselves, TYVM.

The idea that such "love"-givers can judge what is best for others is antithetical to what Jesus taught. Let God decide.

[Bard77]

I'm still trying to get my head around this. I truly do not believe that the "love" that tells people they can't get their partner's health insurance, or inheritance, or pensions is something that we need. We don't need the "love" that decides that God really doesn't want us to use contraceptive pills or IUDs.They can keep that love for themselves, TYVM.

The idea that such "love"-givers can judge what is best for others is antithetical to what Jesus taught. Let God decide.

I'm still trying to get my head around this. I truly do not believe that the "love" that tells people they can't get their partner's health insurance, or inheritance, or pensions is something that we need. We don't need the "love" that decides that God really doesn't want us to use contraceptive pills or IUDs.They can keep that love for themselves, TYVM.


You certainly are entitled to your opinion.



The idea that such "love"-givers can judge what is best for others is antithetical to what Jesus taught. Let God decide.

Still awaiting an example to be cited?

No more ic ons allowed.

[mivona]

I think it is pretty clear which constraints that some are trying to impose, based on their religion.

The desire to deny gay couples equal treatment under the law is one such issue. The attempt to constrain which contraceptives women can easily access is another such religiously-inspired constraint.

They should use their interpretation of what is right in the eyes of God for themselves, and let others make the determination for themselves.

[Bard77]

I think it is pretty clear which constraints that some are trying to impose, based on their religion.

The desire to deny gay couples equal treatment under the law is one such issue. The attempt to constrain which contraceptives women can easily access is another such religiously-inspired constraint.

They should use their interpretation of what is right in the eyes of God for themselves, and let others make the determination for themselves.










I think it is pretty clear which constraints that some are trying to impose, based on their religion.



Thank you for the clarification .



The desire to deny gay couples equal treatment under the law is one such issue. The attempt to constrain which contraceptives women can easily access is another such religiously-inspired constraint.





They should use their interpretation of what is right in the eyes of God for themselves, and let others make the determination for themselves.


ultimately miv, that is precisely as it stands today in time.

'They' ...(as you termed it) have a point of view on these matters, I noticed you do too.

shall both sides be muted?

[mivona]

What do you think is the answer, Bard?

Non-believers want to be left in peace, not having their lives constrained by the religious beliefs of others. That seems simple enough to me. It is not forcing the believers to not believe. It is not forcing them to live their own lives in a way they do not choose.

If it was Islamists forcing women into veils, I can imagine the uproar. But, because it is "Christians" who are calling the shots, it is supposed to be ok? It isn't.

Why is it too much to want to live without "Christian" interference?

[Bard77]

What do you think is the answer, Bard?

Non-believers want to be left in peace, not having their lives constrained by the religious beliefs of others. That seems simple enough to me. It is not forcing the believers to not believe. It is not forcing them to live their own lives in a way they do not choose.

If it was Islamists forcing women into veils, I can imagine the uproar. But, because it is "Christians" who are calling the shots, it is supposed to be ok? It isn't.

Why is it too much to want to live without "Christian" interference?


Citation please?

[mivona]

No.

:2plonk:

[krisinluck]

Bard, I don't think she's dissing you or your Christian faith.

She certainly isn't alone in the way she sees "God" in the big picture.

I have a strong faith in a being higher than myself, absolutely. But even I, with my Christian background and upbringing, am not 100% certain that the Christian God is the "right" God, the "one and only" God, making "all" the God's of the other world religions false Gods. I know there is something out there taking care of me; putting me in situations where I have to grow to learn and never experience that particular piece of misery again...the last three weeks have been an incredible example of that. A very good friend of mine has been holding my hand via cell phone since all hell broke loose here, and although she is not a God person in any way, shape, or form, she does agree with me that something has been at work in my world for things to roll as smoothly and as quickly as they have.

We disagree on what to call it, but she said "yes" when I said "someone out there is really looking out for me and I am soooo blessed!" I suspect (but do not know; I'm sure Miv will correct me if I'm wrong) that Miv is much like her in that regard.

As I have said before, getting all up in someone's face because they do not have the faith experience (or, perhaps, do not feel the need for the faith experience) is not ever going to bring understanding to pass. Acceptance of other viewpoints is the only hope, IMO.

**

Check this out: http://www.yesnogod.com/index2.htmlMake your voices heard there, whichever side of the fence you are on. Maybe an influx of votes from TRS will raise that percentage a bit? lol

[Bard77]

Bard, I don't think she's dissing you or your Christian faith.

She certainly isn't alone in the way she sees "God" in the big picture.

I have a strong faith in a being higher than myself, absolutely. But even I, with my Christian background and upbringing, am not 100% certain that the Christian God is the "right" God, the "one and only" God, making "all" the God's of the other world religions false Gods. I know there is something out there taking care of me; putting me in situations where I have to grow to learn and never experience that particular piece of misery again...the last three weeks have been an incredible example of that. A very good friend of mine has been holding my hand via cell phone since all hell broke loose here, and although she is not a God person in any way, shape, or form, she does agree with me that something has been at work in my world for things to roll as smoothly and as quickly as they have.

We disagree on what to call it, but she said "yes" when I said "someone out there is really looking out for me and I am soooo blessed!" I suspect (but do not know; I'm sure Miv will correct me if I'm wrong) that Miv is much like her in that regard.

As I have said before, getting all up in someone's face because they do not have the faith experience (or, perhaps, do not feel the need for the faith experience) is not ever going to bring understanding to pass. Acceptance of other viewpoints is the only hope, IMO.

**

Check this out: http://www.yesnogod.com/index2.htmlMake your voices heard there, whichever side of the fence you are on. Maybe an influx of votes from TRS will raise that percentage a bit? lol



Kris

I have no problem with your personal grasp of faith.

I appreciate yu taken the time

i just made a move too.

Im praying and trusting your move will go smooth

Kudos for daring to do it

Blessings

Rod

[mivona]

That's really interesting, Kris. 55% of the 23,000 people in the US don't believe, yet the presidential election has religion as part of its focus.

Bizarre.

It's time to turn the tables, and to make legislation religion-free.

I'm glad things are going well for you, for whatever reason.

[Bard77]

That's really interesting, Kris. 55% of the 23,000 people in the US don't believe, yet the presidential election has religion as part of its focus.

Bizarre.

It's time to turn the tables, and to make legislation religion-free.

I'm glad things are going well for you, for whatever reason.

I believe democrasy dictates majority rule at heart in spiritI have no argument with that

If the land ever bewcomes to uninhabitable

Due to whatever majority happens to be in place

It then becomes my responsability, to move on, to safer and more accepting terrain.

[toke]

Originally Posted by mivona
What do you think is the answer, Bard?

Non-believers want to be left in peace, not having their lives constrained by the religious beliefs of others. That seems simple enough to me. It is not forcing the believers to not believe. It is not forcing them to live their own lives in a way they do not choose.

If it was Islamists forcing women into veils, I can imagine the uproar. But, because it is "Christians" who are calling the shots, it is supposed to be ok? It isn't.

Why is it too much to want to live without "Christian" interference?

Citation please?

Are you nuts? No one needs a citation for an opinion.

And, BTW, I used to have patience with the Christian moralizing inflicted on us all. I've lost that patience since Bush has become the freaking Pope of the evangelicals . In fact, I'm sick and tired of it. And getting angry. In truth, I think it's all a bunch of superstitious nonsense, so why not just say so and be done with it.

[Bard77]

Are you nuts? No one needs a citation for an opinion.

And, BTW, I used to have patience with the Christian moralizing inflicted on us all. I've lost that patience since Bush has become the freaking Pope of the evangelicals . In fact, I'm sick and tired of it. And getting angry. In truth, I think it's all a bunch of superstitious nonsense, so why not just say so and be done with it.



yeah, elbow thingy comes to mind.

[Hepburn]

Sigh..


Pssssssssssst! Bard? The title of this thread is An Atheists Perspective. Take a gander. You, as a christian, are in this thread trying to convince an atheist their views are wrong. What if an atheist came in a thread called A Christians Perspective and tried to change that persons mind that being Christian is wrong for such and such reason? If you were the christian, Im pretty damn sure you wouldnt like it much.
Just sayin'.

[Bard77]

Sigh..


Pssssssssssst! Bard? The title of this thread is An Atheists Perspective. Take a gander. You, as a christian, are in this thread trying to convince an atheist their views are wrong. What if an atheist came in a thread called A Christians Perspective and tried to change that persons mind that being Christian is wrong for such and such reason? If you were the christian, Im pretty damn sure you wouldnt like it much.
Just sayin'.





You cannot produce words of mine on this thread, where I EVEN came close,
To doing what you blindly just alleged,

You need to read the thread I fear, not just jump in trying to raise heck.

You will NOT find me saying or doing anything close to that Hep.

Pssssst yourself.
:i-roller:

[Bard77]

I have said all that was on my mind, and ejoyed hearing you guys too.

I am now exiting this fine thread, before it is degraded.

I have enjoyed, my thanks to mivona and all the participants,

It's been as good a thread as I ever seen on the topic.

I have entered few.

[Hepburn]

Is that a flounce youre doing? Since when does Bard flounce?;)

[Bard77]

Is that a flounce youre doing? Since when does Bard flounce?;)



ha ha ha, good one Hep....lol

No kiddo, i was all tuckered out anyhow, sigh

I give little attention like that anymore,

i jusat didnt want to get redundant

plusa, walking awy sometimes, before ya get hurt

is the smart thing to do..lol

Ill be around, just not as prolific as this thread

Peace out Hep

[Hepburn]

Peace out back attcha, Bard. Know that, and know it DEEP.:)

[mivona]

Exactly, Toke. The Moral Majority is not the voice of America. They do not reflect everyone's take on what is moral, and it is time for those who do not support that narrow perspective of what constitutes "good", "right" and "moral" to take a stand and knock their influence back into their churches.

The control they are attempting to exert on American society is no different to that of tradition-bound mullahs supporting the imposition of Islamic-derived religious "law" on hapless individuals. It is wrong. While they have the right to exhort others to their version of "godliness" in their lives, they should have no ability to impose those tenets on anyone.

I am no longer willing to be tolerant of those who seek to impose their religious views on others. While I respect their right to believe what they wish, it ends when it crosses the line into impacting on the lives of others.

[mivona]

I believe democrasy dictates majority rule at heart in spiritI have no argument with that

If the land ever bewcomes to uninhabitable

Due to whatever majority happens to be in place

It then becomes my responsability, to move on, to safer and more accepting terrain.

Thoughts like these lead to tyranny over minority groups. Imagine being able to run blacks out of town because the majority don't like them. Imagine women being harassed out of jobs because the majority of employees have a penis. Imagine being able to intimidate those of a different religion because they are a minority (from Germany to Sri Lanka to Israel to Rwanda - the basic story is the same).

I guess there should be mass migration in the US? Who is gonna move?

[tekobari]

I believe democrasy dictates majority rule at heart in spiritI have no argument with that

If the land ever bewcomes to uninhabitable

Due to whatever majority happens to be in place

It then becomes my responsability, to move on, to safer and more accepting terrain.Actually, the Declaration of Independence states that not only is it the right of the people to overthrow an oppressive government, it is the DUTY of them to do it. So essentially telling minorities to "love it or leave it" is completely at odds with the thinking of great legal minds in this country throughout its history.

[Bard77]

Actually, the Declaration of Independence states that not only is it the right of the people to overthrow an oppressive government, it is the DUTY of them to do it. So essentially telling minorities to "love it or leave it" is completely at odds with the thinking of great legal minds in this country throughout its history.

We at least can agree that a democracy is a majority rule system of government right in spirit word and law?

Cant please ALL the folk all the time.

There's always the 49 percent
,
It's the best we have, needs new blood, and fine tuning in moral adjustment and acclamation, IMHO.

Politicians are mostly morally bankrupted to my way of thinking
is what I am refering too.

[mivona]

We at least can agree that a democracy is a majority rule system of government right in spirit word and law?



No. Our democracy allows us to vote for representatives to our government. The representatives are there to represent all of their constituency - not just those that voted for them. Our representatives are to guide legislation that will serve the country as a whole, not just those who voted for them.

It's this kind of silly thinking - that democracy is just majority rule - that has completely screwed over the country.

[Bard77]

No. Our democracy allows us to vote for representatives to our government. The representatives are there to represent all of their constituency - not just those that voted for them. Our representatives are to guide legislation that will serve the country as a whole, not just those who voted for them.

It's this kind of silly thinking - that democracy is just majority rule - that has completely screwed over the country.

Silly to me is not knowing how Presidents are picked.

[mivona]

:0100:

[Bard77]

:0100:


Thats TWICE!:1rotflmao

No fair.....nor more jifs for you~!

Still chuckling right out loud!

[toys-to-treasures]

That's really interesting, Kris. 55% of the 23,000 people in the US don't believe, yet the presidential election has religion as part of its focus.

Bizarre.


Geez Mivona, you aren't stupid. You know very well that statistics from a poll like that are meaningless.

You are not seriously suggesting that 55% of the US population doesn't believe God exists are you?

For what it's worth (nothing) you are condecending quite often in how you frame the debate and throw out non reply quips to valid questions such as Bards.

[toys-to-treasures]

In truth, I think it's all a bunch of superstitious nonsense, so why not just say so and be done with it.


Perhaps because it's rude, lacking in respect (not to mention displaying a real ignorance) and only reinforces the negative stereotypes many religious people have about the non-religious.

I don't know about you but I have never won many arguments or convinced many people of my goodwill by calling them stupid followers of fairy tales and nonsense. The Bill Mahr style of religion bashing might be entertaining but it won't win any converts.

Even if you think the tension over these issues is caused only by the religious side throwing more verbal fuel on the fire is not contructive.
Seriously I don't know what some of you expect. If people had a right to do something (like the education deal) or display something religious in a public area for decades or centuries and all of the sudden those things were taken away how would you not expect people to view it as an attack on what they believe and begin pushing back.

Perhaps delulded religionists and followers of fairy tales should be rounded up and put away where we can't bother anybody.

If religion is more in your face than ever (and I don't buy that idea) perhaps it is because secularists have become more militant, not that the religious have. Who is really pushing who?

[mivona]

What is it about religion that puts it beyond discussion? Politics is seen as legitimate fodder for parody and ridicule, why not religion? People's personal choice in clothes, music, food, etc are all open season, why not religion?

We can impugn someone's intellectual capacity on the basis of the candidate they prefer, but somehow their God is off-limits (unless it is Allah, and then it's ok..)?

What is it about religion that puts it beyond the line?

Tod, I'm suggesting that a substantial number of people in the US don't believe in God or don't believe in the God you do or don't believe in your interpretation of the God you share.

The backlash from secularists has arisen after religionists started trying to shape society to suit their religion, not just for themselves but for everyone. They seem to think that because "their" God exhorts them to evangelise, they have some right to put religion wherever they are.

[tabbinosity]

The backlash from secularists has arisen after religionists started trying to shape society to suit their religion, not just for themselves but for everyone. They seem to think that because "their" God exhorts them to evangelise, they have some right to put religion wherever they are.


Yes, and as a person of faith who doesn't happen to be a Christian or to come from an evangelical tradition, I can tell you that I am heartily sick and tired of it. Jesus himself addressed this, offering his followers what I think was some excellent advice:

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.

(NIV)

[toys-to-treasures]

What is it about religion that puts it beyond discussion? Politics is seen as legitimate fodder for parody and ridicule, why not religion? People's personal choice in clothes, music, food, etc are all open season, why not religion?

We can impugn someone's intellectual capacity on the basis of the candidate they prefer, but somehow their God is off-limits (unless it is Allah, and then it's ok..)?

What is it about religion that puts it beyond the line?

Tod, I'm suggesting that a substantial number of people in the US don't believe in God or don't believe in the God you do or don't believe in your interpretation of the God you share.

The backlash from secularists has arisen after religionists started trying to shape society to suit their religion, not just for themselves but for everyone. They seem to think that because "their" God exhorts them to evangelise, they have some right to put religion wherever they are.

Nobody has suggested that religion should be beyond discussion.

This is one of your great tricks and you trot it out all the time Mivona, I am finally onto you after all these years. You try and recast the arguments of others in a way that was obviously not itended, thereby making you look like the reasonable one.

You claim to want to discuss the subject but keep making condescending and absolute statements like:

"feeling as if you have to somehow justify something that is outside the parameters of reason

when it really has no evidence as to the validity of the answer, then yeah, I feel justified in ridiculing it, or pointing out its foolishness."

Once a critical eye is used on the religion, it all falls apart. I understand that those that adhere to it do not like the illogicality of it exposed."

It seems to me that it is for you that religion is beyond real discussion since you seem to think you can't use reason as evidence for God. A notion I reject in the strongest possible way. Your idea of discussion of belief seems to be taking pot shots at it.

I don't see people in this thread making similar disparaging statements about atheism or non-belief. That is not because the arguments are so sound they are beyond questioning or ridicule.

As to "The backlash from secularists has arisen after religionists started trying to shape society to suit their religion, not just for themselves but for everyone."

I could just as easily say the backlash from religionists has arisen after secularists started trying to shape society to suit their secularism, not just for themselves but for everyone." There is no action that does not create a counter-reaction.

I can see your side of this argument and put myself in your place and understand. I don't think you're currently capable of the same.


Just like people can be race bigots and not know it, people can be religious bigots and you fit the bill. No matter how you try and qualify it and how lofty you try and make it sound.

[Bard77]

Nobody has suggested that religion should be beyond discussion.

This is one of your great tricks and you trot it out all the time Mivona, I am finally onto you after all these years. You try and recast the arguments of others in a way that was obviously not itended, thereby making you look like the reasonable one.

You claim to want to discuss the subject but keep making condescending and absolute statements like:

"feeling as if you have to somehow justify something that is outside the parameters of reason

when it really has no evidence as to the validity of the answer, then yeah, I feel justified in ridiculing it, or pointing out its foolishness."

Once a critical eye is used on the religion, it all falls apart. I understand that those that adhere to it do not like the illogicality of it exposed."

It seems to me that it is for you that religion is beyond real discussion since you seem to think you can't use reason as evidence for God. A notion I reject in the strongest possible way. Your idea of discussion of belief seems to be taking pot shots at it.

I don't see people in this thread making similar disparaging statements about atheism or non-belief. That is not because the arguments are so sound they are beyond questioning or ridicule.

As to "The backlash from secularists has arisen after religionists started trying to shape society to suit their religion, not just for themselves but for everyone."

I could just as easily say the backlash from religionists has arisen after secularists started trying to shape society to suit their secularism, not just for themselves but for everyone." There is no action that does not create a counter-reaction.

I can see your side of this argument and put myself in your place and understand. I don't think you're currently capable of the same.


Just like people can be race bigots and not know it, people can be religious bigots and you fit the bill. No matter how you try and qualify it and how lofty you try and make it sound.


Thank you for saying it better than I was able, i agree with youre astute assesement entirely.

I think many others, who have a fair unbiased way about them, can see too.
This thread speaks for itself.

It's hate is veiled from few I imagine.

Never have I seen the topic handled with such blatant disregard for others,

And seemingly accented in gloating n oless?

Go figure.

I never seen a more descript example of contradiction glaring.
Miv has skirted EVERY posed question.
And twisted the rest.

Rod

[mivona]

Going back to review the thread, I found this, and thought it was so good, it was worth posting again:

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/KellyesDad/Funny/Demotivation/Christianity.jpg

In response we got a Bard tirade about how it is only Christians who were mocked. Kim pointed out that he hasn't been paying much attention to the mocking of paganism and Islam.

Bard insisted that any such "making fun" of religion - because of the pure illogicality of it that the picture above captures so well - is "presumption and bigoted". Because it is REAL to him.

So, what makes HIS beliefs beyond ridicule?

We go from him castigating the ridicule of religion as "presumption and bigoted" and yet we are still in the realms of "discussion"? What am I not getting here?

There is no discussion of faith going on here - there is simply one side lambasting another for making fun of it, for seeing it as illogical and with no evidence or reason to it, and a patent reluctance to explain why such mockery is unacceptable.

Next, we have Bard accusing me of being rude and "old fashioned mean" for ridiculing any differing belief or opinion, and he wonders when such behaviour became acceptable? Doh... and still I wonder why, as the ridiculing of the views of others has become so commonplace, that religious views fall outside that scope of critical assessment?

Bard likes to label me a Christian bigot. I will admit that I am no longer tolerant of Christian intolerance. They are fuckwits, and should be called on it. Their "beliefs" that impact on others are culturally derived, not divine. We can look back through Christian history to see just how fucked-up some of those widely held and fundamentalist beliefs have both screwed over others in other times and other countries - supported by their "faith" and acting in accordance with their "faith". The persecution and discrimination that has been perpetrated by religion is rife - Christian and non-Christian - and putting aside the sheer ludicrous underpinning of religion, I am heartily sick of religious zealots.

It's apparently hunkydory for Bard to go and evangelising, as that is what his religion requires of him (according to him) - but for fuck's sake - I put up a post detailing an interview with an atheist author (formerly religious) and all hell breaks loose!

Tod reasonably suggested that I should also just live my life as irreligiously as I like, while letting others have their faith. That would be perfectly ok with me, except Christian zealots keep imposing into the lives of others, using their religion to justify discriminating against gay people, and attempting to deny women a full choice of contraception. If they simply used their faith to guide their own choices and left others alone, to the judgement of their God at a later time, I don't think we would be having this lengthy and circuitous thread.

Bard weighed in with a justification of such interference as "majority rule", and anyone who didn't like it should move on. :0532:

And then we are back to me being rude and mocking of religion. What is it about religion that puts it beyond being mocked? What is so fucking sacrosanct about it? I don't care if you don't see myu posts as "discussion" - just answer the bloody question about why - in your opinion - religion is beyond mockery?

"Christians" can debase and abuse gay people just for being who they are, just as they once did to those with dark skin. But we are not allowed to mock their beliefs.

:sm124:

WHY NOT?

[toys-to-treasures]

I never seen a more descript example of contradiction glaring.
Miv has skirted EVERY posed question.
And twisted the rest.


That's what gets me the most. I like Mivona quite a bit but I can't help but think she's being intentionally dishonest in some regards here.

Twisting is what bigots do. They take a small bit of truth and contort it in a way that tries to make it seem it applies more broadly than it does. That is common to all types of bigots.

I agree that Christians are often deserving of ridicule and our own worst enemies. That in no way invalidates anything that Christianity is about and its central tennants.

[toys-to-treasures]

You're welcome to ridicule and mock Mivona. It is your right to do so. Just don't call it a discussion and pretend your operating on a different intellectual plane than the stupid people.

[toys-to-treasures]

Going back to review the thread, I found this, and thought it was so good, it was worth posting again:

In response we got a Bard tirade about how it is only Christians who were mocked. Kim pointed out that he hasn't been paying much attention to the mocking of paganism and Islam.

Bard insisted that any such "making fun" of religion - because of the pure illogicality of it that the picture above captures so well - is "presumption and bigoted". Because it is REAL to him.

So, what makes HIS beliefs beyond ridicule?

We go from him castigating the ridicule of religion as "presumption and bigoted" and yet we are still in the realms of "discussion"? What am I not getting here?

There is no discussion of faith going on here - there is simply one side lambasting another for making fun of it, for seeing it as illogical and with no evidence or reason to it, and a patent reluctance to explain why such mockery is unacceptable.

Next, we have Bard accusing me of being rude and "old fashioned mean" for ridiculing any differing belief or opinion, and he wonders when such behaviour became acceptable? Doh... and still I wonder why, as the ridiculing of the views of others has become so commonplace, that religious views fall outside that scope of critical assessment?

Bard likes to label me a Christian bigot. I will admit that I am no longer tolerant of Christian intolerance. They are fuckwits, and should be called on it. Their "beliefs" that impact on others are culturally derived, not divine. We can look back through Christian history to see just how fucked-up some of those widely held and fundamentalist beliefs have both screwed over others in other times and other countries - supported by their "faith" and acting in accordance with their "faith". The persecution and discrimination that has been perpetrated by religion is rife - Christian and non-Christian - and putting aside the sheer ludicrous underpinning of religion, I am heartily sick of religious zealots.

It's apparently hunkydory for Bard to go and evangelising, as that is what his religion requires of him (according to him) - but for fuck's sake - I put up a post detailing an interview with an atheist author (formerly religious) and all hell breaks loose!

Tod reasonably suggested that I should also just live my life as irreligiously as I like, while letting others have their faith. That would be perfectly ok with me, except Christian zealots keep imposing into the lives of others, using their religion to justify discriminating against gay people, and attempting to deny women a full choice of contraception. If they simply used their faith to guide their own choices and left others alone, to the judgement of their God at a later time, I don't think we would be having this lengthy and circuitous thread.

Bard weighed in with a justification of such interference as "majority rule", and anyone who didn't like it should move on. :0532:

And then we are back to me being rude and mocking of religion. What is it about religion that puts it beyond being mocked? What is so fucking sacrosanct about it? I don't care if you don't see myu posts as "discussion" - just answer the bloody question about why - in your opinion - religion is beyond mockery?

"Christians" can debase and abuse gay people just for being who they are, just as they once did to those with dark skin. But we are not allowed to mock their beliefs.

:sm124:

WHY NOT?

Yeah, I don't know why anyone should be offended by the "humor" of the zombie Jesus thing. What a humorless bunch Christians are!

You are on the defensive now because your position in this thread is now the weaker one.

I find it interesting that often those (including you Mivona) that mock Christians for real and imagined sins are among the first to point out when Muslims are being maligned how unfair it is to make generalizations based on the behavior of a subset of the larger group. It is a glaring inconsistency.

As a general rule among "liberals" it is an unwritten rule that belittling of Christians and Jews is pretty much accepted but mocking of Pagans, Muslims Buddhists and others is unfair. I frequent enough such places to see this all the time.

I am quite enjoying how you are turning this around to make the religion defenders the one lambasting the poor secularists. Your posts reek of the self-righteousness and superiority you decry in others. You are deluding yourself.

"We can look back through Christian history to see just how fucked-up some of those widely held and fundamentalist beliefs have both screwed over others in other times and other countries"

I agree with that. It is a shame. We can also look back through secular history to see just how fucked-up some of those widely held and secularist beliefs have both screwed over others in other times and other countries. The 20th century alone is replete with examples.

The problem is less belief systems than it is basic corrupted human nature. Whatever people touch they ultimately screw up.

It is nice of you to admit your intolerance.

I can't speak for Bard but I don't think he's saying religion is beyond mockery. All you do when you mock it though is create more of the people who are the problem in the first place and alienate those like me who see some of your valid points. You will never win the battle with your tactics. In my experience people mock things they don't really understand.

I do not think that Christians in general have handled the issue and relationships with gays very well at all. If we had I don't think the current environment would now exist. I am opposed to gay marriage though so if that alone makes me intolerant in your eyes I can live with that.

Lastly regarding the zombie Jesus and other things like that let me try and explain my feelings about such things.

They do cause me a certain amount of anguish. Consider that I more deeply than anything believe and know that Jesus literally came and died for me and everyone else. He did that because he loves me and I need that because I am a sinner. That relationship is as real to me as my relationship to my wife and children and even more important. When something directly mocks God it is the same as the soldiers and religious leaders mocking Jesus at the foot of the cross as far as I am concerned. I see things like that it does hurt a little, I do take it personally. It reminds me of Jesus saying, "Forgive them Father for they don't know what they're doing". I also realize that I am responsible in my own little way for that mocking because I am a poor representative for what I believe. That grieves me more, just knowing that my behavior is in part what is causing God to be mocked.

But I trod on, trying to grow in faith, to love my neighbor as myself. Love does not mean unconditional acceptance of any behavior though and I would be remiss in pretending it does.

I will not roll over silently while you and others try and throw out the baby with the bath water.

[toys-to-treasures]

Sorry for posting again, I missed this:

Christians" can debase and abuse gay people just for being who they are, just as they once did to those with dark skin.

You are also aware that is was through the efforts of Christians with others that slavery was ended aren't you? You should read about the life of William Wiberforce from your current side of the pond if your not familiar with him.

[toke]

It's this kind of tripe from politicians that sends a chill up my spine...and makes me question what in the world is going on in my country. We used to have statesmen like Thomas Jefferson, and now we are being seriously presented with a Sarah Palin as the Republican party's candidate for Vice President. This is quite the creepy and insidious thing slithering up on us...

The Palin church video
Posted: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 6:04 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Republican debates, McCain

From NBC's Michael Levine
As questions have been raised over how thoroughly Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign vetted Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for the V.P. slot, it seems the McCain campaign was unaware of a video -- available online -- in which Palin talks about God's role in U.S. military action overseas, according to a political operative familiar with the situation.

The video, first reported by the liberal blog HuffingtonPost.com, is from a June Palin speech to the graduating class of commission students at Palin's former church in Wasilla, Alaska. While describing her family, Palin told students about her oldest son, 19-year-old Track, who is set to be deployed to Iraq this month with the U.S. Army. She urged students to pray “that our leaders -- that our national leaders -- are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God.”

She added, “That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for: that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.”

“It's pretty uncomfortable stuff,” said the political operative, after watching the video online. “It's bad. It's really bad. … It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.”

In addition to talking about Iraq, Palin also referred to God's role in her work as governor.

“I can do my part in working really, really hard to get a natural gas pipeline, about a $30 billion project that's going to create a lot of jobs for Alaska. … [but] I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,” she said. “I can do my job there in developing our natural resources, in doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded. But really that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's hearts aren't right with God.”

It wasn't all serious, though. At one point during the address, Palin praised the graduating class as “a bunch of cool-looking Christians.” Then she picked out one student in the crowd and said with a smile, “Ben, I don't know you well enough yet, but looking at you, I'm thinking, people are going to interested in Jesus Christ through you because of the way you look - this red-headed Sasquatch for Jesus. You look good!” The students cheered. “Times are really changin'. And with the times that change, looks even change.”

The seven-minute speech is posted on the Web site of Palin's former church, the Wasilla Assembly of God. But, the political operative said, the McCain campaign seems to have had no knowledge of it when Palin was announced as McCain's running mate on Friday.

http://www.wasillaag.net/2008.html

[Bard77]

http://www.laurasprairiehouse.com/family/nellieoleson.html

[mivona]

Sorry for posting again, I missed this:

Christians" can debase and abuse gay people just for being who they are, just as they once did to those with dark skin.

You are also aware that is was through the efforts of Christians with others that slavery was ended aren't you? You should read about the life of William Wiberforce from your current side of the pond if your not familiar with him.

I am wholly aware of the efforts of liberal Christians to challenge those who clung to antiquated and oppressive beliefs to justify their faith-based support for slavery.

I see the current fundamentalist positions that impact on others in a similar vein. What exactly is the difference between a fundamentalist view that supports the discrimination against gay people to that of a racist who opposes equal treatment of black people? Are Muslims that force women into "modest clothing" more or less acceptable than Christians who impose similar clothing restrictions? Why?

I have given some examples of exactly where I think that it is wrong for "Christians" to impose their views on others, and I would like to know where you think that secular views have been pushed onto others to their detriment.

I understand that your faith is close to your heart and that it is important to you. Bard thinks it is rude for anyone to make fun of his belief/faith. My belief structure is also dear to me, and yet that is fair game for all kinds of lampooning and ridicule. What's the difference? Does having a god behind yours make it inherently different?

I will admit I have repeatedly supported Muslims against slurs, perpetrated by people who believe themselves to be "Christian" in an attempt to open their eyes to the hatred they are promoting. I abhor Islamic corporal punishments and misogyny, but - just as in Christianity - there is some stuff that is of wider benefit. Liberal Muslims are just as acceptable to me as Liberal Christians. Religious belief, freely chosen for oneself is one thing. Forcing others to comply with religious belief is another. Fundamentalists of any kind are abhorrent.

The mixing of that faith with government is just fucking scary. Wrapping God around one's oppressive treatment of others to justify what you are doing is sickening, wherever it occurs.

[mivona]

The following post is being re-posted as a public service for our lurking reader Linda, who seems to believe that Sweden is attempting to outlaw ALL religious practices...

If you read this again, Linda, carefully, you will se that they are simply insisting that religious education takes place only in religious settings - not in educational institutions, not in schools, but only in religious places.

It's simple, really....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/18/godshonesttruth
The Swedish government has announced plans to clamp down hard on religious education. It will soon become illegal even for private faith schools to teach religious doctrines as if they were true. In an interesting twist on the American experience, prayer will remain legal in schools - after all, it has no truth value. But everything that takes place on the curriculum's time will have to be secular. "Pupils must be protected from every sort of fundamentalism," said the minister for schools, Jan Björklund.

Creationism and ID are explicitly banned but so is proselytising even in religious education classes. The Qur'an may not be taught as if it is true even in Muslim independent schools, nor may the Bible in Christian schools. The decision looks like a really startling attack on the right of parents to have their children taught what they would like. Of course it does not go so far as the Dawkins policy of prohibiting parents from trying to pass on their doctrines even in their own families - and, if it did, it would certainly run foul of the European convention on human rights. It does not even go as far as Nyamko Sabuni, the minister for integration - herself born in Burundi - would like: she wanted to ban all religious schools altogether. But it is still a pretty drastic measure from an English perspective.

The law is being presented in Sweden as if it mostly concerned fundamentalist Christian sects in the backwoods; but the Christian Democratic party, which represents such people if anyone does, is perfectly happy with the new regulation. There is little doubt that combating Islamic fundamentalism is the underlying aim, especially in conjunction with another new requirement that all independent schools declare all their funding sources. This would allow the inspectors - whose budget is being doubled - to concentrate their efforts on those schools most likely to be paid to break the rules.

In the background to these announcements comes the release of a frightening documentary film on Swedish jihadis, which follows young men over a period of two years on their slow conversion to homicidal lunacy.

The question is whether we in Britain will come to see this as a necessary move in the struggle to contain Islamist ideologies. Can a defence of freedom convincingly be mounted by a state that takes such a firm view of what is or is not true? Or can freedom not be preserved without such measures? The dilemma makes no sense from a completely liberal position, where it is assumed that the truth will always win out in fair competition, and that the state is almost always to be distrusted. But Swedes have never really been liberal in that sense, notwithstanding the fact that the two ministers involved here are members of the Liberal party.

Superficially, the British position could not be more different. The British government's strategy with Islam or protestant extremism in Ulster has been - so far as we have had one - flattery and corruption, or what Microsoft, in another context, calls "embracing and extending". Find the leaders, flatter them, and draw them into the ruling class in the hope that they will then cooperate and see that their followers do too. The gamble that the government is taking on faith schools is that if religious groups are given their own schools to run, they will do so in ways that will turn out for the benefit of society as a whole, as well as of their pupils. Certainly this works quite well with the Church of England. Anglican schools are happy, by and large, to teach religion as if it were not true; to put it in a more flattering light, they concentrate more on the fruits of the spirit than on dogma. However, no one supposes that society is threatened by a terrorist movement nurtured in C of E primary schools.

Demanding that Muslim, Jewish, and Catholic schools stop teaching their own religions as if they were true, which is essentially the Swedish position, looks an impossible task for a British government. But I think it might also be a necessary one. It is certainly the only way to discover whether the parents of such schools really want the "ethos" or the pseudo-factual beliefs and what exactly it is that the people who fund them think they are buying with their money.

[toys-to-treasures]

I have given some examples of exactly where I think that it is wrong for "Christians" to impose their views on others, and I would like to know where you think that secular views have been pushed onto others to their detriment.


How about this from your very own thread:

"The Swedish government has announced plans to clamp down hard on religious education. It will soon become illegal even for private faith schools to teach religious doctrines as if they were true."

I know what is to my detriment. This would be to my detriment. It is the enforcement of the secular into the religious. These are PRIVATE FAITH schools.



I understand that your faith is close to your heart and that it is important to you. Bard thinks it is rude for anyone to make fun of his belief/faith. My belief structure is also dear to me, and yet that is fair game for all kinds of lampooning and ridicule. What's the difference? Does having a god behind yours make it inherently different?


Where in this thread or by anyone on this board has your belief system been lampooned or ridiculed like the zombie Jesus? Where has anyone said you believe in fairy tales? Please answer these questions.

In ways you can inderstand it probably is no different and as a matter of a fact it is just as wrong or rude if I was to make fun of your beliefs.

What makes it slightly different for me and makes me a little more thinned skinned about it is this.

If you were lampooning or making fun of me I personally wouldn't find it offensive. It wouldn't trouble me a bit. In your eyes you are making fun of me I suppose but the way I see it there is a very real 3rd party involved here. To me it would be like you making fun of my wife or one of my kids. You are not disrepecting me as much as someone I care about deeply. I am sure you would not like me making fun of someone you care about.

Besides are you really suggesting that is someone is behaving badly it justifies a response in kind? Isn't that what really causes much of the trouble in the world?

[toys-to-treasures]

I am wholly aware of the efforts of liberal Christians to challenge those who clung to antiquated and oppressive beliefs to justify their faith-based support for slavery.


I consider you to be a very intelligent person Mivona but on this point your either ignorant or being disingenuous.

On slavery it wasn't about liberal vs. fundamentalist Christians (at least not as we use those terms today. It was cultural much more than religious. Wilberforce is a good example. He was very much a fundamentalist and fought slavery much of his adult life. Another good example is Jefferson who many love to quote and was quite liberal about God, with views much like yours. He owned slaves.

You trying to make slavery about liberal/progressive vs. fundamentalist Christians would fall apart on close examination. I have studied this quite a bit.

[mivona]

I know what is to my detriment. This would be to my detriment. It is the enforcement of the secular into the religious. These are PRIVATE FAITH schools.

The focus of this change is that schools - ANY SCHOOL - can no longer teach religion - ANY RELIGION - as part of the curriculum. This does not deny you the opportunity to be taught about religion at a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, etc. You are not prohibited from practicing your religion.

Do you have any examples of secular views that have been to your detriment?




Where in this thread or by anyone on this board has your belief system been lampooned or ridiculed like the zombie Jesus? Where has anyone said you believe in fairy tales? Please answer these questions.

I am sure you are aware of the campaign of harassment/ridicule/hatred I have been subjected to over the years, due to my political views.
I am not going to go back to detail the insults, as I am sure you have been around long enough to be aware of them.
I have learned to deal with the rudeness and insults, and you need to do the same. I don't really see how or why you think others should tread more carefully with you and your god, simply because of your sensitivity. It's your problem. If you see it as such an affront, rise above it.

[toys-to-treasures]

The focus of this change is that schools - ANY SCHOOL - can no longer teach religion - ANY RELIGION - as part of the curriculum. This does not deny you the opportunity to be taught about religion at a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, etc. You are not prohibited from practicing your religion.

Do you have any examples of secular views that have been to your detriment?


Only in the same general indirect sense that you have examples of religious views being to your detriment.

Why do you think private faith based schools exist? They don't exist because parents don't think the math curriculums aren't up to par in public schools I can tell you that.

If people choose to send their kids to a school where part of the education is education about their belief system I think they should have every right to do so. Even if it makes exclusive claims. I also this that the state has an interest in making sure reasonable academic standards are upheld. As long as that is the case it is none of the business of yours or the government what my kids are taught. I should not be forced to compartmentalize my faith or have my kids taught by implication that they should have to.

I think various "hate speech" laws are curtailing free speech as well. Canada is particularly a ways further down that slippery slope. As you know protecting free speech sometime means protecting speech you might personally find offensive.



I am sure you are aware of the campaign of harassment/ridicule/hatred I have been subjected to over the years, due to my political views.
I am not going to go back to detail the insults, as I am sure you have been around long enough to be aware of them.
I have learned to deal with the rudeness and insults, and you need to do the same. I don't really see how or why you think others should tread more carefully with you and your god, simply because of your sensitivity. It's your problem. If you see it as such an affront, rise above it.


There you go again. The topic at hand is not your personal political views; you raised the issue of disparaging statements about atheism or non-belief. Let's compare apples to apples. I did not say I thought it was rude, belittling or condescending to make fun of or question my political views. I have had some of that too, some much deserved and all of it fair game.

The fact is no one in this thread has been rude or insulting to you about your personally held views on religion. I/we have called you on your attitude and treatment of others views on religion.

And trust me, I am not all that sensitive. If it bothered me that much it would be easy to avoid. If people want constructive dialog I think they "should tread more carefully with others, simply because of their sensitivity". Whether you or I think they should be that sensitive or not. If you want to poke it with a stick just to get a response you should just keep it up but don't pretend to be all high-minded about it.

[mivona]

Only in the same general indirect sense that you have examples of religious views being to your detriment.

So what secular impact do you equate with the current Christian intentions to refuse gay people equal treatment under the law?

What secular impact do you equate with the current "Christian" plans to restrict availability of contraception that they don't approve of?


Why do you think private faith based schools exist?

I know that parents like the way in which they can indoctrinate their children with their own religious beliefs. I think it is interesting that Sweden has decided that children being "taught" religion in the same context and other factual material is not conducive to social cohesion. They do not want various religious faiths being able to teach their beliefs as absolute "truth" in an educational context.

I think various "hate speech" laws are curtailing free speech as well. Canada is particularly a ways further down that slippery slope. As you know protecting free speech sometime means protecting speech you might personally find offensive.

Shrug. I guess we will have to wait and see how this pans out. We can't shout "fire" in a theatre because it is dangerous. Sometimes there are restrictions to what we can do, because it is pretty easy to imagine what the outcome is going to be.



The fact is no one in this thread has been rude or insulting to you about your personally held views on religion. I/we have called you on your attitude and treatment of others views on religion.


Why should I not have a dismissive attitude of your religion? How is your religion different to my politics?

What is it that makes your religion require a special pass from criticism, ridicule or mockery? Because it hurts your feelings?

I guess you will be looking forward to the outcome of this case:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/03/religion.art

[toys-to-treasures]

So what secular impact do you equate with the current Christian intentions to refuse gay people equal treatment under the law?

What secular impact do you equate with the current "Christian" plans to restrict availability of contraception that they don't approve of?


I don't think you can draw direct analogies. The situations are different as one involves trying to change what is already established and the other is trying to maintain what has been allowed. One is trying to limit existing rights while the other is trying create ones that have never existed. That makes for a whole different social dynamic.

There is no monolithic concensus on these issues.



I know that parents like the way in which they can indoctrinate their children with their own religious beliefs. I think it is interesting that Sweden has decided that children being "taught" religion in the same context and other factual material is not conducive to social cohesion. They do not want various religious faiths being able to teach their beliefs as absolute "truth" in an educational context.


I think it is appalling, this is exactly what Marx, Lenin and Stalin was good and necessary. You cannot contain this thinking to one area without it either being rejected and defeated or becoming more expansive. Your idea of freedom is apparently freedom to think like you. At the very least you are putting the rights of the state above the individual. You are anti-freedom.

I think it is quite telling that he people pushing for radical change to existing rights try and make those defending existing rights the extremists.



Shrug. I guess we will have to wait and see how this pans out. We can't shout "fire" in a theatre because it is dangerous. Sometimes there are restrictions to what we can do, because it is pretty easy to imagine what the outcome is going to be.


I don't trust your worldview to be the sole arbitor of what is dangerous.



Why should I not have a dismissive attitude of your religion? How is your religion different to my politics?

What is it that makes your religion require a special pass from criticism, ridicule or mockery? Because it hurts your feelings?


I've already answerd this a cuople of times, I don't know how much clearer I can be:

"You're welcome to ridicule and mock Mivona. It is your right to do so."

I would not want to limit your right to ridicule or be dismissive. I would just hope you would be smart enough to know how counter-productive it is and how much it diminishes your argument and by extension you personally.

As to the difference between politics in religion it is both the same and different. The same to you because to you becuase both are about just an idea or set of ideas. To me politics is about ideas and religion (in my case anyway) is about both about ideas and a "person" or living being. Even if you don't agree to the premise you should be able to understand it in the abstract.

[mivona]

I don't think you can draw direct analogies. The situations are different as one involves trying to change what is already established and the other is trying to maintain what has been allowed. One is trying to limit existing rights while the other is trying create ones that have never existed. That makes for a whole different social dynamic.

There is no monolithic concensus on these issues.

That's an interesting take. I see it as akin to conservatives attempting to keep things just as they are (much like those Christians who were absolutely convinced of the moral rightness of keeping blacks in their place). The idea of allowing change was morally reprehensible to them, just as current religious conservatives/fundamentalists.



I think it is appalling, this is exactly what Marx, Lenin and Stalin was good and necessary. You cannot contain this thinking to one area without it either being rejected and defeated or becoming more expansive. Your idea of freedom is apparently freedom to think like you. At the very least you are putting the rights of the state above the individual. You are anti-freedom.

In your world, it is fine to force others to live their lives in accordance with your religious values and to have their lives curtailed by your religious values.

What kind of freedom is that? My view is that competing interests have to find a balance. A proper balance in this is that those with religious beliefs are free to hold them for themselves, but the line is where they begin to impact on other lives and other's choices. My desire to not be evangelised does nothing to prevent you practising your faith. In contract, Christian activists are attempting to limit my choice and use of contraception that has a real likelihood of impacting on my life, particularly if I would become pregnant through using a less effective method of birth control.


I don't trust your worldview to be the sole arbitor of what is dangerous.

That's ok, because I don't trust your worldview (or your ilk) to be the sole arbitor of what is morally right.





I would not want to limit your right to ridicule or be dismissive.

Why, thank you.

I would just hope you would be smart enough to know how counter-productive it is and how much it diminishes your argument and by extension you personally.

I'm gutted.... thanks for pointing out the error of my ways.

:0004:

[Bard77]

Thanks for recognising & respecting, the time spent by other posters.
As you have already in (word & conduct)
I'm not certain Id take the time again.
Rather I know I would not.

Sad affair.
Telling, yet sad.

[toys-to-treasures]

I didn't want to gut you but what I said is true. You shouldn't be so “thinned skinned and try and rise above it".

Now I am part of an ilk. I guess the conversation is over.

One thing we do agree on Mivona. I don't want my worldview to be the sole arbiter of what is right either. I don't want to exclude anyone from the discussion, from the debate. You do, you’re the one that wants people to know their place and when to shut up. You are the thought police.

I just think if we can approach each other civilly when we debate important issues we are a lot more likely to come to compromises we can all live with.

Thanks for the interesting thread and glimpse into your mind on all this.

[mivona]

It has been an interesting exchange. I've learned firsthand that conservative "Christians" claim some kind of religious trump card, when it comes to any critical commentary of their faith or faith-based view of the world., as it wounds them to have their religious idol impugned in any way.

What they seem incapable of understanding is that others have secular concerns about the world that they are every bit as passionate about. But because those views are merely "secular", they are denied the same reverential status of being beyond ridicule.

I guess I was as foolhardy to believe that Jesus-values really meant things like "live and let live" and "love your neighbour" and "unconditional love" and "refrain from casting stones". It looks like religious conformity is the order of the day. The very real social issues at hand regarding gay people and women's control over their fertility are supposed to be determined by a fundamentalists who seeks to impose their faith on non-believers and who call foul when their faith-base is criricised. What they don't seem to grasp is that my abhorrence and outrage over their attempts to insert their faith into others lives is equally visceral to theirs. Somehow, they view their outrage as more valid than mine, because mine is merely "political" while they have "god" on their side.

The difference between us is that I do not wish them to live their lives like me. They can have their religion without constraint, practicing and teaching their children all the intricacies of who is heaven fodder and who is not. They just need to let others decide for themselves what is sinful and how to live their lives.

[Bard77]

Rude underhanded and snide.

Just end it already.

In the name of all thats holy and decent

Just stop.

You are making many very sick at this point mivona really

Surprised and literally sich over your bigoted hatred.

it is a tad alarming.

Shaking head at your shameless attitude that yu think is cutsy.

you will never be remembered the same, by many miv.

You went to the juglar veins of folks most personal faith, and mocked thdem and theres, for no reason apparent, cepting you like to mock folks who hold differing opinions than you.

that leaves you in a small place.

best wishes getting out.

[toys-to-treasures]

What they seem incapable of understanding is that others have secular concerns about the world that they are every bit as passionate about. But because those views are merely "secular", they are denied the same reverential status of being beyond ridicule.


As one last attempt to salvage this let me ask these simple questions:

Where in this thread has anyone ridiculed your secular concerns? The actual things you are passonate about?


I think your attitude in this thread is open to ridicule and should be by reasonable people. That is not the same as ridiculing your concerns.

I would think the fallout with Oddish and the other board would have opened your eyes a bit. Nobody said you can't ridicule faith, just that is has ramifications, even some you don't want. You have proved that point even to your own satisfaction I would think.


Even if I was to concede the point that there has been a double standard in this thread (I won't) I do not understand this:

How do you think responding in kind is an adult position and what about doing so is helpful in any way?

Please answer this direct question too.

[mivona]

Tod, I've been around the block with you too many times already. I've seen you do the "the patch of ground where I am is sandy, so I must be right in saying it's a desert here" while you willfully ignore the wider picture. If you want to draw some comparison between my disregard for your feelings when it comes to Jesu-erectus and contempt with secular views, you are going to have have a wider view than just this thread.

I am no saint, and as such am not honour-bound to rise above the slings and arrows. While I do my best, I get weary, and lost my patience with Bard's insistence that his religious convictions should be beyond ridicule, simply because they were faith-based. That it was "rude" to mock. When there is equal respect given to the secular/liberal views of others (a different faith-based system), I'll reconsider my position. So, it if you are really concerned about the state of the world,why not put some effort into encouraging others to offer some small amount of respect to divergent views? I've become too battle-weary to do so anymore.

[toys-to-treasures]

I'll reconsider my position. So, it if you are really concerned about the state of the world,why not put some effort into encouraging others to offer some small amount of respect to divergent views? I've become too battle-weary to do so anymore.

I understand, I get "weary and impatient" too and sometime lash out. I am wrong when I do. I think that's great (reconsidering your position). I'll do so as well.

You might want to start with thinking that maybe what you think is a typical Christian is a characature.

I know lots of Christians and I see much more of the behavior in letter below than the ugly Christians you refer to often (Still there are plenty).


"Dear Jay,
I have an out-of-wedlock child. Unfortunately, the father of my son did not step up to the plate, as Levi seems to be doing. All but one member of my family were so ashamed of my situation that they ignored me for the entirety of my pregnancy and during the first few months of my son’s life.

I found acceptance and comfort where I never expected it. I’m not a particularly religious person, and at the time I attended a Baptist church only occasionally. But the members of this church took it upon themselves to take care of me. By “taking care of me,” I mean that they had a baby shower, called to check up on me, and, after my son was born, brought meals to my house. Stuff like that.

Not once did I feel I was being judged. I might not have the deep faith that those Christians do and sometimes am puzzled by some of the things they say they believe — but I become deeply uncomfortable any time I hear Christian-bashing. With them, there was (as you said) no shame, agony, or hiding under the couch.......


I do always encourage other Christians to show respect to others and have led Bible studies to do exactly that. You (not you specifically) don't condemn people into seeing your point of view, you love people into seeing your point of view. It's easy to love the lovely and hard to love the unlovely but that is what changes the world, changes people and makes both better.

[Bard77]

Tod, I've been around the block with you too many times already. I've seen you do the "the patch of ground where I am is sandy, so I must be right in saying it's a desert here" while you willfully ignore the wider picture. If you want to draw some comparison between my disregard for your feelings when it comes to Jesu-erectus and contempt with secular views, you are going to have have a wider view than just this thread.

I am no saint, and as such am not honour-bound to rise above the slings and arrows. While I do my best, I get weary, and lost my patience with Bard's insistence that his religious convictions should be beyond ridicule, simply because they were faith-based. That it was "rude" to mock. When there is equal respect given to the secular/liberal views of others (a different faith-based system), I'll reconsider my position. So, it if you are really concerned about the state of the world,why not put some effort into encouraging others to offer some small amount of respect to divergent views? I've become too battle-weary to do so anymore.



I am no saint, and as such am not honour-bound to rise above the slings and arrows. While I do my best, I get weary, and lost my patience with Bard's insistence that his religious convictions should be beyond ridicule, simply because they were faith-based.

That is a fabrication ast best.

I NEVER said ANYTHING like that is this thread.Period.

How tacky of you to COTINUE to justify your bigotery while using others as your scapegoat.

Wrong, and I dare say ALL saw it too.

the thread speaks fo r itself

So more defending myself here.

no need, it was not i who acted so rudely to so many who care so very much for what yu choose as merely fuel for hate.

Bitterness like cancer, only eats away at you miv, not those yu loathe.

[mivona]

You know, Tod, there are Christians that behave in ways that bring a lot of credit to the faith - those that live it, encouraging others to follow rather than exhorting others to change. There are also the fuckwit Christians of whom I am heartily sick, that judge, condemn, harangue and hate in an utterly hypocritical way. There are liberals who behave badly in similar ways, intolerant of anyone of faith, just as there are liberals who don't take the label of Christian but who act in a much more attuned way to the teachings of Christ than some supposed "Christians".

There is no caricature here - there are a diversity of Christians. I know it. You know it, and yet you try to imply that I see them as a bloc.

I have repeatedly been very clear about the "Christians" I despise. I have repeatedly said which religious-inspired intrusions into the lives of others that I oppose. These issues have not been addressed by you.

I don't think I need to cringe everytime I hear anything approaching Christian bashing. Firstly, because what some see as "bashing" is others simply questioning the validity of their belief or their perspectives or version of morality. They seem to think that anything connected with their religion is beyond the line. Secondly, some bashing is utterly warranted, IMO, when dealing with religious bigotry. Is there injustice against some Christians. Sure. Join the real world. Just as there is injustice against some moderate/liberal Muslims, who simply want to make the world a better place.

This thread began with an interview by an atheist, and look where we have ended up.

[Bard77]

That is a fabrication ast best.

I NEVER said ANYTHING like that is this thread.Period.

How tacky of you to COTINUE to justify your bigotery while using others as your scapegoat.

Wrong, and I dare say ALL saw it too.

the thread speaks fo r itself

So more defending myself here.

no need, it was not i who acted so rudely to so many who care so very much for what yu choose as merely fuel for hate.

Bitterness like cancer, only eats away at you miv, not those yu loathe.

It does annoy me how you will NOT even recongnise my posts, let alone the lie you fabricated, and refuse to asddress.

My, and others ipinioons of you are depeting as we speak..

Obviously you care not.

I guesss its more fun to act out

Nevertyheless, for the recoerd, MORE than once have you ACCISED me of saying things ion thios thread

I simply did not say!

So, if an apology is not in order, sat least you should recognise your untruth,Im bettoing on neither

Real dissapointed here miv, i treuly thought higher if you.

I am done here.

Your rudness has it s limits, and I just reached mine.

Carry on, or whatever, thjsnk God others CAN read, even if its not your longsuit.

I never met a meaner more haighty indifferebnt person on a thread, acting mean for no reason too.

Im done, life is too short toi subject yourself to sich brittle bitternmess.

I got prettier fields to roam

Smell real foul on this thread.

Hypocracy ast its best!

Know that.

Arraogance and pride come before the fall.

Keep a steady hand there Miv

God Bless and all that

Peace out you Christian HATING bigot.

I think you and I are done for life

Hope that pleases you.

It's nice too get what you want.

You simply are to vile for this kid.

[thebigkahooouna]

Just as there is injustice against some moderate/liberal Muslims, who simply want to make the world a better place.




Liberal Muslims??? LOL yea there few and far between.The only problem is either they have their heads chopped off, or buried alive somewhere because they want to chose there own husbands :0104:

[toys-to-treasures]

You know, Tod, there are Christians that behave in ways that bring a lot of credit to the faith - those that live it, encouraging others to follow rather than exhorting others to change. There are also the fuckwit Christians of whom I am heartily sick, that judge, condemn, harangue and hate in an utterly hypocritical way. There are liberals who behave badly in similar ways, intolerant of anyone of faith, just as there are liberals who don't take the label of Christian but who act in a much more attuned way to the teachings of Christ than some supposed "Christians".

There is no caricature here - there are a diversity of Christians. I know it. You know it, and yet you try to imply that I see them as a bloc.


Nice to hear you say that. The best Christian life is often one of silent example. I do not think though that that means a "good" Christian must be one who has positions on controversial issues that you would find acceptable. Being a Christian is not about how people behave it is a relational thing. If I have a 2 sons and one is well behaved and the other is a hellion they are still both my children although my interaction with them may differ.

It is interesting to hear you say "There are liberals who behave badly in similar ways, intolerant of anyone of faith" because I have seen you fly off the handle and behave in highly defensive ways when general statements are made in a negative way about some liberals. The people doing that are doing nothing different than you have done in this thread with religious people.

I do think you group people and see them as blocks, we all do to differing degrees. In my experience with Christian I have found most "fundies" are pretty caring and kind although they might think things you think are hateful.




I have repeatedly been very clear about the "Christians" I despise. I have repeatedly said which religious-inspired intrusions into the lives of others that I oppose. These issues have not been addressed by you.


I believe I have addressed the question in general. I am not going to be baited into an in depth examination of the gay issue in this thread . Start a new one next week if you want to do that and I would be happy to join in. I have said in this thread that I think some Christians have treated gays very badly and in a un-Christlike way. When they do it's wrong. I do not think from my perspective I would be doing my gay friends any favor by saying I don't think there is a problem with gay sex from a spiritual standpoint. I do not think that would be loving. You probably think it is hateful. I don't see us finding a common ground on that. I am sure we would agree that gay people are just as valuable, important and deserving of love and shouldn't be treated badly for being gay.



I don't think I need to cringe everytime I hear anything approaching Christian bashing. Firstly, because what some see as "bashing" is others simply questioning the validity of their belief or their perspectives or version of morality. They seem to think that anything connected with their religion is beyond the line. Secondly, some bashing is utterly warranted, IMO, when dealing with religious bigotry. Is there injustice against some Christians. Sure. Join the real world. Just as there is injustice against some moderate/liberal Muslims, who simply want to make the world a better place.


I don't think you do either but when you use your scatter-shot bashing approach you hurt good people who you probably respect. There is no good reason to do the Jesus with a hard on for instance. Do what you want though, the way you operate it makes it much easier to counter your arguments.



This thread began with an interview by an atheist, and look where we have ended up.


So? Did you post it thinking nothing like this would happen and that only fellow travelers would or should post?

It reminds me of your compulsion of having to post disparaging things about Reagan and Chalton Heston in their "death threads". Just for balance of course.

Besides I've learned some things from all this, haven't you?

[Bard77]

Actually miv

I could not more delighted.
I am certain, 'you showed' them all.
All, know now.
I never seen such unbridled sweeping contempt
blatantly spewed upon an ocean of individuals worldwide.

And you act all proud of youre shameless bigotry
like a thirteen year old flipping off a Catholic Father
on the freeway.

Never seen such hypocracy, you standing cluless.
Hate and contempt are what keep evil in business miv

The war mongers one and all, KKK, bla bla bla nazis
Hate organizations made up of people like you
haters of men, based soley upon their belief system alone.

Bigotry, is its name

And you, are stamped in allegance to their cause.

You made it perfectly clear, that it WAS OK also, to just VERBALLY ABUSE , ie 'mock', ridicule these differing souls as well, why?

Because they see life different than you.

Thats our sin.

Having and holding dear a real Lord

Who you didnt want anyway

I and mine cherished him, still do
My father before me, my entire family
You stamped with your poison pen this day
You are/were,insulting beyond precedence or recall of memory.

PLUS, you mocked my/our Lord, for NO reason.

enough is enough.

never again.

You are as menacing as Hitlers breath.

Still haunting the civilized world.

Scary to know, you dwell among us, brimming in hatred.

Christian bashers are every bit as ugly as the KKK.

I am quite done now.

Same hairdoo different doll.

[thebigkahooouna]

You are as menacing as Hitlers breath.

Still haunting the civilized world.

Scary to know, you dwell among us, brimming in hatred.




Oh I dunno Bard,I think you're being hard on Mivona.I stated that over in OTWA a couple of years ago she wanted to start a fund to assassinate the President.She corrected me and stated she only wanted to contribute to
the fund:1eek2:

[mivona]

I am quite done now.


Thank fucking god.

Isn't there some internet law that the first person to compare another to a nazi automatically loses the argument?

[tekobari]

Yup, miv. I think it's rule #3. I forget. But the first to bring in Hitler or Nazis loses, period.

I think he lost long before that; however, that's just my opinion.

[Bard77]

Thank fucking god.

Isn't there some internet law that the first person to compare another to a nazi automatically loses the argument?



Only when its not true.

rule two should be no christian/gay/minority/etc 'hate-bashing rhetori'c allowed. (they do have laws now by the way)

that would have eliminated you on page two miv.

Very cute remarks however, cutsy is a real crowdpleases after you nausiated half the world populas, it's a good try at saving face. Politicians move

Best wishes wuth that.

but this incident,, and the lovely contributions to hestons/reagans death notice etc willl reigh like Jamies cat pissin g conduct, I dare say.

As far as you johnny come lately one liner snipers.....

Had you anything really to offer, we would have heard from you sooner
This is nothing more than a popularity contest with you ,like gradeschool

[Bard77]

Yup, miv. I think it's rule #3. I forget. But the first to bring in Hitler or Nazis loses, period.

I think he lost long before that; however, that's just my opinion.


Birds of a feather flock togeather, all two of you so far.:2plonk:

[tabbinosity]

I didn't know the Godwin rule was numbered.

[mivona]

Maybe there are variants. I didn't know its name or number - I just remembered that there was a rule like that...

[Reverend Colin]

Is there a rule about telling Mivona what a soulless, sad individual she is, probably always has been?

I don't stop here often but someone pointed out the Bards post in another thread. Post 7 in the following thread.

http://www.therossshow.com/showthread.php?t=10373

He was able to draw a perfect portrait of the empty shell that calls itself Mivona


very nice........Your words were brush strokes.

[Hepburn]

The best Christian life is often one of silent example.

One little sentence says it all. Thanks T2T

[mivona]

Bored, Rev? Fed up with all the brown-nosing and want to troll a bit?

[Bard77]

Bored, Rev? Fed up with all the brown-nosing and want to troll a bit?


Nothing wrong with a little color miv

Always brightens up a place,

Sometimes opening a window gets that ol musty smell out

[thebigkahooouna]

Sometimes opening a window gets that ol musty smell out




what happened, Mivona pull her panties down??

[mivona]

Looking for trouble? He's at the other board...

[tekobari]

Tab, I've seen several lists of usenet "rules" on which the Godwin rule was one of the items. Of course, it stands alone, too. But I've seen it as first, third and as an emphasized last (paraphrase: And of course, the biggest rule of all...). I just threw in "third."

[Bard77]

what happened, Mivona pull her panties down??


In a poetic sence yes BH, that is precisely whast has taken place

Not the first time nor the last I imagine for the Ross show eh mate?

Lol....

[krisinluck]

Bard - I'm not going to have Nazi and KKK comparisions here. You have your faith, and that's wonderful. Mivona has her own kind of faith as well, and none of us have any idea what she has experienced in her life at the hand of Christians. Don't kid yourself into thinking that evil does not lurk in that particular sheep's clothing; they are everywhere and fooling lots of people.no christian/gay/minority/etc 'hate-bashing rhetori'c allowed. (they do have laws now by the way)For gay and minority bashing, yes. For religious bashing, there has never been that law in this country; the Christians all but own it. The Wiccan soldier who lost his life in Iraq was denied having his religious symbol (a Pentagram) on his tombstone at Arlington. Don't even go there with me; faith is faith is faith, regardless of what one calls their personal God.

Colin - don't even start. I'm not welcoming hate speech even from Christians who believe in judging others based on their own perspective of God.what happened, Mivona pull her panties down??Nope. You "Christians" began spewing about how fine and holy y'all are. And it does leave an odor in any atmosphere that bullshit starts.

So knock it off. All of you. Address things like adults or take your hatred of those with other beliefs to Trouble's sandbox; he likes this shit. I don't.

[Bard77]

Bard - I'm not going to have Nazi and KKK comparisions here. You have your faith, and that's wonderful. Mivona has her own kind of faith as well, and none of us have any idea what she has experienced in her life at the hand of Christians. Don't kid yourself into thinking that evil does not lurk in that particular sheep's clothing; they are everywhere and fooling lots of people.For gay and minority bashing, yes. For religious bashing, there has never been that law in this country; the Christians all but own it. The Wiccan soldier who lost his life in Iraq was denied having his religious symbol (a Pentagram) on his tombstone at Arlington. Don't even go there with me; faith is faith is faith, regardless of what one calls their personal God.

Colin - don't even start. I'm not welcoming hate speech even from Christians who believe in judging others based on their own perspective of God.Nope. You "Christians" began spewing about how fine and holy y'all are. And it does leave an odor in any atmosphere that bullshit starts.

So knock it off. All of you. Address things like adults or take your hatred of those with other beliefs to Trouble's sandbox; he likes this shit. I don't.

Sad to me Kris, that I can only see the SAME very broad brush you and miv painted me personally with,and millions of others 'STILL in use'

Hence my only concern, that folk are doing other people, induividual citizens, ads diservice based on bigotry asnd broadbrushed brushes.

I feel I have done nothing in this thread to invite the edge.
I loathe seeing any religion quashed or mocked

I feel the same for any underdogs in life, planet creatures, people, women, elderly
Mentally challenged

physically challenged

The impoveriushed

Ijd just like to see all of us pitch in and help side by side

And ficus on what we do agree on in spirit

Like feeding the poor, basic meds flu shots antibiotics for poor thjird world countrie

[Bard77]

Bard - I'm not going to have Nazi and KKK comparisions here. You have your faith, and that's wonderful. Mivona has her own kind of faith as well, and none of us have any idea what she has experienced in her life at the hand of Christians. Don't kid yourself into thinking that evil does not lurk in that particular sheep's clothing; they are everywhere and fooling lots of people.For gay and minority bashing, yes. For religious bashing, there has never been that law in this country; the Christians all but own it. The Wiccan soldier who lost his life in Iraq was denied having his religious symbol (a Pentagram) on his tombstone at Arlington. Don't even go there with me; faith is faith is faith, regardless of what one calls their personal God.

Colin - don't even start. I'm not welcoming hate speech even from Christians who believe in judging others based on their own perspective of God.Nope. You "Christians" began spewing about how fine and holy y'all are. And it does leave an odor in any atmosphere that bullshit starts.

So knock it off. All of you. Address things like adults or take your hatred of those with other beliefs to Tr


You "Christians" began spewing about how fine and holy y'all are. And it does leave an odor in any atmosphere that bullshit starts.

So knock it off. All of you. Address things like adults or take your hatred of those with other beliefs to Trouble's sandbox; he likes this shit. I don't.[/ouble's sandbox; he likes this shit. I don't.





Kris

I simply cannot believe what m reading


You "Christians" began spewing about how fine and holy y'all are. And it does leave an odor in any atmosphere that bullshit starts.

So knock it off. All of you. Address things like adults or take your hatred of those with other beliefs to Trouble's sandbox; he likes this shit. I don't.[/ouble's sandbox; he likes this shit. I don't.


Wow,that is real geberal and real insulting and real bigoted

Juyst saying is all,

If thats how you folks feel about Christians, I may well wander on

Cus I have never endorsed hate gripoious or rhetoric of any kind

nor those hate mongers that think Christianity should be the exception.

I regfuse to associate with out of the closet Christian bashers

Life is simply too short

[Bard77]

So knock it off.

A gtreater commision must unsist on no being the asnswer to you Kris

Highr callng and charge,





'The Great Commision' they call it.



Peace out Kris

invocation on behalf of you asnd yours

kudos on the miove

Inhasle deeply

Thats freedom, sistah,

and NEW exciting adventures awaiting you?us?many .

Enjoy it

[bluekazoo]

well thank nothing THAT'S over ...

[toys-to-treasures]

Bard - I'm not going to have Nazi and KKK comparisions here.

Colin - don't even start. I'm not welcoming hate speech even from Christians who believe in judging others based on their own perspective of God.Nope. You "Christians" began spewing about how fine and holy y'all are. And it does leave an odor in any atmosphere that bullshit starts.

So knock it off. All of you. Address things like adults or take your hatred of those with other beliefs to Trouble's sandbox; he likes this shit. I don't.

I think your wrong Kris and I do understand the "your sandbox, your rules" thing around here.

Again Mivona gets off freely when she has been more spiteful than anybody in this thread. You have a blind spot a mile wide where she is concerned.

If this thread started having an odor it was when the Jesus, Jewish zombie graphic was posted.

Noboby was/is talking about how fine and holy they were.

How about these fine statements in this thread by Mivona:

"I think it is worth making fun of any and all religions."

"For some, religion has become a safe haven so that they simply don't have to think about the vastness of the universe or the microscopic.."

"feeling as if you have to somehow justify something that is outside the parameters of reason"

"I feel justified in ridiculing it"

"I laugh at, mock, poke fun at and even disparage things that I find ridiculous."

"and they are frequently portrayed as pretty mindless and utterly lacking in logic" Yes, by people like Mivona.

"Once a critical eye is used on the religion, it all falls apart"

"Going back to review the thread, I found this, and thought it was so good, it was worth posting again" (The zombie Jesus graphic. Btw I see no reason this graphic should be Ok and the ones Kashtin posted out of bounds.)

"and putting aside the sheer ludicrous underpinning of religion"


So you think Mivona can espress her thinking like this and it won't create a counter-response. In my opinion up until the last page people were showing Mivona more respect than she deserves.

[mivona]

Yes, I find religion rather silly. And your religion thinks that personal abuse is warranted for such "heathens"?

[toys-to-treasures]

Yes, I find religion rather silly. And your religion thinks that personal abuse is warranted for such "heathens"?

Nope. I fail to see anywhere in this thread where anyone who was actually participating called you stupid, ridiculous, outside the parameters of reason or ignorant or posted something intentionally that you knew would offend you.

You simply talk at people, not to them. The quotes demonstrate that quite well.

[toys-to-treasures]

correction: that "they" knew would offend you

I am bowing out of this thread now I promise.

[mivona]

It was a legitimate question. You appear to condone TBK's posts and Bard's rambling nonsensical tirades against me. The logical conclusion is that heathens are fair game.

We've seen a multitude of posts that take the mickey out of political views. We seen thread after thread that berate "liberals" and "neocons". Cartoons, smileys, jokes that poke at political views and that is seen as legitimate commentary.

But religion? For some strange reason it is supposed to be immune from such poking? Get real.

I find it offensive to have liberal secular views to be the butt of jokes. If we made it into a religion, would we magically be given some reverent respect? No.

As religion has become more politicised and intruded into the political sphere, it has lost whatever immunity from criticism and mockery it may have once enjoyed. As religion keeps trying to tell other non-believers how they are supposed to live their lives, I expect more and more people will also begin to rail at religious intrusion and poke back.

Get used to it, or just go back to quietly leading your own life in accordance with your faith and lead by example.

[Bard77]

It was a legitimate question. You appear to condone TBK's posts and Bard's rambling nonsensical tirades against me. The logical conclusion is that heathens are fair game.

We've seen a multitude of posts that take the mickey out of political views. We seen thread after thread that berate "liberals" and "neocons". Cartoons, smileys, jokes that poke at political views and that is seen as legitimate commentary.

But religion? For some strange reason it is supposed to be immune from such poking? Get real.

I find it offensive to have liberal secular views to be the butt of jokes. If we made it into a religion, would we magically be given some reverent respect? No.

As religion has become more politicised and intruded into the political sphere, it has lost whatever immunity from criticism and mockery it may have once enjoyed. As religion keeps trying to tell other non-believers how they are supposed to live their lives, I expect more and more people will also begin to rail at religious intrusion and poke back.

Get used to it, or just go back to quietly leading your own life in accordance with your faith and lead by example.


Get used to it, or just go back to quietly leading your own life in accordance with your faith and lead by example.

No miv, we will not.
We will do as Our Lord Jesus Christ instructed and charged, comissioned us to do in the New Testament.

It is called 'The Great Commission'

That is what the dictate of our heart yearns to do share the goodness of the Lord, not the twisted biased crank youre peddling.


But the commission is our charge'

Not yiure call miv...lol

Way beyond youre control

Thank God for freedom of spech and religion

Otherwise you types would have it all shut down, cus youre bigotry makes yiu shortsighted.

When i support the right for the nazis to assemble, i secure the rights of Christians to do thye same

ass we PERSONALLY are directed by Gods Holy Spirit withinj us

NOT according to how YOU think we should live out our walk,

Thoughtfull loving christians try to do it by the book, the New Covenant & New Testament the Bible, ad Jesus taught

[Bard77]

may the Bard admonish all participants to be mondfull of the long

Ross show heriyage and legacy of

'No teasing allowed'

OK?

All, know that.

I think it only respectfull in a tribute sort of way:1chirol1:
I must admit that bastarding name one was a new term on me....lolI hasd NOT read that one.....:1rotflmao

So.

No teasing allowed.

'Get it? Got It? Good!'

(For Ross)

Remember the outlaws badboys and bikers line that day Ross?.....



Looking forward to some new pics of the ranch man, ill bet you habve dobne a TON of imoprovements

I always thought you bought a thoughfull and bright piece of pristine land and realestate.
still got a little elboy room, DEPENDING how big the cat is now...lol
lol.....

[Reverend Colin]

Bard - I'm not going to have Nazi and KKK comparisions here. You have your faith, and that's wonderful. Mivona has her own kind of faith as well, and none of us have any idea what she has experienced in her life at the hand of Christians. Don't kid yourself into thinking that evil does not lurk in that particular sheep's clothing; they are everywhere and fooling lots of people.For gay and minority bashing, yes. For religious bashing, there has never been that law in this country; the Christians all but own it. The Wiccan soldier who lost his life in Iraq was denied having his religious symbol (a Pentagram) on his tombstone at Arlington. Don't even go there with me; faith is faith is faith, regardless of what one calls their personal God.

Colin - don't even start. I'm not welcoming hate speech even from Christians who believe in judging others based on their own perspective of God.Nope. You "Christians" began spewing about how fine and holy y'all are. And it does leave an odor in any atmosphere that bullshit starts.

So knock it off. All of you. Address things like adults or take your hatred of those with other beliefs to Trouble's sandbox; he likes this shit. I don't.

I read the thread and missed the "Christians who believe in judging others based on their own perspective of God"

Why are Atheist so concerned about what others believe? I've practiced other religions in the past. It was what gave me comfort at the time.

Sorry to hear about the Wiccan soldier that was denied the Pentagram at Arlington. What do Wiccan's is the after life?

BTW krisinluck, for your " You "Christians" began spewing about how fine and holy y'all are. And it does leave an odor in any atmosphere that bullshit starts."

You've just made the The Grand Mivona of the month. It's the highest degree of our Asshole lists.

[Bard77]

Originally Posted by krisinluck
Bard - I'm not going to have Nazi and KKK comparisions here.

Then kindly refrain from endorsing

'hate rhetoric'

ie 'Christian Bashing'

'Faith bashing'


Take your pick,

I will never abide a bigot's tongue, bite, bark, or lie, or bigots hate rheto ric,so,if im not in compliance with the rules,Im in the dark I fear, we might as well define the aforementioned terms, or let it go, it means little to me, no need for you to waste words you don't want to

Or, I'm cool and understand what your saying.

Pleae consider what im seeing & saying, if you would extend me that.

Vantage points are oft enlightening.
I think youre biased on this one kiddo.

Just my take

I'm seldom right...lol

[mivona]

What more can I say? I have been sooo put in my place by this "Christian" internet chatboard warrior, who is on a mission from God! And such a master of communication!

Putting aside his fuckwitted inability to see that no one is demanding he give up his faith, he appears incapable of discussing the "Christian" incursion into other people's lives and other people's choices, because he'd rather rail against bigotry against "Christians". I don't see them as Christians, but extremist zealots intent on imposing their will on others, gussied up with "religion" in order to try to give them a free pass against any criticism.

If anyone is blinkered, it is himself - exemplified by his own inability to see the disrespect it shows for others to be able to make choices for themselves. His disrespect for accepting that others can have made clear and logical choices to not believe, and don't want to be evangelised, ever.

Maybe it would take a religion of people who practice their faith by singing "O Sole Mio" outside his bedroom window at 3am to make him grasp this concept. My desire to be free of someone else's religion does not force them to abandon the tenets of their faith. It simply sets a boundary of their influence and impact upon my life.

There are limits to religion, and there should be. Devotees of Huitzilopochtli are no long able to offer traditional sacrifice, even though it is a central part of their faith. Its impact on others was seen as too great. Our freedom from this religion should be extended to all religions. Adherents are free to continue to believe, and live their lives in accordance with their faith. That's where it ends.

[Reverend Colin]

Why do you rant on and on about Christianity? You seem obsessed by it.

Could it be you don't understand the idea of faith?
Is it because you feel lost, misunderstood, out in the cold, friendless?

If you believed in a God you could blame him for your misfortunes.
Think about it, someone or thing to take your rage out on.

As a non believer, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Want to find peace in your life? Close your eyes and ask the higher power (whatever that may be) for his or her help.

Please remember, "Reverend Colin Loves you, it's your friends and family that think you're an asshole."

[krisinluck]

You "Christians" began spewing about how fine and holy y'all are. And it does leave an odor in any atmosphere that bullshit starts.

So knock it off. All of you. Address things like adults or take your hatred of those with other beliefs to Trouble's sandbox; he likes this shit. I don't.[/ouble's sandbox; he likes this shit. I don't.
Kris

I simply cannot believe what m reading

Wow,that is real geberal and real insulting and real bigoted

Juyst saying is all,

If thats how you folks feel about Christians, I may well wander on

Cus I have never endorsed hate gripoious or rhetoric of any kind

nor those hate mongers that think Christianity should be the exception.

I regfuse to associate with out of the closet Christian bashers

Life is simply too shortBard, pay attention. I put quotations around the word Christians for a reason. Because those who walk around with a big ol' SAVED banner around them while they spread hatred and dissent are NOT CHRISTIANS in any way but what they choose to call themselves.

Unfortunately, those are the highly vocal, screaming, spittle spraying Christians that give Jesus and everything He stood for a bad name. THOSE are the "Christians" who have done the damage to the way other Christians - the silent, faithful ones - are viewed in the world.

If you can't wrap your head around that, then I give up.

[krisinluck]

What I posted up there to Bard goes for T2T and Colin as well, who is no more a reverend than the hate spreading Baptist pig that comes into the restaurant and leaves a damned tract instead of a tip for his server. Jesus is not amused.

A gtreater commision must unsist on no being the asnswer to you Kris

Highr callng and charge,

'The Great Commision' they call it.



Peace out Kris

invocation on behalf of you asnd yours

kudos on the miove

Inhasle deeply

Thats freedom, sistah,

and NEW exciting adventures awaiting you?us?many .

Enjoy itDude, my faith is stronger than you could begin to comprehend. I am called to treat people with care and compassion and understanding, even (maybe especially) when their path is different from my own.

This is my Great Commission:31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'From Matthew 25well thank nothing THAT'S over ... heh...you do realize that precious few will get that humor, right? I get it...LOL!If this thread started having an odor it was when the Jesus, Jewish zombie graphic was posted. I did not see a zombie graphic; was that here? If you are talking about the Yuku thing, my being offline more than not means I did not see it; it was gone before I knew anything about the situation. And all this angst over a statue created by an artist looking to make a name for himself...instead of addressing what is really an interesting line of thought about Jesus: he was both man and God. How did that work? Did he have human desires beyond the basic ones of breathing and food/drink? How did he deal with those?

Yeah, I do wonder those things, because as I've said before, I was the kid the Sunday School teachers were scared shitless of; I asked the questions they had never even considered in all their lives. I was born taking the the idea of "Seek and ye shall find" thing seriously. As opposed to many who can quote it from memory but, rather than act it, choose to sit in a pew and let someone tell them what they should believe and how they should act.

Note what I said to Bard when I got here this morning; my comment yesterday was about the pseudo-Christians. Period. I have never, T2T, thought of you as one of them.

Until BigK decided to bring on the comment about Mivona's panties (now there's something Jesus would be pissed off about - if, in fact, He's as hung up on sex as most Christians seem to believe He is), I didn't get pissed off. Now...well, now I am. And I'm less than thrilled to have Colin over here spewing his own version of "christianity".

Can everyone see the quotes and the non-capitaliziation? Good. Because this quote from Bard:That is what the dictate of our heart yearns to do share the goodness of the Lord, not the twisted biased crank youre peddling.is what I see when I encounter people who think that because they've got Jesus in their heart they have to beat it into everyone. Damned Romans taught them that and it has trickled down through the centuries that it's okay to bring people to Christ at the end of a sword (or in this day, sharp words).

Back to Bard...Thank God for freedom of spech and religion

Otherwise you types would have it all shut down, cus youre bigotry makes yiu shortsighted.ARGH!!!! Is it so impossible for you to see that what has happened here is other side of that same coin!!!??? She (and anyone else) has a right to believe that Jesus was just some dude who was the biggest of the possible Messiahs in that time. There are those who believe that John the Baptist was the true Messiah, and that Jesus usurped that spot. There are those who believe Jesus never lived at all.

Every single one of those people have a right to believe whatever they want to, and to speak of it without being beaten with words by those who claim to have the One True Faith. That sells God short, people! we PERSONALLY are directed by Gods Holy Spirit within us

NOT according to how YOU think we should live out our walk,

Thoughtfull loving christians try to do it by the book, the New Covenant & New Testament the Bible, ad Jesus taughtAgain, turn the coin over.

God is so vast you cannot, with authority, say that what He has put on your heart is the exact same thing He is going to put on every. single. heart. on this planet! How arrogant Christianity is - and has been since the days that they burned the Cathars and the books that didn't fit the box the early Catholic church deemed to be the right one!!!!!

Just because Miv (or anyone else) does not believe in God does not mean that the spirit of God (call it whatever works for you; I suspect most of us are aware of a higher power somewhere out there) is not within her (or them). It is NOT up to you to tell her how to live out her own walk.

Thoughtful loving Christians would not be making comments like the one BigK made a page or two back, nor would they be attacking her with such venom because she believes differently than they do and isn't one who feels the need to hide that in a closet.

TOLERANCE, people. Not everyone is the same! It's okay that not everyone believes the same thing....it's even terrific to discuss those differences in order to learn from them. It is not okay to get all defensive and batshit because you think you are "called" to change the basic beliefs of another person.

http://xb3.xanga.com/a62b374bd5308210319480/s84244721.jpg
I'm stepping off now...have appts today.

Walk the walk, folks...talk is cheap.

[thebigkahooouna]

Please remember, "Reverend Colin Loves you, it's your friends and family that think you're an asshole."

BAWAAA :516::516::516::516::516:

[bluekazoo]

heh...you do realize that precious few will get that humor, right? I get it...LOL!

Yeah I know ... I knew it when I posted it ... I SHOULD have capitalized 'Nothing' .. or maybe said 'Thank The Almighty Nothing that's over' ...

Oh well ... it was for my own amusement, anyway, and for the amusement of anybody who did get it ... I find people who defend a position with spittle and bravado to be funny as hell ... (and actually, 'funny as hell' is kinda funny, too!)

'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'


BINGO! ... so few want to walk that walk ... it's one of the great deceptions of most Christian denominations ... sure, they'll have a few token charities, etc. ... but they'll vote for the party that hasn't got the least bit of interest in 'the least of these' ... and I find that hypocritical to the extreme. They simply do not live their faith (somehow Christ's teachings get lost amongst the Old Testament fire and brimstone passages every time) ...

Oh well ... I'm sure this thread will carry on for another 10 or so pages, until Bard has exhausted himself ... or things pick up at his own board so he has someone else to talk to ...

[Bard77]

Yeah I know ... I knew it when I posted it ... I SHOULD have capitalized 'Nothing' .. or maybe said 'Thank The Almighty Nothing that's over' ...

Oh well ... it was for my own amusement, anyway, and for the amusement of anybody who did get it ... I find people who defend a position with spittle and bravado to be funny as hell ... (and actually, 'funny as hell' is kinda funny, too!)



BINGO! ... so few want to walk that walk ... it's one of the great deceptions of most Christian denominations ... sure, they'll have a few token charities, etc. ... but they'll vote for the party that hasn't got the least bit of interest in 'the least of these' ... and I find that hypocritical to the extreme. They simply do not live their faith (somehow Christ's teachings get lost amongst the Old Testament fire and brimstone passages every time) ...

Oh well ... I'm sure this thread will carry on for another 10 or so pages, until Bard has exhausted himself ... or things pick up at his own board so he has someone else to talk to ...





BINGO! ... so few want to walk that walk ... it's one of the great deceptions of most Christian denominations

Grand example of BROAD brush and SWEEPIN strokes.
Indeed you cannot speak on behalf of most Christianity
for the simple reason, yiu never met them.
So, obvious mistatement.








bluekazoo;203111]Yeah I know ... I knew it when I posted it ... I SHOULD have capitalized 'Nothing' .. or maybe said 'Thank The Almighty Nothing that's over' ...

Oh well ... it was for my own amusement, anyway, and for the amusement of anybody who did get it ... I find people who defend a position with spittle and bravado to be funny as hell ... (and actually, 'funny as hell' is kinda funny, too!)



BINGO! ... so few want to walk that walk ... it's one of the great deceptions of most Christian denominations ... sure, they'll have a few token charities, etc. ... but they'll vote for the party that hasn't got the least bit of interest in 'the least of these' ... and I find that hypocritical to the extreme. They simply do not live their faith (somehow Christ's teachings get lost amongst the Old Testament fire and brimstone passages every time) ...

Oh well ... I'm sure this thread will carry on for another 10 or so pages, until Bard has exhausted himself ... or things pick up at his own board so he has someone else to talk to

Well, that was just rude blue, unlije who you used to be.
I merely was attempting to contribute some content

my bosad is prtty busy, and your right
i need to give it more attention
obviously you and a few others
have this place runniny tip top-top shape

peace out blue

Acvtally I truly was going to be real busy for a few weks, lol, it works out good

It was cool seeing some oldtimers

im nostalgic that way...lol

[bluekazoo]

Warning!!! This is Satire!!!! (http://www.williamkwolfrum.com/2008/09/08/jesus-christ-quits-christianity-after-viewing-republican-platform/)

It may be satire, but I thought it was funny ... and like good satire should be, it's built around some truth ...

[bluekazoo]

Bard, I didn't mean to be rude, but come ON, man ... you're just going on and on and on ... we get it ... we know what you think about this and where you stand and that you're firm in your convictions ... that's good. So is Miv. So are others. Saying things over and over again isn't likely to change anyone's mind ...

Peace out backatcha, Bard ... I have no beef with you ... but at some point, it's all been said, IMO ...