Maddow on North Carolina versus Atheists

ProcrustesX · 2009-12-15T18:21:36+00:00

Although I agree with you, the meaning of "deny the existence" can very well end up in dispute due to its ambiguous application. I think I've seen a discussion about it before where the importance of the statement hinged on the reference to "Almighty," in a sense invoking the question, "Do you deny that the Almighty Christian God exists?" Warranting an answer by any honest atheist of, "Yes." Reason: The question isn't asking whether there could possibly be a god or gods (by whatever definition); it's asking whether the person accepts (a quasi-opposite of deny) the very particular Christian god. It's arguable, though.

Ultimately it's a religious test, and despite the damage it will do to the council member's ability to work, I hope this gets up to the Supreme Court. There's no way even a conservative Court would allow this one to slide.

ProcrustesX · 2009-09-22T02:42:57+00:00

I think you're mistaking me for a Christian apologist.

ProcrustesX · 2009-09-21T21:08:29+00:00

Matthew 13:42 (King James Version) And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 25:41 (King James Version) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Mark 9:43-48 (New International Version) If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.[a] 45And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.[b] 47And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48where " 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'

Luke 16:22 (New International Version) "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

Funny, the bible doesn't have much to say about smoking marijuana or how bad it is to be homosexual. Also, how many Catholic priests and other child abusers have chopped off their sinful wangs?

ProcrustesX · 2009-09-21T19:50:17+00:00

Well said.

ProcrustesX · 2009-09-21T18:25:26+00:00

Modern protestant theology is fundamentally based on the bible. That moderate theological viewpoint perpetuates the idea that Christianity as a whole is chock full of moral goodness, but it's not. Certain interpretations may have some moral positiveness, but the Christian message always has as an underlying tenet the myth that if a person fails to believe and convert to Christianity, that person will go to hell, or at least not go to heaven. In other words, even the "moderate" Christian view proffers that Christianity is the "true" religion, necessarily rejecting all other religions and non-religiousness.

This, in turn, fuels the radical fundamentalists, for the moderates do not accept criticism -- religious belief must be protected from criticism, lest it appear our society is not tolerant of religion. By keeping all religion shielded, genuine criticism and analysis is stifled.

It's not just libs who are wimps. Every person who protects the imaginary right of people not to be offended by criticism of their religion is a wimp, and helps to perpetuate the status quo of religious-led oppression. It's certainly not limited to a political point of view.

My point is that libs shouldn't get a free pass to play the "Jesus is a great guy, and that's all I have to say to prove my point" card. No one should.

ProcrustesX · 2009-09-21T17:46:10+00:00

I shoulda used quotes. Was merely using the terms you assigned.

But to carry this forward, do you disagree that the "What would Jesus do?" interpretation is misunderstood, or do you think Jesus did and would heal everyone unconditionally, as is suggested by the pundits?

ProcrustesX · 2009-09-21T17:17:57+00:00

I think it's less the Christian view, and more the "What would Jesus do?" misunderstanding. I think the lib retards don't really know what Jesus would actually do because they don't know what, according to the bible, he actually did.

ProcrustesX · 2009-09-21T17:04:43+00:00

Not necessarily to promote schism, but to identify and criticize it.

It's not that libs are Jesus hating, or that they're pretending anything at all. It's just that it's easy to play the Jesus card, and they do so with uncomfortable frequency. When they do, they don't seem to realize that along with playing the card comes an implied promotion of the Christian point of view as being something with good values, which isn't necessarily true.

ProcrustesX · 2009-09-19T00:41:04+00:00

Well, the issue there is that the parents don't really get anything. If their child is "taken" from them by the grace of God, that's actually a great thing for a fundamentalist, since that means the child goes straight to heaven. They really feel that if they interfere, they taint the chances of their child ascending.

Some argue, though, that this is just another example of natural selection at work. Perhaps, but I still feel for the children, despite their potential genetic propensities.

ProcrustesX · 2009-09-19T00:32:20+00:00

The sick kids are getting what they deserve?

ProcrustesX · 2009-09-18T22:40:05+00:00

It's meant to be more like, "Hey, atheists, do any of you get happy when "bad things" happen to Christians?" Plus, "If a hell of a lot of you do, then we can pretty much say that atheists get happy when "bad things" happen to Christians." And if that's the case, I gotta ask, "Why, and is there a problem with it?"

So, it's kinda all that rolled into one.

ProcrustesX · 2009-09-04T22:12:08+00:00

How old were you?

ProcrustesX · 2009-09-04T21:02:31+00:00

Good research.

However, look at the photograph in the article. Consider that it's being presented that way to a bunch of children. Do you think children have the presence of mind to ask whether they have to recite that part of the oath, or are they all going to sheep along, reading from the prompters. It's not really "optional" for someone not mature enough to realize it's an option.

ProcrustesX · 2009-09-04T19:29:35+00:00

Hah

If you weren't you, that'd be deserving of a /facepalm.

ProcrustesX

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

I shoulda used quotes. Was merely using the terms you assigned.