ThrobbleFootSpectre

gotta dash as have accidentally stayed at work late, but here's a quick answer -

When the proponents of said system can't even live by it it throws doubt on it. IMHO.

yes, it reflects worse on the individual and no, it doesn't mean all christians or anyone following the religion is just like him. However it might mean that you should reevaluate what that individual has been saying. And if it happens a lot (it does seem to be more and more) maybe you ought to evaluate whether the message put out by that branch of the church is being coloured by these people who are either very hypoctritical or very repressed.

ThrobblefootSpectre

I appologize for taking you at your literal word. I should have known to read what you meant, not what you wrote. Misspellings are one thing, but that sentence was completely meaningless.

pkhulk: We don't enforce a moral code, we use personal judgment. This guy judges everyone, and you want to let him off the hook when he blows it. You saw the comment from a so-called freind, They said he doesn't even like to go where people wear shorts, because he finds it offensive.

So what if he "judges" people that way? It didn't say he goes around condemning people for wearing shorts. He simply avoids them because he finds it offensive. How is that repugnant to your "moral code" in any way?

Some people think religion (in general) deserves respect. I disagree.

The only difference between religion and superstition is money.

If you insist on worshipping something, the sun makes the most sense. The gives us all the life and energy on the planet, one way or another.

I'm accepting donations, which I will send to the sun.

It's okay, I'm sure he'll ask for forgiveness from God, and that'll be that.

Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven.

Palehoof: It's okay, I'm sure he'll ask for forgiveness from God, and that'll be that.

Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven.

But who will forgive god?

NakedYoga
So what if he "judges" people that way? It didn't say he goes around condemning people for wearing shorts. He simply avoids them because he finds it offensive. How is that repugnant to your "moral code" in any way?

Because they don't stop there. They don't want anyone to wear shorts, or drink beer, or have sex, and they want everyone to follow their rules.

if these loonies kept to themselves, that would be one thing, but they want to spread their sickness to everyone.

But who will forgive the forgivers?

/not I

Inflatable Rhetoric

don't look at me, I'm not forgiving him.

pkhulk: NakedYoga
So what if he "judges" people that way? It didn't say he goes around condemning people for wearing shorts. He simply avoids them because he finds it offensive. How is that repugnant to your "moral code" in any way?

Because they don't stop there. They don't want anyone to wear shorts, or drink beer, or have sex, and they want everyone to follow their rules.

if these loonies kept to themselves, that would be one thing, but they want to spread their sickness to everyone.

Right. But you don't want anyone to believe in God. So what's the difference?

/skeptical Christian
//disillusioned with politics of Christianity

Inflatable Rhetoric: But who will forgive god?

Don't look at me either, I've never forgiven Him for poison ivy. Honestly, what kind of defense mechanism is that? Three days later, I get a rash? The plant's already dead!

And don't get me started on mosquitos. They can have some blood, I have plenty. Why's their saliva got to itch? Gimme a mild euphoric, God, throw me a freakin' bone here.

pkhulk
Atheists don't make a living out of telling others how to live.

Bullshiat. A lot of Farker atheists preach more than a Baptist minister on Sunday.

/atheist
//doesn't give a shiat what other people do or believe.

NakedYoga: pkhulk: NakedYoga
So what if he "judges" people that way? It didn't say he goes around condemning people for wearing shorts. He simply avoids them because he finds it offensive. How is that repugnant to your "moral code" in any way?

Because they don't stop there. They don't want anyone to wear shorts, or drink beer, or have sex, and they want everyone to follow their rules.

if these loonies kept to themselves, that would be one thing, but they want to spread their sickness to everyone.

Right. But you don't want anyone to believe in God. So what's the difference?

That's not true. People can believe whatever they want, Santa, Tooth Fairy, God(s), whatever. Just keep QUIET about it.

NakedYoga

in the sense that I wish the guy sitting next to me did not stink, or that the trailer trask on the other side of town didn't raise their kids to be Coors swilling NASCAR zombies, you are correct.

But I don't suggest for one moment that we should make laws to force people to be sensible.

The key difference is that these people think it is their duty to force their standards on us. therefore, I find it absolutely hilarious when one of their "Christian Soldiers" shows himself out as a deviant freak this way. Clearly he was preaching more about the things he hated in himself, but once he externalized that hate, and pushed it on others, he made himself fair game.

the_wimp: pkhulk
Atheists don't make a living out of telling others how to live.

Bullshiat. A lot of Farker atheists preach more than a Baptist minister on Sunday.

/atheist
//doesn't give a shiat what other people do or believe.

"Making a living" implies getting paid. Ministers/preachers/priests, etc., get paid. So far, I haven't.

Gothnet When the proponents of said system can't even live by it it throws doubt on it. IMHO.


Not a bad reply. At least you put some thought into it, which is very highly unusual for a religion bashing thread.

That could be said for ANY system of thought. Political, philosophical, religious, etc.

Quite honestly, I think you need to be more cautious before disregarding centuries of thought based on the actions of one whackjob yesterday afternoon.

What I am saying is that given any worldwide belief system, I am quite certain I can find one or more representatives of this belief system who also are whackjobs who do illegal things.

Would you disagree with this? Or do you claim that there is at least one system of morals which makes every single member 100% perfect?

jsobota
Maybe he just wanted to feel pretty and was turned down by that altar boy so he went on a bender?

That's always been my plan B.

Squilax: Unless he didn't have a 'scrip for those OxyContin they found. That's illegal. And unless Jesus flew the car there with His magic, isn't that called "Driving under the Influence" (and not the Influence of the Holy Spirit... just regular spirits)?

I think the point is not that what he did is illegal (I mean, that's undeniable), but rather, that it would be really hilarious if it didn't actually happen. Or something like that.

/New life goal...
//TV Pilot idea?

ThrobblefootSpectre: Gothnet When the proponents of said system can't even live by it it throws doubt on it. IMHO.


Not a bad reply. At least you put some thought into it, which is very highly unusual for a religion bashing thread.

That could be said for ANY system of thought. Political, philosophical, religious, etc.

Quite honestly, I think you need to be more cautious before disregarding centuries of thought based on the actions of one whackjob yesterday afternoon.

What I am saying is that given any worldwide belief system, I am quite certain I can find one or more representatives of this belief system who also are whackjobs who do illegal things.

Would you disagree with this? Or do you claim that there is at least one system of morals which makes every single member 100% perfect?

"...centuries of thought???" More like trying to prevent thought. Remember Galileo, for example?

Inflatable Rhetoric
Yeah brother. you find a way to make a living at this, and you let me know.

Ministers/preachers/priests/con-artists/atheists

Which one of these is different from the rest?

/P.S. Bush sucks
//couldn't help myself.

///Cheney too.

////There I go again . . .

pkhulk: Inflatable Rhetoric
Yeah brother. you find a way to make a living at this, and you let me know.

Ministers/preachers/priests/con-artists/atheists

Which one of these is different from the rest?

/P.S. Bush sucks
//couldn't help myself.

///Cheney too.

////There I go again . . .

What about Gonzo? Why wasn't he mentioned?

Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing god need the help of the dufuses you see on TV? Or, the dufuses in the pulpits? Or anyone, for that matter?

Inflatable Rhetoric

I thought it was a given.

/I didn't want to beat a dead horse.
//I mean duck
///Gonzo == Dead duck
////Who will be next? (giggles girlishly)

pkhulk: Inflatable Rhetoric

I thought it was a given.

/I didn't want to beat a dead horse.
//I mean duck
///Gonzo == Dead duck
////Who will be next? (giggles girlishly)

ok, makes sense.

If religion were a sitcom, I would say it just jumped the shark.

Inflatable Rhetoric: What about Gonzo? Why wasn't he mentioned?

Did someone say Gonzo?



The Good Doctor knows best.

Inflatable Rhetoric "...centuries of thought???" More like trying to prevent thought. Remember Galileo, for example?


If you read my post, you should see that I was referring to any general system of thought. Even political.

Yes, I already understand that you hate religion. I get it already. You have made it abundantly clear. Religious people suck and should all die.

Can you come up with any more rational reply to the rest of my post though?

What I am questioning is why it should reflect badly on the general system or morals that the individual professed to have adhered to.

It's not a question of denouncing morals or particular beliefs. But, when a fundamentalist individuals like this minister earn their bread and butter by condemning entire groups of people. This guy then goes and behaves just about as badly as a person can. You have to at the very least question the fundamental institution of which he is part.

The devil wears shorts.

pkhulk: Ministers/preachers/priests/con-artists/atheists

Three of the oldest professions.

Priest, Whore, and Politician.

Out of those three, only one you willingly pay to screw you and it's illegal.

Go figure.

ThrobblefootSpectre: Inflatable Rhetoric "...centuries of thought???" More like trying to prevent thought. Remember Galileo, for example?


If you read my post, you should see that I was referring to any general system of thought. Even political.

Yes, I already understand that you hate religion. I get it already. You have made it abundantly clear. Religious people suck and should all die.

Can you come up with any more rational reply to the rest of my post though?

The discussion was about religion and its adherents.

Religion is different from philosophy and politics, because it's founded on the irrational belief that there's a god. God is the adult version of Santa Claus. It's past time we grew up.

I don't think religious people should die, though they all will. We all do. Please don't tell me what I think, OK?

I am reminded of the wise words of George Carlin,
"Of all the things you could give someone, an orgasm is hardly the worst."

pkhulk: I am reminded of the wise words of George Carlin,
"Of all the things you could give someone, an orgasm is hardly the worst."

A change of subject, in the nick of time.

ramond luxury yacht:

Question perhaps But not automatically condemn and reject.

But what if the crime was clearly not inspired by the belief system?

For example politicians also make a living imposing moral behaviors (through laws) on other people.

Suppose a democrat gets caught doing something wrong. Some minor thing like getting drunk and peeing in public? Should this be cause to re-question every democratic ideal ever conceived?

Is that rational? Or is it more rational to say ,it seems pretty clear that the guy's wrongdoing has nothing to do with his political beliefs, and therefore the political beliefs do not need to be thoroughly re-examined for flaws.

That would be funny if it didn't make me think of preists.

/The Church monopolizes everything.

If those involved in religion would keep their noses out of the lives of all others, then our world would be a better place.
This means:
- Keep your religious views out of gov't in all shapes and forms.
- Do not try to control what others choose to listen to and hear (i'm looking at you FCC).
- Do not come to my door asking if i have found Jeebus. i didn't know you were looking for him. If i see him, i will be sure to let you know. By the way, posters would be better than going door to door.
- Do not condemn others b/c they dont' believe what you believe. That is the greatest thing about religion, the fact that you CHOOSE to believe. Don't force others to do that.

Suck it religious perverts. I mean, stay away from me.

Inflatable Rhetoric:

You avoid actual debate like a skilled politician.

ThrobblefootSpectre: Inflatable Rhetoric:

You avoid actual debate like a skilled politician.

If you're going to tell me what I think, and then argue with yourself about it, I'll just watch.

ThrobblefootSpectre: Inflatable Rhetoric:

You avoid actual debate like a skilled politician.

I'm at work, I have to go do some.

This minister was NOT following the bible!

For in very deed, as the LORD God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. - 1 Samuel 25:34

Greenboy: Except religion isn't necessarily chosen by all of its adherents. In fact, the culture of religion exists solely because of their complete, unquestioning belief that what they think and do is normal.

ThrobblefootSpectre

The thing you don't get, is that it is the sense of superiority that pisses us off.

The religious jackasses spend their life telling you how they are superior to you because they are "saved" and that they are "forgiven" and they have given their lives over to the Jebus, and he keeps them on the straight and narrow.

if there is one thing more annoying than listening to the self-satisfied verbal mastrubation, it's knowing that the whole system is based on bullcrap, and that 90% of the country buys it.

If a democrat did this sort of thing, he would be in really hot water, and would undoubtedly lose his post.
If a doctor did it, he would lose his practice.
If a teacher did it he would be fired.

If a preacher does it, he is forgiven.

Where's Ted Haggard?

oh yeah, preaching again.

Where's Jesse jackson?

Oh yeah, preaching again.

Where's Jerry Falwell?

Oh yeah, preach . . . oh, well I guess he's nowhere now isn't he.

/Clinton got a BJ and got impeached. I don't think he ever even told anyone they couldn't have bj's.

ThrobblefootSpectre
Question perhaps But not automatically condemn and reject.

But what if the crime was clearly not inspired by the belief system?

For example politicians also make a living imposing moral behaviors (through laws) on other people.

Suppose a democrat gets caught doing something wrong. Some minor thing like getting drunk and peeing in public? Should this be cause to re-question every democratic ideal ever conceived?

Is that rational? Or is it more rational to say ,it seems pretty clear that the guy's wrongdoing has nothing to do with his political beliefs, and therefore the political beliefs do not need to be thoroughly re-examined for flaws.

Right, that's why I said "question." And I truly do not mean to denounce God, religion, Baby Jesus, Buddah, or the Great OZ. I'm referring to fundamentalist type groups that literally tell people they are going to hell regardless of their actual values, and then go and behave worse than those they are condemning to hell. The fact of the matter is that humans have good stuff inside and some not-so-good stuff inside. Fundamentalist attacks based on black-and-white notions of right and wrong should always be questioned regardless of whether they are based on religious, political, or any other bases of belief.

ThrobblefootSpectre: Suppose a democrat gets caught doing something wrong. Some minor thing like getting drunk and peeing in public? Should this be cause to re-question every democratic ideal ever conceived?

Of course not. It's not a valid comparison.

The Democrat reaches his political conviction through reason and emotion. He attempts to sway others to it through persuasion.

This is not how the preacher reached his religious conviction, nor how he attempts to sway others to it.

The Democrat makes no claim of the morally transformative powers of seeing things his way.

The Preacher does, and fails to live up to them.

Apples and oranges. Your comparison is invalid.

But, as Stephanie Miller says: "Thanks for playing Really Bad Analogies!"

Ah... bu, who watches the watchmen?

hawkmoon523: Ah... bu, who watches the watchmen?

The coin-operated tanning booth vendors?

pkhulk The thing you don't get, is that it is the sense of superiority that pisses us off.

I understand that well. I fund the smug sense of superiority from atheists to be quite irritating. And I am agnostic.

I simply take a few moments to question the automatic condemnation of religion here on fark because it is so overwhelming. And I enjoy a challenge in rational debate of taking the vastly outnumbered minority opinion and arguing it in a rational way.

It's very very easy to come here and mindlessly agree with the majority opinion and just post something like "All religious people suck."

I'm an atheist. I have one condition for the religious--do not force religious drivel upon society. I'm tired of sane, responsible people being branded moral criminals by the cock-sucking religious right. Just look at the meltdown this pill popping, skirt wearing, booze swilling closeted homosexual had to go through to tell the world that he wanted some penis in an orifice. This jackass couldn't even control his urges around people in shorts.

These people keep on popping up in positions of influence and authority. Wake Up WASP America--Your Republican leaders are cocksuckers, the mores they espouse aren't righteous, they're a symptom of repression of teh inner ghey.

He, and his congregation are trash, a bunch of fags, all of them--assured. The bible belt makes me sick.

pkhulk If a democrat did this sort of thing, he would be in really hot water, and would undoubtedly lose his post.



Right. Exactly. Perhaps you are starting to see thing my way.

The Individual got in trouble for his actions. But we don't automatically condemn all political beliefs of the individual.. That was my point.

Deucednuisance


Your entire post is invalid.


// see how easy that is?