Fuller: Lexx: This thread would've been so much lamer had he not trolled so magnificently. He's on par with those flight attendants "crop dusting" their passengers.

I disagree, all the interesting posts are the ones that aren't either ignites trolling or the bites. Its just boring, I don't know why he bothers.

CaptainFatass: Not sure which part of Jesus' "judge not" statement you're confused by.

All the other stuff in your book that contradicts it?

The old testament hated the gays (and shellfish) the new testament is a bunch of hippy shiat man.

Fubini: To paraphrase the pastor from last Sunday:

The Bible teaches us that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life; none go to the father except through him. Nowhere does the Bible tell us that christianity is the way, the truth, and the life. Christian denominations (in all their forms) are one interpretation of the truth of Jesus.

Moreover, the Bible also tells us to approach other faiths with an open mind and a willingness to learn. Just because people don't profess a belief in Jesus in name does not mean that they are wrong. When Paul spoke to the Athenians he told them that their poets and their philosophers all had different elements of their beliefs which contained truth. He singled out a "shrine to an unknown god" and exclaimed that the unknown God and his God were the same.

'Tis a lovely sentiment, and I think that outlook would fix a lot of the inconsistencies I see in Christianity, but that's a pretty dubious interpretation of the story....

Acts 17: 29-31 "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone-an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

Emphasis mine. Paul, in the story you're referencing, preaches "Well, God might have been okay with it since you didn't know any better, but now that I'm here and I've told you you're wrong you'd better shape up." I'd also point out that one of the big messages from Acts was "There is salvation in no one else! God has given no other name under heaven by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) It's not a coincidence that many of the writings if early Christianity place such an emphasis on the name of Jesus itself.

Now, if you view the New Testament as a set of writings by people who had a few slight flaws in their perspective of God, I probably have no argument with you.

Learned Louisianan: "While Atheists compose 14% of the American public, they make up less than half of 1% of the prison population. Apparently, not having a religion makes one less inclined to rape, murder, steal, brutalize, and indulge in recreational drugs."

Cart before the horse, I think. Being wealthy enough to afford good education and a sufficiently comfortable life that you don't need to use religious fantasy as a refuge from daily suffering tends to make one an atheist. But it also makes one less likely to commit crimes, as one has no motivation to rob someone and has too much to lose anyway.

A cynical assessment maybe but as a causal explanation I find it more likely.

Dirty Martini: ignite ice: austin_millbarge: It said nothing of the sort. They asked non-Christians. Not every non-Christian is an atheist.

An atheist is someone who denies the existence of God. You can't be a non-Christian and not be an atheist. The two terms co-exist. Someone who denies the existence of God is not a Christian and is therefore an atheist.

Well you have to admit, the two terms do coexist. Look at them. Coexisting. Along with all those other terms, too! We should take a lesson from terms like these.

Actually, some people have religions where they believe in God, Buddah, Allah or maybe several gods(hinduism, I think), but not Christ.this means they are not Christian, but not atheist either. The two terms can coexist, but don't always.

FTA: "The Spirit," as the Gospel of John says, "blows where it will."

/FTFY

Maybe Christian attitudes towards non-Christians and atheists have a little something to do with it.

Link (new window)

Or, as Gandhi said:

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."


I used to defend Christians in these threads all the time (except when they try to break the seal on state-church sep. One time I argued with three or four Hitchens disciples for days until the thread was locked.

But in the past few years, far too many have let "War on Christmas" and "Persecute me at your Peril" bullshiat cause them to become over-the-top in your face dipwads.

I've lived my entire life in Alabama and never once had a cashier at a department store feel the need to tell me to "have a blessed day" until I was about 35. What's worse is it never sounds like a wish of good fortune or God's grace... It sounds like a dare. The words are "have a blessed day," but the tone is "are you gonna get offended??? huh? huh? What are you gonna do about it?"

I see facebook status updates from people who used to be normal, mild-mannered Christians who never once crammed their religion down anyone's throat that say "If you love the lord and aren't ashamed post this to your status. Let's see whose love for Christ is true."

I realize it's copypasta, but shiat... If you don't have the good sense to see how "un-Christian" and flat-out farking creepy that crap is, don't be surprised when your public perception stock begins to tank.

Lexx: This thread would've been so much lamer had he not trolled so magnificently. He's on par with those flight attendants "crop dusting" their passengers.

I disagree as well. The thread is lamer because it's filled with trolls. Not everywhere needs to be like 4chan.

Fubini: To paraphrase the pastor from last Sunday:

The Bible teaches us that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life; none go to the father except through him. Nowhere does the Bible tell us that christianity is the way, the truth, and the life. Christian denominations (in all their forms) are one interpretation of the truth of Jesus.

Moreover, the Bible also tells us to approach other faiths with an open mind and a willingness to learn. Just because people don't profess a belief in Jesus in name does not mean that they are wrong. When Paul spoke to the Athenians he told them that their poets and their philosophers all had different elements of their beliefs which contained truth. He singled out a "shrine to an unknown god" and exclaimed that the unknown God and his God were the same.

That said, Christians are not relativists. There is one objective truth: the ministry and message of Jesus does make our faith incompatible with some other beliefs. However, to condemn another for such a belief is decidedly un-Christian.

End paraphrase.

Here's a handy one-step litmus test. If someone professes to be christian but condemns another (gays, Muslims, liberals, atheists, etc.) then they are not Christian. They might be christian in the sense of a secular christian church whose purpose is to make money and promulgate itself as a community center, but they are not Christian in the sense of following the teachings of Christ.

It is only when one abandons their life, their prejudices, and takes up the mantle of Jesus that a person or a church can be considered a true Christian in the sense of following the teachings of Jesus. Jesus never incited his followers to judge or to political action, he never shunned anyone or refused to meet a person at their level. He spent his life in the service of others and never forced anyone to do something they did not want to do. If someone professes to be a Christian but is not emulating any of these beliefs then you would be right in calling them out on their hypocrisy.

Are you a hypocrite or a nonchristian?

Fuller: Lexx: This thread would've been so much lamer had he not trolled so magnificently. He's on par with those flight attendants "crop dusting" their passengers.

I disagree, all the interesting posts are the ones that aren't either ignites trolling or the bites. Its just boring, I don't know why he bothers.

CaptainFatass: Not sure which part of Jesus' "judge not" statement you're confused by.

All the other stuff in your book that contradicts it?

Meh, I get amusement simply out of watching the fish biting on the bait. It's like two guys in an elevator. One guy lets rip silently and nods to his buddy. His buddy grimaces but then bites back choking laughter as everyone else in the elevator reacts.

Now that the "religion to opiate the masses" has run its course and greed, gluttony, etc. is running full on rampant. What new bullshiat fear tactic could be employed to get people to actually evolve.

ignite ice: austin_millbarge: It said nothing of the sort. They asked non-Christians. Not every non-Christian is an atheist.

An atheist is someone who denies the existence of God. You can't be a non-Christian and not be an atheist. The two terms co-exist. Someone who denies the existence of God is not a Christian and is therefore an atheist.

Is it thinking in general or just logic that troubles you most?

Fuller: zedster: My dad's rabbinical school thesis (I'm not going to post any links on fark, sorry, if you are really really interested EIP)

I find it strange that children would make people go back to religion. If anything, having a kid would want me to get even further away from creepy priests and other weirdy beardies.


Maybe when you have children, you see how important it is to have community support. So far we haven't come up with anything better than church for that.



zedster: I think more religious then the rest of the Western World, that is always going to be relative. We have a history of Evangelical big tent movements popping up every few decades and I see no reason to think that will stop.

Yeah, maybe. Maybe there'll be a tipping point - a critical mass of non-believers that sort of...opens the floodgates of freethought. Its possible.

Yeah, but we've got that whole freedom of religion thing going for us (so far), so anytime the crazies get rejected by their local societies, they'll end up here. And anytime they get rejected by our societies they'll end up in some compound in Texas.

/might fake religion for free child care
//but then would it really be free?

"Evangelicals constitute not 25 percent of the U.S. population - as they have claimed - but at most 7 percent, and their numbers are falling, not rising."

Headline should have been "Have you heard the good news?"

There may be hope for humanity yet.

Lexx: DreamyAltarBoy: Is it odd that I have as many friends with a history of prostitution as friends that have been born again? (No, there's no overlap that I know of)

You attract teh crazy.

Yeah, I forgot about that. Thanks for the perspective.

Now where did I leave that bourbon?

Lexx:
You are confusing "moderate" with "centrist". Pure popularity = centrism. Schwarzeneggar won the election because he was an incredibly recognizable, popular, and charismatic man.

Moderate are typically compromise types. Satisfy the largest number of people without alienating one side more than the other. A moderate would've suggested civil unions or perhaps civil marriage rights with a caveat that no person of faith should ever be compelled to perform a marriage against their beliefs.

To me, "centrist" and "moderate" are inseparable politically. So I guess you could say that we have a disagreement over symantics.

I agree with what you say would be the moderate approach to civil unions, and in fact I think that the majority of people are in favor of this. To my mind that makes it both the moderate, or if you prefer, centrist position.

Ed Grubermann: Lexx: Ed Grubermann: Uchiha_Cycliste: this is gonna be a nasty thread, I can feel it.

Yep. And you can thank Ignite Ice for shiatting in the punchbowl and getting the fight started. farking troll.

This thread would've been so much lamer had he not trolled so magnificently. He's on par with those flight attendants "crop dusting" their passengers.

Does every religious thread have to be a fight? Can't we just talk shiat over once in a while? It's bad enough when the real believers say stupid shiat, we don't need trolls making them look worse.

The internet doesn't function very well at exchanging ideas and changing opinions. It's VERY good at providing positive resonating feedback for whatever opinion you happen to have. People don't change their minds online - they reinforce their beliefs. I think this was labeled the "internet echo chamber" effect. You'll get greater response from people agreeing with your opinions here than you will get from people who admire the structure of your arguments.

Fubini: I think the No True Scotsman fallacy would be far more applicable in a situation where someone claims "No Christian is gay." Then you would go find a gay Christian and introduce the two, whereupon they would assert "No true Christain is gay."

That certainly is a no true scotsman fallacy, and it is no different if you replace the word 'gay' with 'bad', or 'intolerant', or any word for that matter. That's the whole point.

You say if they're intolerant than their not following Jesus Christ, but they believe they are precisely as much as you believe they aren't. And its not objectively verifiable, because by your own admission you are just interpretting passages of a book that must have more than one interpretation (otherwise it would not be internally consistent).

You're trying to have it both ways - Christianity is great, therefore Christians must be great, if they're not great, it must be because they're not Christians, because Christianity is great. QED.

Fuller: Urgh, really? No true scotsman?

A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ. Christ specifically includes all people and rejects those who do not. (Matt 28:16-20,Matt 7)(pops).

Anyone can self-identify themselves as christian, but there is an objective truth as to whether they are Christians in the sense of following Christ.

Lexx: Ed Grubermann: Lexx: Ed Grubermann: Uchiha_Cycliste: this is gonna be a nasty thread, I can feel it.

Yep. And you can thank Ignite Ice for shiatting in the punchbowl and getting the fight started. farking troll.

This thread would've been so much lamer had he not trolled so magnificently. He's on par with those flight attendants "crop dusting" their passengers.

Does every religious thread have to be a fight? Can't we just talk shiat over once in a while? It's bad enough when the real believers say stupid shiat, we don't need trolls making them look worse.

The internet doesn't function very well at exchanging ideas and changing opinions. It's VERY good at providing porn positive resonating feedback for whatever opinion you happen to have. People don't change their minds online - they reinforce their beliefs. I think this was labeled the "internet echo chamber" effect. You'll get greater response from people agreeing with your opinions here than you will get from people who admire the structure of your arguments.

Fixed.

Ed Grubermann: Uchiha_Cycliste: this is gonna be a nasty thread, I can feel it.

Yep. And you can thank Ignite Ice for shiatting in the punchbowl and getting the fight started. farking troll.

Perhaps one day we'll learn why Ignite likes to troll as a xtian. Is it to try and make xtians look bad by using crappy arguments? Or just for the lulz? Either way its kind of sad... Maybe there is a bizzarro universe where Bevets trolls as an atheist.

/ But he does get the bites though

muck4doo: Ringshadow: ignite ice: But they wouldn't -- and that's the difference between atheists and Christians: one has morals, the other lacks them.

As an apatheist with morals, I invite you to kiss my grits.

Look at his profile.

So what? The troll is still farking boring. He's an immature little pussy incapable of real thought.

As a Christian, I would rank the prostitutes higher.

cantsleep: ignite ice: You can't be a non-Christian and not be an atheist

Please stop.
That is one of the stupidest comments on Fark, ever.

Woah, that's a tall order. What about the whole 'GED in Law'? Incident? Any of the Bevets threads? I think handing him the title is a bit premature. He's going to have to say something a LOT stupider than that to be a serious contender.

Fuller: zedster: My dad's rabbinical school thesis (I'm not going to post any links on fark, sorry, if you are really really interested EIP)

I find it strange that children would make people go back to religion. If anything, having a kid would want me to get even further away from creepy priests and other weirdy beardies.

zedster: I think more religious then the rest of the Western World, that is always going to be relative. We have a history of Evangelical big tent movements popping up every few decades and I see no reason to think that will stop.

Yeah, maybe. Maybe there'll be a tipping point - a critical mass of non-believers that sort of...opens the floodgates of freethought. Its possible.

We can always hope that a new renaissance will gradually grow around us. We probably won't even recognize it's happening until it does. As it stands, I'm happy with the slow upward crawl we've been seeing. I like to take the long view, and I think patience and gradual social shifts will be much ore beneficial to the world as a whole than any sudden change in social structure or majority philosophy.

Zamboro: Learned Louisianan: "While Atheists compose 14% of the American public, they make up less than half of 1% of the prison population. Apparently, not having a religion makes one less inclined to rape, murder, steal, brutalize, and indulge in recreational drugs."

Cart before the horse, I think. Being wealthy enough to afford good education and a sufficiently comfortable life that you don't need to use religious fantasy as a refuge from daily suffering tends to make one an atheist. But it also makes one less likely to commit crimes, as one has no motivation to rob someone and has too much to lose anyway.

A cynical assessment maybe but as a causal explanation I find it more likely.

Entirely possible. There may indeed be a correlation/causation mix-up in my thinking. However, couldn't the point be argued that the comfort and economic stability are the result of a more stable and beneficial personal philosophy? That the lack of needing to commit crimes is a result of personal responsibility and dedication brought about by a philosophy lacking religious tenets? It would be interesting to see if a social experiment could be devised to test different populations to determine whether it is the philosophy which removes the poverty, or the wealth that begets the philosophy. Your opinion?

From 1980 to 2005 in the Southern Baptist Church, baptisms of people between eighteen and thirty four - in other words, their next generation of leaders - fell 40 percent, from 100,000 in 1980 to 60,000 in 2005.[3]

But the U.S. population grew by 27% during those 25 years, so the Baptists would have had to baptize 127,000 in 2005 just to stay even; they really fell by 52%.[4]

That is some bad analysis right there. In 1980 the age range 18 to 34 is live births from 1946 to 1962, also known as the baby-boom. In 2005 the age range is live births from 1971 to 1987, also known as gen-x. Who wants to bet that live births from '46 to '62 were 40% greater than live births from '71 to '87? It might actually be more, but I'm too lazy to double check. The give-away is the jump to total population growth when an actual direct comparison would be just as easy. Having avoided the simple comparison (because it didn't make the desired point)and substituted an irrelevant comparison that provided a result consistent with the desired outcome, the rest is just algebra for drama (in this case 54% more drama.)

/but hey its footnoted and anything that's footnoted has to be right

Fubini: Fuller: Urgh, really? No true scotsman?

A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ. Christ specifically includes all people and rejects those who do not. (Matt 28:16-20,Matt 7)(pops).

Anyone can self-identify themselves as christian, but there is an objective truth as to whether they are Christians in the sense of following Christ.

So...which are you then? How does a Christian do all this FARKing after selling all his stuff and giving the cash to the poor?

technicolor-misfit: "I used to defend Christians in these threads all the time (except when they try to break the seal on state-church sep. One time I argued with three or four Hitchens disciples for days until the thread was locked."

Sorry if I was one of 'em, but I want you to know there's a method to the madness. People never reverse themselves in the heat of the argument, it's why the opinion that argument never changes minds is so popular. But clearly it does or nobody ever would. How you effect a change in views via argument is to provoke the other person to the point that they want to take you down a peg, but also demonstrate to their satisfaction that they don't know as much about the topic as they thought they did. Once they leave the thread at some point they'll go online and research the topic on their own time in hopes of improving their understanding of it and proving you wrong when the next argument rolls around. What happens instead is that they discover your citations were legit, the facts really do support your position, and cracks begin to form in the foundation of their worldview.

That's how atheists are made. It's a tedious, noisy process and for that I apologize but it seems to be more effective than anything tried before, as evidenced by a tripling in the number of US nontheists in the past ten years.

Occam's Penis Pump: muck4doo: Ringshadow: ignite ice: But they wouldn't -- and that's the difference between atheists and Christians: one has morals, the other lacks them.

As an apatheist with morals, I invite you to kiss my grits.

Look at his profile.

So what? The troll is still farking boring. He's an immature little pussy incapable of real thought.

Immature little pussies are still better than idiots with only surface-level reading comprehension.

Zamboro: LindyJohn: "Again, I was calling Zamoboro to task fo his use of "moderate", not making a specific argument about the issue."

You misunderstood. I was using moderate as shorthand for "moderate Christian", i.e. one that accepts evolution and (at least I thought) supports gay rights, abortion rights, stem cell research, stuff like that. Perhaps I was wrong to assume it would be understood as such. At any rate that's why I pointed my post out to GilRuiz1. He's a moderate Christian and we occasionally butt heads.

I stand corrected. I did take the other meaning of the word in your post. My apologies.

NephilimNexus: "Evangelicals constitute not 25 percent of the U.S. population - as they have claimed - but at most 7 percent, and their numbers are falling, not rising."

Headline should have been "Have you heard the good news?"

There may be hope for humanity yet.

The numbers have been slightly in decline, but there's no way in hell I believe the 7% number.

Religion...slowing mankind's progress for 2000 years.

Lexx: The internet doesn't function very well at exchanging ideas and changing opinions. It's VERY good at providing positive resonating feedback for whatever opinion you happen to have. People don't change their minds online - they reinforce their beliefs. I think this was labeled the "internet echo chamber" effect. You'll get greater response from people agreeing with your opinions here than you will get from people who admire the structure of your arguments.

This may be common but it is not universal. Also, people do change their minds online - I've seen it with my own eyes, I tells ya. And what you said doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders and act like there's nothing that can be done. Maybe Fark isn't the best example given they never enforce their rules, but I've been to plenty of forums where trolls are kept in check and actual meaningful discussion progresses just fine.

Dirty Martini: Maybe when you have children, you see how important it is to have community support. So far we haven't come up with anything better than church for that.

BS, I have far better community than any superstitious nonsense could provide.

Fubini: A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ. Christ specifically includes all people and rejects those who do not. (Matt 28:16-20,Matt 7)(pops).

Anyone can self-identify themselves as christian, but there is an objective truth as to whether they are Christians in the sense of following Christ.

'Quote from somewhere else in the bible that shows the opposite'. 28:48567:20 Angel Jimmy Johnsonson 326.

Utterly unconvincing method of argument, quoting the bible to an atheist. Try again.

thisispete: "Yes I am receptive to that. Some obvious points of difference are the treatment of (or complicity in the treatment of) the LGBT community, abortion issues, the place of religion in civic life or, frankly, differences in belief systems as a whole. What I'm trying to articulate is that there are plenty of Christians who are content to live in a secular system and have no desire to compel others to live under the rules that they choose to impose on themselves but even so, there have been plenty of Christians who have made positive, progressive advances in society and credit their religion for giving them the impetus for making those advances.

By no means am I arguing that non-Christians haven't made similar contributions and I'm not weighing the relative merit of Christian and non-Christian contributions."

Oh, no, I understand. I didn't think you were suggesting otherwise. I just wanted to make sure you knew that the few remaining issues we have with moderate Christianity aren't based on a misunderstanding of it. Nor are they sufficient to prevent a mutually beneficial political alliance. I don't want the sniffles or cancer, but if I've gotta go with one, I'll pick the sniffles every time.

LindyJohn - Lexx: You are confusing "moderate" with "centrist". Pure popularity = centrism. Schwarzeneggar won the election because he was an incredibly recognizable, popular, and charismatic man.

Moderate are typically compromise types. Satisfy the largest number of people without alienating one side more than the other. A moderate would've suggested civil unions or perhaps civil marriage rights with a caveat that no person of faith should ever be compelled to perform a marriage against their beliefs.


To me, "centrist" and "moderate" are inseparable politically. So I guess you could say that we have a disagreement over symantics.

I agree with what you say would be the moderate approach to civil unions, and in fact I think that the majority of people are in favor of this. To my mind that makes it both the moderate, or if you prefer, centrist position.


In a fairly reasonable environment, a centrist position will likely be "moderate." It's incorrect to conclude it always will, or that it is ideal.

In Nazi Germany, a centrist position would have been to simply thin the numbers of Jews, or to imprison them rather than exterminating them.

In the civil rights struggle, a compromise would have been to increase funding for black schools or to require restaurants to have a black section.

Neither of these positions is moderate or laudable.

Similarly, a civil unions solution might be acceptable if the state gets out of the marrying business altogether and issues civil unions to all... IF such a solution weren't a nuclear option favored by opponents of gay marriage in the event that it looks like they're going to lose.

The only time it ever seems amenable to them is when it's a last ditch effort to prevent the homos from getting their dirty hands on "real marriage."

In that regard, it always has the stench of a shiat sandwich.

Satan_Himself: Are you a hypocrite or a nonchristian?

Actually, Christians are specifically commanded to rebuke each other (Luke 17:3-4) but not others. In following Christ you might be falling short in some area, sometimes without even knowing it. Christ commands us to form communities with each other in part so we can support each other when the right thing to do seems difficult.

Therefore, if you claim that you are a Christian then you proclaim that you hold yourself to a Christian standard, one tenet of which is that we should not judge. If you proclaim to be Christian yet condemn (gays, commies, whatever) others then you are opening yourself to rebuke from the Christian community.

Fuller: Fubini: A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ. Christ specifically includes all people and rejects those who do not. (Matt 28:16-20,Matt 7)(pops).

Anyone can self-identify themselves as christian, but there is an objective truth as to whether they are Christians in the sense of following Christ.

'Quote from somewhere else in the bible that shows the opposite'. 28:48567:20 Angel Jimmy Johnsonson 326.

Utterly unconvincing method of argument, quoting the bible to an atheist. Try again.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I like your brand of christianity more than most, but just because its more likeable doesnt make it more true. Tomorrow I could talk to a different christian who thinks you're wrong and uses the bible to prove it. Where am I supposed to be then?

What? No hate for lawyers??!? I figured everyone would be hating lawyers and politicians. I see only some are outraged at them. After all, what do you call 20,000 lawyers at the bottom on the sea? A good start!

*loaded weapon -Phil Hartman.jpg*

/make sure he doesn't get any dounuts.

Fubini: Satan_Himself: Are you a hypocrite or a nonchristian?

Actually, Christians are specifically commanded to rebuke each other (Luke 17:3-4) but not others. In following Christ you might be falling short in some area, sometimes without even knowing it. Christ commands us to form communities with each other in part so we can support each other when the right thing to do seems difficult.

Therefore, if you claim that you are a Christian then you proclaim that you hold yourself to a Christian standard, one tenet of which is that we should not judge. If you proclaim to be Christian yet condemn (gays, commies, whatever) others then you are opening yourself to rebuke from the Christian community.

I clarified a few minutes ago that I'm actually wondering how one ignores the commandment of poverty while maintaining a presence on Fark.com. A Christian who is not a hypocrite would not be here in the first place.

I say we kill all theists. Farking useless sheeple, can't even think for themselves. Round them up and burn them at stake, that shall cleanse the world.

LindyJohn: "I stand corrected. I did take the other meaning of the word in your post. My apologies."

No need. I kinda already apologized. I was using a term in a way that most others don't and it simply hadn't occurred to me that others might have difficulty understanding my meaning.

Still pretty upset about the original Prop 8 though, it was a rare loss that interrupted a long string of secular victories against the Christian right. And it wasn't a throwaway issue either, they nearly set a precedent for the legal discrimination between Christians and groups they consider unfit in the eyes of God.

CaptainFatass:

Not sure which part of Jesus' "judge not" statement you're confused by.

Discerning the fruits of a person's labor determines who that person serves (and by "serve" I mean motivations and intent). We judge their fruits, not their hearts. God is supposed to do that (or the Flying Spaghetti monster or Allah or whoever you choose to worship... even Joe Pesci. Unless of course you laugh at his suits.)

It's pretty obvious televangelists are simply self-serving pricks who prey on the desperate and dim. If there is any justice in the universe, there will be a special place for them (and if you believe in the whole Christianity thing... these sorts of people are called out by Jesus himself with that whole "millstone around the neck" vibe. He isn't (wasn't, ain't, whatever) pleased when you or I (the royal "we") pervert his message.)

But I digress. Televangelists are, by their very nature predators. They are simply not sexual ones like perv-priests. (Well, they could be but I think their motivation is mostly cash.) The fact that they are above prostitutes (who actually have a job) in this list is disheartening. :)

An example of their hypocrisy is pretty easy to find, and a nice nugget I noticed this past weekend on one of their "god channels" took the cake. Rod Parsley, who reminds me of a Georgia football coach, was begging for coin on his program to help out "Africa", but in the pitch, it was to help Breakthrough (his "ministry") minister to those in need. With a recurring monthly gift of a set amount ($56 would help a family, $105 would help TWO, and was recommended frequently in the pitch), Breakthrough would help a needy family in Africa maintain their level of poverty with some food and a pocket New Testament. :)

Ironically, this Parsley fellow is quite rich. "God" has blessed him with great wealth and things. The donations of his flock go to keeping him in planes and fancy cars. The man (and evangelicals in general) is a high-tech pan handler. Rather than "will work for food", he promises "miracles" for your hard-earned money. "Uncommon seed reaps an uncommon harvest."

I am not a science-phobe, and realize the great words of Galileo are true: "The Bible tells you how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go." I don't see a problem with a creator who uses the laws of the universe to his own ends. It's up to each one of us to choose where we stand. That's all we can do. Well, that and enjoy yourself, and try to make the world a better place than you found it. That is the essence of God. If 50% of "christians" took Jesus' words to heart, the world would be a much better place. That is until those damn Moonies get back into the forefront. Bastards... no I don't WANT a rose!

And just like my grandpappy used to say "Don't trust a Mormon..." He wasn't bitter, really. :)

Second Try: I say we kill all theists. Farking useless sheeple, can't even think for themselves. Round them up and burn them at stake, that shall cleanse the world.

2/10

Funny how they didn't list alts or trolls. I'm pretty sure those would be lower than prostitutes.

At least, in my book.

Second Try: "I say we kill all theists. Farking useless sheeple, can't even think for themselves. Round them up and burn them at stake, that shall cleanse the world."

Over my cold, dead body. This movement has no need of genociders. Acknowledge the validity of secular ethics as it applies to the treatment of potentially hostile opponents; under no circumstances is extermination an acceptable recourse.

Zamboro - technicolor-misfit: "I used to defend Christians in these threads all the time (except when they try to break the seal on state-church sep. One time I argued with three or four Hitchens disciples for days until the thread was locked."

Sorry if I was one of 'em, but I want you to know there's a method to the madness. People never reverse themselves in the heat of the argument, it's why the opinion that argument never changes minds is so popular. But clearly it does or nobody ever would. How you effect a change in views via argument is to provoke the other person to the point that they want to take you down a peg, but also demonstrate to their satisfaction that they don't know as much about the topic as they thought they did. Once they leave the thread at some point they'll go online and research the topic on their own time in hopes of improving their understanding of it and proving you wrong when the next argument rolls around. What happens instead is that they discover your citations were legit, the facts really do support your position, and cracks begin to form in the foundation of their worldview.

That's how atheists are made. It's a tedious, noisy process and for that I apologize but it seems to be more effective than anything tried before, as evidenced by a tripling in the number of US nontheists in the past ten years.


Nah, you and I have had a couple of drawn out debates, but not this particular time.

And no worries... If I wasn't interested in debate I wouldn't be here. You never find me in the syrupy "we're all such an awesome fark family" love-fest threads. And I don't stay long when a thread starts to become a bunch of preaching to the choir amongst people who already agree with each other.