If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Culture Media Institute)   Yet again, conservatives frustrated that Google has chosen to celebrate some socialist hippie holiday instead of the good ol' American Jesus   (mrc.org) divider line 532
    More: Obvious, American Jesus, Google  
•       •       •

6224 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Apr 2011 at 12:51 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



532 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-04-23 02:14:46 AM

Blairr: Rhino_man: YOU CANNOT BE A CHRISTIAN AND A REPUBLICAN

I think it's the church's job to be charitable. I pay my tithe and volunteer through my church to help my community.

It's not that we're not charitable, it's that we have a definition of what the "state" is suppose to do and what the "church" is suppose to do. Separation of church and state kinda thing.
"Render unto Caesar..."

It's not the job of the state to tax me and be charitable with my money.

People should be compassionate and charitable, but paying tax is not an option. Obligatory-compassion and obligatory-charity are oxymorons. Making the acts obligations nullify the acts.


Ahh, yes... the "Charities can fix everything" argument. Because charities already fix all the world's problems.

That's why, in 2009, 50.2 million Americans (including 17.2 million children) were in "Food insecure" homes. That is to say, they didn't know where their next meal was coming from. 17.7 million Americans were literally going hungry.
[Citation]

If the American people were to speak as one voice and say "We want the government to provide for these people," that would be mass charity. It would also be the way to guarantee that you're doing the most you can to help them. When you have nothing else, you have your vote... and giving your vote to help people is better than giving your money.

So at worst, Republicans are the antithesis of Christian ideals... at best, they're half-assing it. How can you pretend that it's properly Christian to support this?
 
2011-04-23 02:40:59 AM

Rhino_man: So at worst, Republicans are the antithesis of Christian ideals... at best, they're half-assing it. How can you pretend that it's properly Christian to support this?


Because charitable works, historically, have been the easiest way for Christians to find people in stressful, emotional crises -- their target market for the viral spread.
 
2011-04-23 02:41:39 AM
(other than emotionally immature children, of course)
 
2011-04-23 03:03:30 AM

drewkumo: The question is truly absurd due to the lack of meaning in the term "God". What's God? Maybe I named my dog God. It doesn't hold any meaning when the deity is undefined.

Certainly if you depend on proof of nonexistence, in any subject, agnosticism would be the only answer. That doesn't mean it is the logical answer.


Welcome to the point.

1 would never come into existence if 2 didn't make a claim.

1 relies on 2.

A nonreligious Atheist makes no sense unless God exists outside of a religious context. If God exists outside of a religious context, ie, "the real world" Atheism is of course wrong.

An Atheist requires a Theist to say "God does exist" to say "God doesn't exist" but the Atheists fallacy is that both are claims to what is God.

Theists use faith to hurdle the burden of proof.
Atheists somehow ignore their hypocrisy while criticizing Theists.

"Maybe I named my dog God."

Then you're equivocating.

"It doesn't hold any meaning when the deity is undefined."

Thus all Atheists are Christian Atheists, Muslim Atheists, etc.

Atheists do not exist in the wild.
 
2011-04-23 03:06:06 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Rhino_man: So at worst, Republicans are the antithesis of Christian ideals... at best, they're half-assing it. How can you pretend that it's properly Christian to support this?

Because charitable works, historically, have been the easiest way for Christians to find people in stressful, emotional crises -- their target market for the viral spread.


So you doubt the sincerity of Christian's beliefs?

That they're only willing to help for personal gain and not because they believe it's right.
 
2011-04-23 03:11:12 AM
Sweet Jaysus on a cracker! I've never seen a more thin-skinned group of people than evangelicals. They see persecution simply from others not catering to them at every possible moment.

Personally, if you dig the whole Jesus thing, it's no skin off my back. I think it's a myth, but if it makes your life better, so be it. I prefer to pray to the sun: it's always there and it gives life to our planet. It works for me.

I, however, don't get my panties in a bunch when other people don't accept/acknowledge/accommodate/respect my irrational mythology.

It's like the BS "War on Christmas." I thought that these were the same people who believed in private enterprise? That is, apparently, unless the market disagrees with their preferred mythological outlook on life.

/More than anything I despite theocracy
//Especially Christian theocracy
///More especially when it's in the guise of "freedom"
 
2011-04-23 03:12:32 AM

Rhino_man: fix all the world's problems.


The world's problems aren't my problem. The world's problems aren't anyone's problem.

Me choosing to make them my problem is out of compassion.

You choosing to make them my problem nullifies compassion.

I believe people should realize that if they want to make the world a better place they should go out and ameliorate it themselves. Voting away a problem is just lazy and doesn't work.

People should volunteer to help one another not forced. Forcing people to do things breeds resentment.
 
2011-04-23 05:15:33 AM

Blairr: Lenny_da_Hog: Rhino_man: So at worst, Republicans are the antithesis of Christian ideals... at best, they're half-assing it. How can you pretend that it's properly Christian to support this?

Because charitable works, historically, have been the easiest way for Christians to find people in stressful, emotional crises -- their target market for the viral spread.

So you doubt the sincerity of Christian's beliefs?

That they're only willing to help for personal gain and not because they believe it's right.


I doubt the sincerity of the Christian system. I don't doubt the beliefs of its brainwashed sheep.

Christianity offers "charity" in order to find the downtrodden, because the downtrodden and children are the most susceptible to brainwashing.

The government asks nothing for its charitable works. Programs that help the poor do not require loyalty oaths, and they don't require you to listen to brainwashing propaganda. These programs are rights of the citizenry.

If you just wanted what was best for the quality of life of the downtrodden, you would not object to the citizens of a nation establishing programs that both help them and protect their right to have different beliefs.

There are very few church charities that don't try to push their beliefs while they help people.
 
2011-04-23 06:21:33 AM

Blairr: Voting away a problem is just lazy and doesn't work.


i52.tinypic.com
 
2011-04-23 07:02:14 AM
Easter has been with us for 2,000 years, "Earth Day" will disappear in ten years. We'll always have Easter.
 
2011-04-23 08:19:41 AM

Blairr: The world's problems aren't my problem.


Like what? Pick up their trash? Pay their taxes? Perform jury duty?
Sorry. You live in a contractual society - one which provides certain amenities, and imposes certain obligations.
The social contract doesn't go away because you say:"The world's problems aren't my problem."
If you want out of the social contract, you have to move to a desert island, or somewhere else unpopulated.
Live in society - pay your bills.
 
2011-04-23 08:47:26 AM
It would be nice if blairr could explain why his version of god is better and more convincing than all the other ones that have come before..
 
2011-04-23 09:26:29 AM
Blairr: Voting away a problem is just lazy and doesn't work.

Kill yourself
 
2011-04-23 11:31:12 AM

Blairr: Rhino_man: fix all the world's problems.

The world's problems aren't my problem. The world's problems aren't anyone's problem.

Me choosing to make them my problem is out of compassion.

You choosing to make them my problem nullifies compassion.

I believe people should realize that if they want to make the world a better place they should go out and ameliorate it themselves. Voting away a problem is just lazy and doesn't work.

People should volunteer to help one another not forced. Forcing people to do things breeds resentment.


I'm not a Catholic, but I can point you in the direction of volumes of written material from various popes going back as far as the late 1800s that would help clear up your confusion.

Link (new window)

A couple of simple points: charity to individuals or groups must be accompanied by transforming unjust structures.

Through our words, prayers and deeds we must show solidarity with, and compassion for, the poor. When instituting public policy we must always keep the "preferential option for the poor" at the forefront of our minds. The moral test of any society is "how it treats its most vulnerable members. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. We are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor."
 
2011-04-23 12:55:40 PM

HighOnCraic: Blairr: Rhino_man: fix all the world's problems.

The world's problems aren't my problem. The world's problems aren't anyone's problem.

Me choosing to make them my problem is out of compassion.

You choosing to make them my problem nullifies compassion.

I believe people should realize that if they want to make the world a better place they should go out and ameliorate it themselves. Voting away a problem is just lazy and doesn't work.

People should volunteer to help one another not forced. Forcing people to do things breeds resentment.

I'm not a Catholic, but I can point you in the direction of volumes of written material from various popes going back as far as the late 1800s that would help clear up your confusion.

Link (new window)

A couple of simple points: charity to individuals or groups must be accompanied by transforming unjust structures.

Through our words, prayers and deeds we must show solidarity with, and compassion for, the poor. When instituting public policy we must always keep the "preferential option for the poor" at the forefront of our minds. The moral test of any society is "how it treats its most vulnerable members. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. We are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor."


gallery.roadbikereview.com
 
2011-04-23 12:59:59 PM
God damn... Christians are a bunch of whiny biatches. All of the awesome charts and not one with the "Help we're being persecuted".

I am disappoint.
 
2011-04-23 01:36:48 PM

Diogenes: We don't all share the same religion. We do, however, all share the same planet.


Thankfully I didn't have to read the entire thread to see if this hadn't been said. That's it - that's the end of the 'argument.' If Christians want their own search engine, let them use their own. (new window). Meanwhile, the rest of us all share the same planet.
 
2011-04-23 02:03:37 PM
Google has always been extremely left.

I only use google for "google earth". Otherwise I use Yahoo. I find they have been either neutral or more in line with my values.

I am at the point in life where I only like frequenting pro-american type businesses.

I also don't do business with places that openly allow the subjegation of women by having/allowing (forcing) Islamic head coverings.
 
2011-04-23 03:38:13 PM

couchgnome: I also don't do business with places that openly allow the subjegation of women by having/allowing (forcing) Islamic head coverings.


So, you don't buy gasoline at all?
 
2011-04-23 04:32:04 PM
couchgnome Quote 2011-04-23 02:03:37 PM

I am at the point in life where I only like frequenting pro-american type businesses.

>>>

All those pro-American businesses that pay their fair share in taxes.
 
2011-04-23 05:06:30 PM
Dusk-You-n-Me

Don't believe everything you see on the internet.
 
2011-04-23 05:18:43 PM

HappyTheDog: Don't believe everything you see on the internet.


I don't, and I've been waiting for someone to tell me how that's wrong. I'm open to learn.
 
2011-04-23 06:02:05 PM
I consider myself a Christian. Have for about 12 years. I don't think I've ever, at all, celebrated Good Friday. I know for a fact I've celebrated Earth Day at least a few times though.
 
2011-04-23 06:18:25 PM
You know who else disrespected the whole Easter weekend by coming up with some pagan ritual?

That's right: Texas Gov. Rick Perry: Link (new window)
 
2011-04-23 06:28:57 PM

TsukasaK: GameSprocket: So, he set them up to fail when they did not even have the capacity to understand that disobeying was wrong.

No, I think they knew (being created in god's image and all), and the deception caused them to think they'd be better off by running against him. I recall the satan/snake/thing said something along the lines of "you will be like god".

Remember, they didn't touch the tree until the deceiver got in and farked it all up.

The "knowing good and bad" I think was along the lines of gaining a perfect sense of justice (not just knowing right from wrong, they obviously knew it was wrong to mess with the tree); god even said that as he was kicking them out of the garden.

/debating mythology is fun!


Not to put too fine a point on it, but God created the deceiver in the first place and allowed him to be in that garden. Sounds a little sketchy, doesn't it?
 
2011-04-23 06:45:47 PM

Phoenix87ta: Not to put too fine a point on it, but God created the deceiver in the first place and allowed him to be in that garden. Sounds a little sketchy, doesn't it?


Free will. But again, the book never went into what that particular ex-angel's problem was.
 
2011-04-24 01:48:04 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: HappyTheDog: Don't believe everything you see on the internet.

I don't, and I've been waiting for someone to tell me how that's wrong. I'm open to learn.


If that is indeed the case, I'm sure your intellectual curiosity will show you the way.

I personally have no interest or patience to give you a crash course in theology. However, if you sincerely would like to see the ignorance of your post, I hear google is a good place to start.
 
2011-04-24 02:01:08 AM

HappyTheDog: If that is indeed the case, I'm sure your intellectual curiosity will show you the way.

I personally have no interest or patience to give you a crash course in theology. However, if you sincerely would like to see the ignorance of your post, I hear google is a good place to start.


kay
 
2011-04-24 08:48:28 AM

Penman: It amuses me how atheists will act when they die and are facing God, and then try to convince Him that He does not exist.


That's because you aren't a Christian.
 
2011-04-24 07:27:11 PM
It amuses me how Christians who don't even follow a single teaching of Jesus can make such wild claims as to how a God would really think.
 
2011-04-24 09:48:59 PM

Blairr: An Atheist requires a Theist to say "God does exist" to say "God doesn't exist" but the Atheists fallacy is that both are claims to what is God.

Theists use faith to hurdle the burden of proof.
Atheists somehow ignore their hypocrisy while criticizing Theists.


That's because the "burden of proof" for an atheist is much lower than that of a theist. I already went over this earlier - feel free to read over my comments on "metaphysical naturalism vs. metaphysical vs. theism".

An atheist doesn't speak to what God is, just that it doesn't exist. I already went over this earlier how atheism is an extension of a naturalist worldview and therefore logically consistent. Theism is a claim that falls under the philosophical stance of metaphysical dualism - but is a specific claim that goes beyond simple dualism. Simply put, "God exists" is a much more extraordinary claim than "only nature". Even though "more than nature" and "only nature" are equally extraordinary claims.

Considering that any naturalist philosophy is by definition atheist, it follows that atheism is a less extraordinary claim that theism. (Unless we include the exception of a "natural god", which I think we both agree is equivocation).

Blairr: Then you're equivocating.


Which is the point I was making. In any argument of theism vs. atheism, theists will constantly equivocate. "God" in this sense is a completely meaningless term as no character or ability has been assigned to it.

Blairr: Thus all Atheists are Christian Atheists, Muslim Atheists, etc.

Atheists do not exist in the wild.


Why would you think this is true? It doesn't make any sense.

If an atheist believes in a wholly natural universe, it eliminates all Gods by principle. Unless you believe in a god that is a natural being, a force that works within the framework of nature (I think you would call that equivocating though).

WTF does "atheists do not exist in the wild" mean anyways?
 
2011-04-25 01:43:52 AM

Blairr: In both cases Atheism is wrong.


Confuses existence as a linguistic abstraction (EG: "the grandson of the Farker known as abb3w") that may neither now or ever have instantiation in experience, with existence as an entity (EG "Blairr") having such instantiation in experience.

I suspect a more worrisome instance of the former category can be provided, if you would like a more drastic example to motivate you to separate the categories. Alas, the Mods will probably make the distinction on your behalf for the more attention-getting ones....
 
Displayed 32 of 532 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report