The irony here is that we have two gay male atheists arguing semantics.Schism lurks in essentially every precipice.
Organized atheism has a long way yet to go. Because in its nascent stages, it's contradictory and models itself after its perceived opposition and feeds upon its carcass from within.
Luther laughs. Satan's misunderstood. And Mani is playing parlor tricks. Peter does awesome handstands. And good ole Hitch is getting plowed with a fifth of stiff Brandy. The drink, too.
That's nice. How many fortune cookies did you have to crack open for it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does that make for a terrible Christian? All I read is an acknowledgement that some people deny Jesus and God.Morals, at their core do not change. The same basic morals that held yesteryear will still hold in century.
Oh, and lest I forget. Pat Robertson is a loudmouth f%@*wad who outlived his usefulness the moment he figured out it was easier to polarize a group against their fellow man than to reach out and promote love and unity.
I know another guy who outlived his usefulness, then. Jesus. Look at all this polarization.
This seems to have started a tradition.
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.There are many passages like this, of course. One supposes that Jesus and the author of 1 John were terrible Christians.That's flatly untrue. They go well beyond that to proclaim that if one isn't a Christian one is literally evil, the antithesis of all good.
Or did the antichrist suddenly become a heroic figure in Christian myth when I wasn't looking?
I suppose you could read it that way, if you were frothing at the mouth and desperately trying to portray Christians as hating everyone who is not a Christian. (Edit to be fair: I suppose you could also read it this way if you were a zealot who claims to be a Christian and you were desperately searching the Biblical text for something that makes you feel as if you were better than other people.)
Of course, you are also ignoring the fact that Christians teach that even those who do believe are not necessarily "good", and are in fact just as "bad" as nonbelievers. The only difference is that the believers are understood to have embraced the way out of their naturally "bad" state and the unbeliever has not.
That passage is likening the unbeliever to the spirit of the antichrist, not actually calling them evil. It is calling them such in the same manner as if I were to call you an ass. I do not actually believe nor am a truly insinuating that you are a donkey or a literal rear-end, but you get the point regardless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's nice. How many fortune cookies did you have to crack open for it?
The irony here is that we have two gay male atheists arguing semantics.Schism lurks in essentially every precipice.
Organized atheism has a long way yet to go. Because in its nascent stages, it's contradictory and models itself after its perceived opposition and feeds upon its carcass from within.
Luther laughs. Satan's misunderstood. And Mani is playing parlor tricks. Peter does awesome handstands. And good ole Hitch is getting plowed with a fifth of stiff Brandy. The drink, too.
I'm sorry; I left my violin on your mother's nightstand.
Petulance doesn't become you. Let's not go there. My observation is on point and your response confirms it.
How about a nice game of chess?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just thought I was the master of nothing.Thanks guys. I'd say I look forward to being a Zen master, but I already am, am I not? :)That depends.
You, sir, win one Internet point. fistbump
That passage is likening the unbeliever to the spirit of the antichrist, not actually calling them evil. It is calling them such in the same manner as if I were to call you an ass. I do not actually believe nor am a truly insinuating that you are a donkey or a literal rear-end, but you get the point regardless.
Which is somehow a good thing and totally non-polarizing. Yeah, sure. Tell me another.
Petulance doesn't become you. Let's not go there. My observation is on point and your response confirms it.
You made an observation somewhere in all that smug mystical twaddle? Knock me over with a feather.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is somehow a good thing and totally non-polarizing. Yeah, sure. Tell me another.
That passage is likening the unbeliever to the spirit of the antichrist, not actually calling them evil. It is calling them such in the same manner as if I were to call you an ass. I do not actually believe nor am a truly insinuating that you are a donkey or a literal rear-end, but you get the point regardless.
How is calling non-believers "like the antichrist" not akin to calling them evil?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You made an observation somewhere in all that smug mystical twaddle? Knock me over with a feather.
Petulance doesn't become you. Let's not go there. My observation is on point and your response confirms it.
If it helps I didn't see it either.
Oh, and I can do quotes too.
"Religion was invented when the first conman met the first fool." ~ Mark Twain
Oh, yeah, sauerkraut-breath? Did you or did you not say this: "After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands."
You clearly are a very conflicted little proto-Nazi, and your "philosophy" is rife with an abundant exclusion of metaphysics!
Lies. My sister whored my works. She's a philosophical prostituting redacting harpy. Anyone who paints me with a wide brush with those antisemitics have a huge mote in their eyes. And their fashion sense is suspect, too.
Søren, Søren, Søren ... unlike myself who swung boldly with the hammer, you hid behind pseudonyms in your earlier works. Your invisibility suits you. Your subjectivity to your objectivity is suspect. "People understand me so little that they do not even understand when I complain of being misunderstood."
Well, you are invisible. It adds to the incomprehensibility. Look how that's working out for the apologists here.
I prefer to be blunt. Like a hammer. Stop searching and start swinging! It's time to get my bacchanalia on like it's 1899. WHOOP WHOOP!
How is calling non-believers "like the antichrist" not akin to calling them evil?Which is somehow a good thing and totally non-polarizing. Yeah, sure. Tell me another.
That passage is likening the unbeliever to the spirit of the antichrist, not actually calling them evil. It is calling them such in the same manner as if I were to call you an ass. I do not actually believe nor am a truly insinuating that you are a donkey or a literal rear-end, but you get the point regardless.
I've sometimes had believers tell me that my atheism is the work of the devil, and that I'm deceived. How does that not make me a pawn of Satan? How does that not make me their enemy?
You made an observation somewhere in all that smug mystical twaddle? Knock me over with a feather.
Petulance doesn't become you. Let's not go there. My observation is on point and your response confirms it.
Why waste a feather when swinging with a rubber chicken can't knock some sense in?
Besides, it's much more fun to be p/l/uckish.
Okay, so you're not a chess guy. Maybe tennis is your mettle?
Each response you lob in return continues to reaffirm my original observation. I'm a fellow atheist. We're supposed to be on the same team, Ace. Right?
15 - Love.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one problem with all internet Atheism/Religion threads is that none take very long to degenerate into accusations of the other side being responsible for as many things as the accuser can come up with.
I'd say it was the equivalent of Godwin's Law, but much, much, faster.
I blame the true Scotsman.
> . >
< . <
If it helps I didn't see it either.You made an observation somewhere in all that smug mystical twaddle? Knock me over with a feather.
Petulance doesn't become you. Let's not go there. My observation is on point and your response confirms it.
Someone slipped you decaffeinated! ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I blame the true Scotsman.
> . >
< . <
Aye. Those Scots are to blame for damn near everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone slipped you decaffeinated! ;-)If it helps I didn't see it either.You made an observation somewhere in all that smug mystical twaddle? Knock me over with a feather.
Petulance doesn't become you. Let's not go there. My observation is on point and your response confirms it.
***Falls to knees***
NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Each response you lob in return continues to reaffirm my original observation. I'm a fellow atheist. We're supposed to be on the same team, Ace. Right?
I very much doubt it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're supposed to be on the same team, Ace. Right?
15 - Love.
I think the problem is that you're not an Ajehovah's Witness.
I very much doubt it.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on that remark. You lobbed that one in there edgewise, Tom. Predictably, you nailed that swing right in the palm of my hand.
Ecumenicism isn't just the sole property of Christians; it works well for other kinds of relationships. You just need to break the seal and get past that first one to comprehend this. Otherwise, it's mere abstract conjecture as one lacks the experience.
And as anyone has rightfully (or righteously?) observed, you're not much for abstracts. You want concretes.
Who cares about the five arguments about God. God is on the Internet and wants the last word in.
30 - Love.
I think the problem is that you're not an Ajehovah's Witness.We're supposed to be on the same team, Ace. Right?
15 - Love.
I'm more worried about finding Waldo and the True Scotsman. Bad leprechaun. You're not getting an invitation to Steve Vai's next birthday party. <waggles finger>
Hehee
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad this thread has devolved into nonsense as it basically started that way. ;-)
Ohh SNAP! OH NO HE DIDN'T!
NONSENSE?!
I'm glad this thread has devolved into nonsense as it basically started that way. ;-)
Ohh SNAP! OH NO HE DIDN'T!
They quit using arabica beans and substituted a cheaper bean, dude. That's the taste difference you'll note.
I very much doubt it.I agree with you wholeheartedly on that remark. You lobbed that one in there edgewise, Tom. Predictably, you nailed that swing right in the palm of my hand.
Ecumenicism isn't just the sole property of Christians; it works well for other kinds of relationships.
You might get further with someone who cares about noise like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is somehow a good thing and totally non-polarizing. Yeah, sure. Tell me another.
That passage is likening the unbeliever to the spirit of the antichrist, not actually calling them evil. It is calling them such in the same manner as if I were to call you an ass. I do not actually believe nor am a truly insinuating that you are a donkey or a literal rear-end, but you get the point regardless.
It's only polarizing if you believe it is true and choose to take offense. It is assuredly not the damning evidence that Christians hate non-Christians with the passion of a thousand suns as you seem so ready to paint them.
You obviously do not buy into it, so why does it bother you so much what their book says about you? If you think those Bible passages are a hoot, I would love to hear your interpretations of the Qur'an, specifically the parts where they discuss infidels and how they should be dealt with.
You obviously do not buy into it, so why does it bother you so much what their book says about you?
Because while I don't buy into it, lots of other people do, and some of them actually act on it.
It's only polarizing if you believe it is true and choose to take offense. It is assuredly not the damning evidence that Christians hate non-Christians with the passion of a thousand suns as you seem so ready to paint them.You obviously do not buy into it, so why does it bother you so much what their book says about you? If you think those Bible passages are a hoot, I would love to hear your interpretations of the Qur'an, specifically the parts where they discuss infidels and how they should be dealt with.
Quite the bar you've set for your Bible there. I hope it doesn't disappoint you when it's time for the performance review. High expectations work both ways, you know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You obviously do not buy into it, so why does it bother you so much what their book says about you?Because while I don't buy into it, lots of other people do, and some of them actually act on it.
And it isn't the buying into what it says that is the problem, it is the twisting of the message to reinforce their own personal prejudice/agenda that is the real issue.
And it isn't exactly a novel idea that groups of people like to band together and choose to dislike other groups of people who are different from themselves. Big freaking deal.
Quite the bar you've set for your Bible there. I hope it doesn't disappoint you when it's time for the performance review. High expectations work both ways, you know.
I wasn't setting much of a bar at all. You provided a quote, I told you that you were misrepresenting what was meant by the quote. That passage does not call those who do not accept Christ THE antichrist. The funny thing is that if you read into the rest of what is said there are portions of the New Testament that basically say that everything that any person does that is not directly related to glorifying God is in the spirit of the antichrist, including the actions of Christians.
You guys are attempting to impeach the unimpeachable, prove the unprovable, and preach to an audience of the blind and deaf. Even if they were able to see and hear your sermon, they would willfully ignore it.
What the hell happened in here??
An internet Atheist Martin Luther nailed a post to somebody's head.
Maybe now we'll get an online Renaissance.
Quite the bar you've set for your Bible there. I hope it doesn't disappoint you when it's time for the performance review. High expectations work both ways, you know.I wasn't setting much of a bar at all. You provided a quote, I told you that you were misrepresenting what was meant by the quote. That passage does not call those who do not accept Christ THE antichrist. The funny thing is that if you read into the rest of what is said there are portions of the New Testament that basically say that everything that any person does that is not directly related to glorifying God is in the spirit of the antichrist, including the actions of Christians.
Which is totally non-polarizing. And also totally not typical cult leader spiel. Totally.
You guys are attempting to impeach the unimpeachable, prove the unprovable, and preach to an audience of the blind and deaf. Even if they were able to see and hear your sermon, they would willfully ignore it.
No, we're impeaching what you've arbitrarily declared is unimpeachable. I'm sorry you felt like you had to gouge out your eyes and stop up your ears. Were I there at the time I would have strongly advised against it. Were it done to you, I hope I would have had the courage to oppose it.
But as for the last bit? Thank you for making my case for me.
Quite the bar you've set for your Bible there. I hope it doesn't disappoint you when it's time for the performance review. High expectations work both ways, you know.I wasn't setting much of a bar at all. You provided a quote, I told you that you were misrepresenting what was meant by the quote. That passage does not call those who do not accept Christ THE antichrist. The funny thing is that if you read into the rest of what is said there are portions of the New Testament that basically say that everything that any person does that is not directly related to glorifying God is in the spirit of the antichrist, including the actions of Christians.Which is totally non-polarizing. And also totally not typical cult leader spiel. Totally.
You guys are attempting to impeach the unimpeachable, prove the unprovable, and preach to an audience of the blind and deaf. Even if they were able to see and hear your sermon, they would willfully ignore it.No, we're impeaching what you've arbitrarily declared is unimpeachable. I'm sorry you felt like you had to gouge out your eyes and stop up your ears. Were I there at the time I would have strongly advised against it. Were it done to you, I hope I would have had the courage to oppose it.
But as for the last bit? Thank you for making my case for me.
I like how you have assumed that I must be the enemy because I pointed out places where you were wrong. Talk about the "if you're not with us, you must be evil and against us" attitude. Thank YOU for proving my case for ME!
You know the part where you assume I am doing something (eyes, ears, blah, blah, blah) and you tell me that if you were there you would have strongly advised against it? Well the situations are reversed here, and I am trying to strongly advise you against wasting your time.
You will find no argument or compelling evidence strong enough to sway those you are actually trying to sway, and if anything your attitude will simply further entrench the hearts and minds of those you disagree with against you.
Also, you will find no damning evidence to prove your case that is specific to either the Bible or Christianity as a whole. It is to the point where you and a few other posters simply come across on this forum as being out on a witch hunt of your own. I am sorry for whatever Christians have done to you personally, and though I know you also disagree with what they have been doing generally, publicly, and politically, I can assure you that they were not alone in any of these things. Some of them do not, and will not like you, things about you, or people like you. And you know what?...that is their choice, and that's all right.
There have been plenty of people much smarter and more versed in this subject than you who have attempted to do just this over the years, and the only thing that has been proven without a doubt is that even when all else is stripped away, many people will cling to their religious beliefs. If this offends you to the point that you find them distasteful, welcome to how many of them view you as a homosexual. If this allows you to sit smugly and believe that you are more intelligent and/or better than they are somehow, by all means continue to do so. Some of them view you in the same light.
This is what I mean by attempting to impeach the unimpeachable or prove the unprovable. For every angle you view the issue from there is a juxtaposition. The best thing any of you from either side of the issue can do is examine yourselves as individuals, your motives, your strengths, and especially your flaws, and begin there. If all of you, atheist and Christian (or just religious people as a whole) alike would do this and stop worrying about what the other side beliefs and how to debunk it, things might get a little better in your corner of the world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
nd it isn't the buying into what it says that is the problem, it is the twisting of the message to reinforce their own personal prejudice/agenda that is the real issue.
I don't think they're twisting the message. At best there is no coherent message because there is no unified authorship or over site of the bible. At worst you're changing the message into something good according to your own preconceptions of what good is rather than them turning it into something bad via theirs: your interpretation of the bible is not the only valid one.
The bible is not kind in its opinion of the intelligence or morals of unbelievers. That's how i read it. That's how a lot of them read it. That's how a lot of believers act towards unbelievers. I don't believe that they're misinterpreting anything, so my only honest avenue for convincing them that that I'm not an immoral fool is to convince them that the source material is wrong.
nd it isn't the buying into what it says that is the problem, it is the twisting of the message to reinforce their own personal prejudice/agenda that is the real issue.I don't think they're twisting the message. At best there is no coherent message because there is no unified authorship or over site of the bible. At worst you're changing the message into something good according to your own preconceptions of what good is rather than them turning it into something bad via theirs: your interpretation of the bible is not the only valid one.
The bible is not kind in its opinion of the intelligence or morals of unbelievers. That's how i read it. That's how a lot of them read it. That's how a lot of believers act towards unbelievers. I don't believe that they're misinterpreting anything, so my only honest avenue for convincing them that that I'm not an immoral fool is to convince them that the source material is wrong.
Good luck with that. As I stated in my reply to Samnell, there have been plenty of people smarter and more informed than yourself who have attempted to do this for years (centuries?) to no avail.
Alternatively, you could just ignore them and cease to give a rat's ass what they think about you, and in the case of their beliefs being able to affect your life in some manner, there are far more effective ways to oppose them available to you there.
I still find this discussion interesting. let's not get it locked just yet, k?
Also, you anti-faith guys. According to revelations, at some point being Christian will be against the law, and those of us that are will recant or die. So, have a little faith ;)
Also, you anti-faith guys. According to revelations, at some point being Christian will be against the law, and those of us that are will recant or die. So, have a little faith ;)
Nothing to celebrate there. Wrong method.
stuff
So what I'm getting from this is that your brilliant insight is that...Christians think they're right too?
Wow. Yeah, never thought of that one before.
I will die in your place, Kryzbyn.
Already had that covered, but thanks TOZ :)
|
Oh, yeah, sauerkraut-breath?Lies. My sister whored my works. She's a philosophical prostituting redacting harpy.
A) Is this our favorite. Bolshie goblin arguing with himself? If so, I may need to admit error and say that performance art may have a place in this world.
B) If not, then my congratulations, gentlebeings, on your ability to stay focused on your mano a mano textual struggle to the death in the middle of this thread.