Stupid: Atheist group wants to be included in Democrats’ … interfaith service
posted at 9:01 pm on August 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’m always at risk of overreacting to stories like this because as an atheist myself I hate the fact that tools like this purport to speak for me. That caveat aside, here’s possibly the single dumbest example of atheist identity politics we’ve seen yet, and we’ve seen some doozies. The sheer efficiency of its loathsomeness is amazing: In one fell swoop it reduces skepticism to a quasi-faith, trades “free thinking” for a pathetic need to feel “included,” and of course embraces the hallmark prostrate grievance posture of the victimized group. I’m not surprised that Dawkins sits on their Advisory Board, but to know that Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Salman Rushdie do too is depressing.
The chief executive officer of the Democratic National Convention Committee, the Rev. Leah Daughtry, has planned an interfaith gathering as the opening event of the Democratic National Convention on August 24, 2008. While it is designed to showcase the “diversity” and “shared values” of the party and achieve a “spirit of unity,” it will, in fact, marginalize those Democrats who do not practice religion…
Tens of millions of American voters are nontheists with no god belief, and millions more who practice some religion bring secular values to their political choices. Based as it is on the premise that all values are necessarily derived from religion, this year’s Democratic convention leaves atheists, agnostics, humanists and other secular voters feeling increasingly isolated and voiceless. By accepting Brown’s offer, the Democratic Party can signal to this constituency that it is serious about being inclusive and tolerant.
In other words, celebrating your religion is “marginalizing” to people who choose not to celebrate religion. Or, as one independent-minded skeptic now reveling in the comfort of faux-discrimination put it, “By reaching out to people of faith, they have shown the back of their hand to those who do not believe.” Exit question one: By that logic, does reaching out to gays or blacks constitute showing the back of one’s hand to straights and whites? And exit question two: Allahpundit, self-hating atheist?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 »
For the record, I don’t have faith in or believe that there is a creator or higher being that created everything.
However, I find the concept of my being here and discussing this only being a matter of pure random chance even more farfetched.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 4:40 PM
I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Do you even LISTEN to yourself? You’ve just described yourself.
sulla on August 16, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Atheism is not the absence of religion…atheism is belief that there is no God!
I don’t know who you think you’re fooling..
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 4:46 PM
First thing you’ve posted that I agree with.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 4:48 PM
A little levity… this whole deal reminds me of a Futurama reference, the First Amalgamated Church.
“Father Changstein El-Gamal: Dearly liked, we stand here before one or more gods, or fewer; to join this couple in pretty good matrimony. If anyone objects to this union, may they speak now, or forever hold their peace; or do something else.”
SocklessJoe on August 16, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Dictionary.com:
Only the latter lacks any faith.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Atheist’s “knowledge” leads them to proclaim ther is no God and glorify themselves…
Christianity’s knowledge leads one to forsake themselves and glorify God in stead!
Big difference.
Good job judging me though sulla!
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 4:53 PM
You don’t speak for God.
You speak for yourself, while attributing it to God.
You’re a false prophet who spouts hate and calls it love, who apes Bible talk in a pernicious cause and calls it truth.
You. Serve. Chaos.
sulla on August 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM
The second part is entirely and utterly wrong. Maintaining the non-existence of God does not mean that said person worships or glorifies themselves.
On the other hand, you’ve been glorifying your knowledge as infallible and unarguable. In other words, check the mirror.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 4:56 PM
They glorify themselves by claiming they have all knowledge and that they are certain that God does not exist!
Pride!
The only way you could know that God does not exist is if you have searched everything and know all things!
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 4:59 PM
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM
I know and it doesn’t bother me if it’s on the money. Not at all. I was trying to show that all these Christians who are claiming to defend religious freedom are actually only interested in the freedom of their own religion and in safeguarding the dominant status of Christianity in our society. A rather cynical stance if you ask me.
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 4:59 PM
You glorify yourself by claiming you have all knowledge and that you are certain that God DOES exist.
You. Are. No. Different.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Let’s not get into “false prophets” here sulla..
I know that you have a seething hatred for me sulla because you are mormon and are offended by me saying “Joseph Smith was a false prophet and mormonism is a false doctrine invented a couple hundred years ago” but that is something you are going to have to work through…I do not hate you nor do I think about you the way you think I do..
But if you act spiteful, vengeful and full of hatred it is your problem.
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 5:03 PM
There you go [yet] again [with the "I may be one, but you're one too!!!"].
- Ronald Reagan
Atheism is the absence of a belief in God, leprechauns, green spaghetti monsters, ghosts, werewolfs, the devil, etc., etc., etc. That’s what it is.
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 5:04 PM
I never said I had all knowledge Madison…only that God does!
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 5:05 PM
1) Get up from your PC.
2) Walk into bathroom. Open the door first.
3) Look in mirror.
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 5:05 PM
You’re generalizing an entire faith, which all my experience contradicts. Most Christians I know are interested in other religions and are thankful that people are free to explore. It’s the same as saying all Muslims are terrorists, a stance which the left likes to attribute to those who recognize the most common faith among terrorists.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 5:06 PM
…but it is the presence of a belief that God does not exist. You keep describing agnosticism.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 5:07 PM
And you claim knowledge of God.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 5:10 PM
I think we evolved into people that cling to religion as a way to seperate us from other animals bring some order to this chaotic world. Don’t fool with mother nature.
myamphibian on August 16, 2008 at 5:12 PM
He blesses me…I don’t deserve it, I am the worst of people sometimes, but He loves me and blesses me with His Grace.
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Barack Hussein?
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Doesn’t change the fact that you claim it.
Do we cling to guns, too?
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 5:15 PM
There is some truth to that - it is my problem that I react harshly to your comments. I am appalled by nearly everything you write, but that’s neither here nor there. I don’t hate you.
I apologize for my overheated rhetoric.
Perhaps it’s better for everyone if I just ignore you from here on out.
sulla on August 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Would you consider that Dictionary.com might have poorly defined atheism? I think Russel’s teapot resolves the whole agnosticism vs. atheism question pretty nicely. I can’t do any better, so here it is.
RightOFLeft on August 16, 2008 at 5:33 PM
I forgive you Sulla. I also apologize for some of my own overheated rhetoric at times..sometimes I can get a bit overheated and dogmatic..(some of which positions I’ve been led to reconsider)..
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Would you prefer Webster’s? How about Cambridge?
Would you consider what agnosticism is, and how it is not the same as atheism? Would you also consider that claiming the non-existence of God is an unprovable claim?
Imagine I have a box on a table. Two people come along. One claims there is something in the box(theist). The other claims there isn’t(atheist). They’re both basing it on nothing.
The third man who comes along believes neither, since there is no evidence either way(agnostic).
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Read again, Madison. I said you were a scoffer. That’s what I said. And I stand by that. You know, the Bible warned us this was going to happen. In 2 Peter chapter 3 it says, “Knowing this first, there shall come in the last days scoffers.” I attract them like a magnet! Scoffers. So yes, I know your type well. All anybody has to do is go back and read your posts to prove me right. The entire thread you’ve been busy casting doubwwY’s Word! For example:
Not only that, but you’ve made yourself an authority over God too. And this is the type of thing that makes me so nervous about people like you following their own teachings. I see what you say as being totally foreign to God’s Word, and I get real nervous when somebody teaches something where we have to have a guru to explain it. Now you have a cult. Folks, when you wanna create a god to suit yourself just say something like this: “To me, God is like this…” and you shape a god to suit yourself …kinda like what Madison does here:
And that really does sum up idolatry. When we create a god to suit ourselves, that god isn’t to be feared. That god smiles on iniquity, and we get closer and closer and closer to death. See, now Madison can sin his little heart out. He can do what he wants. And that sin will fill his heart with joy and he’ll skip along right until judgment day he’ll find that God requires an account of “every idle word” (Matthew 12:36) and that He’s a Holy God that calls Himself a “consuming fire” (Deuteronomy 4:24). Friends, idolatry is perhaps the greatest and most dangerous of all sins, because once you create a god in your mind that your comfortable with, you’ll also create a moral standard to go along with him. For example, you might like to create a god that believes in a woman’s right to kill her own children in the womb. Or perhaps your god would like to reward you for flying planes into buildings full of innocent people. You see, if I want to be an idolater, remember, I start with the phrase “To me”. “To me,” God is like this. “To me,” God is like that. And I’d make sure my god likes the things that I like, and hates the things I hate. So if I like to cheat and lie, steal and lust, my god will too. And I’ll be able to pursue all those sinful things — right up until the day of judgment. So no, Madison. Sorry. I classified you as a SCOFFER who has embraced what you think are errors or contradictions in the Bible (you don’t believe it!!) so you can justify not submitting to its authority. That is not a false accusation. It is absolutely correct!
“I am the LORD, I change not” (Malachi 3:6).
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 5:52 PM
Perhaps part of it stems from the fact that far too many atheists come off as anti-religion. It isn’t enough to let them “not believe” they go out of their way to keep others from openly expressing faith in the name of “tolerance.” If atheists were really tolerant, they’d let the rest of us follow the tenets of our faith without filing a freakin’ lawsuit whenever a nativity scene appears on a courthouse square.
highhopes on August 16, 2008 at 5:54 PM
This got mangled in the above post:
The entire thread you’ve been busy casting doubt on God’s Word!
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Because I do not accept the Bible as fact does not mean I scoff(which means to mock) at it.
Stop using words you don’t know the meaning off. The only one doing any scoffing is you at anyone who doesn’t buy your twisted sanctimonius trash about non-believers. You don’t know a damn thing about me, or anyone else it seems, so please shut the hell up and go away.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 5:57 PM
I’ve expressed my doubts about the existence of God, nothing more, by sharing my views and asking questions. You don’t like it because you’re a petty-minded insecure little zealot. You’re little different from a Muslim who riots over a cartoon.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 5:59 PM
I think a better way to put it would have been to say that, even given the dictionary definition (which I don’t doubt is accepted), the semantics of what exactly is meant by “belief” can be tricky. A dictionary definition sacrifices some nuance in favor of conciseness.
The box analogy doesn’t work for me. If the question is just whether or not there’s something in the box, I agree that agnosticism could be appropriate (although, pragmatically, it might be better just to take a side). But theists aren’t just saying there’s something in the box, they’re saying there’s something extraordinary in the box; it’s more like they’re saying, “there’s a dragon in this box.” Do you think it would be reasonable to be agnostic about the prospects of finding a dragon in the box?
RightOFLeft on August 16, 2008 at 6:00 PM
I’m not sure how I’m generalizing an entire faith. I’m referring to the Snake Handling, Gibberish Mumbling, Bible Thumping Jeezuzfreex in this thread who like stuck pigs are squealing about how oppressed they are. A more laughable claim I find hard to imagine.
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Wrong. Theists are saying there is something, rather than nothing, in the box. Atheists say there is nothing in the box. However, whatever way you say it, it involves two people basing their opinion on absolutely nothing.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Uhh…that would be me.
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Moreover, they are saying that what is in the box made the box and itself as well as the three stooges puzzling over it’s contents, or lack thereof.
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Then you may want to be more specific in your references. The above refers to Christians who claim to defend religious freedom.
If you’re referring to sanctimonius zealots who decry nonbelievers that are posting in this thread, say so. ;)
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 6:05 PM
I think you’re being intellectually dishonest. We’re not literally talking about a box, we’re talking about an entire universe. Sneering at the literal translation of the analogy is not an argument.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Feel free grade my paper accordingly.
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 6:10 PM
I forgive you.
Thanks.
sulla on August 16, 2008 at 6:11 PM
I was trying to show that all these Christians herein who are claiming to defend religious freedom are
There. better?
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 6:12 PM
If you can’t communicate clearly when all you have to communicate with is text, that’s your problem, not anyone else’s.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Not at all. I merely continue the analogy. The Three Stooges being, Atheists, Agnostics and Theists. But I am surprised you didn’t pick that up being the smartest person EVAH!
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 6:18 PM
…I don’t know what your problem is, but keep it to yourself.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 6:22 PM
OK Ahole. Let me break it down for you. If I had meant all Christians I would have just said Christians instead of these Christians which CLEARLY refers to a subset (these) of Christians as a whole. Being a dick doesn’t make you smarter just as being an Agnostic doesn’t either. Grow some juevos and make a choice.
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Like I said, your verbal maneuvers are disingenuous. You are the definition of scoffer. And as I’ve clearly shown you make yourself an authority over God by saying “To me”. “To me,” God is like this. “To me,” God is like that. And there’s lot’s more too, but I’m growing tired of this. You don’t even pay attention to what is said, you overloook valid replies. It’s like arguing with a signpost. You claim I have repeatedly made false presumptions about you, yet you have failed to provide any evidence. Y’know, I can’t really get upset and I really don’t hold animosity towards you. I think you’re just simply blinded. Y’know, you don’t get mad at a blind person because they can’t see.. y’know, they’re blinded. They really are willingly ignorant, so it’s something I as a Christian have to say, okay, how can I help these people see the light… y’know, get em to see the light. Good luck to you. I readily admit that I’m not perfect and I tend to be a little sarcastic once in a while, and a little bit y’know, biting comments, and a little cutting edge kinda stuff ‘yknow, but one day you’re going to realize I was trying to warn you of the judgment ahead.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Get a tissue, and stop taking this so personally. If you can’t accept criticism or admit you didn’t make yourself clear, maybe you should avoid other people altogether.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Keep em’ coming. Looks good on ya.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Meh. Blowme.
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 6:29 PM
This coming from the biggest drama queen of them all.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Next?
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, I have an announcement. From now on, the poster MadisonConservative will be known as… Daytime Emmy.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Gotta run…. Too da loo
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Dunno if you noticed, apacalyps, but you’re not exactly an opinion leader around here. You’re not even Emperor Norton.
sulla on August 16, 2008 at 6:38 PM
It seems to me that many
white menRepublicanspeople believe so.The Race Card on August 16, 2008 at 6:38 PM
The question is not whether one was inconvenienced by past non-existence (I’ve never met anyone who claimed to be) but whether one is bothered, in the present, by impending non-existence - not with some possible future existence, as was true of the past or as is analogous to sleep, but total, complete, empty non-existence forever.
Life (existence, in general) is very addictive stuff. Try telling an addict that he was never bothered by lacking his drug before he ever got his first fix and see where that gets you!
progressoverpeace on August 16, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Right on Brother! Keep on speaking the Truth!
There is no better way to see the attributes of God, than in Jesus Christ, who is Yahweh/God Himself…the Word of God made flesh!
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 6:42 PM
I think atheists (and by atheists I mean “Dawkins”) are arguing specifically against the God of Abraham or other “personal” Gods who intervene directly in the universe.
Atheists seem to be saying: “if there were a dragon in the box, he’d be making some noises, maybe breathing fire, or shaking the box”. We’d have some evidence outside of the box of the inhabitant’s “dragon-like” qualities.
The question of God’s existence seems less interesting in this context than the validity of relying on exclusively on materialism in the search for God.
dedalus on August 16, 2008 at 6:46 PM
It can cause anxiety now but once you are dead it won’t, unless just enough of us remains to be aware of our near non-existence. Perhaps that is hell–the banishment from God’s eternal love.
dedalus on August 16, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Cute word game. Except “Universe” is an English word and the Bible was written in Hebrew.
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 6:56 PM
Actually it’s French in origin.
14th century. Directly or via French< Latin universum “the whole world” < universus “whole,” < versus, past participle of vertere “turn”]
Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P)2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Right on Brother!
Good luck in Night School.
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 6:59 PM
For some reason I doubt you are a Bible scholar Ronsfi…but then again, Satan quoted Scripture to Jesus..
Nevermind, maybe you are a Bible scholar.
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 7:04 PM
OMG!
The Race Card on August 16, 2008 at 7:11 PM
And I can see the sense in that. The human mind requires natural answers for things in most cases in order to be comfortable with them. However, when discussing something that may be supernatural, or even merely a part of nature of which we have no comprehension yet, we’re talking speculation either way. As long as we continue to speculate on unverifiable ideas, it’s a matter of faith to proclaim to know them to be true or untrue.
You know, throwing a fit every time someone shows that they know what they’re talking about only highlights your ignorance. Maybe you should try becoming more confident about your own intellect rather than bitterly chastising others for having any.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Still true. Universe is a play on English words. Empty.
Spirit of 1776 on August 16, 2008 at 7:17 PM
That was exactly my point. He didn’t know what he was talking about. His amateurish etymology was wholly mistaken and his argument as ineffectual as your childish attempts to get under my skin. Maybe you should come up with some kind of prescient point that may be discussed rather that bare your lack of depth by nitpicking prose and generally attempting to teabag everyone.
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 7:19 PM
You never know … which is the real problem :)
Yes. The beginning of this little exchange was my statement to MB4 that the coming nuclear brinksmanship with Russia is going to kill off much of the modern atheist movement.
progressoverpeace on August 16, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Uh huh.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 7:22 PM
I can’t imagine that seeing what Russian troops do to civilian populations really makes people see God anywhere.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 7:23 PM
There’s a rich history of such reactions. You’ve said it in some of your own posts, people want things to make sense. They desire to see some purpose in life. Russian actions on the ground might just be more of an advertisement for a God with a decent sense of vengeance, but the idea, and constant fear, of possible nuclear war will force God into the equation, somewhere. I don’t see any other way.
It’s one thing to claim atheism and that there is no purpose to anything while one is enjoying a normal life with no expectations of problems, but quite another to maintain that attitude in the face of possible annihilation, on a large scale. Just questions from children will force thoughts of purpose (and thus, God) into everyday conversation. All this is assuming that this nuclear brinksmanship comes to the fore like it was in the 60’s, which might still not happen.
progressoverpeace on August 16, 2008 at 7:34 PM
I definitely agree. However, I think it’s not uncommon for some people, and probably higher educated as opposed to otherwise, to see injustices in the world as the lack of a God. Sure leaves me in the middle with plenty of questions of my own.
One of my questions, since we’re on the topic: Do you think the Cold War had any bearing on the new age of spiritualism in the 70s?
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 7:43 PM
I may be coming late to the discussion, but I rather think that atheists like Dawkins hold their beliefs on faith. I personally doubt that there is a god that cares one bit about humans, but I cannot really know or have proof that there is no creator. Just like those who believe in god can really only have faith to justify their beliefs.
I may have strong suspicion that there is no god, but yeah, some athiests I’ve met do go on as if they belonged to a dogmatic religion. I think that note is one of the reasons AP posted his disapproval of athiests participating in an interfaith service since like him, I do not like the idea of a lack of faith in a god turning into a faith of no god.
BryanS on August 16, 2008 at 8:04 PM
And in the streets the children screamed,
But not a word was spoken.
The father, son, and the holy ghost,
They caught the last train for the coast
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Man is a marvelous curiosity. He thinks he is the Creator’s pet. He even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn’t it a quaint idea.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 8:13 PM
I rather like those two Twain quotes you posted. He always has a way of pointing out the absurd.
BryanS on August 16, 2008 at 8:20 PM
I don’t think that there will ever be another Mark Twain. No living philosopher even comes anywhere close.
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Good question. I don’t know if I would say that the Cold War did it. It’s hard to say because most were raised with religion back then. I tend to think the new age movement was more an expression of rebellion against the West than anything else. The kids needed answers (helped by the Cold War, no doubt), but were looking for the religions that were as different from their parents’ as possible. It is one of the few modern times when religion (if one wants to call new agey stuff religion) was ‘cool’. I think there’s something about reincarnation, which is generally a big part of new age, that really appeals to potential atheists who still feel a need for a metaphysics and more than one chance at ‘life’.
The big problem with new age, of course, is that people always end up embarassing themselves - like when they tried to levitate the Pentagon. This seems, luckily, to contribute to the self-limiting nature of new age philosophy. I think many of today’s atheists are disappointed/embarassed new agers (no offense to any atheists here who were never new agers).
progressoverpeace on August 16, 2008 at 8:35 PM
Even scientists have to have faith in the ultimate rationality of the universe, which is a metaphysical quality. Einstein expressed this best when he said that “God doesn’t play dice with the universe.” Also, Eugene Wigner expressed this same sort of idea in his essay “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences”, which all potential atheists should read. There’s always faith lurking around somewhere.
progressoverpeace on August 16, 2008 at 8:43 PM
Very true. Eistein also famously rejected the idea of quantum entanglement by mocking it as “spooky action at a distance” because the idea that two particles tied together could be separated by an arbitrarily large distance and measuring the value of one particle would affect the other nomatter how far away it was. Turns out that recently it was discovered that yes, “spooky action at a distance” is real. The sense of rationality prevented Einstien from accepting the idea predicted by quantum mechanics.
BryanS on August 16, 2008 at 8:52 PM
And the EPR thought experiment that he laid down ended up establishing the foundations for quantum computing/cryptography/teleportation! The guy was too much, even when he was wrong (as it seems) he still hit paydirt. Talk about unfair. :)
progressoverpeace on August 16, 2008 at 10:15 PM
oh I seriously doubt mark twain would say any of those things to His face.
he’s probably been crying for mercy, and found none, for the last 100+ years….
right4life on August 16, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Some people have all the luck–Einstein benefited a bit from that in addition to his genius it seems. Schroedinger’s cat thought experiment is more fun though–especially if you hate cats.
Such a vengeful and vainglorious god. What about people who live a good life and who worship some god you don’t approve of?
BryanS on August 16, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Well now maybe if “He” had a face.
Or arms or legs or a brain.
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Some God you believe in.
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 11:59 PM
right4life would seem to prefer his God to be of the Hitler or Stalin variety.
MB4 on August 17, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Allah, I think I possibly understand their thinking although I agree on your basic “whatever” point. The difference is that between
“Let’s those of us who are religious meet there”
and
“Let’s show that one can love Jesus Christ any which way you want”.
The only reasonable reaction to the first kind would be yours. The second one, which is an exaggeration but much closer to what’s planned, clearly excludes secular rational people.
A you well know secular people take a big issue with the premise that anything good, let alone the fundamental beliefs of your party, is founded in religion. So I could understand displeasure caused by news of such gathering.
At the end, I agree that one doesn’t have to demand to be included everywhere to be relevant.
P.S. I wouldn’t equate being on an advisory board with supporting every single action.
freevillage on August 17, 2008 at 1:40 AM
You could be right Mr. Sulu. You could be right. But, then again maybe you are suffering from a Vulcan Mind Meld. Seems a little ironic that the thread I choose my comeback on has close to 600 hundreds comments and climbing. Interesting. Anyways, speaking of climbing, increase speed to Warp Factor Eight. Steady as she goes. Steady as she goes. All right, Mr. Sulu. Let’s see what she’s got. Take us out of here, warp factor 12! (fade to black).
apacalyps on August 17, 2008 at 2:50 AM
Words fail me.
sulla on August 17, 2008 at 3:50 AM
Like sulla… words fail me.
MsUnderestimated on August 17, 2008 at 5:35 AM
uh yeah…enjoy your little jokes about God now, while you can….
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom…if you don’t fear the Lord now, in this life, you will in the next one.
right4life on August 17, 2008 at 9:23 AM
There you go again.
- Ronald Reagan
MB4 on August 17, 2008 at 1:37 PM
hate to tell ya, but reagan would agree with me, not you.
you know if you’re right, its no big deal to me. If I’m right…well lets just say you’ll have a long time to think about what might have been.
right4life on August 17, 2008 at 3:07 PM
I love you too, MsUnderestimated. *hugs*
apacalyps on August 17, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Right4life is absolutely correct! Y’know, people like to talk about the love of the Lord, but the truth is the Bible says, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31). Believe me, on judgment day you’ll have to give an account of your sins …and you don’t wanna come up short of God’s righteousness.
apacalyps on August 17, 2008 at 4:51 PM
I think that one can tell an awful lot about someone by what kind of God they dream of.
MB4 on August 17, 2008 at 5:09 PM
there is a hell to fear and shun. The Lord is very loving, and has given and done all to save us. Those that reject Him and what He did are like having your son die to save someone on 9/11…then having that person come up at the funeral, and spit in your face.
right4life on August 17, 2008 at 6:44 PM
I’m afraid you’ll find out He’s your worst nightmare….but one way or the other you will proclaim Him Lord.
but remember, its your choice. and you will have no one to blame but yourself.
right4life on August 17, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 »