You [MadisonConservative] have revealed yourself to be an ass and a nasty one at that!
You’re no Conservative, either–no Conservative I know ever exhibits such sheer disdain for a fellow Conservative’s deeply held faith.

Jenfidel on April 1, 2009 at 11:45 AM

So let me get this straight: saying “for the love of god” or Sweet Evil Jesus gets you ejected from the conservative (excuse me, Conservative) ranks? No matter whether it was intended satirically or otherwise?

You’re not the first to pronounce this self-entitled judgment on our colleague, but you’re the first I remember who has used the willingness to offend “Conservatives” as the stated reason. According to classic definitions of liberal and conservative, a lot of self-described conservatives on the site aren’t conservatives either, yet you single out this one individual for abuse. This is God’s plan?

And Jenfidel, for the love of god, “for the love of god” is an English vernacular expression. Your approach to attacking this English phrase and the person using it is the same one taken by Muslims seeking to impose arbitrary limitations on free speech in the West. Neither one is justified on its merits.

How can I hate someone who I don’t believe exists?
MadisonConservative on April 2, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Amen. The argument is tautological.

Jenfidel on April 1, 2009 at 11:45 AM

How can I hate someone who I don’t believe exists?

What causes atheism?
I believe God intentionally arranged things so that the scientific, historical, and philosophical evidence alone would be less than overwhelming to prove his existence and his authority. You have to want, to seek, to love ultimate truth, regardless of the consequences, to find it. Fortunately, God promises that those who seek him wholeheartedly will find him. Unfortunately, most folks don’t want him, because they love sin and/or they think they know best how to live their lives (pride). To illustrate:
–Sir Julian Huxley, nicknamed “Darwin’s Bulldog”, was asked why the scientific community quickly embraced evolution, and he candidly responded, “I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.”
–Jesus Christ once rebuked the religious leaders who rejected him because of their pride: “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and you do not want the glory that comes from God?” You have to humble yourself to receive glory from God.

Who has more credibility?
The atheist scholar gathers facts to bolster his position, as does the Christian scholar. But I believe that the atheist has some credibility problems. First, he doesn’t believe in an all-seeing Judge, so he has no motivation except pure altruism to honestly search for and propagate truth, and no human is constantly altruistic. In fact, I think Christians are far more likely to act altruistically. Second, when an atheist confidently asserts that he knows there is nothing in the universe except matter and energy (as Carl Sagan did shortly before he met his Maker), he probably hasn’t inspected the entire universe to see if this is true. It’s like saying, “I’ve never met a blue-eyed African American, so there are none.” Those who have met blue-eyed African Americans, like I have, will disagree, but the doubter may keep doubting.

When the Bible says,
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,”
it’s not speaking of a lack of intelligence. The Hebrew word translated “fool” here has a moral connotation, as in acting or believing foolishly.
Happy April Fool’s Day to you all.

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2009 at 10:07 AM

You have revealed yourself to be an ass and a nasty one at that!
You’re no Conservative, either–no Conservative I know ever exhibits such sheer disdain for a fellow Conservative’s deeply held faith.
Hatred of God and all things godly is the sole province of the godless Left.

And I don’t have a “license” to believe otherwise. I have a RIGHT to believe otherwise. Get it straight, because your attitude really seems to indicate you’re still unclear on how this works.

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2009 at 10:07 AM

It has nothing to do with your rights or your beliefs: it has everything to do with your consideration and courtesy for others.
If you don’t care about offending us, that’s your choice, but freedom of spech also allows me to express my outrage that you do it and to politely ask you to refrain from using your gratuitous, silly, and illogical blasphemies about my Lord and Savior.

Hail Xenu.

Allahpundit on March 31, 2009 at 5:36 PM

Didn’t know who this Xenu person was so had to look him up. According to Wikipedia he looks just like me, except I don’t have a pink helmet.

He doesn’t believe in God, so why call upon love for Him that he doesn’t share?

Jenfidel on April 1, 2009 at 9:26 AM

Freedom of speech. It’s also a nice bit of holding the standard, in that there are other religions who want to hold non-believers to standards that are meaningless to them. You don’t own any language, nor do you have any right to stop anyone else from using it.

I can say Sweet Evil Jesus, Mohammed was a psychopathic pedophile, and L. Ron Hubbard was a lying sack of shit. Which of those is not like the other? Oh yeah, the first one is silly rather than insulting and critical, which makes your outrage equally silly.

And I don’t have a “license” to believe otherwise. I have a RIGHT to believe otherwise. Get it straight, because your attitude really seems to indicate you’re still unclear on how this works.

I can’t tell you how offended I am that you think your chosen religion is a license to tell me what to do.

Got it?

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2009 at 8:26 PM

Christianity in this case isn’t about you, it’s about me and the rest of us who call Jesus Lord.
I am simply asking you to have some consideration and courtesy for those of us here who have dedicated our lives to one we believe to be the Son of God.
You have license to believe otherwise and can do so without taking his name in vain in a public forum.
Likewise, AP does virtually the same thing by saying “for the love of god.”
He doesn’t believe in God, so why call upon love for Him that he doesn’t share?

Especially since no one seemed to catch on toward the top of the Comments section…

…and the ones who did managed to keep it under their hats :)

For the love of god, people, it’s obviously an April Fool’s joke. Didn’t you read what I said in the post about noting the date of publication?

Allahpundit on March 31, 2009 at 6:18 PM

No, but don’t let that make you think any less of us. ;)

I’ve always thought a lot of people on here read the headline and then start posting comments without even reading a damn thing.

Vigilante on March 31, 2009 at 8:14 PM

And there’s something wrong with that?? :) Sometimes all some of us can take is 7-8 comments before we feel compelled to post. Especially since no one seemed to catch on toward the top of the Comments section…

April fools jokes shouldn’t be so believable. oh… and they should happen on April 1st.

Ampersand on March 31, 2009 at 6:29 PM

gekkobear on March 31, 2009 at 6:56 PM

And, it never occurred to me that all the April Fools out there would feel the need to strike early.

DrMagnolias on March 31, 2009 at 9:07 PM

Hint: It’s A-U-S-T-R-A-L-I-A. (Does everything have to revolve around U.S. time?)

“We want 250,000 nude in the streets of Sydney doing whatever comes naturally.”

Stupid. People’s lives are dominated by sin just like the people in the days of Noah.

apacalyps on March 31, 2009 at 8:50 PM

But not by humor, apparently.

Maybe they’ll bring rubber rafts.

FloatingRock on March 31, 2009 at 9:11 PM

+1

Their beliefs and practices are based on science fiction – hence the name.

There – fixed it.

“Their beliefs and practices are based on science – hence the name.

I hope the rest of your people aren’t this dumb, AP. Come on, intergalactic warlord aliens putting souls in a volcano, etc.? That’s “based on science”?

What’s hilarious is that the E-meter doesn’t even work for biofeedback. Lulz.

Not very likely you banned him for the Jesus comment, so what’s the huge problem with calling Scientologists out as the criminals they are?

They even have a wanna-be Navy serving as their parish/elite paramilitary team/designated human rights abuse squad.

Frakking whackos.

UPDATE: Welcome visitors from the Anchoress! Thanks for the link! New visitors, please take a look around. My blog is 50% news and policy analysis, 50% defending Christianity in practical ways.
UPDATE: Welcome visitors from Apologetics 315! Thanks for …

uh, no they’re not. they’re based on a mythology about human souls being populated with the tormented ghosts of alient slaves dumped into a volcano by an intergalactic dictator, and practiced with some new-age bio-feedback quackery.

“We want 250,000 nude in the streets of Sydney doing whatever comes naturally.”

Stupid. People’s lives are dominated by sin just like the people in the days of Noah.

apacalyps on March 31, 2009 at 8:50 PM

Maybe they’ll bring rubber rafts.

For the love of god, people, it’s obviously an April Fool’s joke. Didn’t you read what I said in the post about noting the date of publication?

Allahpundit on March 31, 2009 at 6:18 PM

Why no, I didn’t read it–I skimmed too fast and missed that part. And, it never occurred to me that all the April Fools out there would feel the need to strike early. Plus, I’ve always had a soft spot in my heart for you, Allahpundit, so I don’t think in those terms.

The Global Atheist Movement has been rapidly growing in influence since the turn of the decade, with .. Richard Dawkins and ..Christopher Hitchins, serving as anti-bibles to millions of new followers every month. The movement has organised well-attended protests against Christmas….

What a noble cause.

In an historic move, the surging Global Atheist Movement has officially joined forces with the controversial Church of Scientology to form a new organisation, 1Truth…

Think shallow, and keep telling yourself that you are intelligent.

“We want 250,000 nude in the streets of Sydney doing whatever comes naturally.”

Stupid. People’s lives are dominated by sin just like the people in the days of Noah.

Jenfidel on March 31, 2009 at 8:20 PM

Wow. I’m about as angry and snarky as you can get post wise, but way to turn a light hearted funny thread into a potential shouting match.

Good effort…maybe read the damn thing?

Or am I missing something???

I think the logical contradiction is the point: I think a case can be made for holding the double think inherent in believing a contradiction as the most profane thing in existence. What is a profanity but the profane?

Count to 10 on March 31, 2009 at 8:36 PM

Whut?

That reminds me I need to figure out something to fool my kids… hmmmm any ideas?