Goddamn fuckin’ right!
1 February 2006 by Sean
All-fucking-right! I just had to bubble up this follow-up to my previous post about the Muslim world going apeshit over a few goofy cartoons of Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper.
Today, papers in both France and Germany republished the cartoons, saying that democratic freedoms include the “right to blasphemy.”
That just fucking rocks. As a friend of mine said in an email, and I quote:
As the West and Islam jostle over the protocols of co-existence, Muslims can’t expect all the cheek-turning to be done by the other side.
Grow a carapace, ya loons. The fact that Xianity has survived “Life of Brian” and countless Simpsons episodes means you can weather a couple of lousy cartoons. Any religion so insecure that it can’t take satire is only illuminating its own weakness.
You say Muhammed
And I say Mohammed
You say potahto
And I say potahta
Muhammed, Mohammed, potahto, retahded
Let’s call the whole thing off
1 February 2006, on 4:14 pm
Sean,
Don’t you love it? It gives me an all over tingling feeling.
I think I’ll start my own website, http://www.desecrateaholybook.com.
It would be exactly what you think- fan submitted photos and videos.
1 February 2006, on 4:43 pm
French theologian Sohaib Bencheikh spoke out against the pictures in a column in France Soir accompanying them Wednesday.
“One must find the borders between freedom of expression and freedom to protect the sacred,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, the West has lost its sense of the sacred.”
Damn right we have. Hey dumbass, why don’t you pick up a frickin history book (you know, one of those books filled with facts) and find out what the world was like when “the sacred” reigned supreme.
1 February 2006, on 5:05 pm
Wow! I’ve got to hand it to those editors in France and Germany for acting like they have some onions. And all this time I thought they had become so PC and hyper-sensitive about the mere possibility of “offending” someone that they’d immediately grovel and apologize for the smallest perceived infraction of the code of tolerance.
Good for them. Sehr Gut!
Don’t look now, Marcus, but I think we may be agreeing again.
1 February 2006, on 5:18 pm
They are suing the French Soir for “hurting the fellings of 1.2 Billion Muslims”. Now if we could just get a majority of senators, using the same logic to sue ALL arab nations for hurting our feelings when they send suicide bombers out to blow us up.
We never should have been involved w/arabs in the first place.
1 February 2006, on 5:33 pm
Frank,
I can feel reality tearing about my head as we write.
1 February 2006, on 7:37 pm
GOOD !! Stupid islam is the one religion actually worse than stupid christianity. A wackjob religion which has waging holy wars as one of its major tenets and uses this as an excuse to hijack planes and fly them into buildings, strap bombs to themselves to kill as many people as possible or plant bombs on transit systems doesn’t deserve *any* consideration at all from anyone, not one damned bit.
1 February 2006, on 9:43 pm
“If you are looking for the truth….” Here it is!
The creator of all men told Adam not to eat of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam had only one law to obey in order to continue living and serving his Creator.
All people who have lived until now, have died, because of this very transgression of the one and only Law of their Creator.
The Creator said to Adam; “who told you, you are naked without the clothing of righteousness I give you? “ “From the knowledge of good and evil which I you commanded you not to eat of, you have eaten!”
Adam replied: “The woman when she was with me, she gave me some, so I eat.” The Creator then said to her; “What is this you have done?” The woman said: “The Serpent it deceived me and so I eat!” Is this not what all religions on earth are doing to us? Why then do people keep dieing?
Is it not by the very hands of all the children of Eve who have been deceived as she was by the serpent? Are these not the offspring of vipers Jesus addressed, ones spoken of by the prophets, who think they are doing a sacred service to their Creator, when they gather up the innocent ones and put them to death with the lie of the serpent, feeding them the poisonous fruits of the knowledge of a good God and an evil Devil? Are these not the Gods… the Creator commanded us not to put before his face through Moses? Just like Eve, the mother of all, as she did to Adam… thereby killing him by the knowledge of these two gods, her children keep doing… killing the innocent ones with their teachings of the lie. They keep saying if you eat of this fruit, you positively will not die, but you will become like God a spirit and live in heaven!
I ask you, do you want to live on in the flesh as your Creator intended, or do you want to live on in the teachings of others? Thank about it! Eternal life is yours for the taking!
You now have the same choice Adam had, which was to listen to your creator’s commandment, who created you in righteousness, fully clothed, without sin. Or you may continue to listen to all the women of the earth, and continue eating of the knowledge of a good God and an Evil Devil that comes from Eve’s fornication with the Serpent, against the Creator’s one and only law, and continue shedding innocent blood. You may continue unclean, a woman shedding blood. All religions are women… they are like Eve, the mother of all the harlots on earth.
Test me JD Atwell out and see if I die… or not!
This message is from your Creator, whose name is Myholy, listen to him and continue living in the flesh, becoming children of the first resurrection and the second death will have no power over you.
E-Mail: jda@jdatwell.net
1 February 2006, on 10:16 pm
Check this dudes site out. Great anti-Islam cartoons: http://thestudyofrevenge.blogspot.com/
2 February 2006, on 12:40 am
So, should we just delete this asshole JD Atwell’s post because it is mindless, misogynistic prosletyzing and doesn’t in any way address this thread? It’s pure spam, right?
2 February 2006, on 1:22 am
Sounds like it to me.
2 February 2006, on 3:03 am
Thanks, KR. I am not one for censorship, so I will give the asshole a few days to respond… But this is pretty blatant horseshit spam, if you ask me. If he doesn’t engage in two days, I will nuke his ass.
AJ: I liked some of that dude’s Islam posts, especially the Western Mother/Eastern Mother cartoon… I said so in a comment on his site…
But he needs to develop outrage for other extremism outside of Islam. I told him it isn’t a “liberal” problem that fascist Islam is on the rise, but an apoligism problem in regards to religion, moderate or extreme (again, see Dawkins).
If we are going to attack fundamentalism, let’s do it everywhere. I am a liberal and I don’t want any of them — Muslims, Christians or Jews — telling me how to live my life. And I swear to Dawg I will fight them till my dying breath, whatever you call them… Evangelists, terrorists, rapturists, scientologists, xian “scientists”, anal duct cysts, etc.
2 February 2006, on 7:30 am
My answer to all…
Your all are just afraid of the truth.
This is why they killed Jesus.
If you are anything at all but blowhards’, you will try to prove me wrong in you eternal wisdom.
How about it! Are all of you chickens?
Engaged….
2 February 2006, on 7:46 am
As the West and Islam jostle over the protocols of co-existence Muslims can’t expect all the cheek-turning to be done by the other side.
JD says;
But you see they say; They have a real truth and just want to rule over us with their knowledge of good and evil. Kill the religion and kill them.
2 February 2006, on 8:00 am
Sean Says:Thanks, KR. I am not one for censorship, so I will give the asshole a few days to respond… But this is pretty blatant horseshit spam, if you ask me. If he doesn’t engage in two days, I will nuke his ass.
JD says:
Is this not like a liberal! he attacts with load words all he don’t understand or has a answer for… Engaged
2 February 2006, on 8:09 am
Sean, you can nuke me if you want… but you will never be anything but a blowhard asshole, or you can engage and prove me wrong and rule the internet with the most read blogs anywhere. JD
2 February 2006, on 8:10 am
“Your all are just afraid of the truth.”
Grammar lesson for dipshit theist: YOU’RE = you are. YOUR=possession.
Actually, it’s you that’s afraid of the truth. Because the truth means having to lay to rest your dumbass fairy tales and admit YOU are responsible for your actions, not some divine plan. And there is no eternal beach party with Jebus after all this.
It’s time to grow up now.
2 February 2006, on 8:23 am
Kahlo are you a liberal?
You sound like Kennedy to me… all mouth and no answers. Take your own advise an call me in the morning. You are of the walking dead because if you are going to die you are dead already, and you know the dead know nothing…
2 February 2006, on 8:30 am
I couldn’t wait for them to reprint it, so I just made my own:
http://www.rodneyanonymous.com/2006/01/lovey_nookey_good_1.html
2 February 2006, on 8:32 am
Kahlo Look! . And there is no eternal beach party with Jebus after all this.
Jebus HA! Jesus, YES!
2 February 2006, on 8:42 am
“Kahlo are you a liberal?
You sound like Kennedy to me… all mouth and no answers. Take your own advise an call me in the morning. You are of the walking dead because if you are going to die you are dead already, and you know the dead know nothing…”
Asshat are you a Neo-con? You sound like Bush to me . . . all insults and no substance. Take you own advise and call me in the morning. of the walking dead because if you are going to die you are dead already, and you know the dead know nothing…
2 February 2006, on 8:47 am
Lya Kahlo Asshat are you a Neo-con? You sound like Bush to me . . . all insults and no substance. Take you own advise and call me in the morning. of the walking dead because if you are going to die you are dead already, and you know the dead know nothing…
Thanks for the kind words… I would love to be Bush in need the money.
2 February 2006, on 8:47 am
P.s. Do you have any idea how flat out retarded that last sentence is?
2 February 2006, on 8:52 am
YES! But if I didn’t know. I know you in your eternal knowledge of what is good and bad about me, you will tell me. I have no worries when you are on the job.!
2 February 2006, on 9:18 am
“YES! But if I didn’t know. I know you in your eternal knowledge of what is good and bad about me, you will tell me. I have no worries when you are on the job.! ”
Have you gone off your meds or something? Your posts aren’t making sense anymore . . . or rather, they’re making less sense then before.
2 February 2006, on 9:24 am
Ha, Rodney. Nice!
2 February 2006, on 9:28 am
I liked this bit, “Press liberties which French authorities defend everywhere in the world cannot be questioned. However, this has to be done within the spirit of tolerance and the respect of faiths and religions,” said French Foreign Minister FM Philippe Douste-Blazy during a visit to Ankara, Turkey.”
Shorter version, “Press freedoms should be inviolate, and not used.”
2 February 2006, on 9:34 am
See, I am beginning to think that we should allow mental cases like JD Atwell to post, just so we can watch them quickly spiral into the mental instability at the core of most fundamental religious beliefs. To me it is amusing. This happens to all of them who come here. Sable Chicken just spouts “Chicken Soup for the Soul” gibberish and then runs for the hills, Frank rides an endless fence and then comes back with some primitive idea that forces us to slap him again, Dan waxes poetic about the cherry-picked pseudo-Xian pantheistic religion he has built for himself, and cops out of the hard questions (sorry, Dan, but you have done it so many times to me now, that I have to lay it out there).
Let them keep coming. They are doing our side a good service. And after, as Sable would say, atheists are mean… and smart.
2 February 2006, on 9:58 am
Sean — I understand your thinking some of my ideas are “primitive” but “riding an endless fence?” Come on. Where have I demonstrated inconsistency?
2 February 2006, on 10:33 am
Good for those editors in France and Germany!
2 February 2006, on 11:38 am
Unfortunately, the editor of the French newspaper has been canned by the owner of the paper. Hooray for freedom of the press! Here’s the link to this garbage: http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=168242006
And just a little response to JD: do you think anybody who reads this is interested in what you say? Especially when you say it in such an angry (read: UNCHRISTIAN) tone? Never mind the atrocious spelling and grammar mistakes, you sound like James Fucking Dobson over here, and most of us would let you drive off a cliff lest we risk laryngitis yelling to warn you. Here’s a great idea you can share with your fellow Christians: we don’t want to hear your 3,000 year old gibberish. We don’t. We will never buy into the idea that snakes are anything more than reptiles, that Jesus was anything more than a figment of someone’s imagination, or that for some reason the God of the universe created ONE planet with life and wanted the most divine creatures he made to destroy most of it. Get a life, asshole.
2 February 2006, on 12:49 pm
FranK: Just give me three or four paragraphs on your belief system, please, so we can see who you are and where you stand on faith, humanism, tolerance, civil liberties, separation of church and state.
2 February 2006, on 3:03 pm
How pathetic that French paper caved and sacked their editor. “There should be a limit to freedom of the press” is what we are hearing from European Muslim leaders. BULLSHIT! Intolerant Muslims coming to tolerant Europe with their fucked up values, trying to make everyone as intolerant as they are. As the government in Copenhagen has begun to say, this is no longer a debate over cartoons, but a debate about the primary values of Western freedom of expression versus Muslim beliefs.
Meanwhile, fanatics in the Middle East are threatening to kindnap European workers if the Europeans (which Europeans, all of them?) don’t apologize.
This just shows how childish and violent religion can be. You’re going to physically harm people because someone drew a cartoon and won’t say they are sorry about it? You’re truly insane… And ridiculously thin-skinned. If Allah is pissed about the cartoons, won’t he be able to take care of exacting revenge on his own? What does he need you and your crazy AK-weilding friends for?
Notice how at times like this, we don’t see any secularists threatening to kidnap religious nuts unless they apologize.
2 February 2006, on 3:04 pm
Doug Ireland has some more good material over at Direland:
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2006/02/the_cartoon_tha_1.html
2 February 2006, on 3:37 pm
Ah Sean, it’s true. Well, the copping out part anyway. Isn’t it enough for me to say I believe? What more ammo do you need? I do like how you claim I made up my own religion. Kinda sorta makes it very un-meme like, yanno?
Anyway, I told ya, read the writings of the Desert Fathers and the writings of the Alexandrians before Xianity became a state religion (thanks to the “conversion” of Emperor Constantine). I didn’t make that stuff up. That is, if you want a clue about what I was talking about.
Just as an example if you want it….I am not asking ya to beleive it, I definitely don’t want ya going there thinking I am trying to evangelize you. You make claims I made up my religion, but I say it is just not so, at the very least, someone else did.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/origen.htm
Go Steelers!!!!
2 February 2006, on 3:37 pm
Here’s another cartoon they should publish -
http://cagle.com/news/PatRobertson/images/britt.gif
2 February 2006, on 5:21 pm
Sean…you have said two things that have redeemed you in my eyes sence I said that I was not talking to you.
Ok…I am still not talking to you for a month, so please stop saying my name for awhile….Miss ya you big meanie 
2 February 2006, on 5:39 pm
Sean, sure…
Faith: I’m a protestant Christian. I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God (based on a variety of internal and external evidence that we’ve debated here a number of times). I believe Jesus Christ is God incarnate, that He was crucified to pay the penalty for our sins and was raised on the third day (you all know the story).
Humanism: Not sure what, exactly, you’re looking for here, though I wouldn’t characterize myself as a humanist (secular or religious).
Tolerance: I am an extremely tolerant person. I’m perfectly willing to allow beliefs and behaviors contrary to my own. This is consistent with my firm belief in liberty. What I am not is “tolerant” according to the Politically Correct definition where one is expected to assign equal worth to all beliefs and to accept all points of view as equally valid.
Civil liberties: Politically I’d describe myself as a Jeffersonian radical. I’m pretty darn close to a full-blown libertarian. I think people should have the right to pursue happiness in whatever form they see fit (as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of another). I also think they should be responsible for their own actions and accept the consequences of their choices.
Separation of Church and state: I like it. I think the state should have no say, whatsoever, in the affairs of religious institutions. Neither do I think the state should legislate based on the dictates of any religion.
I’d be happy to elaborate on any of these if I’ve been unclear.
2 February 2006, on 5:47 pm
Thanks, Frank. That helps me understand you better. Question: I hear a lot of theists say that they are not humanists. Why is that?
Here are the first two definitions of humanism in the dictionary:
# A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.
# Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans.
2 February 2006, on 9:13 pm
Darwin in a chimp suit
Darwin is dead but before he died he screamed for help and no help came.
You are telling me all my faults… and yet you hide in a chimp suit @#$% I now understand why you can’t understand me! So understand this when you cry for help call out my name or no help will come. JD
To anyone else addressing me…I don’t have the time to talk to you pompous assholes right now, so all I will say tonight is… you all will eat your own words and then you will apologize to me on bent knee. JD
3 February 2006, on 6:42 am
[...] Kofi Annans Kommentar wird kritisiert, denn er wendet sich eher gegen die Anwendung der Pressefreiheit in respektloser Weise, als gegen die überzogenen und kriminellen Reaktionen der Muslime. Soweit so gut und gerechtfertigt. Wie zuvor argumentiert, ist es auch keine Frage, dass man Karikaturen von Mohammed im Rahmen der Pressefreiheit veröffentlichen darf. Es gibt ein Recht auf Blasphemie :-). [...]
3 February 2006, on 6:55 am
By the way: That’s a trackback from a German blog, that’s mostly interesting because it cites us (GifS) for “There is a right to blasphemy”.
3 February 2006, on 7:35 am
“you all will eat your own words and then you will apologize to me on bent knee.”
*LOL* Xians are a never-ending source of a amusement.
3 February 2006, on 8:27 am
Re: The trackback from the German blog. Babelfish does a surprisingly good translation that gives you the essence of their post:
More to the controversy over the Mohammed caricatures
The topic (see contribution of yesterday) holds itself also today in the media and if one thinks about it, nevertheless ever further aspects break in in addition. Kofi Annans comment is criticized, because he turns rather against the application of the pressefreiheit in irreverent way, as against the covered and criminal reactions of the Muslims. So far so well and justified. As it argues before it is also no question that one may publish caricatures of Mohammed in the context of the pressefreiheit. There is a right to Blasphemie: -). Independently of it one can ask oneself however, what the purpose of the whole is and whether one should support intentional provocation. It is at least no contribution to a peaceful lives together and only someone, which gave such up and an escalation of the controversy approves, finds the actual caricatures good. They are not real and partly even misleading it. These for example one would interpret here without the well-known connection rather as reference to the explosive yield of the thoughts Muhammeds, finally is the head the bomb. One appears thus in a strange situation, i.e. that one clear-proves the right to publication defended and the sharp reactions condemned, but on the other hand also the Macher to criticize is, together with all those, which aim at a radicalization and a degradation of the relationship between Muslims and “the west”.
3 February 2006, on 8:29 am
PS: I assume “pressefreiheit” means “free press”?
3 February 2006, on 8:45 am
BTW, someone I know said that the real furor here should have been about the “racism” involved in drawing an Arab with a bomb in his turban (kudos to Doug Ireland at Direland for being the firt person I have yet seen to republish the cartoons on an American web site). My response: it was not a caricature of an Arab, it was a caricature of a Muslim, specifically Mohammed. Take a look at Mohammed’s teachings in the Koran. They are distinctly war-like, filled with incendiary kill-the-infidels language that only helps stoke the flames of the modern jihadist’s twisted head.
Look, I have great sympathy for those oppressed in the Middle East. Oppressed by rulers in their own land, oppressed by powers abroad. I’m Irish, for fuck’s sake. But I never, ever supported the actions of the IRA. Bombing a parade or a pub filled with innocent civilians is unacceptable in any scenario. Just because the enemy is so much stronger that you can’t get to them militarily,does not give you the right to kill innocent bystanders. I am sure a number of people killed in the London bombings actually took to the streets and protested the Iraq war. Seeing as London had the greatest demonstrations in the world in the run-up to the war, I would say it is very likely.
It’s kind of like these Western activists and investigative journalists who have worked passionately to help the cause of the average Iraqi citizen — only to be kidnapped and beheaded by the very people they were trying to bring some world sympathy to. Do you think this helps your cause, morons? Do the Palestinian gunmen who attacked the EU office in Gaza really think this is going to rally Europe to their cause for becoming an independent state? Good luck, idiots — you are fucking yourselves in the ass over a few cartoons.
3 February 2006, on 8:49 am
Here’s another thought: what is the rallying cry for protests such as these?
“To arms! To arms! The Prophet has been caricatured! The Danish infidels have drawn hateful cartoons of The Prophet! Cartoonage most foul has been sketched! Too arms!”
3 February 2006, on 5:07 pm
Religion will be the death of us all. Check it out. Fucking lunatics:
“Whoever defames our prophet should be executed,” said Ismail Hassan, a tailor who marched in the pouring rain with hundreds of other Muslims in the
West Bank city of Ramallah. “Bin Laden our beloved, Denmark must be blown up,” the protesters chanted.
Yeah, that’s a fair retaliation for a fucking cartoon. Kinda like going to hell for all eternity for cheating on your spouse. Next time I come across some “moderate” Muslim going on about how terrorism and violence are not condoned by their religion, I’m gonna puke in my mouth.
3 February 2006, on 5:55 pm
Religion must really be a virus of the mind so something along those lines. Don’t these crazy bastards see that their insane calls to extreme violence is exactly why they’re being made fun of in the first place. Screw their stupid wackjob prophet. Did you know that word assassin originated from their kook prophet’s use of some drug called hashish which was used to see crazy visions and an order of muslim nuts which used the drug before committing acts of violence and terrorism. Their insane “die by the sword” religion is the absolute worst of them all.
3 February 2006, on 7:49 pm
Gawd….you sure hear lots of hatred spewing from the mouths of the so-called religious here. No *$%&( wonder the jails are full of christians….
3 February 2006, on 8:49 pm
In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak said yesterday that “[f]reedom of the press and freedom of expression, which Egypt respects and preserves, should not be excuses for insulting religions and beliefs.” He also warned that “[a]n anti-Islamic media campaign in the West would lead to a dangerous situation and would have serious repercussions, because it will incense the feelings of the Muslim world and Muslim communities in Europe and outside the continent…
Aw… Poor baby. Somebody hurt your feewings?
Le Monde reports that the editor in chief of Shihan, a Jordanian newspaper, was dismissed “for having published…a few of the cartoons…accompanied by a commentary calling on Muslims to be ‘reasonable’ and to ask themselves if images ‘of hostage-takers…slitting their victims’ throats or those of suicide bombers blowing themselves up’ amidst civilians aren’t more offensive [to] the religion than the cartoons that have met with such disapproval” from Muslims.
That’s it. Fire the people who are making some fucking sense. Good one.
3 February 2006, on 10:27 pm
Would be interesting to fly over all the Muslim countries and drop caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad by the billions and explain to them that the next time they behead someone they will get more. Should keep them occupied picking them up and wiping their ass with them.
The next thing one could do is put pictures of the Prophet Muhammad on the front and back of the GI’s fighting over there, you could put them on aircraft, tanks and all other military vehicles. Might stop them from shooting and bombing. Probably more insulting and more difficult to perform would be to collect all of their religious books and grind them up and make fertilizer, provide them with water, a hoe, seeds, and let them develop that barren desert into an ecological wonderland. Maybe they would forget about Muhammad.
3 February 2006, on 11:15 pm
Hi there! Tis’ me again. Getting off topic, yet responding to what I see regularly here. Perhaps I should have emailed you with this.
To my cronies at GIFS: This is exactly what I mean about people such as JD Atwell. Why is there a need to respond to such nonsense?
My gut tells me that this is just some person that wants attention, and if he can gain it by a few verbal attacks from those here at GIFS, so be it.
Wouldn’t you rather have people with a semi-educated and open-mind frequenting this site?
To be honest with you guys, (and I know that this site isn’t just for me) I am tired and bored of these un-educated loud-mouths that spout their religion. As far as I am concerned, these fools don’t deserve the air-time that is given to them.
It irritates me time and time again that people like JD are allowed to spew their verbal vomit upon this web-site.
As far as Sable Chicken is concerned, I have developed a liking towards her just because she doesn’t know any better. Outside of the various comments on threads, we have become friends of sorts. She, in my opinion, (forgive me for saying this Sable. This is not a negative.) reminds me of a child.
She means well, and that’s all I can say.
Having known the words of those of you at GIFS for the last several months, I have a strong feeling that you are able to detect the real and harmless from the dangerous and fanatic.
Please consider blocking people such as JD Atwell from making statements that are nothing more than absolute absurdity.
I am beginning to lose interest in GIFS. Again I remind you that I realize that this site was not constructed for me and me alone. However, this site has enormous potential to spread a feeling of awareness, and if you keep letting people like JD Atwell share childish pranks, then this place of expression will stay the same as it has always been.
So many educated people are behind the scenes of this wonderful site.
I don’t want to discontinue my visits, yet at the same time the same crazies are allowed to share their thoughts of lacking intelligence.
Please allow those that have reverance for life and love share themselves. If you are going allow to people to crap out of their mouths, at least be decent enough to let them sit in their own feces without rubbing it in their faces.
They do that enough as it is. On their own.
4 February 2006, on 2:26 am
Dena: thanks for the comments. Ron brought up this very issue just this week to those of us who blog. We are discussing it. Free speech vs. verbal diarrhea is this issue at hand. I personally usually dislike sites that block and censor, but you are right… We have allowed ourselves to be dragged into pointless and childish arguments with nutballs, and we should be better than that.
Ya’ll should probably hear from Ron about all of this in some near-future post.
4 February 2006, on 3:26 am
Dena….How is that helping? Thanks a lot.
S@*&….I just saw the Crapy News and I am really upset with you right now….You guys are nuts. Tell me who in their right mind would want to mess with anything that so many passionate people worship as Holy. It is just the stupidest lacking common senceical thing that I have ever heard! (I have to make up new words to even get my point across) Is it not like egging on a pit bull, and still thinking it will be safe to tease him…How many bites in the face do you need, 911 was not enough. The News papers and or anyone else (g4s) doing these kind of behaviors, that are potentionally dangerous to the survival of the planet..*sign/cleansing breath*..lets just call this kind of behavior “Dawian’s Theory of Extinction” But hey it was all worth it for a couple of laughs…. Who’s doing this! Just stop with the blasphemy….I know that you think it is your god given right, but there has got to be a better way.
4 February 2006, on 4:22 am
Yet another comment by me, the loudest mouth on my own thread. Clearly this one has been getting to me, especially as the protests and threats and incidents get louder and louder, over what may be the biggest mountain-out-of-a-molehill for some time to come. I just hope that some cartoonist or newspaper editor doesn’t die over this one. I am afraid it is almost inevitable that someone will.
What a conflicted world we are living in.
Latest thoughts:
Will the right-wing Christians who are now gleefully exchanging these cartoons on the internet be willing to defend blasphemy against their own crazy beliefs? I didn’t think so.
What is sad about these protests in the Islamic world is that yet again the people there are getting worked up about the wrong things.
There are real issues of poverty, corruption, exploitation by their own governments, and yet they take to the streets over cartoons. And when they do this — calling for murder in the name of primitive ideas — they lose the sympathy of the non-Muslim world. They are marching against their own best interests. [Much like poor, brainwashed, American Xians vote against their own best interests.]
They are a people desperately in need of a Ghandi.
4 February 2006, on 4:26 am
Sable:
Have you completely gone off your meds? That’s the most incoherent comment you have made to date. Honestly, I kinda like you as Dena does… You are so innocent. But that made no sense whatsoever. I seriously have no idea what in the world you were talking about from the first word to the last. Woah.
4 February 2006, on 8:36 am
# Sean Says:
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:47 pm e
Question: I hear a lot of theists say that they are not humanists. Why is that?
Here are the first two definitions of humanism in the dictionary:
# A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.
# Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans.
Still waiting to hear from Frank why I keep hearing theists denounce humanists. What is this? It disturbs me. Frank, you’re a smart guy. Can you clear this up for me, please? One would think following the teachings of Christ would make you a supreme humanist.
4 February 2006, on 12:05 pm
Stupid sable chicky,
You come across like a spoiled little 4-year old brat who is stomping her foot and screaming “stop picking on my imaginary friends !!” WAAH !! WAAH !! WAAH !!
No we don’t think it’s our “god given right” because we don’t believe in this stupid crap. How many times do we have to tell you that we don’t believe in your primitive backward-assed anti-science fairy tale nonsense ?!?
4 February 2006, on 12:26 pm
A COMPARISON OF THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF SYSTEM OF THE BIBLE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE BELIEF SYSTEM OF HUMANISM
ABSOLUTES:
God-Centered View: Certain absolute moral values.
Man-Centered View: Uncertain, amoral values.
CERTAINTY AND CHANGE:
God-Centered View: God does not change (there is certainty) therefore this system includes law which defines certainty.
Man-Centered View: There is no certainty because there is constant change (evolution); therefore law must be continually changed.
4 February 2006, on 1:15 pm
God did not give me anything. As I do not believe in such. Therefore all law is Man-centered. The bible continuously changed the laws. First 10 then more and then some more. Actually the 10 were not first. Proof that the laws were man-centered.
Fact 99.9% of all legislature in the US are believers in this god. More than 10,000 laws have been written with 10,000 more to clarify the rest of that.Reality will always prevail whether you like it or not. Man-centered is god centered it is just that “we who do not believe” will never call it god centered because it is not. The phonies with their dreams of power will always mislead you into thinking that they are for god when in fact they are for themselves. They only need you to join their side so they can accumulate power. And they only get more power by making laws you approve of because you think they are doing this gods will.SHEESH. Grow up, buy a vowel, and spin the wheel.
JIM
4 February 2006, on 2:07 pm
Stop responding to chicky-poo’s cut and paste routine, folks. Sable: you are only deserving of a response when you write for yourself. Otherwise, we will ignore you.
Source of her latest cut and paste job:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/human2.htm
4 February 2006, on 2:56 pm
SABLE:
CERTAINTY AND CHANGE:
God-Centered View: God does not change (there is certainty) therefore this system includes law which defines certainty.
Man-Centered View: There is no certainty because there is constant change (evolution); therefore law must be continually changed
Tony says:
The following is a short poem I wrote years ago which says what you are trying to say in a more realistic way.
LIFE IS JUST A MEMORY
Because we live on the edge
Where the present becomes the past
Life is just a memory, that’s all
So be happy and have a ball
We try our utmost to make a permanent present
But elusive it is and elusive it shall be
The present immediately becomes the past
Like a wave crashing into the sand on a beach
Our longing for a permanent present
Leads us to imagine a God who is omnipresent
An ever-present mythical figure
Filling our minds with hope
This, of course, is just an illusion
Something to have faith in
In order for us to but reality behind us
And do away with… Life, as just a memory
4 February 2006, on 7:03 pm
Thanks Sean… I lost the link that I cut and pasted that from. That was so helpful, I wanted to read more of it anyway.
So now you guys are all going to play by some kind of rules? And you have your own set of rules just for me…I can’t cut and paste, but if I write it myself no one can understand a word that I am typing. It’s a bit of a catch 22. And I am so good at cutting a pasteing…what a rip off.
On the up side, I have learned so much from hanging out here with all the smart people. The fun can’t last forever.
Tony,
Thanks for the poem…We are all flowers quickly fadeing.
EoR, you are giving me a headache….you really, really, REALLY don’t believe. Are you sure? I can’t have any fun with you. Your comments come off like you are just a really serious person that, just plain dislikes me…fine. Sorry I got you all wound up…..Got to go, Sponge Bob’s on!
5 February 2006, on 5:17 am
So now you guys are all going to play by some kind of rules? And you
have your own set of rules just for me…I can’t cut and paste, but if I
write it myself no one can understand a word that I am typing. It’s a
bit of a catch 22. And I am so good at cutting a pasteing…what a rip
off.
Yes, Sable, as much as possible, we cite sources when we use them, rather than passing them off as our own words. One is called writing, the other is called plagiarism. These “rules” don’t simply apply to you.
5 February 2006, on 5:18 am
PS, Sable: Welcome to junior high.
5 February 2006, on 7:26 am
[...] Following up Marcus’ posts on the Muslims who’s feelings got all hurt over some cartoons (Goddamn fuckin’ right! and Are you gonna eat that Danish?), I’ve added the cartoons to our Flicker page in an Islam Photoset. [...]
6 February 2006, on 8:54 am
“Just stop with the blasphemy….I know that you think it is your god given right, but there has got to be a better way. ”
Did someone forget to explain to Sable YET AGAIN that we are atheists and therefore for us there is no such thing as blasphemy? Apparently the poor little thing has a hard time remembering this fact.
I disagree with Sean and Dena - Sable’s a waste of time. Though why she continues to come back here making the same mistakes over and over again puzzles me. The hubby no good in bed or something? There must be something else she could do with her time.
And Dena - you are completely right about the comments from some and the problems they cause. Sable is the biggest culprit.
6 February 2006, on 6:40 pm
“We never should have been involved w/arabs in the first place.”
Oil, power…too late.
7 February 2006, on 1:02 am
I don’t have any problem with being “involved with Arabs.” It’s not like they are some kind of inferior people. We should not be involved with the corrupt regimes that are currently ruling many of their countries.
9 February 2006, on 4:44 pm
Sean – sorry, didn’t mean to wait so long in responding (sometimes life can be such a distraction). Anyway…
The reason a lot of theists say they are not humanists is based on the definition of “secular humanism.” That definition is, “a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice and denies supernaturalism.” It’s that whole “denies supernaturalism” thing that causes theists to balk at the label “humanist.”
Now, I know “secular humanism” is only one kind of humanism, but it is the one most often referred to and that is why many theists automatically assume secular humanism when they hear humanism.
As for me: I have no problem with your second definition of humanism, “concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans.” By this definition a strong case can be made that Christians ARE, in fact, supreme humanists. Christian organizations are always among the leaders in meeting the needs of so many people and are always among the first to respond when disasters strike anywhere in the world. It is your first definition that causes the rub.
I won’t speak for other religions, but where Christianity is concerned your first definition of humanism runs contrary to Scripture and it is on Scripture that a Christian bases his or her worldview.
Your first definition, “A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth,” is inconsistent with the Bible in that the Bible teaches a God-centered worldview based on God’s values.
It is really no more complicated than that.
9 February 2006, on 11:47 pm
Frank: So your values are dictated by this god of yours, not by your own humanity or moral compass. Okay. This god of yours commanded Abraham to kill his own son. If your god told you to kill your child, would you?
10 February 2006, on 10:37 pm
“It’s that whole “denies supernaturalism” thing that causes theists to balk at the label “humanist.””
That’s brainwashed stupidity at its worst.
“As for me: I have no problem with your second definition of humanism, “concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans.” By this definition a strong case can be made that christians are, in fact, supreme humanists.”
NOT !!! christians are in fact supreme hypocrites and supremely brainwashed dumbasses who could care less about the welfare of humans, particularly those who don’t share their idiot beliefs and aren’t their cronies.
11 February 2006, on 8:14 pm
“If your god told you to kill your child, would you?”
When I was a theist things like that always gave me nightmares “What if god tells me to kill people?” One of the many many reasons I am no longer a bleaver.
13 February 2006, on 8:59 am
“As for me: I have no problem with your second definition of humanism, “concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans.” By this definition a strong case can be made that Christians ARE, in fact, supreme humanists. Christian organizations are always among the leaders in meeting the needs of so many people and are always among the first to respond when disasters strike anywhere in the world. ”
And I’m sure you can provide proof of this. At my last count the Red Cross (a secular org) is the forerunner in terms of aid and first responders.
And as for the statement about xians being supreme humanists, I have only one word: LIE.
13 February 2006, on 9:46 am
Lya — I’ll give you a couple of examples:
First, immediately following the attacks on 9/11 the Southern Baptist Disaster Relief teams deployed to New York. They were the first to provide meals on a large scale to the people there (not the Red Cross). They remained there for the better part of a year wearing hazmat suits and cleaning peoples apartments for them so they could move back in. They invested millions of dollars for medicine, counseling, food, shelter, etc.
Second, even before Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans those Southern Baptist teams were in place ready to move in with aid. For months they provided more than 100,000 hot meals a DAY to the people of the Gulf Coast. Again, they provided medicine, counseling, food, shelter.
Oh, and get this, Enemy …
Neither New York nor New Orleans is known as a hot bed of conservative Christianity. So I guess that kind of blows your whole “dumbasses who could care less about the welfare of humans, particularly those who don’t share their idiot beliefs” argument right out of the water, hmm?
And by the way Lya and Enemy, while the highly persuasive nature of your arguments, “NOT!!!” and “LIE” were really very well thought out and provided ample evidence to refute my claims, you’ll forgive me if I remain unconvinced of your assertions. You may not like the fact that Christians ARE very humanistic (according to the second definition listed above) but your claims that this fact is erroneous rings hollow. The evidence (a thing on which you claim to place a very high value) is in stark contrast to your position.
13 February 2006, on 11:06 am
“So I guess that kind of blows your whole “dumbasses who could care less about the welfare of humans, particularly those who don’t share their idiot beliefs” argument right out of the water, hmm?”
Poor clueless Frank. Without sources those examples are worthless. Got sources? If not, shove it.
“And by the way Lya and Enemy, while the highly persuasive nature of your arguments, “NOT!!!” and “LIE” were really very well thought out and provided ample evidence to refute my claims, you’ll forgive me if I remain unconvinced of your assertions.”
Translation: “you caught me in countless lies, which I can’t get out of, so I’ll throw out some ad homs instead”
“You may not like the fact that Christians ARE very humanistic (according to the second definition listed above) but your claims that this fact is erroneous rings hollow. The evidence (a thing on which you claim to place a very high value) is in stark contrast to your position.”
It has nothing to do with liking anything, asshat. Since you’ve provided no evidence, this arrogant tone you’re taking makes you look like more of a liar. LIAR.
Regardless of your little stories, Xians are a gigantic majority and yet there are still millions of poor, sick homeless etc. Given their numbers if xians are such humanitarians, these problems would be far less extensive. Whether you like it or not, most xians (most people) are lazy, self-absorbed and shallow. I volunteer in two shelters at my city. NO xians volunteer at all. None. When I volunteered with Meals on Wheels - no xians. I use to do errands for some elderly nuns at a local convent - where were the oh-so-altrustic xians?
Nice try, but your arrogant tone coupled with no evidence makes you a joke, yet again. You must be used to it by now.
13 February 2006, on 11:18 am
Frakked up frank,
For starters 9/11 was an act of religious fanaticism and wouldn’t have happened without religion. I doubt the veracity of your claims as I’ve never read or heard anything about some “baptist disaster relief team”, heck where would they get hazmat suits from ? Also the christian fanatic dumbass who calls himself president (UGH!!!) simply used 9/11 as an excuse to invade another country and took away funding that could’ve been used to secure the levees in New Orleans. When Katrina hit he was eating cake and strumming away on his guitar (both verified facts), so much for “concern” from him or his misadministration. Also if christians are so humanistic and caring how do you explain their history: holy wars, crusades, inquistions, witch trials/killings, conquests, sexism, priest molestations, televangelists, constant threats of vengeance, proselytizing and attempts to push their nutjob beliefs on everyone. You sucky ass christian are no better than muslims, the major difference is the modern western world has laws which prevent you kooks from doing crazy stuff while the middle east does not.
13 February 2006, on 12:41 pm
Lya
ad ho·mi·nem
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
All I did was point out that you made an argument based on no evidence. You responded by saying “Poor clueless Frank,” an attack on my character rather than an appeal to intellect. THAT, dear Lya, is an ad hominem attack.
Then you provided anecdotal evidence with the pathetic “I’ve never seen any Christians at the relief shelter” nonsense. Finally, both you and Enemy tried to change the subject with all your “religious wars” and “millions of starving people” crap.
Nevertheless, I will remain on topic and provide you with one news story in support of my arguments:
Baptists’ 10.5 million meals shatters prior disaster relief record
Nov 2, 2005
By Tim Yarbrough
Baptist Press
ALPHARETTA, Ga. (BP)–Southern Baptist Disaster Relief announced Nov. 2 that volunteers have prepared a record 10.5 million meals since Hurricane Katrina made landfall in late August. The meal count shatters the previous record of 3.5 million meals set in 2004.
In one of the most active hurricane seasons in U.S. history, more than 9,000 Southern Baptist volunteers from 41 state conventions have been deployed following hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.
“The milestone of more than 10 million prepared meals in the recent response to hurricanes exceeds the expectation of most any national, state or associational leader within Southern Baptist Disaster Relief,” said Jim Burton, who coordinates the Baptists network.
“To go from ‘buddy burners’ in 1967 in the response to Hurricane Beulah to massive tractor-trailer and other feeding units today reflects the commitment across the Southern Baptist Convention to meet the needs of disaster victims.
“Those 10 million plus meals represent a renewal amongst our people to be on mission with God in North America. Disasters throw the gates of North American missions wide open, and our people have sacrificially carried the banner of Christ to their neighbors in need,” Burton said.
It was announced Nov. 1 that monetary donations to the North America Mission Board for disaster relief also have surpassed all previous records. Donations received so far top $18 million, with much of the money already sent to areas devastated by the hurricanes to minister to needs of individuals and Southern Baptist churches and to share Christ.
Currently, 365 Southern Baptist Disaster Relief units are engaged in preparing meals and in cleanup and recovery efforts. Volunteer days donated total 121,283 since August and 14,073 jobs have been completed by volunteers.
Southern Baptist volunteers continue to serve in Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas in areas affected by hurricane devastation, including:
Florida — First Baptist Church, Belle Glade; Boca Glades Baptist Church, Boca Raton; former discount store, Clewiston; Salvation Army kitchen, Fort Lauderdale; First Baptist Church, Hallandale; First Baptist Church, Homestead; Fifth Street Baptist Church, Key West; First Baptist Church, La Belle; Miami Dade Public Works, Miami; West Kindall Baptist Church, Miami; First Baptist Church, Naples; Opa Locka Airport; First Baptist Church, Pompano Beach; First Baptist Church, Stuart; Sweetwater; and Haverhill Baptist Church, West Palm Beach.
Mississippi — Bay St. Louis; First Baptist Church, Salvation Army warehouse, Bay Vista Baptist Church and SA Yankee Stadium, Biloxi; Grace Memorial Baptist Church, Pass Road Baptist Church and Gulf Coast Baptist Association, Gulfport; Hattiesburg; Long Beach; Temple Baptist Church and New Horizon Baptist Church, Moss Point; First Baptist Church, Ocean Springs; and First Baptist Church and Jackson County BA, Pascagoula.
Louisiana — Calvary Baptist Church, Algiers; First Baptist Church, Belle Chasse; First Baptist Church, Kenner; East Bayou Baptist Church, Lafayette; Salvation Army, LaPlace; Camp Living Waters, Loranger; Metairie Baptist Church; First Baptist Church, New Orleans; First Baptist Church/New Jerusalem, Pearl River; First Baptist Church, Slidell; Alerio Center, Westwego; Sports Complex, Dequincy; Dry Creek Baptist Camp, DeRidder; First Baptist Church, Lake Charles; Maplewood Baptist Church, Sulphur; and First Baptist Church, Vinton.
Texas — Wooster Baptist Church, Bay Town; Calvary Baptist Church and Salvation Army, Beaumont; Hillcrest Baptist Church, Jasper; Simon Recreation Center, Nacogdoches; Orange; Port Arthur; Sabine Pass; and First Baptist Church, Vidor.
Contributions for disaster relief may be sent to state conventions, associations or churches responding to the effort or to NAMB. Donations to Southern Baptist Disaster Relief may be made online, http://www.NAMB.net, or by calling1-866-407-6262. Contributions also can be mailed to the Southern Baptist Disaster Relief, North American Mission Board, Box 116543, Atlanta, GA 30368-6543.
Disaster relief information including downloadable videos are posted regularly at http://www.NAMB.net. And many, many more stories of Baptist relief efforts can be found at http://www.bpnews.org.
13 February 2006, on 1:07 pm
In fact, Lya, here are a few urls to individual stories of Christians providing humanitarian relief.
http://www.bpnews.org/bpnews.asp?ID=21981
http://www.bpnews.org/bpnews.asp?ID=21974
http://www.bpnews.org/bpnews.asp?ID=21955
http://www.bpnews.org/bpnews.asp?ID=21880
http://www.bpnews.org/bpnews.asp?ID=21869
http://www.bpnews.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22019
I doubt you’ll read much of it but a few highlights include millions of dollars raised and used for relief, thousands of volunteers, millions of meals served (interesting side note: Southern Baptist volunteers actually manned the Red Cross kitchens in many instances), and international relief provided.
But your evidence is impressive, too.
13 February 2006, on 1:20 pm
“THAT, dear Lya, is an ad hominem attack.”
As was, asshat Frank, your comment before hand. We go on what you give us. You gives us crap, it is treated like such. And as has been explained a million times already - this is our house. Feel free to fuck off as quick as you like.
“Then you provided anecdotal evidence with the pathetic “I’ve never seen any Christians at the relief shelter” nonsense.”
Evasion. Call it pathetic and ancedotal if you like, that doesn’t change the truth of it. I volunteer in a two shelters for battered and/or homeless women. There are ex-xians, and ex-muslims. No current theists. Ever. Therefore, I know first-hand your assertion that xians are all super fantastic givers is bullshit.
“Finally, both you and Enemy tried to change the subject with all your “religious wars” and “millions of starving people” crap.”
Another evasion. It’s not changing the subject, coward. Face up to it. If xians, being so numerous, were actually altrustic en masse, these problems would be far less extentsive.
Pointing out the countless atrocities is also not off topic. Though it doesn’t even remotely surprise me that you think it is. After all, you can’t own up to all the bad your kind has done if you’re trying to prove how wonderful they are. Of course, all the bad negates all the good, but who’s counting.
Thank you for FINALLY providing some actual evidence for your claims. It is very good to see - both that you supplied it and that it might be true. However, it is one article about one group of xians. What about the rest? If you’re going to claim things like “Christians ARE very humanistic” just showing me Baptists can be isn’t very convincing.
Especially since countless organizations and individuals gave $, time and supplies to relief efforts. At best, you’ve sot of proven (thus far) that some xians are at least equally altrustic as other people.
13 February 2006, on 1:24 pm
“But your evidence is impressive, too. ”
My my, what a mouthy little asshat you are. Especially since all your “evidence” comes from The BAPTIST PRESS.
Here’s the “about” snippet:
Formed at the suggestion of state paper editors, and supported with Cooperative Program funds, Baptist Press (BP) has been the daily national news service of Southern Baptists since 1946.
BP circulates to 40 state Baptist newspapers with a combined readership of 1.16 million and has a central bureau in Nashville, Tenn., as well as four active bureaus in Richmond, Va., Atlanta, LifeWay Christian Resources, and Washington.
BP News — witness the difference! Covering the critical issues that shape your life, work and ministry.
BP Sports, formed in September 2000, is a division of Baptist Press and provides daily scores and sports features from the 56 colleges and universities affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention as well as special features on professional Christian athletes and coaches.
BP Sports — sports with a spiritual attitude! Sharing the witness of Christ in athletics.”
Apologies, I should have made it clear I was looking for real sources.
13 February 2006, on 1:27 pm
Here’s some other articles from Frank’s pseudo-source:
Prayer in Crisis
Marriage: One Man, One Woman
Minstry in the Motor City
13 February 2006, on 1:46 pm
I went looking all over for a reputable news source to find what the heck Frank was talking about in both the Sept. 11 and Katrina instances. I found nothing, and I am pretty darn good at that kind of research (it’s part of what I do for a living).
Then I came back to see that he was laughably referring to an article from The Baptist Press.
HAAHAHAHAHAHA!
Also, Frank said Finally, both you and
Enemy tried to change the subject with all your “religious wars” and
“millions of starving people” crap.
How is that crap? Do you deny the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, the priest molestations and coverups, the long history of misogyny in the church, the endless list that could provide that utterly refute your statement that Xians are among the greatist humanists? That’s the discussion at this point, right?
13 February 2006, on 1:51 pm
Also, I have yet to get an answer to this one:
Frank: So your values are dictated by this god of yours, not by your own humanity or moral compass. Okay. This god of yours commanded Abraham to kill his own son. If your god told you to kill your child, would you?
13 February 2006, on 2:00 pm
” Do you deny the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, the priest molestations and coverups, the long history of misogyny in the church, the endless list that could provide that utterly refute your statement that Xians are among the greatist humanists? That’s the discussion at this point, right? ”
PREZACTLY. Thank you Sean.
13 February 2006, on 2:35 pm
That gay marriage Q&A (every time the word marriage is mentiond, it is in sarcastic quotes) is so offensive. As I have often said, the married gays I know (and they consider their marriages valid whether the state does or not) have much healthier, longer-lasting relationships than most of the heteros I know. There are some obvious reasons for this: they are rarely forced by family pressures to marry someone they don’t love, it’s impossible for them to have unwanted babies, they have already broken with so much of society’s horrible brainwashing about gender roles that they are less likely to slip into fucked up codependency, etc.
From the BP’s subtley hateful Q&A:
– What is a civil union?
Civil unions provide same-sex couples most or all of the legal benefits of marriage, without using the term “marriage.” Vermont is the only state with civil unions. California has domestic partnerships, which are similar. Some of the marriage amendments ban civil unions and domestic partnerships.
No further elaboration on that one. In other words, that was a tacit endorsement of denying loving gay couples any of the rights straight couples enjoy.
Yeppers. Only a true humanitarian would throw in with this loving crowd.
Frank: it’s hate and bigotry like this that make people like Lya simply say “LIAR” when Xians spout on about what lovers of humanity they are.
13 February 2006, on 3:06 pm
Lya, you said, “Evasion. Call it pathetic and ancedotal if you like, that doesn’t change the truth of it. I volunteer in a two shelters for battered and/or homeless women. There are ex-xians, and ex-muslims. No current theists. Ever. Therefore, I know first-hand your assertion that xians are all super fantastic givers is bullshit.”
1) Your evidence IS ancedotal. It proves that there are no Christians working in the TWO shelters where you volunteer. No more. It most certainly does NOT prove that you “know first-hand” my “assertion that xians are all super fantastic givers is bullshit.” That’s an enormous leap in logic. Whew! Gosh, maybe all the Christians are volunteering somewhere else like, oh I don’t know, the Gulf Coast. Your evidence proves NOTHING with regard to the benevolence of Christians.
2) I did NOT assert that Christians are “ALL super fantastic givers.” My original assertion is as follows:
“As for me: I have no problem with your second definition of humanism, “concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans.” By this definition a strong case can be made that Christians ARE, in fact, supreme humanists. Christian organizations are always among the leaders in meeting the needs of so many people and are always among the first to respond when disasters strike anywhere in the world.”
Such statements are not typically viewed as having universal significance. I made no claim that every single Christian is a super giver. But that Christians, in general, can be ranked among some of the best.
3) I provided support for my claim. You all scoff at my source. Does that mean you deny the accuracy of the stories? If so, where did the stories come from? Were they made up out of thin air? Complete fabrications with not a single shred of truth to them? You tell me. And just so you know, I’ve worked for both the secular press and the Baptist Press and the journalistic integrity in the Baptist Press (with regard to fact checking and source corroboration) far exceeds that in the secular media.
4) I don’t deny the inquistions, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, or any of the other things listed. I never have. All people, everywhere, do bad things. Christians are no exception. Are you suggesting that Christians should still be thought of in the context of hundreds and thousands of years ago instead of in light of the good work they are doing today?
Or do you deny completely that Christians provide humanitarian aid to those in need? Because THAT is the bulk of my claim.
Do you?
13 February 2006, on 3:44 pm
“Your evidence IS ancedotal. It proves that there are no Christians working in the TWO shelters where you volunteer. No more. It most certainly does NOT prove that you “know first-hand” my “assertion that xians are all super fantastic givers is bullshit.” That’s an enormous leap in logic.”
Very true. I did not say you needed to accept what I’ve said, nor did I say it carries true for all xians. I have volunteered in 27 shelters total. In those 27, I’ve meet 3 xians. And those were at the animal shelter. But thank’s for that hysterical display. Very mature.
“Whew! Gosh, maybe all the Christians are volunteering somewhere else like, oh I don’t know, the Gulf Coast. Your evidence proves NOTHING with regard to the benevolence of Christians.”
And neither does yours. Thanks for playing!
“I did NOT assert that Christians are “ALL super fantastic givers.”
Yes, you did. Whether you intended to or not is not my problem. See the following:
“As for me: I have no problem with your second definition of humanism, “concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans.” Christian organizations are always among the leaders in meeting the needs of so many people and are always among the first to respond when disasters strike anywhere in the world.”
“Such statements are not typically viewed as having universal significance.”
Total bullshit.
“I made no claim that every single Christian is a super giver.”
To quote: “By this definition a strong case can be made that Christians ARE, in fact, supreme humanists.” This does not say “some”. It implies you meant all. Just because you’re backpedaling now . . .
” But that Christians, in general, can be ranked among some of the best.”
Which you so far have not proven.
“I provided support for my claim. You all scoff at my source. Does that mean you deny the accuracy of the stories?”
Yeppers. Stories written by the group that doled out the support are hardly non-biased sources. As an example: the Boy scouts of America routinely inflate their membership numbers t