| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 4:35:22 PM
FOX NEWS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcbTJgeJrw0
PAULA ZAHN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiyJzWy3CDQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHnXrU5JzU
Over the past year I have really been reviewing my views on life and what it means to me. Atheism has come to something that I few to be more my core belief over anything else. But watching some of these news clips just makes me sick that me, little ole' John, has read one or two books about Atheism and understands what atheism is more so then a journalists who is doing a story about it.
But Stephen Hawking should be on CNN tonight to help set Paula straight in her "expert" panel.
As for the Fox News clip, the guy asking the questions is just completely ignorant to the point that at the end he talks about how Christians can play basketball together in large groups. I love the guys response. If you don't know who the guy is being talked to, he put together an excellent dvd call "The God Who Wasn't There". I would recommend viewing it if this sort of thing interests you. |
| 93 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Arthen |
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 4:45:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
the worst part is that i read the first two, so now i can't just not read the third. the first one sucked, so i shouldn't have read the second. i'm going to read the third one in the spirit of some medieval self-punishment.
You're a regular Flaggelant. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 4:43:46 PM
That sounds about right. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 4:32:19 PM
the worst part is that i read the first two, so now i can't just not read the third. the first one sucked, so i shouldn't have read the second. i'm going to read the third one in the spirit of some medieval self-punishment. |
| Erich |
Posted - 03/10/2007 : 7:26:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Arthen
Dane Cook on meeting an atheist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wts-dntnyh4
You know, the one or two times my mouth even contemplated a quick grin, that is to say it twitched but was never given the proper motivation to move forward, it was listening to something Dane Cook stole from Luis CK.
I think hes unfunny, to the utmost, AND I think his fanbase sucks too.
As for Cameron's crockumentary... first off, no ones going to care. Atheists will remain so, Christians will remain so, and those inbetwen will either not care, or wouldve changed opinion regardless of whats presented to them. secondly, christians wouldnt believe it anyway, so whats the point? Jesus himself could appear in spirit form and say to the world "yup, them be my bones", and hardcore christians wont budge.
and as for the Eragon books... they're poorly written, im sure, but hes got more money than all of us now. Oh well. |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 03/10/2007 : 10:41:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by gnome44
I've never read his work either...but at least he has the excuse of being a child when he wrote the 1st book. You'd expect children to write like children.
Stephen King was 19 (chassit) when he wrote The Gunslinger... So much for ol' Christopher's excuse. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 10:40:06 PM
i don't know, hrw. i'll like pretty much anything with a sword or a dragon on the cover, and even i think it blows. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 8:22:17 PM
Yeah, well, most people are easily led half-wits. |
| gnome44 |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 6:04:35 PM
I've never read his work either...but at least he has the excuse of being a child when he wrote the 1st book. You'd expect children to write like children.
But it's kind of sad that both of these authors have sold so many (billions?) of books, when they are terrible at their craft/art. I guess it's not surprising...most things that are popular are complete trash. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 5:49:01 PM
christopher paolini is the worst writer ever. |
| gnome44 |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 5:17:23 PM
It seems like he's trying to jump on the Mel Gibson bandwagon.
Mel made some decent movies back in the day (Mad Max, the 1st Lethal Weapon, etc). Then he decided to get serious and jump on the Jesus bandwagon (lots of wagons here).
So Cameron probably decided that he could get some publicity with the Jesus thing...it worked for Mel and the Da Vinci Code.
Speaking of which...I've never read the Da Vinci Code...but I read the prequel, Angles and Demons. Dan Brown is the worst writer ever. He writes as poorly as a 5th grader. He is not "smarter than a 5th grader." |
| Arthen |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 4:59:44 PM
Well put Dan. James Cameron needs to stop terrorizing the world with his products and presence. You topped out at Aliens and Terminator 2, give it up Jimmy. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 4:42:13 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHA |
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 4:36:56 PM
i'm divided on dane cook. i think he's very funny to listen to, but i absolutely cannot stand his mannerisms and overall demeanor live. also, that atheist bit isn't funny. i also think that people who don't like him tend to dislike him because they identify him with college frat boys or something. i'd like to say, at this point, that if you dislike a comedian or musician because you hate his fanbase, it's because you are not secure in your own identity, which is fucking pathetic.
james cameron is indeed a fully equipped toolshed. his defense about making the documentary was, in essence, "i'm not a archaeologist or a scientist, so i don't know if the bones are jesus's or not." well, if you don't know about something, chances are you shouldn't be making a documentary on it. shithead. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 12:09:08 PM
Ok, Dane Cook is the least funny fuck in existence, and James Cameron is a fully equipped toolshed.
Discuss. |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 03:10:04 AM
I'm sorry, I don't believe in this thread. I am an athiest of this thread. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 8:49:42 PM
ok. i decided to ressurect this thread. so. . .that documentary by james cameron about alledgely finding jesus's bones. discuss. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 02/23/2007 : 9:43:44 PM
Dane Cook on meeting an atheist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wts-dntnyh4 |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 02/23/2007 : 9:15:13 PM
That would be a logical approach, Dan. Two people arguing or discussing a point must have a common frame of reference, i.e. "The Bible is true", in order to even start such a debate. Otherwise it degenerates (like so many threads here have) into:
"Uh-huh!"
"Nuh-uh!"
"UH-HUH!"
"NUH-UH!"
"Well you're stupid."
"Well you're dumb."
"Yo mama"
"Eat my ass"
"Merry Christmas"
"Kiss my ass"
"Kiss his ass"
"Happy Chanukah" |
| tericee |
Posted - 02/23/2007 : 03:38:51 AM
So Dan, you're not an atheist, you're an apathist? |
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 02/23/2007 : 12:08:51 AM
who said what in the bible dan? |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 11:37:58 PM
foiled! i would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for you meddling kids.
actually, i don't argue with religion is right. what i'm arguing here is a contradiction between this man's message and methods. when i argue with someone about their religious views, i do so within the bounds of their beliefs. example, if i were to argue with you, muskrat, about your view on gays based on your religion, i wouldn't argue about your religion at large, i would probably use passages from the bible. i assume, for the sake of argument, that the bible is truth for that argument. subtle difference. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 11:26:31 PM
Athiests can be just as bad as Evangelical Christians. The really bad ones carry themselves with the same elitist holier-than-thou attitude that Pat Robertson has. |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 9:46:58 PM
And yet here you (and I, and jsemon, and rubylith, and everyone else) are again. So if you don't care, as you say, then obviously your only mission here is post whoring to get to 3000 posts! Aha, Dan, your plot has been exposed. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 7:19:09 PM
if it's a non-sentient force, then it won't really matter if you worship it as you might worship the god of major religions today, or ancient religions. you wouldn't say prayers to gravity, or magnetism, or even nature at large, would you? you wouldn't perform rites or masses to appease, praise, or otherwise communicate with a "natural" force. you could, but to what end? i wouldn't.
as for what i believe, i'm strictly devoid of an opinion on the existence of a diety, dieties, or a force that plays the role of creation. an opinion on it wouldn't be practical for me because my behavior would remain the same irrespective of its existence. but arguing for or against an existence of god/s is asinine and pointless. faith and reason will never see eye-to-eye on anything ever because of the nature of those thought processes. period. and honestly? i'd rather have my face bounced off a telephone pole than argue about it or hear two people argue about it. i'm convinced people who do argue it spend much of their time looking for crayons to chew.
edit: 3000 posts, bitches. |
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 5:40:58 PM
but is it a "force" of nature you believe in or an actual tangible person being a god? |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 5:06:25 PM
yeah, this really got off track here. here comes the focus train, last stop is this thread.
i don't know if atheist is what i am. my stance is, if suddenly there were proof a creator father-god, i still wouldn't worship him. so it isn't that i don't believe. and it isn't really that i don't care, either. the existence of a god touches all things on a profound level, too much so to ignore. it's more that it wouldn't change my life vis-a-vis religious practice.
but i don't like the blasphemy challenge guy. he'll bitch and moan about parents and churches "inflicting" religion on defenseless kids, but he turns right around and targets those same kids for his own narrow moral crusade. this isn't even about god. it's about molding impressionable kids to fit your view. religions do it, and so does he. he's no better. if he was really concerned about kids making their own choices as regards religion, he wouldn't be aiming a campaign at them. and secondly, who the fuck cares what kids think? kids believe in god because kids will believe whatever you tell them until they get old enough to make decisions for themselves. |
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 3:59:36 PM
yeah, so them athiest.. |
| tericee |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 4:55:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Hopeful Rolling Waves
Brit Stupidity: aluminum = aluminium
Actually, I think that one is most of Europe, but probably because they mostly learn British English. I went to see Hollywoodland with three German friends last night, and afterward we had a short discussion about pronunciation of certain words. Aluminum was one of the ones they asked about. Unfortunately, most of them prefer to pronounce it the same way the Brits do.
After reading the Wikipeidia entry on Aluminum, I'm with you. I prefer the American way. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 2:53:37 PM
yes, i am. no, i don't apologize. it's awesome. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 11:51:49 AM
Wait, there's a British Dwarf on this board?
Edit:
Plagiarising Penny Arcade today, eh Dan?
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2007/02/21 |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 11:21:58 AM
Brit Stupidity: aluminum = aluminium |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 10:23:41 AM
all of that is right, tericee. there are lots of curious little differences between english and american english. and yeah, both are right.
however, i resist entirely british english as far as usage goes in the united states. this is mostly because way, way too many people are going around pretending to be british. i know, it doesn't seem like that's true, but it's a goddamned epidemic. there's a specific brand of indie kid/hipster that's especially guilty. they say "mate" and "arse." they listen almost only to bands from england. they give you the "english middle finger," which is really just a peace sign. i can't stand it. liking english culture and whatever is fine, but pretending you're english is psycotic. color, not colour. no one wants to loan you "five quid." stones are rocks, not a measure of weight. drop the facade.
this is a group of people whose perversions language cannot entirely contain: they are almost pure anguish. they are the arm of cain raised over his pure brother abel in murderous rage, its charred seed germinated in human sin. |
| gnome44 |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 08:37:40 AM
I can barely follow any of this...but no, tericee, I am not British. Although, I might start claiming that I am a Brit...just because it seems so cool!
Bond...James Bond...
Gnome...Gnome 44...Awesome! |
| tericee |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 07:35:42 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
gnome: haha. grammatical challenge accepted! no, it should be "the church is," because "church" is a singular noun, whereas "media" is a plural noun. so, as elementary school english lessons will tell us, verbs and nouns must agree as regards plurality. i could have said "churches are" but i chose not to because it doesn't imply the same sort of unity that exists with churches of the same sect. your point is understood, though, because on the surface it does seem that way.
As an American, I agree with you Dan, but the British would see it differently. (Gnome, are you British?)
In British English (BrE), singular nouns that describe multiple people are usually treated as plural, particularly where one is concerned with the people constituting the team, rather than with the team as an entity. The singular form is usually used in American English (AmE).
For example, British "the team are worried"; American "the team is worried". Americans may use the plural form when the individual membership is clear, for example, "the team take their seats" (not "the team takes its seat(s)"), although it is almost always rephrased to avoid the singular/plural decision, as in "the team members take their seats". The difference occurs for all collective nouns, both general terms such as team and company and proper nouns (for example, where a place name is used to refer to a sports team). Proper nouns which are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE. Examples:
BrE: "The Clash are a well-known band." AmE: "The Clash is a well-known band." Both: "The Beatles are a well-known band."
BrE: "Pittsburgh are the champions." AmE: "Pittsburgh is the champion." Both: "The Steelers are the champions".
Use of the singular verb is not wrong in such instances in BrE. At least one authority (E. Gowers, The Complete Plain Words, 1986) indicates that either is acceptable (provided that usage is not mixed or inconsistent within the same document), and that (as implied above) the choice of verb form may be chosen according to whether the emphasis is on the body as a whole or on the individual members (for example, "A committee was appointed ...; but "the committee were unable to agree ...").
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences)
|
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 5:14:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
don't you have something better to be doing at work? such as. . .work? i hope your boss doesn't catch you jerking around on a message board on company time.
doubt it, i got it pretty easy here. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 3:56:38 PM
haha  |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 3:02:22 PM
don't you have something better to be doing at work? such as. . .work? i hope your boss doesn't catch you jerking around on a message board on company time. |
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 1:37:22 PM
yeah, i think you need a temp ban because of posting shit like that. you cant just post that blindly for anyone at work to get their ass in trouble for it. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 1:26:41 PM
::casts blindness/deafness on self:: |
| rubylith |
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 12:24:29 PM
Its not early if you've been up all night. haha |
| Arthen |
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 11:36:59 AM
Shit, I'm considering discriminating against him. And by association, you as well Dave.
God, 8:30am is to early in the morning for this sick stuff. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 10:42:06 AM
Dave, you're not allowed on the internet anymore. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 09:33:05 AM
Would Jesus discriminate against this guy?
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j11/tonywelter/hairy8tn.jpg
ok ok there's the hyperlink for you fellow cube dwellers...open at risk, it may cause 5 or 6 strokes. |
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 10:58:07 PM
well there are churches that have woman priests, pastors, etc....it is kinda odd in my uprising to see that. |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 10:39:14 PM
See isn't it great when people can hurl insults back and forth and laugh and not take stuff seriously and realize hey, we're all in this together? I miss all you opinionated people! And I mean that in the very best way |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 10:34:23 PM
Robin, consider this THREAD unfriendly to women. Ooohhhh (just kidding). Ouch jsemon that hurt, sorry, that "hehe" was a typo, it was supposed to say "jsemon, eat rubylith's ass". |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 9:30:37 PM
***THREAD CLOSED*** |
| Robin |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 8:56:21 PM
Wow, this post has begun to disintegrate... but that aside I have yet to see any church "Celebrate women" unless it's a gay church with a Lesbian leader. Sorry I had to say it. Carry on gentlemen:)
Peace, Robin |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 8:03:25 PM
you'd have to roll a knowledge: religion check for that, and have at least a caster level of 4 as a cleric with a lawful evil alignment. |
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 5:46:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
ok, muskrat and jsemon2, fight. ready?
roll for initiative.
as long as we can sacrifice you to the gods afterwards to bring peace to the winner. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 5:16:48 PM
ok, muskrat and jsemon2, fight. ready?
roll for initiative. |
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 2:20:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rubylith
HHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Zinger!
 |
| rubylith |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 11:33:39 AM
HHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Zinger! |
| Arthen |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 11:32:54 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rubylith
Who's ass would jesus eat?
Mary Magdalene's? |
| rubylith |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 11:13:08 AM
Who's ass would jesus eat? |
| gnome44 |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 10:40:54 AM
quote:
Hopeful Rolling Waves Posted - 02/14/2007 : 6:28:42 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dunno, I am a fully-functioning 25 year old male and I am gonna say, yeah, from my vantage point, ass eating is pretty weird.
I have had long-going arguments with friends about this, and the fact stands: poop comes out there, clean as it may (or may not) be at the time of the eating. BLAMMO! Argument obliterated.
Tip your waitress.
HRW said "poop"! |
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 10:30:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Muskrat
Um I got lost there... HRW I dunno if the "guilty conscience" post was directed at me or not, but either way I wasn't really addressing you in my post, lol... more jsemon, and jsemon, I hope that "oh snap" was an friendly acknowlegement of yet another good (and also friendly) joke? hehe
and i was until you said "hehe" like a middle school girl. |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 09:54:15 AM
Um I got lost there... HRW I dunno if the "guilty conscience" post was directed at me or not, but either way I wasn't really addressing you in my post, lol... more jsemon, and jsemon, I hope that "oh snap" was an friendly acknowlegement of yet another good (and also friendly) joke? hehe |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 02:21:40 AM
Is this post going anywhere? lol
We just seem to be Itchy and Scratchy, beating eachother over the head with mallets. Just someone kill scratchy and end it, lmao!  |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 6:46:48 PM
eating ass is pretty gross for exactly the same reasons hrw states. but, from what i can tell, it's not all that weird. that is, people do it. people eat ass. so, i guess, people do pretty gross things. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 6:35:39 PM
"There are no jokes in the bible, Keith." - Robyn Hitchcock |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 6:28:42 PM
I dunno, I am a fully-functioning 25 year old male and I am gonna say, yeah, from my vantage point, ass eating is pretty weird.
I have had long-going arguments with friends about this, and the fact stands: poop comes out there, clean as it may (or may not) be at the time of the eating. BLAMMO! Argument obliterated.
Tip your waitress. |
| gnome44 |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 4:47:07 PM
It's simply a saying...like "Go f**k yourself." The intent is usually not to have the person actually perform coitus with their self.
And whether or not I enjoy a good ass eating...I wouldn't say that it's "pretty weird". Maybe uncommon, but not necessarily weird. 
|
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 4:38:52 PM
I am saying that, politically, regilion should not be used as a means to an end; and that, no, true liberals nor conservatives care to use religion as such. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 4:36:11 PM
Well, without hearing Dice's take, I can say that telling someone to 'eat my ass' is by and large a pretty weird thing to say, as it assumes effectively that you enjoy having your ass et [sic]. |
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 4:14:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by gnome44
Dan,
My response to you is simple. Eat my ass. 
please see Andrew Dice Clay's view on "Ass Eating" |
| Arthen |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 3:41:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by gnome44
Dan,
My response to you is simple. Eat my ass.
He might just be hungry enough... |
| gnome44 |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 3:09:49 PM
Dan,
My response to you is simple. Eat my ass.
|
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 2:49:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Muskrat
but hey, my grandpa was a chimp, gimme a break.
 |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 2:47:46 PM
i'm going to take on all comers.
gnome: haha. grammatical challenge accepted! no, it should be "the church is," because "church" is a singular noun, whereas "media" is a plural noun. so, as elementary school english lessons will tell us, verbs and nouns must agree as regards plurality. i could have said "churches are" but i chose not to because it doesn't imply the same sort of unity that exists with churches of the same sect. your point is understood, though, because on the surface it does seem that way. the ball, sir, is in your court.
hrw, i agree with you, if you're calling ann coulter a stupid and boring exoskeleton of a woman with nothing to offer politically or morally. however, if you're suggesting that liberals, by and large, find something about the church positive, and tend not to argue against it, i'm going to have to say you're wrong. it should also be noted that true conservatives also do not care about other people's religions.
muskrat, i got that joke, and it was alright. i can't vouch for jsemon's comment. and honestly, if people are offended by what you believe according to the bible, fuck 'em. i didn't feel that your post was ignorant. i don't know what he found wrong with it. while it is true that there are plenty of females who played important roles in the bible. the passge your thinking of is the "wives serve your husbands, husbands love your wives" passage, right? while i agree with your interpretation of it, the fact is that that interpretation is not practiced, and the church has a record of putting women in subservient roles. you may not be that way, though.
thesbian, christianty has been heavily divided on a number of issues for a long, long time. but it's over things like church infrastructure and aesthetics, not core beliefs, by and large. obviously with some exceptions. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 1:48:01 PM
My point wasn't aimed at you. Guilty conscience? |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 1:26:07 PM
To clarify, when I used the word liberal I wasn't referencing Dan, but rather a soulless being, for purposes again of the JOKE however "ignorant" you may have viewed it...
And yeah there aren't women priests in the bible, but there were many female leaders (look in Judges for one example, if you're interested) who played important roles.
I was actually having a discussion the other night with a friend of mine about Biblical male/female roles, and it was brought up how (in the Bible, according to my beliefs, just so nobody gets offended, yeesh) God set up (sometimes) very specific roles for men and women, one being that the husband is supposed to be "head of the woman, as Christ is head of the church". A lot of people cite this passage (I can't remember where it is), saying that this is evidence of sexism against women, and that they're like slaves, etc. But they are missing the context. MANY times it is stated all throughout the Bible that the purpose of a leader is to SERVE. So that statement doesn't mean guys can lord it up over their wives, but rather that they should give their lives to them, and become a living sacrifice for their wives, in the same way that Jesus was the church's sacrifice.
I promised myself I wouldn't get sucked into another debate, but ^^ that was meant to clarify. I hope I didn't delve into "ignorant mode" too much, but hey, my grandpa was a chimp, gimme a break. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 11:45:07 AM
Also Dan, you flinging the word 'liberal' around like that sounds pretty uneducated.
A liberal, by definition, couldn't care less about your religion either, so long as you looked out for others as well as yourself. Your implied definition of 'liberal' is a the mass-media based, politically slanted, Ann Coulter version of the word, and I think you can agree with my evaluation. Those types of liberals exist, but do not create a majority. |
| gnome44 |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 11:29:51 AM
Hey Dan...shouldn't you be saying the church "do not" instead of "does not"? Isn't the church plural...like the whole "media are/is" thing?
|
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 12:15:05 AM
I just like to say, christianity today is nothing like it used to be. What I mean is that there are so many different forms of it now-adays, some of them persicute women and homosexuals, and some celebrate women and push for gay marrige. Some say this, others say that. Christianity is becoming such a broad spectrum, it's becoming more useless and in the end more conmfusing. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 11:41:09 PM
i did laugh, but that's largely because i'm not a liberal. my views on somethings are liberal, this is true. in most things, i'm probably left of you. but i resist such a label, just as i'd resist being called a conservative. there's more than one way to look at political and social issues and to put yourself on one side is limiting and intellectually lazy. here, i'm just calling it like i see it. and the way i see it, the church doesn't like women.
you'll notice i've said the church, and not you. you aren't the church. you're a single person, and i believe you when you say you don't dislike women. by "doesn't like women" i'm not speaking of sexuality, but rather prejudice. need proof? where are the female priests? exactly. such prejudices are in the bible, and the church has its view of women on bibilical authority.
the difference between me and a liberal is that a liberal would say your religion is bad for society, and they'd get into a whole debate with you on it. i, on the other hand, don't care about your religion at all. it's not my business, and it doesn't hurt me. a liberal might look down on you for being christian. i say you are defined bv your actions, not your beliefs or words. or, if you like, "give to them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavors: give them after the work of their hands; render to them their desert." psalms 38. i don't remember the verse. liberals tend not to draw philosophy from the bible. |
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 10:15:12 PM
man, that last post was starting off ok then you just kick it into ignorant mode. just because it might not be a huge deal today but woman still feel the effects of how they were viewed in the past. |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 10:09:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
christianity as a whole doesn't like women
I disagree, but really have no interest in pursuing that line of debate for the same reasons you've already stated, those being A. Nobody really cares, and B. I won't convince a soul. Or a liberal, for that matter. < < that right there was a JOKE. Laugh already.
My main point in this post is to state, for the record, that A. I myself am a Christian, and while I may not represent "Christianity" as a whole, B. I certainly DO like women. Boy, do I like women.
Man I haven't been around here in awhile... not much has changed, it seems, in the world & the board. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 8:19:50 PM
yeah. and it can be tough for people. to view faith vis-a-vis as separate from a religion. because when you say "i believe in god" or "i believe in jesus" people are going to assume you fall into one of the sects of that religion. it's entirely possible to do, but most people can't.
people who don't believe in neo-metal go to hell.
 |
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 4:56:17 PM
maybe associating victim with discrimination isn't always the way to view it. kind of like having faith and not having it deal with religion. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 4:13:01 PM
I don't believe in magic...well maybe neo-metal |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 3:47:13 PM
i guess it just depends on your definition of victim. and you're right, the victim groups i mentioned does have some, if not all, its roots in religion. certainly gays and women. christianity as a whole doesn't like women, and they don't like gays. there's really no other way to put it. they just don't like them. |
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 2:22:37 PM
the last two comments were excellent. thank you. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 12:30:04 PM
i agree with hrw. religion in this country is used by those in power to get votes from people who stand to gain nothing by having them in power. to get the vote of old people and the south, all you really have to do is say you believe in god, don't want gays, and are against abortion. that's the only thing that a christian right voter cares about. so they vote for these people, even though they continue to chip away at their rights and give other rich people tax breaks.
christianity in this country is mostly a joke now, anyway. time was, being a good christian meant doing good deeds. charity played a huge role in the life of a christian. but look at it today, especially among young christians. as long as your not gay and don't have sex before your married, then everything's fine. i can't remember the last time i heard of or saw a youth group do anything other than hang out with each other and talk about how they're going to heaven. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 11:09:37 AM
I think in that case John, that religion is a veiled excuse for financial gain and power-grabbing. It's very easy to say God God God and get sympathy from one sheep or another.
Look at the all people fleeced by evange-scams...these people aren't victims, they are morons. Blind faith is just plain lazy and inexcusable if you ask me. Most people let their faith do the talking for them instead of thinking for themselves. Quite a shame, as we see today. |
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 09:58:40 AM
i understand your viewpoint dan and agree with the aspect of only being a victim of a circumstance, and it is up to you on whether you do something about it or not. but not everyone has that chance to do something, but then again there are always exceptions to the rule.
but religious persecution is a very real concept and it still happens today. what do you think started women, blacks, indians, etc persecution? it was ALL religious based. i feel that this country is governed by those of faith, and take bush he has said on more then one occasion that he has made decisions with gods approval. people cant just simply ignore this. if people of power are using god as a partner then we cant just simple ignore it because we want to be "politically" correct.
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 01:11:18 AM
you're kidding, right? ok. no, drug addicts are not victims. the challenges and adversities that face a drug addict are the end result of his or her choice to do drugs. you can't be a victim if you do it to yourself. being a victim of yourself and your actions is also known as "living your life the wrong way." and anyway, we are all "victims" of our own actions, in some sense. that's not to say that drug addiction isn't serious or unfortunate and sad. it is, and helping drug addicts is a noble calling. but victims? no. only a product of their own choices. the people close to addicts who are harmed are closer to victims. but they're not. they're not because they can do something about it. victims are helpless.
people who are layed off due to outsourcing are not victims. they're not victims because they too can do something about it. specifically, they can quit crying and get a new job. yeah, it sucks being fired for that reason. but it doesn't make you a victim.
compare a drug addict or someone fired by outsourcing to one of the groups i listed. don't compare them to the degree to which they were fucked over, but how. the unavoidable truth is that native americans, women, blacks and gays have been and are being systematically fucked. it's built into our society, our history and our laws. there's no comparision. the reason "the list goes on" for you is because you fail to see the difference between ill luck or bad choices and being a victim.
you would probably call me a victim. it's not my practice to divulge personal information, but i have a few disorders with my circulatory system and heart. it's nothing i did to myself. i was born with these defects, and they prevented me from doing things i would have liked to have done. but don't you fucking dare call me a victim. i'm not helpless. the word victim can easily be an insult.
what i meant by no one cares about religion was that you won't be able to convince anyone that your religion is the "right" religion. it was off point of the original topic, i know. obviously discrimation should be dealt with.
oh by the way, that's a good job claiming that the united states has "by far more religious bias than any other." i agree. the united states has way more religious bias than any middle eastern country. /sarcasm. |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 12:20:15 AM
I hate religons, race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, ancestors, this and that, that and this and that and that and this and that!
The more we do this, the more we say these people are this and those people are that, there will be discrimination.
Until we recgonize people by who they are, not what they look like and ect, we will always have discrimination.
As silly as it sounds, bagism makes a hell of a lot of sense. You communicate with eachother based not on what you are but who you are.
***Bagism was a concept created by John and Yoko. The avant garde art statement based on covering yourself in a unmarked bag so you could only judge people and reconize people by who they are, not what they are. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 10:57:59 PM
It is honest and peaceful debate that is missing from today's 'religious' discussion. |
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 6:18:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
native americans, blacks, women, and gays are the only real victims in this country. other minorities to a lesser extent, and everyone else is just bitching.
that is beyond bogus, they are the only victims? why because that is what society tells you? give me a break, you can be a victim of drugs, a victim of unemployment due to outsourcing, the list goes on. so to say a victim is a finite term is just wrong.
and people DO care about religion. this country is by far more religious bias then any other, and continue to discriminate because of it. it is sad, but to just say "fuck you, just ignore it" is not a solution. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 5:58:45 PM
i'm so goddamn sick of religious arguments. the real news, the only news, regarding any sort of atheist vs. religion or religion vs. religion, is that no one fucking cares what anyone else believes. no one is going to be convinced of anything. don't argue. just believe in something or not and shut up about it. no one cares, and no one wants to hear it.
as far as discrimination goes, i'm also sick of the victim society in which we live. native americans, blacks, women, and gays are the only real victims in this country. other minorities to a lesser extent, and everyone else is just bitching. everyone is wailing about how discriminated against. white racists are doing it, christians are doing it, and so are atheists. |
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 5:46:09 PM
im sure you can watch the whole "The God Who Wasn't There" on youtube broken into parts.
You can also get if free via this site:
http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/ |
| rubylith |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 4:48:05 PM
I heard of that DVD, haven't seen it yet. Yea you can't expect much from the christian right...you want to see something scary, rent Jesus Camp.
Who Would Jesus Torture, Murder, and Bomb? |
|
|
