Accept Christ as your personal savior and escape separation from Him forever.

Thou shall not question authority, eh?

I always ask myself. What WOULDNT Jesus do?

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always ask myself. What WOULDNT Jesus do?

Go to Mclean Bible Church.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

It is also a known fact that he would vote republican. At least that is what I was told...

But 'Accepting' Him is not so simple. You have to say and do the right things or the deal is off. The good folks at the church and of course those 'Saved' at least as far as they claim get to decide, mmmmmmK

Dont go thinking just because you lead a Godly life that is enough. Nooooes. You have to convince the Born-Agains ur OKAY or NO HEAVEN FOR YOU! Jews - Nope. Gays Nuh-uh. money lenders - Not a chance. You gotta walk the walk and tithe like a son-of-a-Biatch.

So repent.

PS 'Shakers' and Quakers got their names due to the affectations they presented to show the Holy Spirit was with them. Cause if you wasnt a-Shaken or a-Qaukin then u was teh Devil. Or at least not really a good Christian.

Goodness. Organized religion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2009 03:43PM by dono.

It's times like this that I'm glad I'm an atheist.....
Attachments:

From reading these posts it's apparent that atheists are far more dogmatic and intolerant than the Christians they so loathe.

bill beach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Accept Christ as your personal savior and escape
> separation from Him forever.


If you knew your Gospels, you would know that Jesus didn't need a multi-million dollar mega church. In fact, he pretty much protested against it.

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From reading these posts it's apparent that
> atheists are far more dogmatic and intolerant than
> the Christians they so loathe.


Yeah, okay.

When we try to get pseudoscience/alternative history into schools, tell you who you can and cannot marry, and instill bigotry into congregations, etc, THEN you might have a point. A little ribbing among good points is hardly an occasion to call someone 'dogmatic and intolerant'.

Are there any hot girls at Mclean bible church?

Burninbuds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are there any hot girls at Mclean bible church?


Yep. Quite a few of em actually. I think my ex goes there, and she dragged me in one morning for service (one of many reasons why she's now an ex) and wow, tons of hot girls.

I've considered going to church. Not for the religious aspect, no way. But just to meet women. Hell, I'd even be up front about it- "Hey there, I'm an atheist, but you're pretty freaking hot. Wanna go grab lunch?". Score.

Actually, while Merritt may seem like total creep, his idea has, well, merit. A lot of religious people like to believe they can "turn" a nonbeliever of their religion over to their side if they just work as hard as they can to convince the person. score.

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, while Merritt may seem like total creep,
> his idea has, well, merit. A lot of religious
> people like to believe they can "turn" a
> nonbeliever of their religion over to their side
> if they just work as hard as they can to convince
> the person. score.


Wow. It's been a while since I've been called a creep.....

In all honesty though, I wouldn't do something like that. It's a little too creepy....even for me. But the thought of it makes me chuckle....

I meant creep in the most flattering, woman manipulating way possible.

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I meant creep in the most flattering, woman
> manipulating way possible.


Well thank you. I appreciate it.

However, it's not really manipulating if I'm honest about it right? Granted, it gives the impression that all I care about is looks (which isn't true- there's more to a person than just looks), but let's be honest, I'm not going to date somebody I'm not attracted to. Would you?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2009 04:45PM by Merritt.

When we try to get pseudoscience/alternative history into schools, tell you who you can and cannot marry, and instill bigotry into congregations, etc, THEN you might have a point. A little ribbing among good points is hardly an occasion to call someone 'dogmatic and intolerant'.

You just made my point with your biased and unfounded generalizations.

Merritt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RESton Peace Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I meant creep in the most flattering, woman
> > manipulating way possible.
>
>
> Well thank you. I appreciate it.


Hey, it's Friday the 13th, the day Jesus was Crucified, right? A day to be nice to each other and remember all that awesome killing. I would love to go back in time and just watch Jesus die on that cross, it would be so fun.

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From reading these posts it's apparent that
> atheists are far more dogmatic and intolerant than
> the Christians they so loathe.


Dont take it so personally...not just christianity..all religions. And I think any religion that expects people to respond to the threat of eternal damnation is rightfully the subject of close scrutiny and rebuke.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2009 10:00AM by Vince(1).

I'm not born again. I was born right the first time

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From reading these posts it's apparent that
> atheists are far more dogmatic and intolerant than
> the Christians they so loathe.


I don't think atheist's dislike christians, hindus, muslims etc.. They just strongly disagree with the idealogy behind them and the fact that american policy is deeply affected by it, unfairly.

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When we try to get pseudoscience/alternative
> history into schools, tell you who you can and
> cannot marry, and instill bigotry into
> congregations, etc, THEN you might have a point. A
> little ribbing among good points is hardly an
> occasion to call someone 'dogmatic and
> intolerant'.
>
> You just made my point with your biased and
> unfounded generalizations.

You can't be serious.

Do I have to cite 'god hates fags', the dover trial, california voting (and who paid to influence it), etc, etc?

I should be clear that I'm not saying *all* Christians are like this, but to deny that people were behind these things as a result of their religion (at least what *they* believe it states) strikes me as niave.

And for another thing, how is it possible that I've made your point that *I'm* worse or on par then any of that, when I'm not attempting to manipulate school boards, voting boths, or people at a funeral? Seriously, I'd like to see the logic in what you are saying.

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Merritt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > RESton Peace Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I meant creep in the most flattering, woman
> > > manipulating way possible.
> >
> >
> > Well thank you. I appreciate it.
>
>
> Hey, it's Friday the 13th, the day Jesus was
> Crucified, right? A day to be nice to each other
> and remember all that awesome killing. I would
> love to go back in time and just watch Jesus die
> on that cross, it would be so fun.


Visions of A Clockwork Orange float through my head....

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cotton Mather Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > From reading these posts it's apparent that
> > atheists are far more dogmatic and intolerant
> than
> > the Christians they so loathe.
>
>
> I don't think atheist's dislike christians,
> hindus, muslims etc.. They just strongly disagree
> with the idealogy behind them and the fact that
> american policy is deeply affected by it,
> unfairly.


Very true - further, I *trust* Christians (those with similar political stances as I) enough to vote for them.

McLean Bible Church's new sign...

Do I have to cite 'god hates fags', the dover trial, california voting (and who paid to influence it), etc, etc?

The "god hates fags" cretins have been denounced by every reputable mainstream church. To cite them to make your point is either disingenuous or incredibly uninformed.

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do I have to cite 'god hates fags', the dover
> trial, california voting (and who paid to
> influence it), etc, etc?
>
> The "god hates fags" cretins have been denounced
> by every reputable mainstream church. To cite them
> to make your point is either disingenuous or
> incredibly uninformed.

Cotton, you really don't understand my point do you?

Seriously, if you would, please take a moment and try to articulate what point I was trying to make.

This should be interesting.

Cotton, you really don't understand my point do you?

Seriously, if you would, please take a moment and try to articulate what point I was trying to make.

This should be interesting.


Your point is quite obvious: all Christians should be blamed for the behavior of a few misguided ones. By your logic all atheists are culpable for the crimes of Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cotton, you really don't understand my point do
> you?
>
> Seriously, if you would, please take a moment and
> try to articulate what point I was trying to
> make.
>
> This should be interesting.
>
>
> Your point is quite obvious: all Christians should
> be blamed for the behavior of a few misguided
> ones. By your logic all atheists are culpable for
> the crimes of Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

Hitler was a christian.

Also, I invoke Godwin's Law. This thread is over.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Hitler was a christian.

Also, I invoke Godwin's Law. This thread is over.

Hitler was NOT a Christian and your invocation of this Godwin's Law shows you for the ignorant fool that I suspected you were. So nothing can every be compared to Hitler or Nazism because someone named Godwin says it can't? That's as nonsensical as the rest of your views. Anyway, for the sake of argument, let's leave Hitler out of the equation. That still leaves Stalin and Mao and my point which you are unable to respond intelligently to. Godwin's Law. What a laugh.

Hitler was a Christian. He was a Catholic from Bavaria. He used Christianity to appeal to average Germans.

As for Stalin...

At the age of ten, Stalin's mother enrolled him at the Gori Church School. His peers were mostly the sons of affluent priests, officials, and merchants. He and most of his classmates at Gori were Georgians and spoke mostly Georgian. However, at school they were forced to speak Russian, which was the policy of Tsar Alexander III. Stalin was one of the best students in the class, earning top marks across the board. He became a very good choir singer and was often hired to sing at weddings. He also began to write poetry, something he would develop in later years.

Stalin was such an atheist that he was in Seminary school prior to the Revolution.

In other words, a "good Christian upbringing" seems to be the best preparation to become a Godless tyrant.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2009 01:29PM by WashingTone Locian.

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Adolph Hitler

So much for your Hitler was a Christian argument. As for Stalin, anyone who truly believes that the leader of world communism was a Christian is too uninformed to bother debating. Still, all this Hitler Stalin stuff is a diversion from my original point, to wit: that blaming all Christians for the actions of a few is as unfair as blaming all atheists for the depravity of some of their number.

Cotton,

I think it is a bit simplistic to label the actions of the Christian church with the 'a few bad apples' argument. Lets play a game - I will mention an atrocity and you retort. Lets see how long we can go...

I will start with this

1.http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dungeon/4712/torture.html

Simply explain or rationalize my citation and, without argument or retort I will post a new citation.




okay its your turn. (Oh and others please feel free to 'take a turn for Mather' just give me a reason my citation is invalid or not a representation of the church as a whole).

Simplistic? That's the core of your argument? Ok, then let's take assume that ALL Christians are responsible for the sins of ANY Christian. I'm sure that even someone of your obviously limited perspicacity can see where that argument leads.

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Simplistic? That's the core (nice one bad apple - core - I get jokes)of your argument? Ok,
> then let's take assume that ALL Christians are
> responsible for the sins of ANY Christianyour proposition not mine. I'm
> sure that even someone of your obviously limited
> perspicacityI have to look that up but its a cool word -not sure I will be able to spell it with much consistency though can see where that argument leadsits your argument you tell us where it leads.

First, you are not playing the game.

Second you are arguing against yourself by ascribing an argument to me that I have not stated. Classic strawman. Try again or just play the game. (by the way insulting me is mostly a sign of the fact you have no actual retort).

its your turn.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2009 02:37PM by dono.

My response was to someone named Professor Pangloss, not you. If you care to scroll back far enough you can read it.

The great vice of liberal thinking is its failure of imagination with respect to Christians. For all their preaching of “sensitivity” and “multiculturalism,” they are belligerently ignorant of Christian culture and Christians’ feelings. In fact they seem to think that there is something specially “artistic” about offending Christians. Offending blacks, Jews, feminists, or homosexuals is “insensitive,” while offending Christians is “irreverent” — a word that has come to suggest a rather cute sassiness.
Yet the whole history of Western Civilization is rooted in religion. Unless you understand Judaism, Catholicism, and Protestantism, along with the rise of Islam, you don’t understand the events that shaped the modern world. The issues of the Reformation were still alive when the United States was founded, when slavery was debated, when the Civil War tore the country apart, when Prohibition was adopted, when Joe McCarthy assailed “godless Communism,” when John Kennedy became the first Catholic American president.
The Christian Right is closer to its own historic roots than most Americans, yet the media and the history textbooks treat it as a marginal, virtually un-American movement. This isn’t “multicultural”; it’s anti-cultural. It refuses to take America’s real origins seriously, adopting the Supreme Court’s shallow and ahistorical interpretation of the separation of church and state.
Liberal diatribes against “McCarthyism” leave out the crucial fact that American Christians felt deeply betrayed by the outcome of World War II, when our “Soviet ally” won control of a huge section of Christian Europe, just as Pius XII had feared it would. The war began when the Soviets and Germans had invaded Catholic Poland; it ended with Roosevelt’s turning Poland over to “Uncle Joe” Stalin’s tender mercies. It took the leadership of a Polish Pope, John Paul II, to win back Poland’s freedom.
Yet the young pass through our entire educational system without being taught what the Christian perspective was, and is, or how it has shaped the great events of history. Few of them know that many of the authors of the Constitution were clergymen; fewer still realize that the separation of church and state applied only to the federal government, not to the states. (The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” leaving the states free to do so.)
Like Soviet history, American history has been rewritten, with inconvenient facts deleted. In both countries, the “progressive” forces have subverted their subjects’ sense of the past.

Cotton you are not even following your own retorts. I was the one that used the word 'simplistic' you were replying to me... Now play the game damnit.

Oh that's right, you are the simplistic one. What was your argument again? Something profound to you no doubt.

John Frum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The great vice of liberal thinking

strawman set up - rather than present a position or argument you set up the argument as 'all liberals think X

is its failure
> of imagination with respect to Christians. For all
> their preaching of “sensitivity” and
> “multiculturalism,” they are belligerently
> ignorant of Christian culture and Christians

source please - oh you made it up

> feelings. In fact they seem to think that there is
> something specially “artistic” about offending
> Christians

source please - oh that is what you think.

Offending blacks, Jews, feminists, or
> homosexuals is “insensitive,” while offending
> Christians

I think they are more upset about denying them civil liberties but you are probably right liberals do not endorse the denigration of those groups; note of interest only one of these 'groups' is tax-exempt

is “irreverent” - a word that has come
> to suggest a rather cute sassiness

if you say so.


> Yet the whole history of Western Civilization is
> rooted in religion. Unless you understand Judaism,
> Catholicism, and Protestantism, along with the
> rise of Islam, you don’t understand the events
> that shaped the modern world.

whew, I was worried you would not state one factual point of view +1

The issues of the
> Reformation were still alive when the United
> States was founded, when slavery was debated, when
> the Civil War tore the country apart, when
> Prohibition was adopted, when Joe McCarthy
> assailed “godless Communism,” when John Kennedy
> became the first Catholic American president.
> The Christian Right is closer to its own historic
> roots than most Americans, yet the media and the
> history textbooks treat it as a marginal,
> virtually un-American movement

source please - by the way I think the 'un-American' rubric was and is a favorite rhetorical weapon-of-choice of McCarthy, Religious Right, KKK etc...

This isn’t “multicultural”; it’s anti-cultural

I saw a guy the other day with an 'I celebrate Christmas' button - it must be so hard living in the States as a Christian.

It refuses to
> take America’s real origins seriously, adopting
> the Supreme Court’s shallow and ahistorical
> interpretation of the separation of church and
> state.
> Liberal diatribes against “McCarthyism” leave out
> the crucial fact that American Christians felt
> deeply betrayed by the outcome of World War II,
> when our “Soviet ally” won control of a huge
> section of Christian Europe, just as Pius XII had
> feared it would. The war began when the Soviets
> and Germans had invaded Catholic Poland; it ended
> with Roosevelt’s turning Poland over to “Uncle
> Joe” Stalin’s tender mercies. It took the
> leadership of a Polish Pope, John Paul II, to win
> back Poland’s freedom

rather odd defense of the illegal actions of McCarthy; that said I can see how Christians of the time would have been pissed off about Poland going to Russia
.
> Yet the young pass through our entire educational
> system without being taught what the Christian
> perspective was, and is, or how it has shaped the
> great events of history

funny you should mention that. The bullshit I was taught in school was so Euro-centric it actually taught me: Europeans discovered the Americas and seemed to skip right over the genocide of the persons native to the land. Lets not forget that the majority of people whom fled from Europe to North America were Christians escaping persecution from - Christians. They wanted the freedom to observe their faith without molestation from the bat-shit-crazy rulers of Spain, France and England..

Few of them know that
> many of the authors of the Constitution were
> clergymen; fewer still realize that the separation
> of church and state applied only to the federal
> government, not to the states. (The First
> Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law
> respecting an establishment of religion,” leaving
> the states free to do so.)

fair enough. Good news for you though - they do say a pledge everyday including 'one nation under God; All our money has 'In God We Trust' printed or stamped on it; Christmas is a national holiday. Personally I am fine with all that but don't try and tell me that as a Christian, you, in these United States are a victim. That is pure baloney.


> Like Soviet history, American history has been
> rewritten, with inconvenient facts deleted. In
> both countries, the “progressive” forces have
> subverted their subjects’ sense of the past

well that is your opinion I suppose. Progressives/liberals have: ended slavery; allowed equal treatment of persons without regard to race, religion, creed (save for the horrible treatment of Christians you seem to dream of); the right for female citizens to vote; the right for blacks citizens to vote; the GI bill; seat belts; airbags; food and drug saftey - blah blah blah. Nothing could make up for the horrible way liberals attack and excoriate Christians.


Please

Progressives/liberals have: ended slavery; allowed equal treatment of persons without regard to race, religion, creed, the right for female citizens to vote; the right for blacks citizens to vote; the GI bill etc.
Yes, they did. Check the religious affiliation of the abolishionists and the civil rights leaders. Martin Luther King was a minister, much as I'm sure that pains you to admit. You only want to focus on teh negative side of Christianity and not the positive. Of course, in your biased and prejudiced mind Christians never do anything positive and I'm sure that you'll find some obscure and irrelevant point to respond with. The good that Christians perform today far outweighs what may have been done in the distant past. Who was it that was helping the Katrina victims while the government dithered?

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Progressives/liberals have: ended slavery; allowed
> equal treatment of persons without regard to race,
> religion, creed, the right for female citizens to
> vote; the right for blacks citizens to vote; the
> GI bill etc.
> Yes, they did. Check the religious affiliation of
> the abolishionists and the civil rights leaders.
> Martin Luther King was a minister, much as I'm
> sure that pains you to admit. You only want to
> focus on teh negative side of Christianity and not
> the positive. Of course, in your biased and
> prejudiced mind Christians never do anything
> positive and I'm sure that you'll find some
> obscure and irrelevant point to respond with. The
> good that Christians perform today far outweighs
> what may have been done in the distant past. Who
> was it that was helping the Katrina victims while
> the government dithered?


I never said that liberals were this or that - you did. You said that they basically are anti-Christian ('anti-cultural movement'); I am proud to say that so many progressives in our history have been deeply religious. That is why I disagree with you that 'liberals' or 'progressives' are somehow opposed to or against Christians - many of us are Christians. Good people like you.

So this is why I keep saying you are 'arguing against yourself' at least with me. The progressive movement has deeply rooted spiritual history. The recent mime that progressives are against Christians is the invention of Bill O'Reilly, Rush and the Christian Coalition and it is (as you have so eloquently proven) the farthest thing from the truth.

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Hitler was NOT a Christian and your invocation of
> this Godwin's Law shows you for the ignorant fool
> that I suspected you were. So nothing can every be
> compared to Hitler or Nazism because someone named
> Godwin says it can't? That's as nonsensical as the
> rest of your views. Anyway, for the sake of
> argument, let's leave Hitler out of the equation.
> That still leaves Stalin and Mao and my point
> which you are unable to respond intelligently to.
> Godwin's Law. What a laugh.

Cotton,
Whether Hitler, Stalin and Mao were christians or not, none of their attrocities were committed in the name of atheism. Hitler never killed anyone because they weren't an atheist. He simply hated everyone that wasn't of German descent, especially Jews. But he disliked Jews because he was convinced they were the cause of all Germany's political and economic problems.

Stalin was basically the same way. He was simply afraid of losing his power and had people killed who threatened his position. It had nothing to do with atheism.

Mao, same thing.

Christians and muslims in power have repeatedly killed and tortured people based solely on religious interpretations of the bible and quran.
THAT's the difference and why the Creationist's "Hitler, Stalin and Mao" argument holds no water.
Muslims and Jews continue to kill and torture the masses mostly because of their religions. Add a power struggle or two in there and you have a recipe for disaster.

Addendum:
These days, political, social and economic problems can usually be resolved through diplomacy and logic. But where religion is involved, logic and diplomacy go right out the door because there is NO give and take in religious matters. If this is wrong, than there would have been a solution to the Jew/Palestinian conflict a long time ago. Neither side is willing to put their holy book down and explore the possibilities of reasonable trade offs and rational, long term solutions. Until then, they will continue until one or the other is wiped out.

John Frum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The great vice of liberal thinking is its failure
> of imagination with respect to Christians.

No. It's about abortion.

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cotton, you really don't understand my point do
> you?
>
> Seriously, if you would, please take a moment and
> try to articulate what point I was trying to
> make.
>
> This should be interesting.
>
>
> Your point is quite obvious: all Christians should
> be blamed for the behavior of a few misguided
> ones. By your logic all atheists are culpable for
> the crimes of Stalin, Mao and Hitler.


HA! No, that wasn't my point at all.

My point was that atheists were responding to the various bad things that the church has done throughout history and that this 'written response' is not the equivolent to the bad things (I was not saying that the blame was justified).

As for your point on atheist - you are comparing apples to oranges. Christianity is a worldview, atheism is not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 11:52AM by Professor Pangloss.

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was
> the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is
> Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are
> inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the
> matter of religion was introduced into the world
> by Christianity.... Adolph Hitler
>
> So much for your Hitler was a Christian argument.
> As for Stalin, anyone who truly believes that the
> leader of world communism was a Christian is too
> uninformed to bother debating. Still, all this
> Hitler Stalin stuff is a diversion from my
> original point, to wit: that blaming all
> Christians for the actions of a few is as unfair
> as blaming all atheists for the depravity of some
> of their number.


Hitler was against organized religion - organized christianity. It took 'power' away from him. This does not make him an 'atheist', nor does it make him a non christian.

Why would he seek the spear of destiny if he were not a Christian??

Why would he seek the spear of destiny if he were not a Christian??

Why would you write idiotic sentences like this if you weren't an idiot?

Hobo Joe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why would he seek the spear of destiny if he were
> not a Christian??
>
> Why would you write idiotic sentences like this if
> you weren't an idiot?


Ie, you have no idea what the SOD is, do you?