Was that nice?

Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

Comment by lebowski — December 14, 2007 @ 10:50 pm

Was that nice? Seriously, bud, I’m just trying to correct your false assumptions. I’m trying to help ya out so ya know how it really is. ;)

Also, your remarks regarding Islam and ‘libs’ shows a distinctly unchristlike view towards others. But there’s nothing new in a fundamentalists also being a hypocrite.

You also appear incapable of nuanced thought, but again, nothing surprising there for a fundamentalist to have the worldview of an eight year old.

So go ahead and keep sputtering your nonsense but please don’t feign surprise when you encounter resistance from those of us based in reality.

Comment by lebowski — December 14, 2007 @ 12:09 pm

I know, bud. You can’t stand that there are people who are secure in their faith. It’s common among your kind. Can’t help ya there. You’ll just have to deal with it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that means I think I’m superior. Gotcha.
A Christlike view of others requires the desire that all would come to know Christ and be saved. I wish eveyone would but we all know that many won’t. That’s not my fault, bud.
Libs are fond of using the term “nuanced thought” when they can’t shake a person of faith. Again, I understand your need to try to make sense of your stance in light of strong faith. If “nuanced thought” makes you feel you made a point, go for it, bud.
I am never surprised at resistance from those of no faith in regard to the practice of religion by those who have faith. That resistance would be the reason for this topic. Resist away, bud. ;)

Also, your remarks regarding Islam and ‘libs’ shows a distinctly unchristlike view towards others. But there’s nothing new in a fundamentalists also being a hypocrite.

You also appear incapable of nuanced thought, but again, nothing surprising there for a fundamentalist to have the worldview of an eight year old.

So go ahead and keep sputtering your nonsense but please don’t feign surprise when you encounter resistance from those of us based in reality.

A previous poster noted that it’s relevant that the other resolutions recognized minority religions in an effort to affirm the rights and status of their adherents despite their being in minorities. Christianity, being the majority religion, is not in need of such affirmation, the ridiculous claims of persecution of christians in this country aside.

Demanding this resolution and framing it in the context of the so called war on christmas and the larger alleged persecution of christians is utterly ridiculous. It betrays insecurity and pettiness on the part of its backers and, if they were the slightest bit self reflexive, would cause them immense embarrassment.

As it is, however, their delusions of give them an arrogant self righteousness that is invisible to them but all too apparant to the rest of us.

Comment by lebowski — December 13, 2007 @ 8:54 pm

I need no one to affirm my faith, thanks. And if libs hadn’t become so quick to attack Christianity while ignoring a religion that has a large contingent that advocates violence, Christians wouldn’t feel that their religion needed to be defended. We see the gradual erosion of the place of Christianity as a problem and prefer to slow it as much as possible. As for the self righteous business, that would depend upon your definition. Some use it to mean being certain that your belief is the only correct one. Others use it to mean thinking you are better than others because of your belief. I’ve already explained that most Christians don’t think they are better than others because of what they believe. If you choose to believe otherwise, go for it, bud. You have every right to be wrong. As for being certain that our belief is the only correct one, we are like most other religions and atheists in that respect. Atheists believe there is no God and everyone who believes otherwise is wrong. If I’m self righteous in that respect, so are you, bud. To say otherwise would be hypocritical.
A religion practiced by a minority doesn’t deserve to be recognized more than any other. The constitution already protected their rights. Libs keep saying this resolution is a huge deal. Making Christianity our national religion. Yet you downplay the same honor given to other religions. You just can’t see that you are applying different standards to the religion that you most dislike. ;)

A previous poster noted that it’s relevant that the other resolutions recognized minority religions in an effort to affirm the rights and status of their adherents despite their being in minorities. Christianity, being the majority religion, is not in need of such affirmation, the ridiculous claims of persecution of christians in this country aside.

Demanding this resolution and framing it in the context of the so called war on christmas and the larger alleged persecution of christians is utterly ridiculous. It betrays insecurity and pettiness on the part of its backers and, if they were the slightest bit self reflexive, would cause them immense embarrassment.

As it is, however, their delusions of give them an arrogant self righteousness that is invisible to them but all too apparant to the rest of us.

Sorry, bud, but my faith is rock solid. How does my belief that Jesus is the only salvation affect you? It’s your business whether you accept it or not, not mine. It doesn’t affect me either way. I have never pushed anyone to accept Christ. God didn’t make us believe. It’s certainly not that place of any human being to try to coerce others. Now, if you believe that my stating my belief when the subject arises is coercion, you misunderstand coercion. As for the resolution, I would not have supported it had two other religions not already been so honored. The government isn’t currently trying to remove all vestiges of Christianity from public view. Individuals are doing that. But since Congress saw fit to honor two religions practiced by a minority of people in this country, I think it’s only fair to pass a resolution honoring the majority religion. ;)

I’m talking, in reference to this thread, specifically about you and one other poster. Fundamentalists like you, of whatever religion, are anathema to democracy because you think you and you alone have the imaginary cell phone number of your imaginary friend in the sky.

And, yes, plenty of christians are very into prescribing religion to others. If you’re so humble and never intrude on others, why do you need the resolution?

Answer: you need it because you are incredibly insecure in your faith and you only feel good about it if you believe everyone else believes as you do.

You’re entitled to your own beliefs, however bizarre; but why do you fundies feel such a need to push your superstitions on others?

(And don’t try another lame “what, me?” cop out. If you support the resolution, you support pushing your religion on others.)

In their own words, they provide the best possible argument against their case.

Would you want to even casually imagine living in a world where they tell you where, when and how to pray as well as who to pray to?

The writers of the constitution made plenty of mistakes but one thing they certainly got right was keeping various people’s imaginary friends in the sky out of government for the rest of us.

Comment by lebowski — December 13, 2007 @ 10:52 am

You must be speaking of people other than Christians, because Christians pray when, where and how they chose. We don’t tell other people how or whether to pray. ;)

Easy there, bud. If I ever find myself referring to folks the way you do, I’ll definitely be concerned about how God feels about me, though my salvation is assured and can never be in jeopardy, thanks. I’d hate to see how ya refer to folks that you do hate. ;)

There have been a lot of complaints that religion is being “driven out” out of the “public square”, but that is not the case. Anyone is free to get up on a soapbox in the public square and deliver a sermon (or write a letter to the editor or rent a billboard) and everyone else is free not to listen. But permanent fixtures on government property become government speech, and we’re not free not to listen to the government. In short, you can express your religion in the public square, but not with the public square.

Instead of setting a manger scene in front of the courthouse, what’s wrong with setting it up in front of the church down the street?

So Christian conservatives are bearing false witness when they accuse their opponents of trying to destroy Christmas (however you define it). But non-Christians needn’t shun the holiday altogether, and many don’t. Most atheists and some Jews celebrate the secular side. And I’ve recently learned from co-workers that Hindus in India celebrate Christmas with gusto. But it’s sad many non-Christians feel they cannot participate. Culture warriors on both sides should recognize that there is common ground in which everyone can share. (I’d say that the Christmas tree—call it the Tannenbaum—is the universal emblem of the season.) The trend is already underway. After all, who doesn’t wapresents from Santa Claus? Not to mention peace on Earth and good will towards all.

-Patrick McCauley

For more Culture War smackdown, visit: http://www.squeakywheelsblog.com/culture

It’s the War on Christmas season once again. Conservative Christians complain that vast effort to destroy the holiday is being waged, while non-Christians complain that Christianity gets rammed down their throat every December.

When we say “Happy Holidays” we mean, “Have a good time throughout the Holiday Season”. Well, the Holiday Season is a broad amalgamation of customs and activities. Not only does the season encompass a number of formal holiday observances— Hanukkah, Winter Solstice, Christmas, Kwanzaa, and New Years, but all the decorations, gift giving, caroling, family feasts, and helping the poor reflect a much deeper set of traditions.

The nights of late December are the longest of the year and such a gloomy time is begging for something to brighten it up. Of course, ancient tribal peoples felt the need to conduct rituals to bring back the Sun, and to do life-affirming things like gathering with loved ones, decorating with evergreens, sharing resources, and engaging in revelry. And the winter solstice is an obvious turning point in the annual cycle, a natural time to take stock and mark the new year. All this has made the onset of winter is something for everyone to look forward to rather than dread.

Cultures naturally placed a lot of religious significance on the solstice season, emphasizing themes of rebirth—as with the Sun—and honoring certain important gods. The Norse called it Yule or Yuletide and honored the gods Freyr and Odin, and the Romans called it Saturnalia in honor of the god Saturn. When Christians began celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25th, it fit in nicely, since to revisit the origin of the faith is for it to be born anew for the coming year.

But traditions that were common throughout the West, such as family feasting, gift-giving, public revelry, remained popular and well-entrenched. So the early Church pretty much said, “If you can’t like ‘em, join ‘em”, and re-cast the festivities as joyful anticipation at the prospect of participating in the Christ Mass. So technically, “Christmas” is just a church service that has lent its name to a holiday season that has always had a secular side—one that has continued to evolve.
(continued)

In their own words, they provide the best possible argument against their case.

Would you want to even casually imagine living in a world where they tell you where, when and how to pray as well as who to pray to?

The writers of the constitution made plenty of mistakes but one thing they certainly got right was keeping various people’s imaginary friends in the sky out of government for the rest of us.

Fortunately, no one is trying to force anyone to accept Christ. ;)

-James Madison
(One of those pesky Founding Fathers
that wrote the First Amendment
that included the Establishment Clause)

Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments
[1785]

If God is all knowing and all powerful then everything that occurs on this planet is his will. God by virtue of his omnipotence either makes it happen or allows it to happen.

You either have an all powerful God that is ultimately responsible for all bad things or God is not all powerful.

Comment by j swift — December 13, 2007 @ 8:30 am

God allows a lot of things to happen that He doesn’t want to happen. He gave us the paradise that people seem to think we deserve and we blew it. We continue to blow it to this day. God wants everyone to accept Him, but allows people to choose otherwise. So don’t blame Him for the situation we’ve created for ourselves. ;)

Comment by lebowski — December 13, 2007 @ 4:04 am

Pride? No, I can’t take credit for something Jesus did, bud. ;)

If God is all knowing and all powerful then everything that occurs on this planet is his will. God by virtue of his omnipotence either makes it happen or allows it to happen.

You either have an all powerful God that is ultimately responsible for all bad things or God is not all powerful.