Seeing this thread got a song stuck in my head…
Woo hoo hoo
It’s all been done
Woo hoo hoo
It’s all been done
Woo hoo hoo
It’s all been done before
Wasn’t there a Pit thread before the Great Outage of 2002 with a title that was something like “If you have a faith I can’t respect you” (or words to that effect)?
OMG, it’s the guy from Europa.
(Before the crash he had another Pit thread going…)
One of the first things that came to mind as I read the OP’s work is that is seems like some weird hybrid of Lolo (the same dumb type of anti-Christian arguments) and Wildest Bill (the atrocious spelling and grammar), almost like one of those “If They Mated” jokes on Conan.
It’s good that you owned up. Admission is the first step to recovery.
Not THAT open, it seems.
OOO, irony.
Hey, IF Jesus is THE son of God, then he is the only way to God. Stands to reason.
Thanks to this thread, I have come to a sincere belief in OG.
It’s ironic that at least half of the people who’ve taken offence at the OP’s statements are agnostic or atheist. Wonder when he’ll make an OP regarding abortion…I can’t wait.
Huh. And here I was thinkin’ Miller typed 'em wrong intentionally.
I don’t think that topic is of interest to adolescents who’ve just discovered that God bashing is way kewl.
SeaHawk, your opinions are being articulated with the very dogmatism that you accuse various Christians of employing. Don’t you see the irony in that?
I do!
Leave the evangalism to those who have something positive to say, no matter how misguided we atheists think they may be!
SeaHawk, I can’t help feeling that if you were to do a search through Great Debates on some of your issues, you would find a lot of explanations of Christian beliefs, which you would probably find interesting. In brief: many (probably most) Christians are not Biblical literalists, many (probably most) have no problem with evolution or any other scientific theory, many (probably most) are at least tolerant of other belief systems.
As Cardinal pointed out, the “charismatic” movement in Christianity means something specific - these are people who believe in the gifts (charismata, in the Greek) of the Holy Spirit (the details are in 1 Corinthians 12, if you want them).
These gifts include speaking in tongues, which is probably the most visible aspect of the charismatic movement… To be fair, there is an overlap between the charismatics and a) Biblical literalists, b) just plain weirdoes. On the other hand, I’ve met a number of charismatic Christians who are sane and sensible people by anybody’s definition.
Lolo is that you?
Perhaps there aren’t many here, but ther is a whole lot of them out there, especially in USA. Everything from Southern Baptists , Mormons to Assembles of God.
These types have often a very facistisc attitude towards non-believers and moderate christians. They are more or less programed by their “god” and their leaders.
They often try to cleanc out the more philisophic aspects in the bible, something I think is dangerous - not only for them selves but also for us.
These people also seams to use any disaster in the world to promote their repulsive faith. (Pat Robertson, Jerry Farawell).
It’s also seams that they try to fulfil biblical prophecies by them self by using politic as a tool.
Maybe it’s because many of you have swallowd the agenda of these bible facists.
People who believe and teach that jesus is the only way to god are nothing but facists.
It wouldn’t surprise me if these types will find it hard to live here in a decade or so. I think politicans in Europe and USA are working with something that will limit their behavior and teaching.
SeaHawk, you say you are an atheist. I say you need to grow up, and let everyone live by their own credo. If you are offended by the lifestyles of others, then get your own life. Then you’ll be too busy to notice theirs.
Stop being so paranoid and defensive!
(Oh, and everyone, including Jesus and the Messiah, and Allah, loves you!)
;j 
BTW SeaHawk, I HATE being a pedant and all but is your unorthodox spelling and grammar intentional? Is there some particular reason why you don’t proof your writing before you post it?
In all honesty, apart from inadvertant misspellings and typo’s, our arguments are taken far more seriously if we give some serious attention to the way we present them.
Just a word of advice…
Okay, take the radio antenna from the top of the Empire State Building. Bend it into a hook shape and skewer four fully grown Black Anguses on it. Drag it behind the USS Carl Vinson at the end of 1,000 feet of telephone cable.
Then, and only then, might you be as big a troll as this guy.
(heaves a sigh)
Although the likes of Falwell and Robertson are highly visible, especially in US politics, they are not representative of a majority of Christians. They’re not even representative of the majority of Christians within the United States. This is not, really, a matter of opinion; the demographics of the various Christian denominations are (within limits) accessible, and you can see quite plainly that more people belong to the “mainstream” groups than the “Religious Right”.
I believe Roman Catholicism remains the most numerous single denomination worldwide. The RCC does not have a problem with evolution, does not enforce Biblical literalism, and a very prominent Catholic has gone on record in the past few years as saying that there are “things of value” in other religions. (Though he might not be trustworthy - I mean, his name’s Karol Wojtyla, but he works under the alias of John Paul II… shifty beggar, if you ask me…)
In short: the “Religious Right” comprises only a minority of Christian believers, and it is dishonest (or at least mistaken) to claim otherwise.
Hm.
I’m a christian who believes in speaking in tongues and yet my politics are Green and I’m a Yippie.
Politics should be kept separate from religion.
Though many churches don’t do that, to my regret.
I prefer Assemblies of God churches myself, I don’t follow the “leaders” of it, I dont consider that there are any “prophet leaders” nowadays.
That said, I wouldn’t be making Og mad now if I were you…
You, yet again, prove that you do now know of what you speak.
There are very many Mormons who are not biblical (nor even Book of Mormon) literalists, just as there are very many Baptists who aren’t.
Since you are the one making the WAGs and calling them assertions, how about providing some of your statistics to back up your assertions.
Either that or just admit you’re prejudiced and we can all have a big laugh at you.
Oh, my stars and garters!!
I’d love to see the Original Rant fine tuned against what SeaHawk is precisely objecting to.
As I’ve dealt with in infinitely too many threads already, I consider that a Christian faith is in no way incommensurate with the use of reason. (Cardinal, I’ll have some comments for you in the Spong thread over in GD on this subject when I finish here.)
First, the fun and games: Insofar as I know, no Christian and no Celtic Pagan is of the opinion that Jesus is the son of Og, the Irish deity (sometimes referred to as Ogmios). So that portion of the rant (Son of Og God) is absolute rubbish.
Second, it has been my contention for some time that if Christians bothered looking at what Christ had to say, they would be repulsed by the idea of enforcing an external moral code based loosely on the Bible on other people. Instead, many of them, particularly of a conservative evangelical bent, are of the opinion that God expects them to do so, on pain of “a decline in national morals that would cause God to remove his protection from us.” However, when they say this they are speaking of specific actions, particularly with regard to abortion, tolerance of others’ beliefs, and sexuality, not of the ethics taught by Christ.
To that extent, SeaHawk has a strong point, and one with which most people here agree, IIRC.
To the idea that it is in some way “rubbish” to believe that “Jesus is the son of God,” I’d suggest that it is important to find out precisely what is meant by the statement. If someone is seriously asserting that YHWH had sexual intercourse with Mary in some way, then he has a point. But if the understanding is that my opinion is that Jesus functioned in a role that we have come to know as the work of the Son of God, and therefore deserves that title, how is that “rubbish”?
Needless to say, the views of Bibliolaters on questions more relevant to scientific enquiry are hardly those required of Christians.
I look forward to SeaHawk’s further posts in which, hopefully, he will show the respect to his fellow posters to make his meanings more clear, with regard to both content and language use, and hope to discuss what his problems with Christianity as an overall belief system and with specific expressions of it might be.