Testify! 
Oh, and His, For the most part, I would focus on the Christians shutting up. This is because, in my personal experience, they tend to be the most strident and annoying.
**
I don’t dispute that you worship a god of the Bible. But your interpretation of it makes that god into a demon.
**
The demon you worship is evil because it orders people to commit rape and genocide.
**
Kind of like how your hero, Jack Chick, falsely accuses Catholics of worshipping Isis?
You see, there’s a difference here.
I believe that you worship a demon. We agree on the basic facts (i.e., you base your worship on the Bible,) but I interpret them differently than you do, because I believe that genocide is always evil, whereas you believe that natural sexuality is evil.
Jack Chick says that Catholics worship Isis. They don’t. Period. He’s just lying.
But somehow, you don’t have a problem with Jack Chick. Like I said, you can dish it out, but you can’t take it. A lot of evangelicals can dish out nasty lies about other religions, but they can’t take the idea that someone might have a low opinion of evangelical Christianity, even if that opinion is based in the facts.
**
Unlike you, I can actually provide an argument to back up my claims. You, on the other hand, aren’t doing much of anything other than declaring that you don’t worship a demon because the deity you worship is worshipped by you.
When a religion claims that homosexuality is bad, but genocide can be good, how can it be anything but demon worship?
So, His4Ever, did you read that tract I gave you? How many times do I have to ask you before I get a simple yes or no?
I would love to read it. Did I miss the link? Is it available on line?
I vaguely recall looking at something but I don’t know if it was yours or someone else’s. I didn’t like it, I remember that. Give me the link again, if you want.
His,
Nothing is sadder than someone vehemently arguing a point with absolutely no knowledge of the counterpoint. It makes you appear ignorant and not worth listening to.
Just a little advice.
http://psyche11.home.mindspring.com/ben/WritingIndex.htm
It’s the one entitled “Life in Our Anti-Christian America.”
What didn’t you like about it?
Yes. Misunderstood, really.
I am the only non republican fundie I know of.
As for Guin having sex, why should I care?
If God cares, He’ll tell her (or smite her or something, but not til she’s done).
Same with gays, they aren’t hurting me, its up to God to smite them if He wants to.
I am not saying He wants to, mind you.
That’s not the one I saw. I’m not really sure what to make of it. Maybe someone can explain it to me.
Do you just not understand it, or the points it makes?
I’m not for sure. Is it saying that we don’t really live in a Christian nation, which I could have told you that.
Uh, no, His, it’s irony*. The pamphlet is making the argument that actually we live in a country dominated by Christians.
Look at the second panel with George Bush. The caption says, “During the 2000 Presidential campaign, George W. Bush was asked which thinker had infleunced him the most. He unhesitatingly replied, ‘Friedrich Nietzsche.’” Actually, His, Bush’s answer was, “Jesus Christ.”
In the third panel, the caption talks about Pat Robertson’s “Atheist Alliance” and Senators Inhofe and Miller would never appoint a Christian to the Supreme Court. In reality, Pat Robertson founded the Christian Coalition and the two Senators said they would never appoint an atheist to the Supreme Court.
The fourth panel quotes the Pledge of Allegiance as saying, “one nation without God” when in reality it says, one nation under God.
The entire comic is meant to depict a reverse world where atheists run things the exact way that Christians dominate our culture and politics in reality.
Okay, I see. Thx.
I’m curious- what confused you about it? Did you believe that Bush had actually named Nietzsche?
I have a sneaking suspicion someone is “playing dumb” here.
His: surely you can’t be this thick? Do you have any opinion on the tract?
This thread is absolute proof that zealouts are equally bad no matter what the belief system.
Let’s take Ben for example. After reading an OP criticizing a zealous fundamentalist christian view, ie.
**He posts the following:
**These statements are fundamenatally the same. A few pages later he exhibits the same character flaw by claiming his4ever worships a demon - which is fundamentally the same as Jack Chick’s ridiculous claims regarding Catholicism.
Ben, you are hypocrit who has behaved exactly as those you rail against. Examine yourself and what you have said, because you have a lot of growing to do. For now though, you and the fundies fucking deserve each other.
Actually, MWAG, I’ve already addressed your point. Would you care to respond?
??? That was my first post in this thread. As far as I can tell, you have not addressed your hypocrisy on a previous page.
Ah wait, you mean the Jack Chick / Catholicism thing. OK, I guess you did address that part - sort of. I wasn’t thinking about Isis when I wrote that, but no matter. The context makes it it sound like I was, and the Chick comparison was tangential to my point anyway. I’d be more than happy to abandon it.
The important part of my post was not that single sentence, but the two statements I quoted. I even put them in bold for you, yet you still seem to have glossed over it. How about I spell it out in red this time?
Your claim that fundamental Christianity is a “demonic brainwashing cult” is the exact same as the fundie claim that Muslims are enslaved by Satanic beliefs.
That’s the hypocrisy I wanted you to look at.
This point was already raised by someone else, and I already addressed it.
Where?
I’m sorry if I sounded overly crass in my previous points, but with all do respect, I don’t think you ever did address that apparent piece of hypocrisy. At least not in this thread. If for some reason I missed it on my fourth read-through, could you please point it out? I’m curious as to how you justify it.