I think his conclusion should have been obvious to anyone unless that person didn’t want to see what **Fear **was getting at. Perhaps it was so obvious that he couldn’t understand how you didn’t get it?
Kinda the same way I thought about your reactions to Huckabee’s comments in the fact-slaying OP. All that falderal about how he’s a gonna march into the White House and set up a theocracy and shit.
“It must be God’s doing!” can only translate one of two ways for me.
- “'Cause you’re all too smart to choose me on your own!”
- “'Cause you’re all too stupid to choose me on your own!”
Appealing.
Yeah, I suppose at this point misquoting him is as good as the rest of it. Wrong decade. Wrong person. Wrong words. Surely there’s nothing left to do with him. Let’s attack his wife now. Or his kids or something.
What I don’t understand is why Lib’s defending Huckabee, the social conservative. Nothing about denying rights to gays is libertarian.
You’re right. I can see where this post could have been confusing wrt my views on whether he would set up a theocracy:
Why am I defending him? I’m not a supporter of his. I doubt there’s one on the whole board.
But attacking a man using a decade old speech, and even at that not disclosing the nature of his audience, isn’t fair. And I don’t know how much we can get out of speeches anyway.
You’ve got to be joking. The man was accused in the OP of saying something yesterday that he said ten years ago. Shortly thereafter, the same poster again ripped into a speech, condemning Huckabee for it line by line only to discover it was Bill Clinton’s speech. And now atheists have decided what a Christian must mean when he says he feels led by God (whose proper name some of them won’t even bother to capitalize.) If you think all that should be let alone — on this board of all places — or describe it as “defending Huckabee”, I suggest you should reconsider your opinion.
It was the plural “your”. I’m just lumping you in the rest of them. That’s okay, isn’t it?
BTW, all of you Democrats of this esteemed board, didn’t you get the memo?
You can do whatever you want, whatever you can live with, and whatever you want other posters/lurkers in this thread see you do.
I know what you mean, I get pissed when someone disses my imaginary friend too.
I want other posters to stop shitting on every mention of Jesus by people of faith. Having a personal relationship with Christ means surrendering to His will. It is to be expected that a Christian feels led by Christ. Everything from open insults to subtle hints of grammar are thrown at faith, and as I said early on, I’m just sick of it. What bothers me most about it is that we don’t have to be enemies. It is a manufactured problem, just like the supposed division between faith in God and admiration of science. Christ as I understand Him does not condemn anyone for anything, even though He has every moral and existential right to do so. If someone feels threatened by Him, then he simply does not understand Him. If you want to call Huckabee (or me or whatever) a hypocrite, that’s fine. But Jesus of Nazareth has done nothing to deserve the ridicule heaped upon Him, especially by people who doubt He ever even existed. Even you, as an atheist, can understand this. You would sooner someone insult you than your mother, wouldn’t you? That’s all I’m trying to convey, and I know this latest statement will itself be ridiculed, so I’m just fast approaching the no-longer-give-a-fuck-what-people-think threshold. Does any of this make any sense to you?
ETA:
See post above, for example.
Time for another self-imposed exile Lib. See you at Easter.
Dream on. I’m staying till I drop. 
I generally draw distinctions on these boards between those people who don’t have faith and those who are hostile to it. The former pose no problem to me, the latter often turn out to be confrontational dickheads who can’t let me do my thing in peace.
Now, what category do you fall into?
Sure, it makes sense. But I still think it’s an overreaction. There are a few notorious Christian bashers on this board, and although I wouldn’t put **Dio **in with them, he’s pretty close. And I would make the distinction between “anyone” mentioning Christ and “politicians” mentioning Christ. It doesn’t bother me one bit that you have a personal relationship with Christ, per your post above. I’m a little concerned if the president of the United States has such a relationship, though. I don’t want my president surrendering to anyone’s will, especially someone whose will is, to the say the least, rather hard to figure out. There seems to be enormous disagreement among the various Christians as to what His will is.
Hey, stay away from my sister, man.
And I want Christians to stop freaking out if I don’t play along with their insistence on whether I capitalize god or not, or if I don’t want god-beliefs to influence my supposedly secular government. This thread, and your reaction in it, has again reinforced my perception that a Christian having a personal relationship with his god is also going to assume that I should have that personal relationship with his god, too.
I’m sick of it, and I’m sick of fundies telling me that I’m fine as long as I’m right with Christ - and otherwise I’ll be on the outside looking in.
Your extreme sensitivity on these matters in any thread in which Christianity comes up makes me very wary of allowing any further erosion of whatever separation remains between church and state, because it is clearly not rational and not equitable. Who’s to say that a government run by fundies would insist that I start spelling god with a capital G or face some type of punishment (to pick a trivial but up to the moment example)?
If it is personal and not rational and not subject to scrutiny and not revealable to those who cannot see it and not subject to any sort of evaluation, get it the fuck out of my government!
Well, if you post from Heaven, that would be convincing as all get out! And if they have a “No Libertarians!” admissions policy, you can still go kick Andy Jackson in the 'nads.