But, but…the universe was created for humans. I guess coconuts (and pineapples and mangos) were a product of the Fall. They used to have pull tabs. This is also where nettles came from.
(And I’ve clamoured though a feild of nettles so I’ve paid for my sins…)
Just as a couple of nerds using aliases because of “death threats” (based on their YouTube solicitation of videoed “blasphemy”) represent serious, rational atheists to a large portion of those that watched the program–an audience that never reaches even four million, or less than 1 1/3% of the U.S. population.
Whatever Nightline is pretending to do, it is clearly not presenting “prominent voices in their field” (which was Nightline’s pre-broadcast blurb). Where are Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, or the ghost of Sagan? Where are Wills, Miller, Van Inwagen, or even Falwell or Dobson?
The silliness that is Nightline’s staged brawls between clueless irrelevance and flippant irrelevance has nothing to do with “theism” (or even “Christianity”) and “atheism” and everything to do with low grade theatre.
In fact, I do believe that eating coconuts is an abomination unto the Lord. It says it in the Bible… somewhere.
How many of these pseudo-Christians have to be on the air before there is a problem worth doing something about, then? I’m not talking just about Kirk Cameron-Do I actually have to list all the faith healing, money-grubbing and reactionary men of the cloth that appear not only on Nightline, but on many other news and informatory programs, their own programs on broadcast and cable television, and even their own networks?
Theirs is the voice of perceived Christianity to the media-watching masses.
It is not a problem. No one perceives Kirk Cameron to be the “voice of Christianity” except the loons who agree with him and, perhaps, a few atheists, and I’m not too sure about the atheists. He’s a simplistic moron (or one helluva practical joker) who hasn’t the foggiest notion of the fundamental tenets of the religion he professes. And he’s even less a "threat’ to Christianity than the jihadists are to Islam because he’s not a nihilistic thug willing to die for his alleged belirfs.
I perceive no threat to my First Amendment freedom by Cameron exercising his First Amendment freedom. I will not become activist over something that doesn’t concern me.
All very well clamouring, but I bet you got stung just as much as if you’d kept your mouth shut. 
Wow, so the restaurant I ate at the other day, whose menu advertised their German Chocolate cake as being “sinful”…that wasn’t just clever marketing? :eek:
To those that do not already belong to the mainstream of Christianity, he is one of the “voices of Christianity” until someone says otherwise. This is the way advertising works, and advertising does work-for proof, just look at the millions of people who roll up leaves in paper, light it on fire and inhale.
I’ve got a lovely bunch of coconuts.
Who are these media-watching masses?
The assumption in your question is that there is some vast gathering of people unacquainted with Christianity with a tabula rasa approach to religion that is going to be swayed in their opinions regarding Christianity based on what they see on TV.
The reality is that the overwhelming numbers of people who are going to see those shows are already within the supergroup known as “Christians” and they already see the Phelpses, the Laws, the Falwells, the Camerons, the Schillers, the Grahams (filius et pater), the Spongs, the Egans, the Bernardins, the Robinsons, and all the rest as either “one of us” or “not one of us.” As large and predominant as Christianity is in North America, the majority of Christians see it as the presumptive situation for anyone they will encounter and they do not look at the “Christian” label, but at the sub-heading that says “Baptist,” “Catholic,” “A/G,” “Methodist,” or whatever.
I know one or two people who look on Schiller as an example of what it means to be Christian (and get rich). Most of the people I know think he is a flake. I know several people who consider Falwell an outspoken pastor, although the majority of people I know consider him to be a small-time crank with accidental access to the media. I know a lot of people who hold Billy Graham in high regard, (some of whom feel he is sincere but misguided). Everyone with whom I have discussed his kid, Franklin, considers him a nasty twit. (Clearly I do not move in those circles that think Franklin to be a great prophet.)
(Note, also, that I would not characterize Cameron (or Falwell or Dobson or others) as “pseudo” Christians. They are Christians with whom I disagree on many matters of theology, politics, science, and other issues. When some of them made efforts to impose their beliefs on society–Ohio’s anti-Same-Sex-Union amendment or the attempt to sneak “Intelligent Design” into Ohio schools–I have actively opposed them, vocally and financially. Sometimes I have been on the winning side, sometimes not. However, I see no reason to attack an idiot on the Ohio school board for being Christian when all of her colleagues are also Christian. It makes more sense to oppose her on the grounds that she is undermining scientific education, regardless of her religious beliefs.)
Heck, what about even oranges – you know, if you don’t have long enough fingernails and before you get that first piece of peel loose? That alone proves there’s no good. :o
I’m wondering if reading the entire bible ever actually unconvinced anybody.
Well, if Kirk Cameron’s antics somehow threaten your identity as a Christian or otherwise endanger your faith, then yes, you probably should publicly disown his brand of lunacy. He doesn’t threaten my Christian identity, and my regained faith is pretty much unshakable this time around, so he just isn’t at all significant to me. But once you mount the pulpit to denounce Cameron, you’d better be willing to take on the Mormons, the Jehova’s Witnesses and the Southern Baptists.
Cite?
I’m not a Christian. I’m just an atheist that thinks mainstream Christianity is being slandered every time people like Cameron, Robertson, Popoff and the scores of others like them hold the airwaves hostage. But, hey, they self-identify as Christians, so I guess they get a free pass.
No sir or ma’am, however I trust you did not partake? Even if you did, don’t worry, as Jesus forgives all sins - just flog yourself 50 times and we’ll call it even.
Then it’s none of your concern.
And apparently, it’s none of yours.
Pity.
But it’s nowhere near as beautiful as the proud, majestic… CROCOSTIMPY!
On the topic of the thread… I can only shake my head in disbelief. What an idiot.
Congratulations! Perhaps you hit on the nirvana that **Quiddity Glomfuster **talked about in her punctuality thread.
If you had started and stopped your first post with the first sentence of this one, I would not have gone farther either.
But you went on to either explain, justify or rationalize your behavior or alternatively to try to convince me that this behavior was somehow typical of the behavior that others have in groups. When each analogy either failed or backfired, you just added more.
In this exchange, you started with telling me how large the group of Christians are and how that made it somehow not possible for you to feel any embarrassment over the actions of the group due to the sheer numbers involved and how far removed that was from your experience. So I noted that you were making a monkey sphere comparison.
Either that, or your whole recounting of the size of the Christian group was just totally non sequitur. Since I assumed it had some logical connection to the issue we were discussing, I assumed that it must be connected to the issue of your lack of embarrassment based on how far removed you feel to the people who are making the statements with which you disagree.
So here’s another example of where you seem to be trying to make some form of argumentation. If you were just answering my question of how you feel, I’m not sure how an open-ended question addressed ostensibly to me (unless you meant the general you) is answering that question.
It is to these open-ended questions that I’ve been responding to. And it is these open-ended questions which either fail as analogies or work against your argument in each of the previous cases. I won’t comment on this one since you don’t seem to see this as an argument. Perhaps it’s just a rhetorical device that seems obvious to you but is completely contrary to me.
I was also noting in response to these open-ended questions or rhetorical devices that I found them to be logically internally inconsistent. You evidently did not agree or were and continue to be unaware of the inconsistencies.
When someone from a group stands to represent others, no one generally elects them. They do so on their own. In fact, it is because they’ve elected themselves without the others’ consent is the very reason one would think that those in the group that object would stand up to do so.
And yes, they’re free to abuse the tenets of Christianity in any way they choose. Oddly, though, I’ve seen you say that you take it upon yourself when you see someone wrongly claim something about your interpretation of your religion here that you feel that fighting ignorance requires you to respond to the alleged inaccuracy. It’s interesting that you don’t feel the need to fight similar ignorance in the broader context off this message board.
I have no such wish that your attitude were different. In fact, from my viewpoint as a non-Christian, your attitude that people misrepresenting Christianity get a free pass just confirms my view that the rules of logic and the rules that govern other parts of most people’s lives get special dispensation by some Christians such as yourself in the areas of Christianity.
Oddly, you denigrate the intelligence of those that believe these people who are broadcast on national television. And yet you have stated elsewhere that because your religion doesn’t teach creationism, the teachings of creationism must come from Protestant neighbors or televangelists. If the teaching of creationism is so widespread from people watching the media despite it not being an accepted religious belief of your religion, doesn’t it stand to reason that more than two-year olds are getting some of their religious beliefs from the media?
I find this very puzzling because the very reason you claimed you went back to Christianity was because of one person or group of people led by Richard Dawkins which you documented in this thread.
So it seems puzzling to me that you don’t think that one person and a bunch of his followers could lead others away from the faith as one person and his followers lead you to yours.
And if these people could lead others away from the faith, is this not a concern to those who hold it?