The way we’re driving a wedge between moderate Muslims and the radicals by pounding relentlessly on the Middle East? Say, great idea. Tell me, though; exactly how many Christians have seen the error of their ways as a result of your relentless pounding? It’d be nice to get a total before you go blind.
If I read you correctly, you are saying that I should not attack Christianity because of the political activities of some of its members, in the same sense that the right shouldn’t attack atheism because of the political activities of the Communists. Are you sure you have a valid analogy there? Frankly, the analogy is so tenuous that I had to spend some time thinking just to figure out what you were driving at.
If I persuade even one Christian, I’m ahead of your policy of proceeding with your relentless … nothing.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. I don’t see how it’s a tenuous analogy. It seems quite solid to me. Do unto others isn’t an exclusively religious tenet.
Funny, I don’t remember giving any indication of my “policy”. Since you didn’t ask, however, I tend to prefer actually addressing people’s actual opinions, rather than berating them as a group with such persuasive bons mots as “brain-damaged drivel”. It seems a lot more productive than your tactic of spittle-flecked invective. Does it not occur to you that you represent the exact converse of the wild-haired preachers who denounce you as a despicable heathen, a godless sinner, a servant of Satan? You may flatter yourself that you’re out there trying to save people from themselves, but you’re merely preaching to the choir.
Still, should your ejaculations ever succeed in winning a convert, let me know and I’ll get out on the streets.
You’re the exact same person as the evangelical preacher I see on campus every now and then. The exact same person.
“If I can convert even one non-believer, then my time here hasn’t been wasted.”
Chris Rock puts it best. Bunch of cracker-ass crackers.
Kate Jackson is especially grateful on those heavy flow days.
Good enough. The Bible condones slavery, but not homosexual activity. I’d hardly have expected it to have required slavery. I don’t recall anyone claiming that slavery was required - just that anyone believing in the Bible literally cannot condemn slavery as being against God’s commandments.
So, if one can make the case that to condemn slavery is more moral than condoning slavery, can we state that the average human today is more moral than God? But that’s too deep for the Pit, I suppose.
This is a key point, and is one that Confederate apologists often elide when holding forth about how the Civil War wasn’t really about slavery. To listen to some of these people, you’d think it was merely coincidence that there happened to be any slaves at all in America at the time of the War.
Jayjay I’m gonna have to back evil captor on the matter of your analogy. EC was talking about beliefs, not people. I think EC is perfectly willing to acknowledge that there are bad athiests and good christians. This has nothing to do with the validity of atheism or christianity as beliefs, or whether christianity has had a pernicious effect on history.
Also Communism ≠ Atheism. I view Communism as a sort of godless religion, with vast historical forces taking the place of a deity. Communism has an eschatology (sp?), a mythology, and attempts to shoehorn facts to fit theory.
Again, this post is merely concerned with the analogy.
That is very interesting. Truly. Now, one more question, if you don’t mind. Is this a personal opinion formed through personal study, or part of the teaching of a particular branch or sect of Christianity? (this is not a loaded question)
Guh?? 
Loosely speaking, he’s describing the property of “uniqueness”, whereby a (metaphysically) possible proposition is logically (metaphysically) necessary. Even more loosely, it means that if a proposition (say, “god exists”) is true at any possible world, it must be true at all possible worlds, within the context of the specific logical system in question.
There’s no reason, however, to apply the common-usage definition of the terms “necessary” and “possible” to this description, nor is it necessary (in the traditional sense) to accept that this logical system is an accurate model of our world/universe/what have you. Apologies to Liberal if I’ve misapprehended the point he’s making; this is solely what I glean from the bit you’ve quoted. I also realise that the above doesn’t really make it much clearer - I’ve never really got the knack of expressing modal logic in plain terms, including to myself.
Only if you wish to support those people who believe that the Bible was written by God taking possession of the human authors. For those who have no problem with the notion that God’s revelation is ongoing and that humans continue come to better understanding of the completeness of God’s message, what is written in the Bible simply reflects on the understanding of people and not on God.
There are only small segments of the Christian and Jewish faiths who accept a literal interpretation of the Bible, so perhaps you should have sought some of them out before attempting this hijack.
Really, then why did you bother to attempt to “correct” me when I responded to the following statement?
The author of this statement claims that an opponent of homosexuality cannot use the bible as rationale unless they also “support” slavery. So based on a misunderstanding of the actual statement you were defending, you have pursued a hijack in which you have persistently attempted to attribute beliefs to followers of the bible that most do not hold (generally couched in language that attempted to challenge me, personally)?
I’m glad we’ve cleared that up.
Well, this is kinda interesting. It sounds as if your understanding of the bible isn’t too different from mine. It’s just some stuff some people cooked up about 2,000 years ago, people who were savage desert nomads and so didn’t have the same understanding we do. Or have I misunderstood you in some way?
It’s a tenuous analogy because religion isn’t really part of Communism. Communism is basically an economic system. Communist governments have promoted atheism because they saw the church as supporting property owners in repressing people, but they might also have instituted their own churches that had all the “right” beliefs.
The Right has always jumped on Communism promoting atheism but as I am not a Communist nor a supporter of communism, it really doesn’t bother me in any way.