Login Register Sign up for the GRM e-newsletter

Login to post Forums » Off-topic discussion » 101 Atheist Quotes « 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 »
  • Jensenman

    Feb. 17, 2009 6:49 a.m. Jensenman UltimaDork

    In reply to SvRex's question about the kleptomaniac son:

    No, I wouldn't love him any less. I also believe that if he's a klepto and he knows that he is, it's his responsibility to fix that problem, to suppress those urges. For him to pray for salvation and to think that he can go on stealing because he did so is just ridiculous.

    I see those bumper stickers: 'Christians aren't perfect, only forgiven'. That comes across as really arrogant; it says, in short, 'I can do any damn thing I want but as long as I pray for salvation I won't go to hell'. Like George Carlin (probably the most astute observer of the human condition ever to walk this mudball) said: 'Religion is a way of abdicating responsibility for your life'.

  • Feb. 17, 2009 7:41 a.m. SVreX UberDork

    I never said he could think he could go on stealing. I said he had a problem, and the father wasn't going to love him any less.

  • Jensenman

    Feb. 17, 2009 7:56 a.m. Jensenman UltimaDork

    Paul, like I said: I wouldn't love him any less. But he'd have to straighten up and fly right and not depend on 'salvation'. I guess that's tough love.

  • Duke

    Feb. 17, 2009 10:06 a.m. Duke Dork

    Exactly. I wouldn't love him any less. I'd try to help him get counseling or whatever. But if he couldn't straighten himself out, eventually I'd quit paying his debts and bailing him out of the pokey.

    If you're automatically forgiven for sin just for mustering up some remorse, why is there sin? It seems to me the goal is to stop sinning, even if imperfect humans may not be able to achieve that goal.

    So it is still considered wrong to be homosexual even if you are forgiven for your flawed inability to stop yourself from being gay. And that's the fundamental issue I have with the entire concept.

  • nickel_dime

    Feb. 17, 2009 10:24 a.m. nickel_dime HalfDork

    What grinds my soul (pun intended) is that every religion out there believes their's is the only true faith. They will be the only ones in "paradise" and every one else that doesn't believe the way they do will go to hell.

    Won't they be surprised when they get there and find out that whatever deity all the relegions in the world worship turn out to be the same guy, or better yet the fanatics learn that there isn't any paradise.

    Let's stretch this even further - as huge as the universe is IF there is inteligent life out there somewhere, where do their beliefs fall in to the picture? I can almost guarantee they won't be the same as ours. What if their right and we're wrong? The whole planet is doomed.

  • Tim Baxter

    Feb. 17, 2009 10:26 a.m. Tim Baxter Online Editor

    Maybe the zorastrianists were right all along. They did worship Mazda.

  • Feb. 17, 2009 10:40 a.m. SVreX UberDork

    Duke:

    I know this is sounding like a semantics game, but it really is not. I am trying to the best of my ability to describe some of the fundamental core tenants of Christianity, which I realize you are not understanding (and may not).

    Duke wrote:

    Exactly. I wouldn't love him any less. I'd try to help him get counseling or whatever. But if he couldn't straighten himself out, eventually I'd quit paying his debts and bailing him out of the pokey.

    That's because you don't know how to love unconditionally (and neither do I). So eventually, your "love" would end because you were tired of being taken advantage of, and you wanted something in return (change, thanks, pat on the back, whatever). That's not God. He IS love, and He loves unconditionally.

    Duke wrote: If you're automatically forgiven for sin just for mustering up some remorse, why is there sin?

    No one is "automatically forgiven for mustering up some remorse". That would still be a works salvation. I am forgiven because someone else (who was qualified, because He was perfect) paid the cost. I can't earn it, no matter how much I do good, or act remorseful.

    Duke wrote: It seems to me the goal is to stop sinning, even if imperfect humans may not be able to achieve that goal.

    No. The goal is a relationship with God (beginning now, not when I die). Ultimately, one tiny lifetime of less than 100 years is rather insignificant no matter how big the impact in the scale of eternity. 10,000 years from now, all my good deeds will be long forgotten. My relationship with God will not. That doesn't give me license to do wrong. I strive to do right, but I rely on Someone other than myself.

    Duke wrote: So it is still considered wrong to be homosexual even if you are forgiven for your flawed inability to stop yourself from being gay. And that's the fundamental issue I have with the entire concept.

    Just as it is considered wrong for me to pursue my own sexual sins (or other types). Where Mr. Phelps fails is that he fails to recognize his own similarity with the "fags" he seeks to condemn. So, he shall be judged by the same measure that he judges others (their inability to be perfect, instead of their reliance on the One who is perfect).

  • aircooled

    Feb. 17, 2009 10:41 a.m. aircooled Dork

    SVreX wrote: I'm not claiming to be better, or more proper. I'm saying Mr. Phelps is not a Christian, he is an imposter.

    Consider Dustin Hoffman's Raymond character in "Rainman". He said he was a very good driver, and was convinced as such.

    Was he? Who cares if he said so?

    I personally think the guy is a huge pile and does not represent the vast majority of Christians, but since his faith is based on Christianity her certainly is some form of Christian (much like Catholics, Lutherans, Protestants etc which all differ is some way).

    I really don't think your Rain Man analogy is relevant at all and actually may be a very good example of what I am talking about. Driving is a very measurable, provable talent. Almost anyone could say who is a good or bad driver (at least at the extremes). Religious believes (as stated previous) pretty much by definition are not measurable. Is he Catholic?, no, is he Christian?, I believe so.

    I think a slightly more relevant example would be if Dustin thought he was an excellent abstract artist. Which is (seemingly) judged in a very subjective manner. So no can really say if he is truly good or bad, only what they feel, but he is still an artist either way.

  • Feb. 17, 2009 11:07 a.m. SVreX UberDork

    Your statement suggests that Catholicism and Christianity are mutually exclusive.

    They are not.

    There are Christian Catholics. There are also Christian Baptists, Christian Presbyterians, and, believe it or not, Christian Jews.

  • Feb. 17, 2009 11:14 a.m. SVreX UberDork

    aircooled wrote:

    SVreX wrote: I'm not claiming to be better, or more proper. I'm saying Mr. Phelps is not a Christian, he is an imposter.

    I personally think the guy is a huge pile and does not represent the vast majority of Christians, but since his faith is based on Christianity her certainly is some form of Christian (much like Catholics, Lutherans, Protestants etc which all differ is some way).

    Religious believes (as stated previous) pretty much by definition are not measurable. Is he Catholic?, no, is he Christian?, I believe so.

    On this we differ.

    Christianity, if defined as "Christ one" can be defined and measured. It is measured against Christ, and He is pretty well represented in scripture.

    There are Catholics who are not Christians. There are Catholics who are Christians.

    So, in order to be an "Aircooled one", I'd have to resemble you. If I claim to be a follower of yours, yet don't resemble you or anything you believe in, I'm lying.

  • Feb. 17, 2009 11:18 a.m. SVreX UberDork

    aircooled wrote:

    I personally think the guy is a huge pile and does not represent the vast majority of Christians...

    It ultimately makes no difference if he represents the vast majority of Christians. What matters is if he represents Christ.

  • Tim Baxter

    Feb. 17, 2009 11:38 a.m. Tim Baxter Online Editor

    I personally think the guy is a huge pile

    I suspect we all agree on that.

  • aircooled

    Feb. 17, 2009 11:55 a.m. aircooled Dork

    SVreX wrote:

    It ultimately makes no difference if he represents the vast majority of Christians. What matters is if he represents Christ.

    OK, clearly this is a matter of perspective and I guess there is no point in arguing it any further.

    What I will say, as someone noted previously, to an (non-Christian) outsider, there generally will be (unfortunately of course) a link, and an association.

    Can you take me up on my question about taking the lords name in vane (previously posted)? I really am curious (although I am suspicious it is also a "perspective" issue).

  • DILYSI Dave

    Feb. 17, 2009 11:57 a.m. DILYSI Dave UltimaDork

    aircooled wrote:

    What I will say, as someone noted previously, to an (non-Christian) outsider, there generally will be (unfortunately of course) a link, and an association.

    Much like there is an association between a responsible car enthusiast and an shiny happy person street racer.

  • Jensenman

    Feb. 17, 2009 12:15 p.m. Jensenman UltimaDork

    Tim Baxter wrote:

    Maybe the zorastrianists were right all along. They did worship Mazda.

    But the smart ones worship only the Mazda Miata.

  • Feb. 17, 2009 12:24 p.m. SVreX UberDork

    aircooled wrote:

    Can you take me up on my question about taking the lords name in vane (previously posted)? I really am curious (although I am suspicious it is also a "perspective" issue).

    Sure, though there are many that would disagree with me.

    I believe to "use His name in vain" would be to refer to Him casually, to fail to revere the significance of His character. Like referring directly to the President as, "Yo, Prez!".

    Therefore, to say, "Thank God" as a directive to Him, in real thanks for what He has done would be different than to say it casually, as an exclamation.

    I can equally use His name in vain (without respect) when I call myself a Christian to increase my business sales, impress others, or increase my own power (like Mr. Phelps).

    But it is again a legal hair-splitting issue.

    I don't use it, because I live around a lot of people who would be offended, and I don't feel good when I say it.

    But if it slips out, I don't expect it to be risking my salvation.

    Yahweh (the English rendering of the Hebrew name used for God), would more properly be rendered YHWH (in English), and was unpronounceable in Hebrew. So, I guess they didn't have the "using His name in vain" issue in the first place!

  • friedgreencorrado

    Feb. 17, 2009 8:10 p.m. friedgreencorrado Reader

    Jensenman wrote:

    Toyman01 wrote:

    Jensenman wrote:

    That's great. No sarcasm or kidding from me at all. I just wish more people were like that.

    Now if I could just teach YOU how to drive...

    Good luck with that. I am trying to paint the RX7 orange one cone at a time.

    I haven't quite figured out how to get the roof yet...

    Um, don't wanna be around for that.

    You've never joined the Roof Drivers' Club? Y'all should try some circuit racing.

  • friedgreencorrado

    Feb. 17, 2009 8:15 p.m. friedgreencorrado Reader

    Jensenman wrote:

    Tim Baxter wrote:

    Maybe the zorastrianists were right all along. They did worship Mazda.

    But the smart ones worship only the Mazda Miata.

    Hey! Some of my best friends drive rotaries!

    Are they heretics?

  • Wally

    Feb. 17, 2009 8:18 p.m. Wally UltraDork

    At the least they practice some form of witchcraft with their spinning magical triangles and what not.

  • friedgreencorrado

    Feb. 17, 2009 8:19 p.m. friedgreencorrado Reader

    DILYSI Dave wrote:

    aircooled wrote:

    What I will say, as someone noted previously, to an (non-Christian) outsider, there generally will be (unfortunately of course) a link, and an association.

    Much like there is an association between a responsible car enthusiast and an shiny happy person street racer.

    I think you're the first one to finally phrase the "not a real (religious affiliation)" argument in a way I can understand it.

  • friedgreencorrado

    Feb. 17, 2009 8:21 p.m. friedgreencorrado Reader

    Wally wrote:

    At the least they practice some form of witchcraft with their spinning magical triangles and what not.

    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clarke

  • Jensenman

    Feb. 18, 2009 6:56 a.m. Jensenman UltimaDork

    friedgreencorrado wrote:

    Jensenman wrote:

    Tim Baxter wrote:

    Maybe the zorastrianists were right all along. They did worship Mazda.

    But the smart ones worship only the Mazda Miata.

    Hey! Some of my best friends drive rotaries!

    Are they heretics?

    We heretics try to keep that on the down low.

  • friedgreencorrado

    Feb. 18, 2009 11:57 p.m. friedgreencorrado Reader

    Jensenman wrote:

    friedgreencorrado wrote:

    Jensenman wrote:

    Tim Baxter wrote:

    Maybe the zorastrianists were right all along. They did worship Mazda.

    But the smart ones worship only the Mazda Miata.

    Hey! Some of my best friends drive rotaries!

    Are they heretics?

    We heretics try to keep that on the down low.

    "In Renesis, 1:5345, we see that Herr Wankel turned two strokes into four, and it was good. And then Yamamoto Kenichi saw the light, and thought it would rise in the East.."

  • Feb. 22, 2009 4:02 p.m. SVreX UberDork

    That's funny!

  • RX Reven'

    Feb. 23, 2009 1:27 p.m. RX Reven' Reader

    And the lord anointed the dead with ATF and life was restored and he said be not tempted by boost as it will make thy days few.

« 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 »  

You'll need to log in to post.