The Gospel of Unbelief

[Bullypulpit]

Oh. The majority can never be oppressed? Tell that to the Shiites under Saddam. Or blacks under S.African Apartheid.

Have you been thrown in prison without charge, there to be tortured and beaten every day? Have any members of your family been victims of a chemical weapons attack by the US governement? Have you, or any members of your family, been forced to live in squalid ghettoes and work for your oppressors for wages insufficient to feed your family?

Didn't think so. Dismissed. :chains:

 

[Nuc]

Have you been thrown in prison without charge, there to be tortured and beaten every day? Have any members of your family been victims of a chemical weapons attack by the US governement? Have you, or any members of your family, been forced to live in squalid ghettoes and work for your oppressors for wages insufficient to feed your family?

Didn't think so. Dismissed. :chains:

C'mon, the liberals, ACLU, the Freemasons and NAMBLA have all conspired to give RWA a hangnail, psoriasis, halitosis and they also forced him to eat a felafel while chanting, "Allah is great" while he was on his way to Sunday school. If that's not the equivalent of the holocaust I don't know what is.

 

[José]

I have to agree with Bully, Nuc and jillian and I would like to make a small contribution analysing this issue from a larger historical perspective.

When you look at the american society of the XXI, you see a US that is more and more heterogeneous as far as religion is concerned, so the creation of a secular state sounds an almost obvious choice for most of us.

But when you put the secular state envisoned by the framers of the US constitution in its historical context, you see it was conceived in a much more homogeneous society as far as religion is concerned.

Ok... you can argue that the framers had the endless centuries of religious wars in Europe in mind when they conceived their document, but this does not diminish my admiration for a group of thinkers who created a political document that becomes more modern with each passing day. It does not diminish my admiration for their extraordinary foresight in creating a political document whose core principles seems to be atemporal.

Words simply cannot describe my admiration for the founders of the US.

5, 10 thousand years in the future, when all organised religions will have probably disapeared, when the only thing left of today’s religions will probably be their hard core, that is, the belief in God as a symbol of the eternal human quest for a meaning in the Universe, when America will be a distant memory, a long gone political entity, when the English language will be as dead as Latin, historians will still study the principles of political and religious freedom upon which the United States were founded, will contrast these principles with the political landscape in which they were created, that is, a century (and millenium) dominated by political and religious authoritarianism and will surely conclude:

“The founders of this tribe were really men ahead of their time.”

Like every other tribe, kingdom, nation state in human history, the United States will pass someday, but the secular principles upon which this great nation was founded will remain forever and will eventually triumph all over the world as the eternal social conquest of all mankind these principles really are.

 

[Avatar4321]

How can there be an "assault" on Christianity when 80% of Americans claim to be 'Christian'?...When every president of the US since Washington have been adherents of one form or another of Christian ethos?...The only apparent assault on Christianity is in the minds of those lunatic fringe elements with their eyes on political power rather than the kingdom of heaven.

Do you honestly believe that the minority never oppresses or assaults the majority?

I guess the Roman slaves werent been oppressed either, after all there were alot more slaves than Romans...

The entire point of a representative government is to avoid the tyranny of a few on the majority.

 

[Avatar4321]

And this relates to Christianity how?

I would have thought that was self evidence.

Bully is trying to argue that since Christians are a majority in America they cannot be assaulted or oppressed.

RWA merely pointed out that the argument is fallacious.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's because they're theocracies....and fundamentalist extremists tend to hate dissent.

But luckily this country's behavior isn't governed by nutcases like in Saudi Arabia...and we have a Constitution that protects us from being a theocracy.

The constitution also protects us from liberalism... or atleast it would if it was followed.

 

[jillian]

The constitution also protects us from liberalism... or atleast it would if it was followed.

Which has what to do with what I said?

And why would you think you'd be protected from "liberalism"?

 

[Adam's Apple]

The entire point of a representative government is to avoid the tyranny of a few on the majority.

Oh, you mean like what the Democrats are doing to the Republicans? :tng:

"How can we be obstructionist? The Republicans hold the presidency and have majorities in both the House and Senate." While this argument might sound true, it isn't. Take the recent immigration bill as an example. The Republican "majority" couldn't get the bill passed because they didn't have 60 votes. So much for the Republican majorities. The Democrats can still be a powerful wrecking crew even if they are not the "majority" party in Washington.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Do you honestly believe that the minority never oppresses or assaults the majority?

I guess the Roman slaves werent been oppressed either, after all there were alot more slaves than Romans...

The entire point of a representative government is to avoid the tyranny of a few on the majority.

Unless you're seriously kinky, you've never been a slave. Your analogy sucks. Your assertion is baseless. You've the purpose of a representative government ass-backwards.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Unless you're seriously kinky, you've never been a slave. Your analogy sucks. Your assertion is baseless. You've the purpose of a representative government ass-backwards.

SO that's it then bully? You're sticking with "A minority can never oppress a majority"? That's just wrong. Why are you choosing this hill to die on?

 

[LOki]

This guy's problem isn't un-belief. His problem is having his beliefs, that are unsupported by fact or reason, questioned. It undermines his preferred authority system. What he ultimately enjoins you to do is, "Do as you're told by those who are in charge of the sacred book--and don't listen to those with "other" ideas." He enjoins you to not be critical of the foundation that his favored brand of authoritarianism is based upon.

This year's first attack came from St. Paul Minnesota where local officials decided to ban the Easter Bunny from City Hall. They said it might offend some non-Christians, as if the Easter Bunny has anything to do with Easter's real significance. Apparently it escaped the notice of the city council that the Easter Bunny might offend Christians, because, like Santa Claus, it is a counterfeit.

Indeed, it appears that there are ignorant dopes on both sides of the issue--on the one side, there are those who think the Easter Bunny is a Christian symbol, and then there are those who think Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are objectively and empirically less real than God.

Newspapers also carried a story about a Florida State University scientist who speculated that Jesus didn't really walk on water; he walked on ice. The scientist theorized there must have been an unusual cold snap 2,000 years ago that froze the Sea of Galilee. This begs the question how Jesus was able to pull off such a stunt when Peter also walked on water, before his lack of faith sank him.

The assertion that Jesus walked on water, and the assertion that Jesus walked on ice are subject to the exact same lack of evidence--more so this business of a cold snap, to be sure. But if one is willing to believe that Jesus walked on water, why shouldn't one be surprised that another believes Jesus walked on ice? Go on, I dare you to bring up "miracle."

The New York Times piled on by trumpeting the discovery of a fossil in Arctic Canada as a "missing link," which it editorialized "puts the lie to creationist beliefs."

Not exactly.

Of course not. There are no number of new "links" discovered between the "links" already discovered by archaeologists that would satisfy a creationist's demand that there are still "links" missing. This depite the evidence that suggests rather emphaticly that "creation" is older than their creation story predicts; that so many of the structures of life, if they indicate design at all, do not indicate intelligent design, but rather incompetent design; plus that ever nagging retort "If life evolved, then where did water come from?", as if the theory of evolution addresses the creation of the universe in the same manner that the creationist tradition does.

No one is at all surprised that Cal is unimpressed by a discovery of a "missing link." Mostly because such discoveries are not specified in the precious book that proscribes any human knowledge, regardless of validity, contrary to faith as heresy. I'd bet a month's wages that Galileo would punch this asshole's face right in if he was still around. I'll even bet Galileo is in Heaven; and what heaven is for Galileo is getting to punch in the faces of every "believer" asshole who shut their mind (but not their mouth) to the fruits of scientific inquiriry because those fruits were contrary to their superstitious notions of faith in the infallible truth of the bible.

Next was a story on the "Gospel of Judas," a work written between 130 and 170 C.E., long after the events it purports to describe.

Yet the "real" gospels, written between 65 and 100 C.E.; long after the events they purport to describe; two of which were not written by witnesses at all; are not worthy of any skepticism, what-so-ever, on those grounds.

Adding to the gospel of unbelief is the movie version of the best-selling novel, "The Da Vinci Code," which, if it is faithful to the book, will mix a few historical facts with a great deal of fiction. The book claims Jesus married Mary Magdalene and fathered children. The film is scheduled for release next month. Like the book, the movie will have as much to do with fact as Oliver Stone's film on the Kennedy assassination.

Yes, I can understand exactly how a contemporary piece of literary historical fiction might compete with the traditional piece of literary historical fiction Mr. Thomas prefers to believe, but he is hypocritical if he is asserting that those who believe the new fiction to be true are practicing "un-belief."

What is responsible for this flood of skepticism, heresy and outright denial of the biblical record?

Lack of corroborative evidence for the biblical record, for one. The internal contradictions in the biblical record, for another. The logical inconsistencies for a third reason.

Why is there not a similar cultural onslaught against other faiths?

But there is--we're chock full of skepticism for those Muslims.

Only the suicidal would treat Islam in this way.

HAHAHA! What a tool!

It has been clearly demonstrated that only the suicidal tolerate Islam without questioning the principles of their belief. In fact, Islam is the poster child for questioning the bullshit principles of all religious beliefs.

The question inherent in all of these challenges to the original story and original cast is this: How could anything like the resurrection be true?

Oh? Oh, really? THAT'S the inherent question? I think not. I think the real inherent question is, "Just what is it about your faith that makes it so different than the faith of others, that it is a fair refutation of confirmed observations and measurments of reality, so much so that adherents to your faith are justified in their burning, hanging, stoning, quartering, eviscerating, impaling, pressing, racking and just plain murdering of those who do not believe as you do?"

The question is not asked with the intention of getting an answer. It is rhetorical, hostile and unbelieving.

No. I think the intent is to get an answer--a truthful answer, an answer logically consistent and factually accurate. That un-belief that thus far is derived from the illogical, factually suspect, unverifiable, and perversely irrational answers provided is not an indictment of the unbeliever.

For instance:

So, how does one know it is true? First, not a single witness of that first Easter morning subsequently denied what he (or she) observed.

And not a single passenger on the Mayflower denied reaching Plymouth. It doesn't mean they all made it. Nor does the fact that none of them denied the truth of the Theory of Evolution make the Theory of Evolution true. As it turns out, none of the witnesses of Easter morning denied that the resurrection was a well executed hoax either--does that mean the ressurection was a well executed hoax? I don't think so, but apparently Cal Thomas might disagree, as the lack of denials is the important test.

Welcome to Spurious Logic That Makes Unbelivers Skeptical 101.

Human nature tells us that when those who publicly stated Jesus rose from the grave were threatened with death unless they recanted, at least one, and probably more, would have said it never happened, if it didn't occur. They would have wanted to live. Not one recanted. All of the Apostles died martyrs deaths, except John, who died in exile.

Human nature tells us all that, eh? Does human nature also tell us that no one comes back from the dead? Does human nature tell us that those in positions of authority write history the way they like it? Does human nature tell us that a backwards rube can be fooled into believing God has come in human form to lead them from the misery and oppression of their persecutors? Does human nature tell us that if you have no assurances what-so-ever that your executioner is going to spare you, there is no point in blowing in your friends and family to this same executioner?

I think it does. In fact, I think it tells us alot more than this Cal Thomas would like it to. The problem isn't that this "human nature" argument fails to support Mr. Thomas' assertion, but that this exact same "human nature" argument supports just about every assertion, including those opposed, to be made on the subject.

The second reason is also logical.

I can hardly wait for this "logic."

What kind of loving father would direct his lost children through a bad neighborhood, if he wanted them to get home safely?

The shitty kind of loving father, I suppose? And he accuses unbelievers of being rhetorical?

If no human father would be so cruel, why would God, after giving up His Son to die for humanity, create a flawed road map so they would get lost in their search for Him?

HAHAHA! Unbelievers may be hostile and rhetorical, but they're not cryptic!

Maybe God isn't human, how about that? OR, maybe the assertion that there's a road map is false. OR, maybe if there is a road map, it's not flawed at all, and God really is a cruel, blood-thirsty sadistic bastard, who really gets off on watching human misery and suffering--maybe he gets a good jolly kick out of human sacrifices--particularly self sacrifices.

I am certainly sure that nailing a perfectly decent human being to a cross for being a perfectly decent human being is no answer to any decent question.

Yeah. So this "hostile" unbeliever is still waiting for the logic.

Christians who believe the Bible's account of Easter believe it because they also believe God's spirit guarded human hands from making errors in recording these events. Skeptics have no such guide.

That's correct. Skeptics do not have an invisible father spirit guide who lives in the sky--but neither do Christians who believe the Bible. OR, Skeptics do have an invisible father spirit guide who lives in the sky guiding their skepticism for the benefit of Chrisianity to offset the bullshit inspired by the blind faith and vicious rationalizations of Christians who believe the Bible.

Looks like a beliver might use "belief" in support of the skeptics, and the other believers can't hold him accountable to reason, logic, or facts because those are not the qualities of faith--belief is. And there is no objective or impirical means of establishing one faith more valid than the next--except perhaps murdering believers in the other faith.

They should be humbled that God is far wiser than the wisest man. (1 Corinthians 1:25-27)

So is the Easter Bunny. (I saw their SATs.)

Before accepting what heretics and unbelievers say, consideration should be given to what is contained in the guidebook.

There's no need to consider what you already "know" by faith, heretic.

 

[Darwins Friend]

Indeed, it appears that there are ignorant dopes on both sides of the issue--on the one side, there are those who think the Easter Bunny is a Christian symbol, and then there are those who think Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are objectively and empirically less real than God.

As usual LOki, brilliant.

 

[Bullypulpit]

SO that's it then bully? You're sticking with "A minority can never oppress a majority"? That's just wrong. Why are you choosing this hill to die on?

Read carefully...Your analogies suck. If you're a member of "the Oppressed Majority", then I'm the Sheik of Araby.

The only thing that's dying here are your arguments, which are begining to smell like last weeks fish.

 

[Gunny]

How can there be an "assault" on Christianity when 80% of Americans claim to be 'Christian'?...When every president of the US since Washington have been adherents of one form or another of Christian ethos?...The only apparent assault on Christianity is in the minds of those lunatic fringe elements with their eyes on political power rather than the kingdom of heaven.

Is this the same as the denial there was an assault on Christmas? While the silent majority may very-well be Christian, the loudmouthed, extremist minority that somehow gets all the "unbiased" media attention are the ones getting their agenda heard.

Your backwards-assed reasoning of denial is just another part of the game.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Is this the same as the denial there was an assault on Christmas? While the silent majority may very-well be Christian, the loudmouthed, extremist minority that somehow gets all the "unbiased" media attention are the ones getting their agenda heard.

Your backwards-assed reasoning of denial is just another part of the game.

Blah...Blah...Blah...Blah...Blah.

You're spouting the same stale talking points gleaned from Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity that RWA is. Show me your chains, lashmarks and deprivation and I just might believe that you are oppressed. Until then...dismissed.

:nine:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Read carefully...Your analogies suck. If you're a member of "the Oppressed Majority", then I'm the Sheik of Araby.

The only thing that's dying here are your arguments, which are begining to smell like last weeks fish.

there's no analogy. The majority can be oppressed. It's a fact.

 

[Bullypulpit]

there's no analogy. The majority can be oppressed. It's a fact.

That's not the issue here. The issue is your paranoid fantasy that you're a member of an "oppressed majority".

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That's not the issue here. The issue is your paranoid fantasy that you're a member of an "oppressed majority".

But you're only argument is "as if the majority could be oppressed." They can be. And they are. This is the most free nation on earth for anyone of any faith, and you antichristians use this as an opportunity to attack christianity, waging various wars on both christmas and easter.

 

[jillian]

But you're only argument is "as if the majority could be oppressed." They can be. And they are. This is the most free nation on earth for anyone of any faith, and you antichristians use this as an opportunity to attack christianity, waging various wars on both christmas and easter.

I hope you don't mind my stepping in here...but I've been watching you guys go back and forth on this for days...

Yes, a majority can be oppressed by the minority. But that only occurs when the minority has political/military power to enforce its will on the majority. Christians in this country are not "oppressed'. No one Christian is prohibited from going to Church and practicing his or her religion freely and openly. What has become a debate about "oppression" is really a result of the tension between evangelicals who want to assert their political power and blur the lines between Church and State and the rest of the country which has tried, in the face of huge power and money from the far right, to keep that from happening.

If the far right can frame the issue as "Christian-bashing", instead of what it is -- which is a fight against the theocratization of the U.S., then they get the average, everyday Christians to side with them. Because who wouldn't protect their group from being discriminated against?

So... the desire of the vast majority of the country to not be a theocracy should not be confused with a lack of basic respect for religious diversity in this country. Nor should the issue be framed in such a way that it is called what it isn't.

So... yes, Virginia, a majority can be oppressed. But Christians in the U.S. aren't. Just my two cents.

 

[dilloduck]

I hope you don't mind my stepping in here...but I've been watching you guys go back and forth on this for days...

Yes, a majority can be oppressed by the minority. But that only occurs when the minority has political/military power to enforce its will on the majority. Christians in this country are not "oppressed'. No one Christian is prohibited from going to Church and practicing his or her religion freely and openly. What has become a debate about "oppression" is really a result of the tension between evangelicals who want to assert their political power and blur the lines between Church and State and the rest of the country which has tried, in the face of huge power and money from the far right, to keep that from happening.

If the far right can frame the issue as "Christian-bashing", instead of what it is -- which is a fight against the theocratization of the U.S., then they get the average, everyday Christians to side with them. Because who wouldn't protect their group from being discriminated against?

So... the desire of the vast majority of the country to not be a theocracy should not be confused with a lack of basic respect for religious diversity in this country. Nor should the issue be framed in such a way that it is called what it isn't.

So... yes, Virginia, a majority can be oppressed. But Christians in the U.S. aren't. Just my two cents.

You neglected to mention legal oppression.