Richard Dawkins's Jewish Problem

beliefnet ^ | September 29, 2009 | David Klinghoffer

[GodGunsGuts]

The Anti-Defamation League, the country's leading group dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism, is rightly sensitive to the offense of trivializing the Holocaust. Why, then, has the ADL said nothing in protest against the Darwinian biologist and bestselling atheist author Richard Dawkins and his comparison of Darwin doubters to Holocaust deniers?...

[tpanther]

Your game is up bucket-o-poo.

[Buck W.]

“Your game is up bucket-o-poo.”

BZZZZZZTTTT! No, I’m sorry, tpanther. The correct answer is, “I’m seriously impaired, and I have no idea what I’m posting.”

I’m afraid you don’t move on to the next round, but thanks for playing our game!

You have a ride home, right?

[tpanther]

Ok...you’re seriously impaired and you have no idea what you’re posting...but the fact remains your game is up BOP.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[antiRepublicrat]

No. They trumpet it. They brag about it.

Not the "Islam is a peaceful religion" apologists.

First one must confess to the horrible atrocities that the Christian hypocrites perpetrated on all the innocent little brown peace-loving people of the world, then the beatings commence

Brown? Most of my examples were white, Christian on Christian, Christian on pagan. Most of the "brown" deaths were due to plain-old war.

Nobody ever did anything right in the name of Christianity, right? (since misrepresentation is your game).

You seem to be confusing me with someone else, maybe a Dawkins follower. I started in this because someone was using the old "Crusades were bad" line, and I said such an argument needed specifics because each Crusade, and even each campaign within in each Crusade, was different. Labeling them all as good or all as bad is itself a misrepresentation, an oversimplification of history.

[antiRepublicrat]

Ummm the subject is slaughter, not "when things don't go your way" and the simple fact is you just can't find that kind of direction in the NT

I can find it in the Bible. Unless you can show me how the OT is rendered inapplicable on this subject, it applies. Did the new covenant also erase history?

[Agamemnon]

What is a lie,...?

"It all depends on what the meaning of 'is'-- is"

Where have we heard such equivocation before, I ask....

Hey metmom, tpanther, GodgunsGuts, Orestes5711:

Hmmm, let's see. Parses simple phrases, refuses to answer the simplest questions, provides hesitating answers to questions not asked, dodges and weaves with every answer he does provide....

As broad a measure as he uses of what constitutes a "real" Christian by his own implications, even Joseph Stalin -- who was at one time a Russian Orthodox priest -- qualifies as being a "real" Christian!

"Buck-Wrap" glibly implies that Christ's telling of a parable might be evidence that Christ related an un-truth; hence, by definition, He lied.

Either that, or in "Bucky-troll's" projection by Christ's telling an illustrative, though not necessisarily true parable, Christ didn't really mean what he said -- again, Christ was merely a false witness breaching His own Commandment.

Christ's parables are illustrative stories. And Christ, of course, being One with God with every ability to know of every human transaction since the beginning of time, there is no reason to assume --least of all a true Biblical Christian -- that Christ's parables were not in fact all true stories which also happen to have spiritually illustrative points.

For "Shmucky-bucky" to imply that Christ was using what "Buck-o" considers falsehoods to illustrate a truth is simply unimaginable for anyone who has any relationship with, and knowledge of the character of Jesus Christ.

Metmon has called him out, my questions flushed him out and every Biblical Christian reader may with complete certainty agree:

"Buck-o's" thin, pretentious "Christian" veneer has been successfully stripped away and he is certifiably BUSTED.

As such, readers and debaters need not even grant this imposter any quarter which allows him to imply, suggest, or imagine for one second that he is a true Christian.

Any argument he makes attempting to do so as one speaking in any capacity as a Christian may be summarily dismissed as he is one who freely egages in a false misrepresntation of himself, his position in the discussion and as a debater in this forum.

His credibility is in a word, shot.

Though I have to admit, it's actually kinda fun to pillory someone like Buckyball who comes to a debate like this thinking he's really "packin' heat",

...when maybe all he's really been packin' all along is ....

Seems he's got an assortment of "habits" and oral fixations of his own, too, that he likes to project on others...

... and of course, he says never inhaled!

One would not be surprised to learn that this fellow is actually Bill Clinton in disguise. That "Buck-o" is actually "Billdo" Anyone else care to speculate?

[Buck W.]

Remember Mia T? Your silly illustrated posts remind me of hers.

You actually showed a few traces of brain activity in some of your earlier posts, but with this embarrassing rant you identify yourself squarely as a member of the cult. In fact, given your FR name, I’d call you the King of the Cult of Hare Christians.

As is characteristic of members of your cult, you are a closed-minded bigot. Only your version and definition of Christianity are correct—to you, those Catholics, Methodists, etc., don’t even qualify as Christians. Practicing your own faith is not enough for you—you are on a mission to sniff out and assess the Christianity of those around you, like circling dogs sniffing the butts of their partners.

Your faith must be terribly weak to necessitate the adherence to the literal truth of every word of scripture. Your life must be terribly empty to deny yourself the beauty of scripture in its allegorical form.

I’m glad that you post, though. You remind readers just how closed-minded, empty-headed, and bigoted the cult can be. By isolating yourself in this way, you make it clear that simple-mindedness is not a condition of Christianity in general, but is a unique characteristic of your brand of the thought-verboten bastardization of the faith that you so vilely practice.

I say this as a real Christian.

[tpanther]

Of course you can find it in the Bible Mr. Strawman.

Just not the NT. Jesus Christ was transformative like that. That’s why the OT is indeed inapplicable to this subject.

No, it didn’t erase history Mr. Strawman.

[tpanther]

I don’t know about everyone else, but I don’t bother reading anymore because...

your game is up bop.

[antiRepublicrat]

Jesus Christ was transformative like that. That’s why the OT is indeed inapplicable to this subject.

That's not even close to a defense for excluding the OT.

But even with this little sidebar you are committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.

[Agamemnon]

I say this as a real Christian.

You have no credibility left.

[YHAOS]

”Not the "Islam is a peaceful religion" apologists.”

To be sure. Are we, however, to find them credible as a source of truthful information? I think not, but opinions vary.

”Brown? Most of my examples were white, Christian on Christian, Christian on pagan. Most of the "brown" deaths were due to plain-old war.”

Well, I think it’s a mistake to think of Christianity as a “White” religion (even as a mental image). I think it equally an error to believe Christianity in the Middle East at any time was composed primarily of “Whites.” I believe it far too complicated a matter as that. And, in the Middle East, if you wish to categorize “Brown” people and “White” people strictly by skin color, well then, good luck. Think of all the different peoples (and mixes) populating the area. I think you would find yourself separating sibilings.

”You seem to be confusing me with someone else, maybe a Dawkins follower.”

Not unless you chose to call the Judeo-Christian God a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, and capriciously malevolent bully. Which, to my knowledge, you haven’t done.

”I said such an argument needed specifics because each Crusade, and even each campaign within in each Crusade, was different. Labeling them all as good or all as bad is itself a misrepresentation, an oversimplification of history.”

Yeah, what I said. Ahistorical.

[Buck W.]

“You have no credibility left. “

Among Christians I do. You don’t get to make the call, King Ludd.

[Buck W.]

Surrender comes easy when you’ve got nothing, doesn’t it, tp?

[antiRepublicrat]

Are we, however, to find them credible as a source of truthful information?

I don't believe them. I also don't believe Christians who say the Crusaders never did any wrong.

I think it equally an error to believe Christianity in the Middle East at any time was composed primarily of “Whites.”

You're the one who started with the "brown" thing, not me.

Not unless you chose to call the Judeo-Christian God a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, and capriciously malevolent bully.

I don't, because I think men did all that and used "God said it's okay" to justify their actions. It's common. Mohammed did it to start his wars, Smith did it to get more wives.

Of course, all of that is historical. Christianity by large is now past the barbarism to promote the religion. The current issue is that Islam is still acting like it's 1,000 years ago.

[CottShop]

[[Of course, all of that is historical. Christianity by large is now past the barbarism to promote the religion]]

TRUE Christianity NEVER did any such things- only those who did NOT have God as their guide abused God’s word, falsely claiming to be ‘doing His will’- they were NOT- Nowhere i nthe bible was it ordered or even suggested that those false ‘christians’ do what they did- whiel those Heritics were abusing the Word of God, TRUE Christians were (and still are to this day to the tune of 2 million in the last couple of decades) being slaughtered in cold blood- and NEVER raisign hteir fist to antagonize such murder-

And not that I am even defending what those harlots of the world did in the name of a religion they REFUSED to follow (while claimign htey were) but the fact is that the numbers of murders they commited don’t even begin to measure up to the4 numbers of TRUE Christians who were slaughtered and tortured have had to suffer throughout hte ages

[antiRepublicrat]

TRUE Christianity NEVER did any such things

There goes the No True Scotsman fallacy.

[Agamemnon]

You don’t get to make the call, King Ludd.

Jesus Christ has already made the call, Buck Wheat.

You've just chosen to refuse to pick up the receiver.

[Buck W.]

“There goes the No True Scotsman fallacy.”

Some are less adept at hiding it than others. This particular poster is notoriously unable to keep from blowing his own argument each time he posts.