Posted on 01/26/2005 9:46:21 AM PST by 7thson
When I pulled into the parking lot this morning, I saw a car covered with sacrilegious bumper stickers. It seemed obvious to me that the owner was craving attention. I’m sure he was also seeking to elicit anger from people of faith. The anger helps the atheist to justify his atheism. And, all too often, the atheist gets exactly what he is looking for.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
>>For without God, life truly has no meaning whatsoever. Even the extermination of all mankind - or it's proliferation, would be totally irrelevant.<<
That I DO believe. But it is not the same as your previous statement.
Actually, the best bet would be to surround yourself with a group of like minded tough m#####f#####rs who will defend you but support your desire to murder and rape.
An ideal society would be one in which those on the inside protect each other, but take whomever they want on the outside to impregnate. Thus they have complete control to spread their seed wherever they wish.
Murder would be tolerated - actually fights to the death - to ensure the society remained strong.
This bit of defending the weak and poor is about as stupid as anything I have ever seen or heard. It's a disgenics program and it needs to be abandoned. The weak and poor are to be used to allow the strong and rich to propagate.
Shalom.
"Equal access"
I understand that but it still doesn't explain why an "atheist" would want or need to INVOCATE period. They are only fooling themselves by doing such things and make themselves look silly. But hey, I say allow the nimrods to go for it.
> Lives happily ever after in this world.
Until she gets arrested and loses everything. Poor cost/benefit ratio.
OK, according to Occam's Razor, who is the "prime mover". Secondly, if you are trying to prove the non-existance of God, why would you use Occam's Razor which gets its name from a 13th century Franciscan Monk?
"atheists are weird self contradicting dips.
"
Now, there's a useless statement. I haven't seen any atheists on this threat insulting Christians, have you? I suggest that you stop and think a moment about your apparent failure to follow your own religion.
>> You, speaking of athiests. Weird how most of these criticisms work both ways.<<
I agree with the exception of this statement working both ways: "That is, they have much in common with wild animals that live in constant fear of being eaten by something lurking in the bushes."
Although that is part of human nature, Christians believe the body that will be "eaten" is only a temporary vehicle they occupy. But the vehicle carries with it the fear of being damaged. That is why Jesus sweat blood while praying that he would be spared the crucifixion.
Is this a recent change in your life? I've previously thought your beliefs were closer to those of the real Protagoras. (Does the fact that you did not capitalize "Holy Spirit" mean anything?)
Actually, He said, "Why do you call me good."
He was pointing out that He was G-d and using the words of the one who asked Him the question to do it.
Shalom.
hee hee hee......
Oh I think I'll wait for one of the atheists "invocations". I get such a belly laugh ....heh heh..heh
"Invocation: The act or an instance of invoking, especially an appeal to a higher power for assistance
"
As an atheist who has given dozens of "invocations," I invite you to look at the first clause of that definition. It is modified by the second clause, but is not exclusive.
My invocations invoke reason and thoughtfulness by those being addressed. An invocation does not REQUIRE reference to a "higher power."
> Actually, the best bet would be to surround yourself with a group of like minded tough m#####f#####rs who will defend you but support your desire to murder and rape.
How good of a bet is it to surround yourself with people who would happily murder *you*?
But in any event, that DOES well describe much of the Old Testament...
> This bit of defending the weak and poor is about as stupid as anything I have ever seen or heard.
Is it? Oh, well...
Not saying he is a sociopath, but you can listen to the reasoning of any sociopath and I am sure they make sense. I am sure Stalin's Communists and Hilter's Nazi's also made sense to millions of people - two peas in a pod (non-believers). It is like the Battleground God test the other day. A rapist may believe he is talking to God and God is telling him to rape that woman, but that action goes against all tenants of God's law and the new covenant of Jesus Christ. The rationalization of a madman is still madness.
Actually, the greek for "perfect" in the Bible has a lot of different meanings. katartizo means "mended or made fit" while teleioi means to "finish or fulfill".
I like this example of the "perfection" principle:
Heb 6:1-6 MKJV
(1) Therefore, having left the discourse of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to **full growth**, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
(2) of the baptisms, of doctrine, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
(3) And this we will do, if God permits.
(4) For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
(5) and have tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the world to come,
(6) and who have fallen away; it is impossible, I say, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify the Son of God afresh to themselves and put Him to an open shame.
No, in Jesus' construction (which is mine because I believe Jesus), all acts are affected by whether one has or does not have a relationship with God. Because, as I keep saying, it is the moral imperative that comes before and overrules all others.
It's a matter of whether you see God, or yourself, as the center of the universe. If God, everything changes. If yourself -- then whatever, dude.
Dan
"Oh I think I'll wait for one of the atheists "invocations". I get such a belly laugh ....heh heh..heh
"
Perhaps you'll have such an opportunity some day. However, I think you'll find that others in attendance will find your "belly laugh" to be rude.
(-- as the kids say.)
Dan
Your opinion, not hers. In anycase, in the scenerio she gets away with it. And the question really isn't about risk/reward ratios. It's about whether it's OK in the bizarre world of atheism.
Atheists are forced to admit that with no God, no heaven, no hell, no right, no wrong, she just becomes elements again and she enjoyed the money and what it bought.
So if you get away with either no uncomfortable consequences or acceptable consequences, it's the same in the end.
You might find yourself in jail for saying bad things about Islam in such a system.
Why are you in favor of laws banning blasphemy? How are such laws any different than laws banning "hate speech" against homosexuals?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.