Posted on 12/26/2005 1:48:12 PM PST by SunSetSam
Mean-spirited does not necessarily equal evil.
Instead of condemning the "evil" woman who "wields complete control" over your mother-in-law, it might be helpful to ask why your mother-in-law is so easily led.
If she's not of sound mind, your spouse can get a court order to recover "control" of her.
That was my take on her, too.
I heard and interview of her on the radio years ago. She didn't say one thing that would lead me to believe that she was an atheist.
But she did say a lot to lead me to believe that she hated God. And the longer she spoke, the more angry she sounded. She is the closest thing I've ever heard to anyone that I thought could be "demon possessed". It was almost scary listening to her.
She was an ugly, angry woman, inside and out.
I've yet to see anything conservative about most of them. Conservative don't ally themselves with the ACLU to over rule local control and duly elected representatives. Most of them here stay on the darwin threads and kvetch about the "theocracy" - when they aren't referring to Christians as the Taliban. (anyone who thinks we are approaching a theocracy in the US really needs his/her head examined)
I DO. All public monies are to be spent on the SECULAR PUBLIC.
I would probably read her diary, if I stumbled across it. I don't think I'd do a search for it, I'm not that interested.
I agree. When everyone is forced into mandatory prayers and scripture readings and a certain percentage of their income forced to be tithed to a church, we can start talking about living in a theocracy. Until then, I treat such comments the same as I do folks who seriously believe Bush is worse than Hitler.
MY little rant? LOL. Christians are just the most blatant and overwhelming.
Well, if the Pledge of Allegiance said "Under Allah" instead of "Under God", I think those atheists would take a little more interest in suppressing Islam. But that's not what it says.
Obviously, the reason why some atheists in the U.S. have a bone to pick with Christianity is that it is the dominant religion in the U.S., particularly if you count Catholicism and Protestantism as one. And that dominance is reflected in our many traditions.
So while I don't agree with the efforts to strip God out of the public sphere, there is a rather easy explanation as to why the focus seems to be on Christianity. Extensive layman's psychoanalysis is hardly necessary.
I think a good argument could be made for the author being on the right track.
I suppose so, but he hasn't made it. As I said, I'd say I'm probably roughly on the same page as him with regards to his central objections. It is his attempt to explain atheists and their beliefs that I find lacking.
God, Allah, it's all the same BS.
Well, because there'd be no article left once I removed all the superfluous psychoanalysis.
Then we will see how many agree with your point of view.
Let me be clear. There are two ideas we're dealing with here. One is the objection to atheists' attempts to remove religion from the public sphere. On that score, the author and I are likely in considerable agreement.
The other idea is the author's attempt to explain why atheists act as they do, and what they should believe if they really were atheists. It is that idea, which pervades this entire article, that I have a beef with. When non-Christians do the same, and try to tell me what I'm supposed to believe as a Christian, it's frankly off-putting and usually incorrect. When someone tells me I "hate gays" because I happen to believe all extra-marital sexual activity is sin, they're wrong. Well, it cuts the other way, too.
Again, just because we're on the same side doesn't mean that ever argument made on our side is a good one.
I'd be willing to bet there would be at least one person who would say, "what a dumb article".
Fine with me. That's the chance one takes when one puts their writing out in public.
No, that's what they want you to believe. Because Piltdown Man didn't fit in to the storyline of the evolutionist's fairy tale (which even that webpage admits), they had to sweep it under the rug. They came up with this newfangled "fluorine absortion test", and using evolutionary (uniformatarian) presuppositions, declared that the different parts of the skull came from different ages. They also declared that the teeth had been filed down to make it look like they were old, but they failed to mention that Piltdown Man may have simply been in the habit of eating raw vegetables from sandy soil without adequately washing them first.
In short, they constructed a Big Lie to discredit this inconvenient find. Evolution? This fossil says "No!"
Whatever makes you sleep better at night.
rather "fake, but accurate"
Did you even know that there are conservative atheists?Well, except for those conservatives who still believe this is a republic & not a democracy. :-)I've yet to see anything conservative about most of them. Conservative don't ally themselves with the ACLU to over rule local control and duly elected representatives.
Not sure where you are coming from. There have been 25,000 gods from throughout the course of human history. None of them are any more real than any other... That also includes angels, devils, fairies, the easter bunny, santa claus... I am unaware of any hatred (not on my part anyway). It's simply a good idea (fable to be used as allegory) gone out of control.
Interesting. I didn't know she had another son besides the one that was killed with her.
I can't imagine the nightmares this guy must still have!
(To the atheist, Christmas is the outward expression and amplification of all the fears and doubts they won’t publicly acknowledge.)
Time to call them Christophobic. Doesn't the gay lobby call critics homophobic? In this instance Christophobic would actually describe them well, otherwise they wouldn't be so bothered by Christianity.
"A postmodernist could easily have written that."
Yep. But in this case, it was a Christian convert.
He was able to forsee the outcome of full-bore materialism, which gave us
a century of Nazism and Communism.
I've not read all of his books, but I understand that most have at least one
derelict character that ends up being a repentent "prodigal son".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyodor_Dostoevsky
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.