The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

WHO Started it?

September 12, 2005 | 50 Comments

A touching lesson in tolerance for us all:

Your most recent reply to me was thoughtful and caused me to see you in a different light than the one I saw you in before.

I have no doubt that you are a good person and that you are doing everything you can to be a good neighbor and good friend to others, and to be a good American overall.

But here is what the problem between you and me is: In your writings to the Christians here on the network, you come off like an obnoxious, self-righteous, sanctimonious, know-it-all jerk, quite frankly.

I am certain that no one here holds it against you for not believing in “our god” — but when you make attempts to show those of us who believe that God exists that we are misguided, ignorant or unenlightened — or that we follow a double standard, that is not nice … it is not nice at all.

If you want to be an atheist, that’s cool with me. Just do not put down others — in some form or fashion — for having beliefs that differ from your own.

And if you look back in this reply section to determine what ignited the raging debate between you and the Christians, you will find that you are the one who started the conflict.

Message to TRA reader Tenspace, from Col. Julius Hannon — author of All Homosexuals are Filled with Shame and Self-Hatred.

Comments

50 Responses to “WHO Started it?”

  1. i dunno, lol
    September 12th, 2005 @ 6:55 pm

    Wow, the “All Homosexuals are Filled with Shame and Self-Hatred” topic is nothing less than disgusting. How can these people claim to follow a religion of peace, compassion, and forgiveness when they’re full of so much seething, irrational hatred? It’s not even something that they feel bad about and try to overcome. They bask in their hatred. They really seem to love it. It’s disturbing.

  2. musashi
    September 12th, 2005 @ 7:14 pm

    “…but when you make attempts to show those of us who believe that God exists that we are misguided, ignorant or unenlightened — or that we follow a double standard, that is not nice … it is not nice at all.”

    So basically he just proved that they are following a double standard in the sense that it’s ok for them to knock on my door every weekend and try to get me to “see the light” by going to their church, and I’m just not talking about Jehova’s Witnesses either, it’s been quite a few different “sects”. But they are just doing what god has told them so it’s ok. But holy hell! heaven forbid anyone espouse a rational or logical viewpoint, you can’t do that, it’s not the evil atheist’s place to arm the sheep with reason. Besides, without pews full of plate-passers who’s gonna pay for the silence of it’s victims?

    hypocrites!

    p.s. they started the whole who’s right/who’s wrong debate a few thousand years ago :-)

  3. Zeno
    September 12th, 2005 @ 7:54 pm

    He called you “sanctimonious”? As in “affecting piety”? That’s a good one. Like, maybe if you stop acting so holy, Christians will like you more. It’s pots versus kettles here, isn’t it? I have another word for Col. Hannon: it’s “projection”!

  4. Zeno
    September 12th, 2005 @ 7:55 pm

    He called you “sanctimonious”? As in “affecting piety”? That’s a good one. Like, maybe if you stop acting so holy, Christians will like you more. It’s pots versus kettles here, isn’t it? I have another word for Col. Hannon: it’s “projection”!

  5. Zeno
    September 12th, 2005 @ 7:56 pm

    Sorry for the double post, folks! I did get a peculiar message about a Perl error when I hit “Post”, so it might not be my fault. I don’t know.

  6. boywonder
    September 12th, 2005 @ 8:42 pm

    I wonder if Col. Hannon knows the meaning of irony. He is not just adhering to a double standard, he is in plain ol’ denial. To say an atheist of all people is a preaching know-it-all and sanctamonious (what?!) and then say “All Homosexuals are Filled with Shame and Self-Hatred” sounds a little bit like someone is a preaching, sanctamonious, know-it-all that is afraid of queers. I would bet this guy is a closest homosexual on top of it. Why else would he be so into gays (pun intended)?

  7. LucyMuff
    September 12th, 2005 @ 9:16 pm

    Even though I is not against homos I still think that Hannon might be to have a point. Reason is that when you go against god even if you be all defiant in your soul yous allwayas know that it be wrong so yous will in the subtereanian feels gilty, what can lead to self hatred and shame like he is saying. He should be more Christian and try to help gays and that instead of all the judgemental sayings. In my chirch we welcome all homo if they promise to try and stop the gaysex. And we also love them even if they don’t stop, but we can’t have them in the building

  8. SMR
    September 13th, 2005 @ 1:15 am

    OH MY GAWD!

    I read through that post and the other made by “the raving atheist”….

    1st thing I want to comment on is how a message board filled with reilious wackos use military rank as “board status”. Jesus loves his little soliders now doesn’t he!

    2nd is the answers these guys come up with… Its like a 5 year old trying to explain why the rain falls from the sky. They know its water, and that it falls, but they cannot see that the process more complex: evaporation, convectinon etc etc. they just know water falls from the sky its gods will that it happens. whats so bad about that anology is that if we didn’t have so much proof for “the rain process” they would try to say it was gods will…. oh yeah, god created Katrina….

    we are soo fucked :(

  9. AK
    September 13th, 2005 @ 2:26 am

    Hey you made a dent! At least he can respect your statements to some limited degree. It looks like even hard cores like him can see that those who dont think like him can be decent people.

    Thats actually more than I expected him to ever be able to do.

  10. Mijae
    September 13th, 2005 @ 4:05 am

    I am laughing my ass off.

    The fact that it really does appear to be a sincere attempt just makes your simple statement at the end all the more hilarious.

    Ow, my cheeks hurt…!

  11. Jennifer
    September 13th, 2005 @ 8:16 am

    Nice Job Ten! :-)

  12. Tenspace
    September 13th, 2005 @ 11:48 am

    Thanks, Jen…. hey, I’m not a Vegan anymore… they’ve upgraded me to Hippy! Woohoo!

  13. Andrea
    September 13th, 2005 @ 12:01 pm

    “If you want to be an atheist, that’s cool with me. Just do not put down others — in some form or fashion — for having beliefs that differ from your own.”

    But it’s ok for him to start a thread bashing those who “believe” they are gay.

    OK actually I’m done pointing out the hypocrasy of people like him because they run around the facts. Clearly pointing out factual mistakes make no difference. What other methods exist to show those like Col. Hannon that they make no sense?

  14. GW
    September 13th, 2005 @ 1:06 pm

    Andrea, It’s like showing a magic trick to a one-year old, they lack the mental capacity to reason and think logically.
    Lucy, “we can’t have them in the building” aw gee, yous guys are a scream … lol

  15. BC Waterboay
    September 13th, 2005 @ 9:38 pm

    Just a note on Lucy Muff’s post that he should learn to be more christian and love the gays. I do not want the kind of “love” that comes from a christian, it is only “bearing false witness” and is not genuine. It is like saying we love you but hate you at the same time, you know, the love the sinner hate the sin lie. Also, what do you mean by help? The kind of help I would like from christians is to be left the fuck alone and have them mind their own affairs. They have many, many problems to deal with without dealing with something that has no effect on them whatsoever. I am tolerant of christians only to the point where they attempt to trample on my existance and civil rights. I find the christian movement very phoney, hypocritical, dishonest and deceitful, selfish and greedy. Again, I respect that they have beliefs, but, I do not share those beliefs and will not be slandered and trampled on by them.

  16. Percy
    September 13th, 2005 @ 9:42 pm

    Musashi,

    I’m a Christian. Prove to me that I live by a double standard.

  17. LucyMuff
    September 13th, 2005 @ 10:00 pm

    BC waterboy, yous is misunderstanding my point. I says only that be nice to gays is the christian way, whatever you might for personnel think about the disgusting bumming they be into. It is way of JESUS the LORD to turn other cheek, but not like that! That really is to mean forgiveness and acceptance. Judging is for GOD and JESUS, not for persons. That is why me church always try to help the gays. MAny oftens they dont want help, just like you, and that be ok, no problem, but if you want help to learn about JESUS ans SalVaTion we are here for you. Only thing is you has to stop sinning in mans bum or we can’t help you, just like can’t be helping smokers what is still smoking. Hope this is cleared for yous.

  18. Vernichten
    September 13th, 2005 @ 10:36 pm

    LuckyMutt, I’d like to share an observation I just made. It’s actually sort of an analogy.
    It seems to me as if your relationship with the internet is like the relationship between a small dog and its benevolent owner. The Lucky Mutt only knows the one trick, say yapping for example. It’s mildly entertaining in the beginning, but then, over time, the master grows tired of the one trick and eventually simply tolerates the yapping. He can’t bring himself to put the goddamn thing out of his misery because he knows the Lucky Mutt looks to him for constant affirmation.
    So he tolerates the yapping. On and on and on.

  19. LucyMuff
    September 13th, 2005 @ 10:40 pm

    are you a gay vernichten? We will welcome you, if you quite doing bumming and shut your gay mouth about felching

  20. Sportin' Life
    September 14th, 2005 @ 12:15 am

    LucyMuff, where are you from? You have such a unique pattern of word usage.

    Does your church reject smoking, too? I haven’t heard of that one before.

  21. Sportin' Life
    September 14th, 2005 @ 12:15 am

    LucyMuff, where are you from? You have such a unique pattern of word usage.

    Does your church reject smoking, too? I haven’t heard of that one before.

  22. Sportin' Life
    September 14th, 2005 @ 12:15 am

    LucyMuff, where are you from? You have such a unique pattern of word usage.

    Does your church reject smoking, too? I haven’t heard of that one before.

  23. Sportin' Life
    September 14th, 2005 @ 12:15 am

    LucyMuff, where are you from? You have such a unique pattern of word usage.

    Does your church reject smoking, too? I haven’t heard of that one before.

  24. LucyMuff
    September 14th, 2005 @ 12:22 am

    I is from Tampax FL, but me family are from Choina, but I live in Thailand and gerzmany when grow ups. Me chaurch has no position on skomes, but gaysex they do, why you care about smokes for church?

  25. Sportin' Life
    September 14th, 2005 @ 12:27 am

    Tampax, huh? Beautiful town. I was just curious about the smoking, that’s all.

  26. Sportin' Life
    September 14th, 2005 @ 12:27 am

    Tampax, huh? Beautiful town. I was just curious about the smoking, that’s all.

  27. Sportin' Life
    September 14th, 2005 @ 12:27 am

    Tampax, huh? Beautiful town. I was just curious about the smoking, that’s all.

  28. Sportin' Life
    September 14th, 2005 @ 12:27 am

    Tampax, huh? Beautiful town. I was just curious about the smoking, that’s all.

  29. LucyMuff
    September 14th, 2005 @ 12:32 am

    yous knowz full well I is meaning tampa

    what smoking be you on avouts?? I do nots smoke

  30. Vernichten
    September 14th, 2005 @ 9:16 am

    LuckyMutt, what position does your church use for the “gaysex they do”?

  31. musashi
    September 14th, 2005 @ 10:51 am

    Percy:

    If you are a christian then shouldn’t you be trying to convert me right now instead of challenging me to prove something to you that I could never prove to you?
    Proof is only proof if you choose to accept it, hence why you are still a christian.

  32. JP
    September 14th, 2005 @ 11:08 am

    I am fairly certain that if you read LucyMuff’s statements in a repetitive fashion over a period of a few minutes, you can develop a significant and observable lesion on your brain.

    Caveat lector

  33. LucyMuff
    September 14th, 2005 @ 2:02 pm

    JP, I am surprized yous know how to read coz it sound like already is lesions on your minibrain

    and vernichten, I is not the one to tell YOUS about gaysex! Me thinks yous already knows way too much on bum sinnings.

    But JESUS can help, just open your heart to him

  34. Percy
    September 14th, 2005 @ 3:50 pm

    “If you are a christian then shouldn’t you be trying to convert me right now instead of challenging me to prove something to you that I could never prove to you?”

    I think conversion as a concept is often either misused or misunderstood. If a person is seeking Jesus, or has questions about Christianity, then I will help them. But I don’t try to solicit John 3:16 to everyone I meet, and forcefeed them Christianity. We are commanded to spread the gospel, but there are many different ways of leading people Christ, and ultimately it is the unbeliever’s choice. It was St. Francis of Asisi (sp?) who said “Preach the gospel at all times; use words if necessary.” Since this is a militantly-atheist site, I know that I won’t get very far trying to preach the good news. But if I plant a few seeds in these discussions, or clear up a few misunderstandings, that’s fine by me.

    “Proof is only proof if you choose to accept it, hence why you are still a christian.”

    I’m sorry, it’s just that by your previous statement about Christians living by a double standard I had assumed that you were intimately familiar with the lives of all Christians, and would be able to tell me how I am living a double standard. I think the lesson here is that we should be wary of generalizations – whether of atheists or theists. It is foolish to cast judgements on a group of people without complete knowledge.

  35. Vernichten
    September 14th, 2005 @ 4:55 pm

    If a person believes they know what God wants, and they believe that they themselves and those who don’t believe are all sinners, but they believe that they themselves are forgiven of their sins (a common theme among Christians, no?), but that the unbeliever is not, then that’s a double standard. It’s almost inherent in any absolutist theism where the believer is “saved”, or assured a reward for his or her belief in the afterlife. Now, I’m sure this doesn’t apply to every single Christian (some Universalists claim Christianity), but by the reasoning that Percy applies we can’t make any judgments about any group until we have “complete knowledge”.

    So, to sum up, if we’re all equally sinners, but your sinning is forgiven and mine is not, that is a double standard.

  36. Percy
    September 14th, 2005 @ 6:18 pm

    “So, to sum up, if we’re all equally sinners, but your sinning is forgiven and mine is not, that is a double standard.”

    “A double standard is a rule which is applied more stringently to one party than to others. Double standards are seen as unjust, because they violate a principle of justice known as impartiality. Impartiality is the principle that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism. A double standard violates this principle, by holding different people to different standards.” – Wikipedia

    How is it a double standard? In Christianity, the unbeliever is loved by God just as much as the believer. Being a believer doesn’t mean any sin you make is automatically forgiven – you have to ask God for forgiveness, and repent. Both believers and unbelievers are punished for their sins. An unbeliever might find it hard to repent and ask forgiveness, given that they don’t believe in God. But that isn’t a double standard. The same rules and processes apply in equal level to both groups – it’s just that one group doesn’t follow them (or is unlikely to).

  37. Jennifer
    September 14th, 2005 @ 6:30 pm

    “In Christianity, the unbeliever is loved by God just as much as the believer.”

    don’t you think sending someone to eternal damnation is kind of a loose interpretation of the word love?

  38. Vernichten
    September 14th, 2005 @ 6:35 pm

    Percy, this is simple. You think you know what god wants, and that you are trying to do it. You don’t think non-believers are doing it, and believe that they will be punished. Certainly they’ll be punished more harshly than you, simply because you repent and your sins are forgiven and they do not repent and die unforgiven. Since there is not impartiality between the chosen and the infidels in the punishment, but both groups sin equally, it’s a double standard.

  39. Sportin' Life
    September 14th, 2005 @ 7:50 pm

    don’t you think sending someone to eternal damnation is kind of a loose interpretation of the word love?

    That’s a pretty good point, eh Percy?

  40. Sportin' Life
    September 14th, 2005 @ 7:50 pm

    don’t you think sending someone to eternal damnation is kind of a loose interpretation of the word love?

    That’s a pretty good point, eh Percy?

  41. Sportin' Life
    September 14th, 2005 @ 7:50 pm

    don’t you think sending someone to eternal damnation is kind of a loose interpretation of the word love?

    That’s a pretty good point, eh Percy?

  42. Sportin' Life
    September 14th, 2005 @ 7:50 pm

    don’t you think sending someone to eternal damnation is kind of a loose interpretation of the word love?

    That’s a pretty good point, eh Percy?

  43. BC Waterboy
    September 14th, 2005 @ 7:58 pm

    From an atheist point of view, sinning is a crock of you know what. “Stop sinnin in a man’s bum”… and we like ya??? Huh? sorry, Lucy Muff, you may mean well but I don’t buy that line. I don’t want to offend any well-meaning christians here but, I don’t believe in christianity, I find it immensely hypocritical. If one, for example, were to follow the bible and afterall, it is spouted as the literal word of god, if we put to death all of those who the bible says we should, the world would be a lonely place with some awfully empty churches. I just don’t buy the concept that it is acceptable for some people to be judged harshly, ie gays, whilst others,many christian adulterers included, well, they just made a mistake and the “lord” forgives them. That is just nonsense and it is wrong.

  44. Percy
    September 15th, 2005 @ 4:47 pm

    Jennifer,

    “don’t you think sending someone to eternal damnation is kind of a loose interpretation of the word love?”

    God doesn’t send you anywhere. You choose your eternal fate through the choices you make throughout your life. And I’m not so sure the commonly-touted (by fundamentalists, as if that should be a clue) picture of hell is at all correct. In fact, there is reason to believe there is no such thing as hell. Certainly there are varying ideas on what hell could be (although in the end they are just that). I think if you do a bit more research into the subject, you’ll come to the same opinion.
    ————————————————————————————————————-

    Vernichten,

  45. Vernichten
    September 15th, 2005 @ 9:16 pm

    Percy,
    It’s really a difference of opinion regarding term definitions here, since I would argue that punishment and consequences are synonymous.

    Regarding the definition of repenting, if you are implying that it must include a turning away from sin to be effective, then you have not repented unless you have turned away from sin. Are you still a sinner?

    Regarding false generalizations, I generalize all the time because it’s convenient. I do all kinds of things that your God proscribes, just like you, only I don’t feel very guilty about it. As you may infer, I am not penitent.

    And finally, the point you seem to be making is that disbelief (rejecting God) is more important to God than any actually immoral act. Everything can be forgiven except that one horrible sin of disbelief. Good thing, too, since it means that your belief puts you square in the VIP room for acting no better than me, just believing, and my inability to suspend disbelief lands me in the fiery dungeon regardless of my otherwise possibly pious behavior. God sure is a pretty cool dude.

  46. DamnRight
    September 16th, 2005 @ 4:28 pm

    Percy, we are basing our comments on the “God of the Bible” & how He is presented by “main-stream” Christianity… so, yes there are generalizations, but, these are developed by Christians… we are simply arguing using the arguments presented to us by “believers”… you have some different understandings than most we hear from… I too feel the Bible does not describe Hell as the “Church” does… but, there is no getting around certain concepts that we find contradictory…
    … let me try one… if sin is “imputed” to all men because of Adam’s sin, shouldn’t Jesus’ sacrifice impute salvation to all men?… if not, doesn’t that suggest a man’s actions are more powerful than God’s son’s actions?… this is not a “freewill” concept… I never “chose” Adam’s sinfulness, it was “imputed” to me by God…

  47. Mort Coyle
    September 16th, 2005 @ 9:46 pm

    DamnRight,

    You’ve actually presented a pretty good argument for Christian Universalism; the belief that all people will ultimately be reconciled to God through Christ (if not in this life, then in the afterlife). I tend to believe that this will be the case. However, it’s also worth pointing out that the doctrine of imputation of Adam’s sin is not subscribed to by all Christians. I’m able to generate plenty of sin on my own, thank you very much, without needing any of Adam’s to push me over the top!

    I would say that you are probably not basing your opinions on historical mainstream Christianity, but on a form of Evangelical Fundamentalism that is very visible in the U.S. these days. Turn off TBN and go read some N.T. Wright or R.C. Sproul, if you really want to understand Christianity.

    Vernichten,

    Hate to differ but there most certainly is a difference between punishment and consequence. Punishment may be a consequence, but consequence is not necessarily a punishment. Capiche?

    I for one am a Christian (although I prefer the term “follower of Jesus”). I am also a sinner. I am on a lifelong journey of following Jesus, which is called discipleship. When I sin, I endeavor to repent of that sin (in other words, to turn from it and gain mastery over it). Sometimes it takes many tries. Being a Christian is a process, not an event.

    Belief means so much more than simple intellectual assent. In fact, the Bible is full of warnings about the hypocrisy of claiming to believe in God/Jesus but not living accordingly. As James put it, “Faith without works (action) is dead.” To believe in God is to follow Him. The best example of that which comes to mind is Mother Teresa.

    When you described God as “…a pretty cool dude.”, I know you were being sarcastic, but I agree with your sarcasm. I don’t like the God you’ve described either. Fortunately, that’s not the God I know. The God I know is the most fair, kind and patient person I’ve ever met.

  48. ElDiablo
    September 17th, 2005 @ 7:19 am

    This has been an interesting debate. But, once again this begs the question, “Who’s brand of x-tianity is the “right” one?”
    Sorry folks but this is the same old, lame ass, “My brand of ‘x’ is the right one”. Same song, same excuses, same arguments. There will never be a unified definition of the word “god” because there isn’t one. Nor is there a “god” to begin with.

    LOL!

  49. Mort Coyle
    September 17th, 2005 @ 10:17 am

    Your right, El Diablo, God is not that simple that we can package him into a tidy definition for our consumption. Likewise, our collected understandings about God can’t be packaged into a “brand” that has all the answers. I like the way that Alcoholics Anonymous refers to God: “God, as we understand Him.” I think that shows the proper perspective and humility.

    There is no “brand” or denomination that isn’t flawed because they are comprised of humans. However, the points that the various Christian “brands” differ on are reletively minor and cosmetic. They pretty much all agree on the core essentials of what Christianity is. In that sense, all of them are the “right” brand.

  50. Percy
    September 26th, 2005 @ 10:39 pm

    I think Mort summed it all up quite nicely. You should be a theologian ;)

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links