The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Muslims Riot Over Cartoon Depicting Prophet Muhammed as Violent and Irrational

February 5, 2006 | 76 Comments

Everywhere in the Muslim World, February 5, 2006
Special to The Raving Atheist

A newpaper cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a madman with a bomb in his turban has provoked understanable outrage from Muslim communities in several countries — sparking riots including the torching this morning of the Danish and Norwegian embassies.

In the Gaza Strip, a cleric told midday worshippers, “We will not accept less than severing the heads of those responsible.” Sheik Abu Sharif of Lebanon likewise proposed that “The solution is the slaughter of those who harmed Islam and the prophet.”

A top Vatican official agreed that the cartoons could not be tolerated in a civilized world. “One can understand satire about a priest but not about God.” Achille Cardinal Silvestrini said. “As far as Islam is concerned, one might be able to understand satire about customs and behavior but not about the Koran, Allah, or the prophet.”

One cleric, however, suggested that the grave danger posed by the pen and ink drawing simply be ignored. “We don’t want the expression of our condemnation (of the cartoons) to be used by some to portray a distorted image of Islam,” said Mohammad Rashid Qabani.

Comments

76 Responses to “Muslims Riot Over Cartoon Depicting Prophet Muhammed as Violent and Irrational”

  1. Xianghong
    February 6th, 2006 @ 8:30 am

    This can’t be happening! Everybody knows Islam is a religion of peace!

  2. twyg
    February 6th, 2006 @ 9:22 am

    RA, Why don’t you republish the cartoons? I think it would show solidarity with the few governments out there with the balls to stand up for freedom of speech. It is sad that the profit mohammed (piss be unto him) was able to make our state department his b*tch so easily… http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-02-03T171307Z_01_N03197247_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-CARTOONS-USA.xml

  3. FED UP
    February 6th, 2006 @ 9:46 am

    These fucking hamper heads are going to be the death of us all.

  4. twyg
    February 6th, 2006 @ 10:13 am

    hehe, “hamper heads”, nice one.

  5. fiatlux
    February 6th, 2006 @ 10:17 am

    You know a religion is violent when the dress code includes pre-bandaged head wounds.

  6. JUST_ANTOHER_PRIMATE
    February 6th, 2006 @ 10:46 am

    BOY – I wish they’d print some atheist cartoons. It would be nice to have a justifiable reason to go starting fires at some federal building.

    Their reactions are only living up the the very image those cartoons portray them as – go figure!

  7. simbol
    February 6th, 2006 @ 10:53 am

    The position of Mullahs about the bomb in the Muhammad’s turbant is hypocrite or at the least cynic since they at the same time didn’t criticizad the muslim bombs that shred a lot of innocent civilians.

    The position of The Vatican on the same issue is pure envy. They also would like the right to put fatwas against blesphemers of christianism.

    Quoting from memory, Chesterton said that the very test of a decent religion was that it could laugh at itself. Humorless seems to be a trait of islamism. And, Mort, I agree with you that islamism needs a reformation. But where is their Luther?

    Paraphrasing G.K., the only defendable intolerance would be a defensive intolerance.

  8. The Raving Atheist
    February 6th, 2006 @ 11:30 am

    God Squad Review CVLIII

    “If there is no God, are morals and ethics still a good thing?” asks a Squad reader. The response is the usual jumble of non-sequiturs and contradictions: The brief answer is no. To quote Dostoevsky in “The Brothers Karamazov”: “If there is no God, all…

  9. benjamin
    February 6th, 2006 @ 12:03 pm

    I felt a simple letter-to-the-editor would have been sufficient.

  10. qedpro
    February 6th, 2006 @ 1:21 pm

    RA I made a post earlier but it seems to have been removed.
    I thought it was because of the f-bomb but then i see others are free to use it so what’s the scoop?

  11. qedpro
    February 6th, 2006 @ 4:08 pm

    So it turns out that now people are being killed over a cartoon. If that’s not the definition of insanity, i don’t know what is.
    Can you imagine being a member of a family who just found out that their brother/sister died over a cartoon.
    Can you imagine being that person, laying there dying thinking, what the #$%^& was I thinking, i just threw my life away over a cartoon!!!!
    Perhaps its just evolution in action….but still its hard to fathom. I thought the worst way to die would be to be food for some animal, but I’m thinking nope, its dying over a cartoon. Can these people be nominated for a Darwin award??????

  12. Oz
    February 6th, 2006 @ 5:38 pm

    I say death to all those who say Islam is violent!

  13. SmartBlkWoman
    February 6th, 2006 @ 6:53 pm

    I said this before but something happened to my comments.

    These people are sad. They are so wrapped up in their religion because the religious leaders and others don’t want to people paying attention to the fact that they are all living in squalor compared to the rest of the world. These people are being used by the mullahs and those in power.

  14. Jospeh
    February 6th, 2006 @ 6:56 pm

    We should post more images and cartoons. Every free press everywhere should cover their front pages with cartoons from as many different artists as are willing to draw images of Muhammad. Make it impossible to track down all the people responsible because everyone is responsible. Keep goading them until they realize this is nothing worthy to get worked up over or they destroy themsleves. I personally think it’s kinda funny that “MAD” is part of his name.

  15. PhalsePhrophet
    February 6th, 2006 @ 7:30 pm

    SBW, what makes you think that all Muslims live in squalor? Although many do compared to us, this seems to be an unfair statement. Also, what makes their fanatics different than those in your religion or any other religion? All are delusional about reality; all are being used by their mullahs, priests, pastors, reverends, imams, and rabbis.
    With or without religion;we are all being abused by those in power. Atheists just aren’t delusional about it. Plus, we can take a joke with the best of them.
    If you really think they act that way because their religious leaders don’t want them to pay attention to they’re life of squalor, you need to step back (say 20 years) and gain at least a modicum of wisdom to go with that great real life education you’ve already demonstrated.

  16. SBW
    February 6th, 2006 @ 9:02 pm

    ////PhalsePhrophet said: SBW, what makes you think that all Muslims live in squalor?/////

    Nothing, I never said all Muslims live in squalor, but I would bet my life that the overwhelming majority of those burning down buildings are very poor, especially compared to here in the US. You don’t see the mullahs and other leaders in the street burning the place down.

    ////Also, what makes their fanatics different than those in your religion or any other religion?/////

    Is it possible for you to stay focused on the topic at hand? The subject is the reaction in the Muslim world to the cartoons. A fanatic is a fanatic.

    ////Atheists just aren’t delusional about it. Plus, we can take a joke with the best of them.//////

    Using “we” is a pretty broad generalization. Some of the atheists on this site are pretty delusion and at times appear on the verge of psychosis in their attitudes towards theists and their religions.

    ////If you really think they act that way because their religious leaders don’t want them to pay attention to they’re life of squalor, you need to step back (say 20 years) and gain at least a modicum of wisdom to go with that great real life education you’ve already demonstrated./////

    My age has nothing do with my ability to reason and make sense of the world around me. I don’t need another 20 years of living to be able to see what is the truth and what isn’t. If you do not agree with me then please debate the issues and cease to bring up my age in an attempt to discredit me.

  17. Viole
    February 6th, 2006 @ 11:09 pm

    “I don’t need another 20 years of living to be able to see what is the truth and what isn’t.”

    Excuse me while I pass out from laughing to much, SBW.

    Okay, all better.

    Many people go their entire life without ‘seeing the truth’. Anyone who makes that statement is either arrogant or stupid. Clearly, I’m the one who knows what the truth is.

    Oh, right, you don’t respond to sarcasm. Silly me. I’m not actually that arrogant; I’m still looking for the truth. The difference is, I’m on the right path.

    Damn it, there I go again! Now you’re never going to take me seriously!

  18. Zaine Ridling
    February 7th, 2006 @ 1:07 am

    Funny, I don’t remember the Muslims being this upset when the Taliban bombed the 4,000 year old monument of Buddha a few years ago. That was okay. By allowing themselves to be so upset over comic (or any) depictions of Muhammad, they inadvertantly turn him into a false god.

  19. Jospeh
    February 7th, 2006 @ 2:28 am

    The following link made the situation much more clear to me:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/5/13149/60748

    Imagine a government using religion for political means! The outrage! The scandal! I’m so glad we live in a country where that could never ever never ever never ever ever happen.

  20. Thorngod
    February 7th, 2006 @ 9:47 am

    SBlkW, careful what you wager your life or soul on. God and I always prick up our ears at that offer, and often exact payment promptly. Your bet had an accuracy rating of only 76%. …
    Zaine R., Mohammed is not a god. He was Allah’s secretary.

  21. Richard
    February 7th, 2006 @ 10:36 am

    Cartoons are here:

    I’ve seen better efforts from RA himself, and his cartoons really suck ;-)

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698

  22. Andrea
    February 7th, 2006 @ 10:38 am

    The post may be about Muslim fanatics, but they should be compared to other religious fanatics, at least it will bring some clarity to the situation. Granted their means of protest are outrageous, but all religions freak out when attacked. Just look at what the fundamentalist Christians do here in America – they’re astonished that people think gays should marry, protest against TV shows on a regular basis, call judges “activists” when they think placing the word “god” on money and in the pledge is questionable, cry persecution when soldiers complain about religion in the military, flip out when wished “Happy Holidays” etc… American christians already know that cartoons mocking their religion will be published, so they wage economic wars against other “offensive” actions. The Muslims, generally, do not live in as free a society and are finally experiencing criticism not just for the fundamentalist sect, but how people view their religion as a whole. Welcome to the real world, now keep your bombs at home and get on with your lives.

  23. Lily
    February 7th, 2006 @ 3:27 pm

    Andrea, PhalsePhrophet, What sort of dementia prevents you from seeing the obvious? Wait!

    I know what fooled you–

    1.)it was all those thousands of Catholics rioting in the streets of New York when Serrano stuck a crucifix in a vial of urine…

    2.) it was those thousands of Baptists who took out the Statue of Liberty when a Madonna covered with elephant dung was presented to a panting art world…

    3.) it was all those thousands of fundamentalist Pentecostals dancing in the streets and setting off fireworks to celebrate the death of Rosa Parks. ..

    Sure. I get it.

    Yep, who could fail to see the similarities?

  24. SBW
    February 7th, 2006 @ 4:08 pm

    /////Viole said: Many people go their entire life without ‘seeing the truth’. Anyone who makes that statement is either arrogant or stupid. Clearly, I’m the one who knows what the truth is.///////

    So which one are you? Arrogant or stupid? From my view you seem to be a tad bit of both.

    ////Damn it, there I go again! Now you’re never going to take me seriously!/////

    Viole, attempting to take you seriously isn’t worth the trouble.

    //////Thorngod said: SBlkW, careful what you wager your life or soul on. God and I always prick up our ears at that offer, and often exact payment promptly. Your bet had an accuracy rating of only 76%. …///////

    Thorngod as you are an atheist I’m surprised that you would even be interested in my soul, especially since you don’t believe it actually exists. And as for my life, I would only wager that with God.

    /////Andrea said: Granted their means of protest are outrageous, but all religions freak out when attacked.//////

    Religions don’t freak out when attacked, people do.

  25. Thorngod
    February 7th, 2006 @ 4:57 pm

    SBW, I’ll bet you’ve never had so much fun in your life as you’ve had since chiming in on RA. But don’t wager anything with Yahweh, SB. Read the Book of Job. God’s Son, Lucifer, was one crafty dude, but he lost the bet. You wouldn’t have a chance in hell betting against Yahweh! As for your “soul,” it is the true and merely ephemeral one that concerns me, and I wish yours the best.

  26. Lily
    February 7th, 2006 @ 6:11 pm

    Thorn:

    It would be best if you resisted the temptation to give theological advice, particularly when you also need to know something about literary genres. You don’t appear to have background in either discipline.

    Let’s review: When a book starts with “Once upon a time” it is a pretty safe bet that it is a story. One with a moral, to be sure and worth reading, but a story. Lest I be accused of Bible thumping, I won’t tell you what the moral is.

    Maybe, now that you know what genre the book belongs to, you can figure it out for yourself.

  27. Choobus
    February 7th, 2006 @ 9:09 pm

    when a book starts with “in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth” is just as likely to be bullshit. In fact, it’s pretty much the same as “once upon a time”. Now, if it had started “it was a dark and stormy night” I might be up for reading on.
    Lily, you ought to refrain from giving literary advice since we all know that the only non godidiot books you ever read are sad Barbara Cartland novels. What’s your favourite? The Lady and the Pirate? The duchess and the stable boy? The cook and the salami? The priest and the little boy?

  28. Viole
    February 8th, 2006 @ 12:22 am

    “Viole, attempting to take you seriously isn’t worth the trouble.”

    One moment you’re all candy and flowers, and the next you’re insulting. Make up your mind, already.

    Really, though. Can someone please tell me why all the theist women focus on me as the potential conversion?

  29. Lily
    February 8th, 2006 @ 7:50 am

    Viole: I can anwer that. It is easy. You have some brains in your head. That is not universally the case here.

  30. ben wood
    February 8th, 2006 @ 9:16 am

    What “civilized” world are you talking about “top vatican official”? The only one that comes to mind right now is the one maintained by the captive chimpanzees in the Chicago zoo, and they are a bunch of flaming atheists. Meanwhile, in the civilized world of Washinton, USA, there are apparently plans to produce many inflammatory cartoons to justify what Donald Rumsfeld has dubbed “The Long War,” as noted under the I wann sell you an invisible bag of shit post at
    http://www.roryshock.blogspot.com

  31. Andrea
    February 8th, 2006 @ 9:30 am

    SBW yes *people* freak out, obviously not their religions, it was a grammatical mistake.

    And Lily, of course there’s a difference between violence and nonviolent protest. I was comparing where the anger comes from, not the displays of that anger, but you would know that if you read the entire comment. Christians are used to their faith getting shit on, but they still get pissed when something conflicts. I said they “wage economic wars.” Now it’s the Muslims’ turn, but they react much, much differently, and I called their tactics “outrageous.” Don’t put words in my mouth, especially when it’s clear that I was comparing what Christians and Muslims react to, not the way in which they react.

  32. PhalsePhrophet
    February 8th, 2006 @ 11:29 am

    SBWsaid: “they are all living in squalor compared to the rest of the world.” Yes, you did say ALL. Also, if you notice most of the people in the pictures during these episodes are well-dressed and don’t look all that poor compared to their peers.
    SBW said: “Is it possible for you to stay focused on the topic at hand? The subject is the reaction in the Muslim world to the cartoons. A fanatic is a fanatic”. I stayed on topic, my topic is your ignorance on religion, not only yours, but the fanatics that burn buildings over cartoons. When you say fanatic, do you mean more insane or delusional than the others in the religion?
    SBW said: “Using “we” is a pretty broad generalization. Some of the atheists on this site are pretty delusion and at times appear on the verge of psychosis in their attitudes towards theists and their religions”. Using “we is kind of like using “ALL” isn’t it? Glad you noticed. However, “we” aren’t delusional about religion, only it’s participants. We give them way too much credit: we assume they know their subject matter, when the reality is that they only know what the current interpretation their mullah, priest, pastor reverend, or rabbi is spewing.
    SBW said: “My age has nothing do with my ability to reason and make sense of the world around me. I don’t need another 20 years of living to be able to see what is the truth and what isn’t. If you do not agree with me then please debate the issues and cease to bring up my age in an attempt to discredit me”. I didn’t mention your age, just the fact that you lack wisdom. Wisdom comes with age. Your own words discredit you.
    I will leave you with a quote from a SmartBlkWomen “You basically don’t know anything and thus don’t have anything to base an opinion on.”

  33. Jahrta
    February 8th, 2006 @ 4:06 pm

    “Using “we is kind of like using “ALL” isn’t it? Glad you noticed. However, “we” aren’t delusional about religion, only it’s participants. We give them way too much credit: we assume they know their subject matter, when the reality is that they only know what the current interpretation their mullah, priest, pastor reverend, or rabbi is spewing”

    Well said. I would go further to maintain that true ignorance of the original source material is not just helpful to fostering belief in a religion, but that it is an absolute prerequisite for such a worldview. When anyone of reasonable intelligence peers into the history of the texts and analyzes them for themselves, it is impossible to ignore the blatant inconsistencies, vulgar racist and sexist attitudes of supposed holy figures, historical and scientific incongruencies, and flat-out lies that permeate the lot of them. I also tire of hearing theists drone on about atheists not properly understanding the historical context / proper translation and/or meaning of a given word or phrase (in any of the hundred-or-so incarnations of what is supposedly the word of their “unchanging” god) while they go on to systematically dredge up the most poorly formulated arguments against scientific methods to try and discredit evolution, to name but one hot-button issue. Maybe atheists can stop pointing out the pesky glaring flaws in those religious texts if they keep their BS out of the public view?

  34. SBW
    February 8th, 2006 @ 4:57 pm

    /////PhalsePhrophet said: SBWsaid: “they are all living in squalor compared to the rest of the world.” Yes, you did say ALL. Also, if you notice most of the people in the pictures during these episodes are well-dressed and don’t look all that poor compared to their peers.

    1. I mean’t ALL of those rioting, not ALL Muslims. Notice that when I said the word “all” it was in reference to the word “they”. They as in “those rioting”, not “they” as in “all Muslims”. See the difference?
    2. Are we looking at the same news reports? The people that I am seeing are on streets that look dusty and disheveled. The buildings in the area usually look like older apartment buildings and not in the best shape. The men and (some women too) are dressed in regular Arab Muslim garb and not in a style that would say they were wealthy. I understand that not everyone is wealthy over there from oil but it appears to me that the vast majority of those people are poor and middle class. Middle class and poor people in that region of the world are not on the same level economic level as poor and middle class people in the US.

    ////SBW said: “Is it possible for you to stay focused on the topic at hand? The subject is the reaction in the Muslim world to the cartoons. A fanatic is a fanatic”. I stayed on topic, my topic is your ignorance on religion, not only yours, but the fanatics that burn buildings over cartoons. When you say fanatic, do you mean more insane or delusional than the others in the religion?/////

    This is the exact lack of focus and understanding I’m talking about. I am not the subject, nor are other religions. For the second time, can you stay focused on the issue at hand or should I just quit while I’m ahead?

    I think that the problem here is that you believe all people that are religious are fanatics or delusional while I believe fanatics are only on the fringes. Islam is a special case IMO where the fanatics garner more attention than the moderates.

    ////SBW said: “Using “we” is a pretty broad generalization. Some of the atheists on this site are pretty delusion and at times appear on the verge of psychosis in their attitudes towards theists and their religions”. Using “we is kind of like using “ALL” isn’t it?////

    No, its not. Please see explanation above.

    ////However, “we” aren’t delusional about religion, only it’s participants. We give them way too much credit: we assume they know their subject matter, when the reality is that they only know what the current interpretation their mullah, priest, pastor reverend, or rabbi is spewing./////

    Thank you for admitting that you’re delusional about the participants of various religions. It saves me the job of having to point out your bias which seeps through in everything that you say and clouds your judgement. How can you say that all religious participants don’t know their subject matter when you have already made the claim that they are delusional before you have even heard what they have to say? Granted, some people can defend their faith and some can’t but they are all by no means delusional.

    ////SBW said: “My age has nothing do with my ability to reason and make sense of the world around me. I don’t need another 20 years of living to be able to see what is the truth and what isn’t. If you do not agree with me then please debate the issues and cease to bring up my age in an attempt to discredit me”.

    I didn’t mention your age, just the fact that you lack wisdom. Wisdom comes with age. Your own words discredit you./////

    Your own words, or should I say your selective editing, are discrediting you. How funny that you chose to edit the comments I was replying to in an attempt to make a point.

  35. Lily
    February 8th, 2006 @ 10:05 pm

    Your first sentence managed to be insulting and not particularly well-informed at the same time. You wrote:

    The post may be about Muslim fanatics, but they should be compared to other religious fanatics, at least it will bring some clarity to the situation. Granted their means of protest are outrageous, but all religions freak out when attacked.”

    Let’s see. A muslim burning the Danish embassy is morally equivalent to a “fundy” writing a huffy letter to the editor. We are just all fanatics. Yep. That clarifies that.

    All religions freak out when attacked. So, a “fundy” urging a boycott of an offensive movie is “freaking out” just like a Muslim turning over cars and burning flags in the streets of Jakarta. No difference between working in an acceptable way to protest and acting out violently. Both are “freaking out”.

    Of course, the implicit meaning of your sentence is that if there were no religion, there would be no “freaking out”. And doesn’t that just prove how dangerous religion is?

    Certainly there would be no “freaking out” over religion but do you really think that most people take insults to their honesty, mom’s morality, and the skill of the Green Bay Packers with equanimity? Do you really believe that the only thing standing between universal peace, good will and perfect bliss is religion?

    I shudder for you.

  36. jahrta
    February 9th, 2006 @ 10:18 am

    It wouldn’t solve all of the world’s ills, but I think it would solve enough of them to make it worthwhile if there were no such thing as religion.

  37. Thorngod
    February 9th, 2006 @ 10:47 am

    LILY #25– Being a writer, I’m quite familiar with literary genres. Having been born and reared Christian–and a dedicated one ’til my fifteenth year–I’m well acquainted with the Bible, and have even read the earlier Sumerian accounts of creation and the flood from which the Hebrews obviously adapted theirs. (I read both the Hebrew and the Sumerian in translation, of course!) … Yes, once upon a time I too was blinded by the light Ironically, my greater enlightenment happened at a summer church camp. A counselor, quite innocently, said something that inspired me to start thinking critically–about religion, sex, race, etc.

  38. Andrea
    February 9th, 2006 @ 10:50 am

    Lily, again, the comparison was not how they react to their feelings, I was comparing the source. The focus is always on what people do (and of course it should be to some extent) but it’s just a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The problem is not just religion but yes, religion itself. Do Muslims really think Denmark is going to refrain from publishing cartoons because they think they’ll go to hell? Guess we’ll find out. I didn’t say eradication of religion would make the world a safer place from people “freaking out” but yeah, like jahrta, it would help. So, again, please don’t put words i my mouth, no where in the comment was any reference to religion being the only cause of dangerous behavior. I’m aware people riot for all sorts of reasons. You don’t have to fill in the blanks of my comments, everything I want to say is right there.

  39. Andrea
    February 9th, 2006 @ 11:20 am

    ha and on that note, take out the “the problem is not just religion but religion itself” sentence, class was ending and I had to run out before clicking preview… I need an editor. After “like jahrta” you are permitted to fill in that blank, hopefully you all guessed “I agree that.” That’s better!

  40. Viole
    February 9th, 2006 @ 12:14 pm

    “Viole: I can anwer that. It is easy. You have some brains in your head. That is not universally the case here.”

    Well, that makes a pleasing change from the usual theist strategy of converting the weak-willed or ignorant. However, dear Lily, I’d advise you not to waste your time. Go find some infants to accost.

  41. Lily
    February 9th, 2006 @ 2:48 pm

    LOL, again! Man, atheists sure are funny.

    Viole, my one beloved atheist, I am not trying to convert anyone. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. I have such an infinitely smaller goal– clarity on what the Bible actually teaches. It is a mountain to climb but I am huffing and puffing away at it.

  42. jahrta
    February 9th, 2006 @ 3:10 pm

    Don’t worry your perty li’l head, Lily – most of the atheists here know the bible better than you – which is one of the main reasons we’re atheists in the first place. As the great bard Trent Reznor once penned: “I speak religion’s message clear, I am denial, guilt and fear (and I control you)”

    You can babble on about how it’s all about peace love and mini-marshmallows, but those of us who possess a modicum of intelligence and an open mind can easily see the myriad examples of incest, homophobia, senseless genocide, and the outright dickery inherent in your god of love. And no, I am not mad at god (as he doesn’t exist) but rather at the mindless mouthbreathing fuckwits who go out of their way to smear the social and political landscape with their mental feces at every turn, and who seem completely incapable of keeping their beliefs to themselves.

    Have you ever read The Evangelical Atheist’s “God is a Dick” posts? I challenge you to counter any of the points “I Am” brings to the forefront on a weekly basis.

  43. Viole
    February 9th, 2006 @ 3:31 pm

    Might I suggest, then, that you start with the forty or so thousand sects which disagree with you on one point or another? Once there’s unity within the church, I’ll accept that someone has, and perhaps even you have, the authority to speak for what the bible actually says, or whatever. Fair enough?

  44. Lucy Muff
    February 9th, 2006 @ 3:41 pm

    violes why is it needed for you s= to gets thwe bible truth from agreement if differents ? Acept jesus and the bible will be cleared for you and dont need then any others to say what is in it for jesus himself wikk helpyouunderstand, and what betters biblw teacher can there be? Anser is none of course! Jesus is lord

  45. Lily
    February 9th, 2006 @ 4:55 pm

    Viole: Y’all are broken records when it comes to claiming that we all interpret the Bible differently. We simply don’t when it comes the things that are essential. You might just as well dismiss the Constitution because it has been amended and people squabble over its meaning all the time.

    All the theists I have run into here, Mort, SteveG, and others have pointed out time and time again that we are in agreement on the essentials. Google “apostle’s creed” and you can quickly review what the essentials are. No degree in theology is needed.

    Jahrta: Don’t make me laugh. Let me put this as modestly and tactfully as I can: compared to my knowledge of the Bible, of history and of the development of Christianity, the most biblically learned atheist here is a complete ignoramus. Count on it.

  46. Choobus
    February 9th, 2006 @ 9:33 pm

    Lily, you’re full of shit my dear. There are a lot of people here whio used to be godidiots and studied the bible in such depth that they were able to break out of the brainwashing they recieved as a child and realise that it’s all just a funny story. The fact that you are still fooled by the buybull is itself evidence that you haven’t studied it as much as such ex-godidiots.
    And what are these “essential” things that everyone agrees on? There are so many sects that it seems unlikely that there is any one thing other than the existance of God that everyone would agree upon. For fucks sake, there isn’t even an official Jesus-sanctioned version of the holy book you all love so much.

    If god wanted us to have the bible why didn’t he give it to us directly? If he didn’t, aren’t you afraid you are pissing him off by claiming to have a holy book? Surely it would nopt have been too hard for god to lay out the bible basics in a few extra tablets, like with the commandments?

  47. Viole
    February 10th, 2006 @ 1:17 am

    “Y’all are broken records when it comes to claiming that we all interpret the Bible differently. We simply don’t when it comes the things that are essential. You might just as well dismiss the Constitution because it has been amended and people squabble over its meaning all the time.
    All the theists I have run into here, Mort, SteveG, and others have pointed out time and time again that we are in agreement on the essentials. Google “apostle’s creed” and you can quickly review what the essentials are. No degree in theology is needed.”

    If, as you say, I’m so smart, Lily dear, why do your comments always seem to suggest you feel otherwise? Half the Protestants don’t consider the Catholics to be Christian at all, which is, as far as I can tell, a courtesy the Catholics extend to just about everyone but the Morons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    Then, of course, you’ve got those people who insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the Earth is roughly six thousand years old, because the bible is the literal word of god, and suggesting otherwise will cause you to burn in hell you heathen wretch.

    Are you getting the idea? I’m sure you all agree on the essentials–which you don’t, ask the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses, but wait, they aren’t Christian you say–but as long as you argue over what is literal and what isn’t, I’m happy to assume the whole book is a fairy tale based on an semi-accurate history of the Hebrew people.

    Let’s face it, the bible isn’t just a work of fiction, it’s some of the worst fiction ever written.

  48. Lily
    February 10th, 2006 @ 3:17 am

    Sigh. I am not going to take that bait and repeat myself for the ten thousandth time. Here are some questions for you:

    What good are brains if you don’t use them? How did such a transparently bad work of fiction engage the best and brightest minds of the last 2000 years transforming philosophy, the arts, law and more? Why is it still the object of serious academic study?

    Why do you think the age of the earth is an “essential” that undermines my claim that we Christians agree on the essentials? Half of Protestants do not consider Catholics outside of Christianity. Some fundamentalist churches do. They do not constitute even close to half of all Protestants.

    There is precious little disagreement over what is literal and what isn’t except between the majority and some of the more “fundamentalist” churches.

    While education and experience play a significant role, that is more a function of their having come into existence relatively (sometimes very) recently outside of any traditional ecclesiastical community with a history of grappling with these questions. It is somewhat akin to asking questions about constitutional interpretation down at Joe’s Bar and Grill. You are going to hear sincerely held views which do not always square with what the larger legal community believes. But that does not prevent them from being good American citizens.

  49. Lily
    February 10th, 2006 @ 3:42 am

    Viole, let me answer this directly:

    If, as you say, I’m so smart, Lily dear, why do your comments always seem to suggest you feel otherwise?

    It is not your brains, I am doubting. It is your emotional attachment to your disbelief that I am challenging. I am unceasingly amazed by the way you all hug your beliefs to your chests, to the point where no information penetrates. This is why, I still hang around, I think, even though I have long since ceased to be amused by the level of ignorance I find here about what Christians actually believe. I am not talking about being surprised that you haven’t converted, I am talking about just plain old, undisputed factual information.

    And I honestly don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I hear this sort of nonsense– most recently from Choobus:

    There are a lot of people here whio used to be godidiots and studied the bible in such depth that they were able to break out of the brainwashing they recieved as a child and realise that it’s all just a funny story.

    Ridiculous. How ridiculous this is comes home to me most easily when I visit the forums. Just yesterday someone wanted some help with a paper he was writing for school and was directed to some “fantastic” essay about the rise of Christianity under Constantine.

    Intrigued, I clicked and was rewarded with an essay so bizarre and inaccurate that I sent the link to some of the faculty in our history department and to one of the librarians who teaches information literacy–this is an egregious example of why you can’t believe everything you find on the web and I thought she might like to use it as an example in her classes, too.

  50. Andrea
    February 10th, 2006 @ 9:45 am

    Lily asked, “How did such a transparently bad work of fiction engage the best and brightest minds of the last 2000 years transforming philosophy, the arts, law and more? Why is it still the object of serious academic study?”

    Of course the Bible is an object of serious academic study: look at how it influences people and society. Of all people, I don’t think you need to be told why the Bible why people continue to study it, I mean, you’ve read it. If some book was convincing people that they are going to burn in pits of fire after they die unless they do as they’re told, wouldn’t you, as an academic, study it as well?

  51. Viole
    February 10th, 2006 @ 9:51 am

    Sigh. I am not going to take that bait and repeat myself for the ten thousandth time. Here are some questions for you:

    Maybe–just maybe–Lily, that you’re having to answer the same question ten thousand times is an indication that you haven’t actually managed to answer them once?

    What good are brains if you don’t use them? How did such a transparently bad work of fiction engage the best and brightest minds of the last 2000 years transforming philosophy, the arts, law and more? Why is it still the object of serious academic study?

    As you seem well aware, people will do just about anything for their beliefs. So the answer too your question is ‘because they believe it’. People would spend years studying their own dung if they thought it would get them a better deal in the afterlife.

    Why do you think the age of the earth is an “essential” that undermines my claim that we Christians agree on the essentials? Half of Protestants do not consider Catholics outside of Christianity. Some fundamentalist churches do. They do not constitute even close to half of all Protestants.

    Allow me to exaggerate a bit, because, as you’ve already figured out, I don’t actually care who believes what. The number of fools willing to buy into a lie doesn’t make it a fact.

    I consider it essential because, like other biblical falsehoods, Christians like yourself are mostly content to brush it away as unimportant. I can’t help but feel there’s something faith-shattering hidden down there. Probably not, though. You theists all cling so tightly to your beliefs it’s pathetic.

    There is precious little disagreement over what is literal and what isn’t except between the majority and some of the more “fundamentalist” churches.
    While education and experience play a significant role, that is more a function of their having come into existence relatively (sometimes very) recently outside of any traditional ecclesiastical community with a history of grappling with these questions. It is somewhat akin to asking questions about constitutional interpretation down at Joe’s Bar and Grill. You are going to hear sincerely held views which do not always square with what the larger legal community believes. But that does not prevent them from being good American citizens.

    Right. However, if a highly educated and brilliant Canadian talks about the US Constitution, they’re wrong. The most ignorant, filthy, lice-ridden, goat-raping backwater hick, however, has a valid and sincerely held opinion. Great. Just great.

    It is not your brains, I am doubting. It is your emotional attachment to your disbelief that I am challenging. I am unceasingly amazed by the way you all hug your beliefs to your chests, to the point where no information penetrates. This is why, I still hang around, I think, even though I have long since ceased to be amused by the level of ignorance I find here about what Christians actually believe. I am not talking about being surprised that you haven’t converted, I am talking about just plain old, undisputed factual information.

    I think you underestimate how much questioning I do. Sorry, though, I ain’t buyin’ somethin’ just because your pretty face is plastered all over the packaging. If I have any deeply help beliefs, though, ancient history is probably the place–most of what I know I learned in primary schools, and I’m really not interested enough in the subject to spend much time reading about it.

    And I honestly don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I hear this sort of nonsense– most recently from Choobus:
    There are a lot of people here whio used to be godidiots and studied the bible in such depth that they were able to break out of the brainwashing they recieved as a child and realise that it’s all just a funny story.
    Ridiculous. How ridiculous this is comes home to me most easily when I visit the forums. Just yesterday someone wanted some help with a paper he was writing for school and was directed to some “fantastic” essay about the rise of Christianity under Constantine.

    And this makes Christianity true, or invalidates their knowledge of the bible, how? I’ll freely admit, there’s a lot of garbage on the internet, and that I’m not immune to it myself.

    Anyway, I freely admit I’m not a former Christian, and I’ve never managed to read straight through the bible, even as a work of fiction. That’s why I say it’s such a poor bit of literature, which is no more than my opinion. I don’t feel like I’m missing out on anything, so at this point I probably never will read it.

    I haven’t read the Qu’ran, either, or the Book of Mormon. I haven’t read anything from the Hindus, or the Buddhists, or the Wiccans. Quite seriously, I don’t give a damn about them, or christianity either. They’ll never be able to explain the world as well as science does.

  52. hermesten
    February 10th, 2006 @ 11:32 am

    Lily: “It is somewhat akin to asking questions about constitutional interpretation down at Joe’s Bar and Grill. You are going to hear sincerely held views which do not always square with what the larger legal community believes. But that does not prevent them from being good American citizens.”

    Talk about stupid. Geez. How can anyone who doesn’t know and undertand what the constitution says be a good Americian citizen? Oh, that’s right, in Chimpco Amerika, being a “good American citizen” just means being obedient. The Chimp will tell you what the constitution says, and his “experts” –like the head of NSA, who says that the 4th amendment doesn’t use the term “probable cause,” and the attorney general, who, after swearing to his God to uphold the constitution tells us that there are no limits to the Chimp’s powers.

  53. hermesten
    February 10th, 2006 @ 11:44 am

    Viole: “Anyway, I freely admit I’m not a former Christian, and I’ve never managed to read straight through the bible, even as a work of fiction. That’s why I say it’s such a poor bit of literature, which is no more than my opinion. I don’t feel like I’m missing out on anything, so at this point I probably never will read it.

    I haven’t read the Qu’ran, either, or the Book of Mormon. I haven’t read anything from the Hindus, or the Buddhists, or the Wiccans. Quite seriously, I don’t give a damn about them, or christianity either. They’ll never be able to explain the world as well as science does.”

    Right on! Read straight through? –you have to be very dedicated to believing this tripe just to get through Genesis. My parents weren’t relilgious, but I did go to Sunday School with friends. I remember thinking this religion stuff was a load of hooey at as young as six. Generally speaking, Christian theology is such obvious nonsense that rigorous social conditioning is a prerequisite for selling it to a five year old. No conditioning equals no sale.

  54. Lily
    February 10th, 2006 @ 12:38 pm

    Viole: It is certainly possible that I have explained myself so poorly that it is “an indication that [I] haven’t actually managed to answer [your questions] once. But both Mort and SteveG, to name two others, have answered the same questions brilliantly in just the last couple of months. It makes not the slightest impression.

    The Bible does not teach that the Earth is 6000 years old. That is a guesstimate based on picking and choosing various numbers from a number of books and trying to make them support a theory they do not support. I brush it away as unimportant because it is unimportant. It would like brushing aside science because scientists once believed in phlogiston.

    You theists all cling so tightly to your beliefs it’s pathetic.

    Ya think? I would have said it is because we, I, at least, have never heard a convincing argument against them.

    Re the essay on Constantine you asked: “And this makes Christianity true, or invalidates their knowledge of the bible, how? The commenter was recommending this as a “blow the godidiots out of the water” explanation of how Christianity spread. This is not scholarship. It is not good amateur history. It is gobbeldy gook recommended as scholarship. It is one of a million pieces of proof of the falsity of Christianity I could point to. The “scholarly study” proving that Julius Caesar was really Christ or, rather, that Christ was really Julius Caesar is another. The depths of lunacy to which one has to sink to believe that are staggering to consider. This does not inspire me with confidence that you all can explain the operation of a roll of toilet paper, much less interpret an ancient text properly.

    I don’t have a problem, intellectually speaking, with your not having read the Bible and having no interest in it or in Christianity. I do have a problem with you uncritically accepting the most absurd accusations and “historical” accounts from equally ignorant (of the facts) people and then feeling free to insult people for their beliefs on so unsturdy a basis. There really isn’t much sense in you all being hurt or insulted, when us theists don’t take seriously your pronouncements on what we believe and why we are wrong, is there?

  55. Choobus
    February 10th, 2006 @ 2:50 pm

    Lily you crazy old bag! Don’t you ever get tired of being wroing? Not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong!

    Can you guess what used to happen to people who claimed that the bible was not true and that Jesus was not their personal sky daddy? I’ll give you a clue, the same sort of thing used to happen to old crones like you who were caught engaging in bitchcraft and flying around on broomsticks.

    Watching you desperately trying to defend your fictional adventure book is like watching Clay Aitkin insisting he is not gay.

    Now, come on nutjob, come back with somethinig even more crazy. I know you can do it. Don’t take the easy option and refer to the mighty choobus as the “resident clown and dork”. Any assclown can do that. With a demented mind like yours you are capable of so much more.

  56. jahrta
    February 10th, 2006 @ 2:54 pm

    Lily:

    “Re the essay on Constantine you asked: “And this makes Christianity true, or invalidates their knowledge of the bible, how? The commenter was recommending this as a “blow the godidiots out of the water” explanation of how Christianity spread. This is not scholarship. It is not good amateur history. It is gobbeldy gook recommended as scholarship. It is one of a million pieces of proof of the falsity of Christianity I could point to. The “scholarly study” proving that Julius Caesar was really Christ or, rather, that Christ was really Julius Caesar is another. The depths of lunacy to which one has to sink to believe that are staggering to consider. This does not inspire me with confidence that you all can explain the operation of a roll of toilet paper, much less interpret an ancient text properly.”

    You’re right, as always, Lily – it makes FAR more sense that god turned himself into his own mortal son so that he could go to earth and get nailed to a piece of wood and die a horrible death to somehow wipe away our sins (???). It also make perfect sense that this mortal zombie god would rise from the grave, as discussed in contradictory “gospels.”

    Let’s not call atheists insane for their beliefs when you call yourself a theist and claim to have a relationship with an invisible sky daddy, ok peaches?

  57. hermesten
    February 10th, 2006 @ 3:03 pm

    “The “scholarly study” proving that Julius Caesar was really Christ or, rather, that Christ was really Julius Caesar is another.”

    Jesus Christ, talk about a Strawman. You’re like some self-absorbed academic who has spent all his life studying James Joyce, and is an expert on Ulysses, trying to convince us that we’ve gotten Stephen Daedalus all wrong. All the same, studying Joyce or Shakespeare would undoubtedly produce people with about ten times the character that studying the Bible apparently does. After all, it’s Christians, for the most part, not Joyce and Shakespeare scholars, who support torturing little children in the name of the mendacious “unitary executive.”

  58. Lily
    February 10th, 2006 @ 6:36 pm

    Oh look! Larry, Moe and Curly have weighed in. Nice, though predictable, to hear you sputter, curse and moan.

    How deliciously irrelevant you three are; how poorly toilet-trained!

    Chooby, you are positively adorable when you rant helplessly!

  59. Viole
    February 10th, 2006 @ 8:11 pm

    Dearest Lily,

    I never said you explained anything poorly. I’m sure you did quite well, and I’m sure Steve and Mort did too. What I did say is that you never managed to answer the question.

    The Bible does not teach that the Earth is 6000 years old. That is a guesstimate based on picking and choosing various numbers from a number of books and trying to make them support a theory they do not support. I brush it away as unimportant because it is unimportant. It would like brushing aside science because scientists once believed in phlogiston.

    If science claimed to be the inspired word of god, rather than a very human attempt to understand the world through testing and observation, you might have a point.

    Ya think? I would have said it is because we, I, at least, have never heard a convincing argument against them.

    And I’ve never heard a convincing argument against mine. This makes you better than me how?

    It is one of a million pieces of proof of the falsity of Christianity I could point to. The “scholarly study” proving that Julius Caesar was really Christ or, rather, that Christ was really Julius Caesar is another.

    Yeah, strawman, and making fun of Herm won’t change that. You somehow manage to invalidate anything that might question your belief because one particular theory is absurd. There’s millions of proofs against Christianity out there. The ‘Mormons’ for example, believe that the Israelites managed to sail across the Atlantic, and populate the Americas. The depths of lunacy to which one has to sink to believe that are staggering to consider. This does not inspire me with confidence that you all can explain the operation of a roll of toilet paper, much less interpret historical data.

    I do have a problem with you uncritically accepting the most absurd accusations and “historical” accounts from equally ignorant (of the facts) people and then feeling free to insult people for their beliefs on so unsturdy a basis. There really isn’t much sense in you all being hurt or insulted, when us theists don’t take seriously your pronouncements on what we believe and why we are wrong, is there?

    I’m beginning to think you’re talking to someone else. I didn’t attempt to defend the particular article you’re talking about. Considering I’ve never read it, that’d be silly. I merely pointed out that the bible makes no mention of Constantine one way or the other, and so any absurd theories which might surround him can have no reflection upon it. Besides, the bible is supposed to be ninety-eight percent textually accurate, or something like that. Constantine’s life, however, is compiled from a variety of sources. Shouldn’t the bible be much easier to interpret?

  60. Lily
    February 10th, 2006 @ 9:14 pm

    Viole:

    So much to respond to! I will give it a try but I don’t have much hope…

    Re: And I’ve never heard a convincing argument against mine. This makes you better than me how?

    Huh? Who says I am better than you? You may well have it all over me as a moral being, a plain nice person and good neighbor. However, you are not at all well-informed about the teachings of Christianity. I am better informed about that, than you are.

    Again, huh? Yeah, strawman, and making fun of Herm won’t change that. You somehow manage to invalidate anything that might question your belief because one particular theory is absurd. There’s millions of proofs against Christianity out there.

    No such thing. I gave two examples of typical arguments I have read here “proving” that Christianity is bunk. They are, in a word, preposterous. I did not know that Hermesten was a believer in the Christ as Caesar bit. That, and his current Bush / Hitler temper tantrums, have pushed him outside the pale of anyone I can take seriously.

    There are not millions of proofs against Christianity out there. There are, actually, none. It is the sort of thing that cannot be proved or disproved. One can, at best, only weigh the available evidence and come down on the side that seems stronger based on actual knowledge.

    However, by your own admission, you are not in a position to weigh those arguments. You know nothing about the Bible or Christianity. I do not fault you for this, per se. I know nothing about 17th century Chinese poetry or 18th century African politics. So I refrain from offering opinions about them. I find that I waste less of my time and others’ that way. However, you and many others here also do not seem to recognize the limits of science. That is a problem, too.

    Finally, Constantine was Empereror in an era (the 4th century)we have abundant historical documentation of. A fair amount of his legislation has survived, many of his letters have survived and his life and deeds were written about by various people, most famously Eusebius. Documenting his life and interpreting the Bible are really apples and oranges and I am not sure what you mean by linking them. They are not contemporaneous if that is what you are getting at.

    And what do the Mormons have to do with anything? They are not Christians and have their own “scriptures”. Yes, I find their beliefs bizarre. They find mine bizarre, as they have gone to a great deal of trouble, to invent a religion far more to their liking on a very insubstantial basis. You are all over the board on this and it strengthens my argument that it would be more intellectually honest not to be insulting to Christians, whose beliefs you (sing. and plural) are ignorant of.

  61. hermesten
    February 10th, 2006 @ 10:29 pm

    “I did not know that Hermesten was a believer in the Christ as Caesar bit.”

    Boy, you are stupid. Not only am I not a ‘believer” in the bit, I’d never even heard of it before you brought it up. The stupid part comes in where you can manage to interpret my remarks as supporting this obscure theory. Of course, loving the Chimp the way you do, you could just be a liar.

    I don’t know where the Bush=Hitler thing comes from either. For one thing, as I’ve made clear before, Hitler wasn’t a draft-dodger. Also, neither Hitler, or his Nazi pals, claimed in public that he had a legal right to torture children to make their parents talk. Even the Nazis had enough shame, however tiny, to deny they thought such things were good. And it should be clear from just about every post I’ve ever made that mentions the Chimp, that I don’t think the ole’ drunk frat-boy is smart enough to be a Hitler. The Chimp is more of a puppet than a puppeteer.

    Now you can pretend all you want, but it’s a simple fact that this administration has publicly and privately claimed that there are no limits to presidential power, and specifically, that Bush can order a child to be tortured, and have his testicles crushed, to make his parents talk. An audio recording of this claim is available on the internet. I’ve heard it on the radio. I’ve heard the international law professor, Doug Cassel, who was part of the debate, talking about it. You have no excuse for not knowing this already, so I suspect you’re just a liar.

    You support an administration that claims a legal right to torture innocent children. The fact is, your support for this evil gang of thugs puts you in the same moral sewer they inhabit. I guess I’ll go with door #3: you’re stupid, and you’re a liar.

    As I’ve said before, you’d better hope we’re right, and there is no God; or that if there is a God He’s not a just God; because, if there’s a God, and He’s just, baby, you’re gonna burn in Hell.

  62. Choobus
    February 10th, 2006 @ 11:23 pm

    Now then Lily my dear, you’re being foolish again. Do you realise that your posts are putting the US econonomy in danger? If the japanese Government should read anything you have written they would surely put a permanent ban on US beef imports. That would hurt godfearing American farmers and, more importantly, make his highness King George look bad.

    If you won’t shut your gob for the obvious reasons (you talk shite), do it for Amerika.

    God bless you, and may he alleviate the fishy smell that comes when you wear skirts.

  63. Lily
    February 11th, 2006 @ 12:49 am

    Viole: Did I misunderstand you? I thought you were saying above that your excitable friend Hermesten held the Julius Caesar=Christ belief and I shouldn’t make fun of him.

    He appears to be having another hissy-fit, but since I only skim his messages ( I get so bored with the Bush is the devil, Hitler, a chimpanzee torturer, or, maybe it is a chimpanzee and a torturer, who knows? I would have to read him carefully, and who wants to take the time?) I am not sure what he is going on about this time. I don’t care about his political opinions but I am fascinated by this bizarre equation of Caesar with Christ which he denies believing. Good on him, if true.

  64. Viole
    February 11th, 2006 @ 3:20 am

    Ah, hell, Lily, let me just destroy whatever respect you have left for me and jump right in there with Herm; Bush is a fascist, warmongering monkey. If he thought he could get away with it, he’d drag you off the streets of a major metropolis in broad daylight, and proceed to torture you to death on live TV over the next month, while raping any children you happen to have whenever he gets bored. Not because he doesn’t like you, but because he doesn’t know about you, or care about you, just like he doesn’t know or care about anyone who doesn’t donate large amounts of money to keeping him in power. Of course, everyone would surely agree that you, and by extension your children, deserve everything they got, since a god-fearing evangelical christian like Bush would never do anything like that unless it was absolutely essential to national security, so we needn’t bother with quaint, pre-9/11 notions like checks and balances.

    Sa! Lileg tésa kaskg. Alaé tésa esya kár rïsovar.

    I suppose I should respond to the lengthly bit of garbage you posted her earlier, eh?

    Who says I am better than you?

    You clearly did. Or is calling someone blindly ignorant a compliment, in whatever circles you travel? That would certainly explain a few things.

    You may well have it all over me as a moral being, a plain nice person and good neighbor.

    I certainly do.

    However, you are not at all well-informed about the teachings of Christianity. I am better informed about that, than you are.

    Yes, you are. However, young one, I’m perfectly well informed about Christians, and my lifetime has been long enough for me to know I don’t want to be one.

    No such thing. I gave two examples of typical arguments I have read here “proving” that Christianity is bunk. They are, in a word, preposterous.

    Picking the two most preposterous arguments you can think of is generally called ‘cherry picking’, and often leads to the burning of strawmen. Unfortunately for strawmen, the relative frequency of such arguments means that they find themselves the victims of persecution more often than actual points. Oh, well. Consider them collateral damage, and continue using your smart bombs of truth.

    Would it help if I stood up and waved?

    I did not know that Hermesten was a believer in the Christ as Caesar bit. That, and his current Bush / Hitler temper tantrums, have pushed him outside the pale of anyone I can take seriously.

    I actually don’t know all that much about Herm, other than the fact that he doesn’t suffer fools gladly. He also seems to appreciate the brute force approach to debate, whereas I’m more of a cynical commentary sort of gal. However, “Oh look! Larry, Moe and Curly have weighed in[etc.]” sure sounds mocking to me. If you go read that particular post, you’ll find it’s about your strawman-burning habit. I naturally assumed that you read what you make fun of(“I know nothing about 17th century Chinese poetry or 18th century African politics. So I refrain from offering opinions about them.”), but apparently that isn’t the case.

    Hypocrite.

    [Christianity] is the sort of thing that cannot be proved or disproved.

    Which is why rational people aren’t Christians.

    Finally, Constantine was Empereror in an era (the 4th century)we have abundant historical documentation of. A fair amount of his legislation has survived, many of his letters have survived and his life and deeds were written about by various people, most famously Eusebius. Documenting his life and interpreting the Bible are really apples and oranges and I am not sure what you mean by linking them. They are not contemporaneous if that is what you are getting at.

    Please, allow me: “I merely pointed out that the bible makes no mention of Constantine one way or the other, and so any absurd theories which might surround him can have no reflection upon it. Besides, the bible is supposed to be ninety-eight percent textually accurate, or something like that. Constantine’s life, however, is compiled from a variety of sources. Shouldn’t the bible be much easier to interpret?”

    I didn’t draw any parallels. You did: “Re the essay on Constantine you asked: ‘And this makes Christianity true, or invalidates their knowledge of the bible, how?'[…] This does not inspire me with confidence that you all can explain the operation of a roll of toilet paper, much less interpret an ancient text properly.”

    And what do the Mormons have to do with anything? They are not Christians and have their own “scriptures”. Yes, I find their beliefs bizarre. They find mine bizarre, as they have gone to a great deal of trouble, to invent a religion far more to their liking on a very insubstantial basis. You are all over the board on this and it strengthens my argument that it would be more intellectually honest not to be insulting to Christians, whose beliefs you (sing. and plural) are ignorant of.

    You missed that, did you?

    From your post: “The “scholarly study” proving that Julius Caesar was really Christ or, rather, that Christ was really Julius Caesar is another. The depths of lunacy to which one has to sink to believe that are staggering to consider. This does not inspire me with confidence that you all can explain the operation of a roll of toilet paper, much less interpret an ancient text properly.”

    From mine: “The ‘Mormons’ for example, believe that the Israelites managed to sail across the Atlantic, and populate the Americas. The depths of lunacy to which one has to sink to believe that are staggering to consider. This does not inspire me with confidence that you all can explain the operation of a roll of toilet paper, much less interpret historical data.”

    I case you still missed it, they don’t. That was the whole point.

    Yours Respectfully,
    Viole Kérinav

  65. Anonymous
    February 11th, 2006 @ 6:50 am

    I wonder why Lily spends so much time in a place where she thinks so many are ignorant and misguided? It’s obvious she’s not trying to convert anybody with her snide comments and unwarranted arrogance. It’s mildly funny, but not very useful. Not very Christian, either.
    As for the Bible, it sounds like another fallacious appeal to authority. It’s also funny, but again, not very useful in a serious argument.
    Lily, you are coming across as arrogant and pompous. It drives many serious debaters away. Is that a conscious goal, or are you too stupid to understand that this is what you are doing? Either way, what does that say about you?

  66. Lily
    February 11th, 2006 @ 11:38 am

    #64–I answered your question in post #48. You are a teenager, aren’t you?

    There is no serious debate going on here. Serious debaters have facts at their disposal. Not ignorant drivel.

    You might want to consider what you meant to say here “As for the Bible, it sounds like another fallacious appeal to authority The Bible sounds like another fallacious appeal to authority? Huh?? Strive for clarity, child.

    Viole: I don’t know what to make of your last post. It is all over the place and it proves my point– you and a great many here are atheists for emotional reasons; not intellectual ones. And when that gets shown to you all for the umpteenth millionth time you get all snarly, insulting and incoherent.

    It is unnecessary.

  67. Anonymous
    February 11th, 2006 @ 2:57 pm

    Thanks for anwering my question, Lily. Your behavior is an intentional effort to avoid serious debate.

    Lily:
    “There is no serious debate going on here. Serious debaters have facts at their disposal. Not ignorant drivel.”

    Another interesting admission.

    Well, maybe someday your debating skills will rise up above “ignorant drivel” and then you can engage in serious debate.

  68. Choobus
    February 11th, 2006 @ 3:47 pm

    Lily,

    I mean this in all seriousness, but when was the last time you had a good hard shag? I don’t mean some half chub shoved in your holland tunnel in the pub car park in exchange for a zima, but a satisfying rogering that leaves you unable to walk? It could be what you need to vent some of your spiteful rage.

    You don’t get that from Jesus. IF you are a young child you might get it from some of his employees, but that’s a different story.

  69. Viole
    February 11th, 2006 @ 4:49 pm

    I don’t know what to make of your last post. It is all over the place and it proves my point– you and a great many here are atheists for emotional reasons; not intellectual ones. And when that gets shown to you all for the umpteenth millionth time you get all snarly, insulting and incoherent.

    Aw, Lily, and I had so much fun writing that. I can’t believe you led me on, only to dump me as soon as you got bored. That’s almost more insulting than your arrogance.

    I’ll admit, my natural propensity toward using as few words as possible combines with my towering intellect to create posts with an unfortunate tendency to assume my audience is capable of following along. I apologize for overestimating you.

    I’ll just summarize the main points.

    -Bush is an arrogant, warmongering, fascist monkey.

    -You are an arrogant, hypocritical idiot, with a proclivity toward burning strawmen rather than addressing actual points.

    Yours Respectfully,
    Viole Kérinav

  70. John Smith
    February 11th, 2006 @ 5:41 pm

    Flemming Rose born 3/14/1956 into a Jewish family in the Ukraine has a major in Russian language and literature from University of Copenhagen. From 1990 to 1996 he was the Moscow correspondent for the newspaper Berlingske Tidende. Between 1996 and 1999 he was the correspondent for the same newspaper in Washington, D.C.. In 1999 he became Moscow correspondent for the newspaper Jyllands-Posten and January 2005 the cultural editor of that paper (KulturWeekend). He fled Denmark where he was under police protection to Miami, Florida in fear for his life where he is currently in hiding.

  71. Lily
    February 11th, 2006 @ 5:50 pm

    Hmmm. Apparently, arrogance is catching, Viole. The question is, who infected whom?

    Let me demonstrate clarity to you…

    I don’t care about your political opinions. This is a free country. I find them indescribably foolish but since you and others holding them can’t manage to win elections, they don’t hurt anyone but you.

    When you make a point that I don’t need the Rosetta stone to parse, I will gladly respond to it.

    Alles klar?

  72. Viole
    February 11th, 2006 @ 10:30 pm

    Dearest Lily,

    You must be blind. I could write for hours on the various criminal endeavors of the Bush administration, providing detailed links to articles and books for each point. I won’t bother, of course, because you’re obviously emotionally invested in your worship of Jesus W. Bush.

    Besides, I don’t really care about elections anymore. Should I vote for Democrats that are nearly as pathetic as you? Or Republicans who would happily march straight into hell, dragging the rest of world along with them, for another dime in their pocket? To hell with them.

    As for your inability to comprehend my previous posts… again, I apologize for overestimating you. Now, if you try really hard, you might figure out what I said. Keep a dictionary handy, though; I sometimes use big words.

    Sincerely Yours,
    Viole Kérinav

  73. Frank
    February 12th, 2006 @ 2:54 am
  74. Lily
    February 12th, 2006 @ 4:03 am

    If I may presume to give you literary advice, Viole, I would advise you to go back to hit and run sneering. You don’t do stream of consciousness writing well.

    Or, spend a leisurely hour with Mr. Strunk and Mr. White.

  75. hermesten
    February 12th, 2006 @ 4:20 pm

    Come on Choobus, a Zima? I don’t think her price is that high. I bet she’d do bukkake vidoes with George W. for free. In fact, I think she’d buy you the Zima, but I’ve a feeling you’d need more than one.

  76. Choobus
    February 12th, 2006 @ 6:48 pm

    Herm,

    I think that Lily and crones of that nature are covered by the APM (alcohol protection mechanism). That is, in order to do low quality poontang one needs a certain amount of alcohol to interfere with normal standards of decency and common sense, but if they get too ropey the amount of alcohol required renders one unconscious, thereby providing a natural (god given?) protection against the most henious of skanks.

    I don’t drink Zima myself but I think it would definately take in excess of 5 bottles of sancerre, which means I should be fully protected.

    I think In lily’s case she should have to have a cock in her mouth at all times to prevent her from, speaking because even hobo’s have standards, and while they might be willing to give her some hobo lovin’ they probably wouldn’t tolerate having to listen to her speaking as well.

  • 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