The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

After the Rapture

May 7, 2006 | 84 Comments

A new errand service has been set up to handle all the unfinished business left on Earth by Christians who have been whisked away for The Rapture. It’s being run by Shirley Setterbo of AtheistExposed2, who suggests that all the abandoned churches could be converted to animal shelters. Wasted, in other words, on herds of unthinking, braying automatons.

A couple of years back I posted on whether atheists who perpetrate religious scams should be held to a different standard than believers who do. My point was that no atheist could seriously purport to believe in any faith-based representations employed to solicit cash, whereas a tougher question arise regarding Pat Robertson’s sincerity in claiming that Jesus listens more carefully to prayers accompanied by $500 contribution to the 700 Club. Shirley’s errand service doesn’t raise any problems, however, because she’s not charging cash up front and has promised to deliver if the Rapture does in fact occur.. Plus, if she does have to perform, she won’t be an atheist when she’s running the errands. Just a terrified, hellbound Christian.

Comments

84 Responses to “After the Rapture”

  1. Brad
    May 7th, 2006 @ 6:46 pm

    Yeah, I read about this on AtheistExposed2. Funny stuff. If only the rapture were really going to happen…think of the looting potiental!

  2. Chris Treborn
    May 7th, 2006 @ 6:55 pm

    it’s only looting if the people who’s property you are taking care. After the rapture the faithful will have no more need for their material goods. Should you feel the need to “loot” after the rapture, go ahead. It will provide small comfort considering what will soon follow. How typical for an atheist to look upon a moment like the rapture and see only an opportunity for crime and the satisfaction of their own personal greed. Once again the ugly truth seeps through.

  3. Rob
    May 7th, 2006 @ 7:18 pm

    So after the rapture Chris, you won’t care how your pet dog will do without you because you lost the need for material goods? How cold.. Then again your lack of compassion for those left behind betrays the evilness of your religion. Once again the ugly truth seeps through.

  4. Chris Treborn
    May 7th, 2006 @ 7:28 pm

    Rob, If the lord has not seen fit to save those who will be left behind it is hardly my place to do so. The compassion of the lord is infinite so there is not much I can add to that.

  5. Rob
    May 7th, 2006 @ 7:45 pm

    I don’t see how a god who places people who did finite sins with infinite punishment could ever be called infinitely compassionate.

  6. Chris Treborn
    May 7th, 2006 @ 7:48 pm

    what do you care? You dopn’t believe in god so you have no motivation to try to understand the mysterious ways of the lord. That’s why you use simple arguments to addrrss complex matters. And then you are surprised when it seems to make no sense! How typical.

  7. Rob
    May 7th, 2006 @ 8:05 pm

    I have a lot more compassion than you apparently. You like using your piety to attack non-believers, it appears, and when we point out all the contradictions in the attributes that you claim god has you act all lofty and claim we aren’t even trying to explain. Well, Chris. I was religious once. I tried to understand all these contradictory attributes that god supposedly has, and I’ve been forced to conclude its all BS. If you want to continue to be a typical christian hiding your arrogance in a cloak of humility, keep on right ahead. But if you are really after the truth, find answers to these “simple” questions that I keep bringing up instead of claiming how “mysterious” god is. Keep in mind that the more mysterious he is, the tougher he is to believe and the less compassionate he is to non-believers.

  8. Mark D. Fulwiler
    May 7th, 2006 @ 8:08 pm

    Chris:

    If God is mysterious, how can his ways be understood.?

  9. Brad
    May 7th, 2006 @ 8:11 pm

    I don’t pretend to speak for anyone other then me (and barely at that), but personaly I use simple arguments because the matters don’t seem very complex. I’m sorry if my sarcastic comment about looting got you riled up, I’m not really worried about the rapture, since it’s not going to happen.

    I do find it interesting however that even people that believe it will, seem to think it’s a good thing. Think of all the great people from all the religions you’d call “false” or “wrong”. The fact that people don’t follow the same invisible friend as you doesn’t really make them evil, just wrong….even by Christian standards. I would much rather spend eternaty being tortured in hell in the company of friends, family, great and kind people that happened to follow the “wrong” religion, or none at at, then to go to heaven….maybe it’s just me.

    Thankfully all signs point to death being the end of life (thank you websters!). So I’m not teribly stressed about it. I’ll enjoy life now while I’ve got it rather then wait around for the rapture.

  10. Chris Treborn
    May 7th, 2006 @ 8:12 pm

    Rob, you seem to think that I care what you and other unbelievers think about god. I don’t. I am comfortable in my faith and if you are too arrogant to let god into your heart that’s not my problem. The simple questions you bring up are just that: simple. It seems you gave up on the lord yourself, and now you mock those who have more fortitude than you. Not all that surprising really, but in no way does that empower your empty arguments. Deny Jesus all you like. Foolishness is for fools.

  11. Rob
    May 7th, 2006 @ 8:21 pm

    Chris, I don’t believe you. You obviously do care what I and other unbelievers think about god. Otherwise you wouldn’t be here.
    Its too bad you’re comfortable in your delusions. Maybe someday you’ll be less so.
    As for my questions being simple, if you cannot answer even the simple questions, how can you answer the complex ones? I noticed that you haven’t been able to answer them. You merely choose to be evasive with the “god moves in mysterious ways” argument. Do I take it to mean that you don’t want to get any real answers?

    Its true that I’m mocking you but not because I gave up on the lord, but because you gave up on reality. In such matters, I am more fortunate than you. Not all that surprising really, but in no way does that empower your empty arguments. Deny reality all you like. Foolishness is for fools. (And yes, I like mirroring your statements. Show me more how you really don’t care what we think by posting more comments.)

  12. Chris Treborn
    May 7th, 2006 @ 8:27 pm

    I’m flattered that you seek to copy me. Not surprised, but flattered nonetheless. IF you decide to start thinking for yourself one of these days you might realise that the reason billions of people take Christianity seriously is that it is much more complex than you like to give it credit for. IF it was as “dumb” as you and other atheists like to claim then billions of people must be complete fools. It’s pretty arrogant for you to claim that your own opinions are necessarily more important than those of a billion other people. However, arrogance is a key feature of atheism, so once again this is not really news to anyone who cares to look.

  13. Bryce
    May 7th, 2006 @ 8:47 pm

    Chris,
    Aren’t you even going to try to answer the “simple” question? How does punishing someone infinitely for a sin such as being born in Japan and following the religion of his or her parents make God infinitely compassionate? That’s mysterious, to be sure, but mysterious in the same way that destroying Social Security is called “Social Security reform” by the White House. And isn’t any “worship” of such a god really just paralyzing fear? Think about it for a second — everlasting torture. In your world, Gandhi has been burning for a half-century. Hasn’t he had enough? Can you put in a good word for him with Jesus after you’re swept up in the Rapture? Sorry to be flippant, but it’s a fundamental problem with Christianity, and you’re ignoring it.

  14. Chris Treborn
    May 7th, 2006 @ 8:56 pm

    Bryce, try reading a book on Christian theology instead of asking me dumb questions

  15. Rob
    May 7th, 2006 @ 9:29 pm

    Yet another evasive answer. How typical. Seems like this so called “simple question” is not so simple… eh, Chris?

  16. Graham
    May 7th, 2006 @ 10:50 pm

    The “simple” answer is that the current god of the christians is “Jehovah 2.0″. The “original” god of the old testimant is a fiery, wrathful defender of the Jews, ready to give his enemies’ children boils on their genitals in order to affect their politcal policy towards the Jews. But when Jesus came along, and it was decided to make HIM the figurehead of the new Christian sect, they were forced to play-down God’s wrath since large numbers of non-jews were being converted. After all, why would I want to worhsip a god who would clearly slaughter my own (non-jewish) people, in order to let the jews prosper? So now, god is all about love and peace and forgiveness and all that malarky.

  17. Gathercole
    May 8th, 2006 @ 1:38 am

    Graham, if only they had it that easy. But Chris Treborn here is clearly committed to defending the God of Infinite Punishment. Perhaps he’d like to fall back on “love & peace” but I don’t think he feels he can without betraying his faith.

  18. bernarda
    May 8th, 2006 @ 5:06 am

    Graham, Jehovah 2.0 is a good name for a software, like Open Office 2.0. It is probably also a good analogy.

    The Hebrew god did not just destroy non-Hebrews like the Amaleks, and whoever it was in Jericho–Reading Joshua, Judges, and Samuel can be very instructive. It also had dire penalties for its own people.

    In the 10 commandments in Exodus, it said that it would punish the offspring down to the third and fourth generation of one of its chosen people who displeased, for example by becoming an apostate. So if your great-grandfather did such a thing, you are condemned no matter what you do.

    Likewise, this god offer its grace for 1000 generations for those who kowtowed to it. So if you had the appropriate lackey forebear, it doesn’t matter what you do, you will be favored. Of course there is a contradiction about what all the intervening generations might have done.

    In Deuteronomy, all sorts of chosen people should be stoned to death: non-virgin single women, rebellious sons and daughters, adulterers, those who disobey priests. Heinous crimes in that god’s opinion.

  19. Lily
    May 8th, 2006 @ 7:26 am

    It’s funny how the same questions get asked and answered over and over again. You all definitely need a FAQ. To answer the questions that are being asked here: the Bible was not dictated to men by God. The Old Testament is a compilation of tales, law, history, poetry, etc that was composed in a number of languages over many centuries. While God does not change, men do in their understanding of Him. Yes, iron age men saw God in simple and, in modern understanding, brutal terms. The ancient world was one of tribes pushing up against each other, making war, etc. Life was often short and almost always hard. The earliest books of scripture reflect that as they inevitably (sp?) must.

    To answer the other question that has come up, God does not punish anyone infinitely. Who ever goes to hell, chooses to go there, i.e. we separate ourselves from God. This estrangement is hell. The metaphors surrounding this state make clear that it won’t be pleasant but it will be what we chose.

    As far as the rapture is concerned, that is one of those things that Christians do not agree on. We all agree, as the creeds state, that Christ will come again “to judge the living and the dead” but exactly how that will play out is not a matter of 100% agreement. What we all agree on is the need to be ready when the time comes.

  20. Viole
    May 8th, 2006 @ 10:19 am

    Dearest Lily,

    Good to see you’re making as little sense as ever. I mean, if I were an omnibenevolent goddess, I’d be a bit embarrassed if the world took me for a genocidal maniac, even if only for a little while.

    Please explain to me how such stories as are included in the bible aid our understanding of an omnibenevolent god.

    Yours,
    Viole

  21. Facehammer
    May 8th, 2006 @ 10:27 am

    Seperation from god, eh? What a shit hell. I for one wouldn’t care in the slightest. It would be a lot like now, but with one less excuse to glorify stupidity.

    Hasn’t the rapture been overdue since the 1st century?

  22. jahrta
    May 8th, 2006 @ 10:41 am

    Best bumper sticker I have ever seen:

    “Come the rapture, may I have your car?”

  23. hermesten
    May 8th, 2006 @ 11:31 am

    Lily illustrates part of the problem we atheists have in dealing with the religious nutters. Lily is telling us what she believes as a Catholic. If modern Catholics were the only Bible beaters we had to deal with in the US, I probablly wouldn’t even be posting on an atheist website. I grew up around Catholics, and I hardly even knew Christianity existed. I’ve never been accosted in the mall by a Catholic who wanted to talk about Jesus, and my old boss, a Catholic, told me many times that Catholics don’t take the Bible literally. So what?

    Where I live, Catholics have about the same “Christian” status as atheists –maybe even worse, since most of the Christians I know think Catholics are idolaters. Lily either lives in her own little world, or she lives some place where the fundie nutters don’t constitute 40-60% of the population. In any case, Catholics are way down on my list of Christians to be concerned about.

    Isn’t it time, however, that the FAA prohibit fundamentalist rapture believers from flying airplanes?

  24. Tenspace
    May 8th, 2006 @ 1:00 pm

    Here’s an old one… an attempt to remove the Rapture Ready from behind the wheels of their vehicles:

    http://www.postfun.com/pfp/features/rapture.html

  25. Los Pepes
    May 8th, 2006 @ 1:19 pm

    I think that both Jehovah 1.0 and 2.0 are what we, in the IT industry, call vaporware.

    Kind of fitting, huh?

  26. Lily
    May 8th, 2006 @ 3:57 pm

    Wrong on virtually every count, as usual, Hermy. But since I am still not talking to you, I don’t suppose it matters.

    Viole;
    Sad to see that you still lack imagination and empathy with the human condition. Those stories aid our understanding of the nature of reality and show us God working in some mighty harsh and, how shall I say, interesting times. They show us the struggles of peoples so far from us in time and culture; yet so close. Their joys and sorrows resonate across the centuries, as in David’s agonies over the death of the child he had with Bathsheba and the rebellion and death of his son Absalom. It isn’t all pie and chicken dinners down at 1st Baptist of Peoria, you know.

    Facehammer, you aren’t getting it. Hell is the absence of God. That means, no love, no friendship, no nothing good or worthwhile. That isn’t where I want to live. You will have to choose your own neighborhood.

  27. Tenspace
    May 8th, 2006 @ 4:12 pm

    Lily, Hermie’s comments are valid. You and I had a very civil discussion on the forums, regarding this very topic. I don’t think you’re being insincere, but I do think that you really don’t have your finger on the pulse of Christianity in the U.S.

    The majority may not be vocal, but the minority is speaking for you level-headed Christians, and you are letting them. Look at Roberston, Phelps, Scalia and the like. Do they represent you? Are you in agreement with their fundamentalist/dominionist worldview and position?

    Do you agree that doctors who perform abortions are criminals and should be locked up, or worse? Would you allow the Jonesboro Baptist Church to protest the funerals of sons and daughters killed in action?

    What about blasphemers? Do they deserve punishment?

    If all Christianity was as docile as you and your ilk, there would be no confrontation; I see your religion as personal to you, and I don’t necessarily see you trying to control others through religion, like so many politicians attempt to do.

  28. hermesten
    May 8th, 2006 @ 4:25 pm

    Wow, wrong on every count. I guess that means:

    1. My old boss wasn’t a Catholic –guess I’d better let him know.
    2. Catholics do interpret the Bible literally.
    3. We should be just as concerned about Catholics as we are about fundies.
    4. I have been accosted in the mall by Catholics –I guess they have some sort of steath Catholic group that imitates fundies: well, Lily should know.
    5. I would be posting on an atheist web site if there were no fundies –I guess this ties in with the notion that Catholics and fundies are indistinguishable.
    6. All those Christians around me who call Catholics idolaters don’t really mean it –I guess Lily is calling them liars.
    7. The FAA should allow Rapture pilots.

    Then again, perhaps someone who says “Wrong on virtually every count Hermy. But since I am still not talking to you….” is a few bricks short of a full load.

  29. Lily
    May 8th, 2006 @ 6:14 pm

    Ten:
    I am only responding to Herm’s guesses about me. He always reads an entire biography into my comments and is always wrong. So, for instance, in this case– no, I don’t live in my own little world protected from all those mean fundies. I live in the heart of Dixie in Rosa Parks’ hometown.

    Ergo, I am surrounded by what he thinks of as fundy nutters. And somehow, I have lived to tell the tale. Still, lacking a sense of humor, as Hermy does, he also can’t see the snarky humor of Wrong on virtually every count, as usual, Hermy. But since I am still not talking to you, I don’t suppose it matters.

    Too bad.

    Now you have posed some interesting questions. Let’s see if you still think I am “docile” (!!) when you hear my answers…

    Look at Roberston (A washed up bore with no real influence any more. If he didn’t have a TV station, albeit one with low ratings, and if the press didn’t trot him out as a deliciously loathsome representative of what they think of as fundamentalist/evangelical Christians, he would have faded into the woodwork 20 years ago. )

    Phelps (A lunatic who worships Phelps. Maybe he started out as a Christian but he isn’t one now. His “church” consists of his family and a couple hangers-on. He should be locked up for his own good and ours.)

    Scalia and the like Do they represent you? He and the like, do represent me, if they are first rate legal minds, first rate citizens and first rate humorists like Scalia. Scalia is a faithful, practicing Catholic. I can’t abide the dominionist worldview and position but since that crowd wields no power and has no particularly wide appeal, what do I care about them?

    Do you agree that doctors who perform abortions are criminals and should be locked up Yes.

    Would you allow the Jonesboro Baptist Church to protest the funerals of sons and daughters killed in action? No, they should be ashamed. I wish it were possible to arrest them but free speech can be damned uncomfortable. If they pull that cr-p where I live, you can look for me among the counter-demonstrators.

    What about blasphemers? Do they deserve punishment? No, of course not.

    I see your religion as personal to you, and I don’t necessarily see you trying to control others through religion, like so many politicians attempt to do.

    You are mistaken. Those are not the only two options. My religion infuses my entire life. It fundamentally shapes my worldview and the way I want to live and what I think is good for society. As an American I have an absolute right to marshal my evidence and present my case to try and persuade my fellow citizens to follow one course of action or another in order to create as just and good a society, as is humanly possible.

    If that appears to be imposing my religion on the unwilling, so be it. It is not always easy to be in the minority and we try, as we must, to keep the minority from being tyrannized by the majority. But no man is an island, as you know, and the price of living in society is putting up with some things you’d really rather not put up with. I do it all the time so I know it can be done.

  30. Brian Macker
    May 8th, 2006 @ 6:18 pm

    Jehovah 2.0, that’s funny. What do the further releases look like? Well …

    The Muslims came up with Jehovah 3.0, which brings back the old 1.0 intolerant interface, and rebranded it as Allah 0.0. They further claimed it was actually developed prior to Jehovah 1.0 and 2.0. even though it was released at a later date and utilizes the open source code of 2.0. They further claim that 1.0 and 2.0 violate several copyrights held by the makers of Allah 0.0 since the beginning of time, although they cannot produce the copyright number. Thus taking an open source project back to closed source. They are asking for royalties, also known as the Jizya tax, on all users and proveyers of Jehovah 1.0 and 2.0. Many 1.0 and 2.0 users have coughed up royalties on issues of cost of defense in certain localities where Allah 0.0 is popular. Many just switched over to Allah 0.0 in those same areas to avoid the royalty, litigation, and penalties. In jurisdictions where the claimed copyrights were not enforcable very few users switched over to the new release.

  31. Chris Treborn
    May 8th, 2006 @ 9:14 pm

    Why do you all attack Lily, just because she corrects a factual error on your part? I think you’re just bullies. And fools. I hope they don’t bother you Lily, they are just like malicious children.

  32. Viole
    May 8th, 2006 @ 10:16 pm

    You’re cruel, Lily, terribly cruel. How can you suggest that I’m lacking in imagination? I happen to be a very imaginative person, and given time and the inclination, I’m sure I could come up with a scenario in which an omnibenevolent god, lacking in power, might decide that genocide is the best option; I can also list some rather compelling arguments as to why it wouldn’t do so.

    And that’s what I see you aren’t comprehending. If god is unchanging and omnibenevolent, there’s no logical explanation for the interventions in the old testament. If they’re just stories, they lend no understanding of god.

    Yours,
    Viole

  33. Los Pepes
    May 9th, 2006 @ 6:24 am

    Hey Treborn – you’re going to hell for using that screen name, you false idol you…

  34. Tenspace
    May 9th, 2006 @ 9:24 am

    Thanks for the thoughtful answers, Lily. I don’t necessarily agree with you, especially on the criminality of abortion doctors; wait, you’re in Tuskegee? I thought you were insulated from the nutters. I hope you’re not planning to vote for Roy Moore.

    I’m curious, how do you feel about separation of church and state? How much, if any, religious influence do you think is acceptable in the government arena?

  35. Facehammer
    May 9th, 2006 @ 9:30 am

    Facehammer, you aren’t getting it. Hell is the absence of God. That means, no love, no friendship, no nothing good or worthwhile. That isn’t where I want to live. You will have to choose your own neighborhood.

    How? How does an absence of god preclude friendship and love between two people? Isn’t your precious free will supposed to allow that? And what’s so worthwhile about a lifetime of wanking god’s ego?

  36. hermesten
    May 9th, 2006 @ 9:38 am

    I said: “Lily either lives in her own little world, or…..”; and Lily responds: “no, I don’t live in my own little world protected from all those mean fundies.”

    Do Chimp supporters all get a handbook from Scott McConnell or Tony Snow Job that helps them deflate the world of meaning so they can continue their monkey worship without the intrusion of reality? Or is Lily’s pimp a Strawman?

    And wow, Lily has instructed us on the qualities of good citizenship and “first rate” humor. No conflict of interest. never found a Police power he didn’t like, flip ‘em off and lie about it Scalia is a “first rate” citizen, legal mind, and humorist (though I do give him credit for dissenting on the court’s abolition of private property in the Kelo decision). With the bar set this low, my dog is qualified for a position on the Supreme Court, and I absolutely guarantee you that he’s funny as Hell, and won’t rule that Bush can have a thrid term.

  37. Facehammer
    May 9th, 2006 @ 9:54 am

    Oh yeah, and it’s good to see Chris “Stumpy” Treborn still about.

  38. Lily
    May 9th, 2006 @ 10:58 am

    How? How does an absence of god preclude friendship and love between two people? Isn’t your precious free will supposed to allow that?

    God is love and without God there is no love, no friendship, no anything that is good. Free will is the freedom to choose God’s way or your own way. But if you cut yourself off from God, you cut yourself off from the source of all love and all that is good and beautiful. You can no more love nor experience love in the absence of God, than a rose bush that has been yanked out of the ground can continue to bloom.

    Bummer, that.

  39. oDd42
    May 9th, 2006 @ 11:25 am

    Is god omnipresent, or
    are atheists currently in the dreaded ‘without god’ state Lily describes?

  40. Tenspace
    May 9th, 2006 @ 11:51 am

    I’m not sure. According to Lily, I have no love or friends because I don’t believe in the Christian God. :(

  41. Lily
    May 9th, 2006 @ 11:55 am

    Ten: I didn’t see that you had replied and asked another question. So I will try to answer…

    Roy Moore? LOL! This is the sort of thing I had in mind when I said once that you all have no idea what Christians, whether fundamentalists, Evangelicals, etc. really think. Every time some poor, well-meaning but confused soul says something silly or ill-thought out, you all take it as, if you will pardon the pun, Gospel truth of what untold billions of crazed theocrats think. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Even in my quasi-fundy days, we used to sit around after church drinking coffee and arguing (in a friendly way) about the Christian Coalition, Robertson, Swaggert, Baker, et al. Very few of us supported them unreservedly, some of us liked some of what they said. Most of us were revolted by most of them and/or what they said. (I personally could not and still cannot bear to even look at Swaggert.)

    Multiply that scenario across the country. Despite your (corporately speaking) belief that “fundies” are a monolith, they are not. Now, obviously in a country of 300 million, any charismatic speaker with a message and a podium can attract considerable numbers of fans. But the idea that we are in any danger of turning into a theocracy seems utterly preposterous to me, knowing these people as well as I do.

    As far as the situation in Alabama is concerned, we have an excellent republican govenor for whom I will surely vote. Roy has not been able to raise any real money. In fact, I am not sure he is still in the race– although I did hear that he was receiving some money from out of state. You’d be hard pressed to find him mentioned in the paper anymore. He really went out on a limb for what he believed and paid the price in loss of credibility here and popularity.

    And finally, you asked: I’m curious, how do you feel about separation of church and state? How much, if any, religious influence do you think is acceptable in the government arena?

    The constitution forbids the government from establishing a national church. It also guarantees the right of every citizen to worship as he sees fit. And, thankfully, the courts have always held that this includes the right not to worship at all. I am glad for this.

    The government is not, however, some *thing*. It is people and those people have been elected to office by their fellow citizens. Some of them will be strong adherents of this or that religion. Some will be nominal adherents. Some will be agnostics or atheists. These people have to respond to their constituents concerns, work together with other legislators, compromise, cut deals, etc.

    When you ask, how much, if any religious influence is acceptable in the government arena, I have to reply that it cannot be kept out. We derive our values and beliefs about life from our religions. As I said in my previous message, what I believe is good, comes from the values I hold which were shaped by my religion. Unless you have been raised in a vacuum, never read a book, never seen a play, etc. you have been shaped by them too. The idea that the public square has to be “naked” is as preposterous, as it is offensive and impossible. But I dislike the attempt to write into law views that are narrowly held and/or not essential to a just society. Ergo, trying to teach creationism in the schools as science is preposterous and it is rightly vigorously opposed.

  42. Lily
    May 9th, 2006 @ 12:02 pm

    Oh botheration, Ten! As long as you are alive, you have God working in you and through you, since He is the source of all being (which is another one of those good things we have from Him). If you love, it is because you are still grounded in God, whether you know it or not, or like it or not. So don’t worry. You can love and be loved. Until you make your eternal decision.

  43. Facehammer
    May 9th, 2006 @ 1:00 pm

    God is love and without God there is no love, no friendship, no anything that is good. Free will is the freedom to choose God’s way or your own way. But if you cut yourself off from God, you cut yourself off from the source of all love and all that is good and beautiful. You can no more love nor experience love in the absence of God, than a rose bush that has been yanked out of the ground can continue to bloom.

    Bummer, that.

    Sounds like horse shit to me. How can you seriously believe such drivel?

    Wait a minute, I’ve heard from countless christians that free will is there so that people could love god on their own. If this is true, what stops humans loving each other without any intervention from god. What makes them wrong and you right?

    And in reference to the post above this: Why do you believe this? What reason do you have to assert that this god intervenes in all such things? Why is it so difficult for you to accept that emotions are the effects of changes in the chemical balance of the brain (to absurdly simplify it), rather than the effects of some meddling god? And wasn’t this the same god that did a whole lot of GOD CRUSH PUNY HUMANS in the past – while they were still very much alive?

  44. hermesten
    May 9th, 2006 @ 2:06 pm

    “Sounds like horse shit to me. How can you seriously believe such drivel?”

    If it’s not horseshit, it’s bullshit. I don’t think the answer to this question is any big mystery. People believe it because it’s comforting to believe it, and it feels good to feel right, and to believe they’re morally superior to people who don’t think like they do.

    Now, as an illustration of bullshit in action, contrast Lily’s two contradicting statements:

    Lily1: “God is love and without God there is no love, no friendship, no anything that is good….yada yada yada……You can no more love nor experience love in the absence of God, than a rose bush that has been yanked out of the ground can continue to bloom.”

    Lily2: “As long as you are alive, you have God working in you and through you, since He is the source of all being (which is another one of those good things we have from Him).”

    If Lily intended these two statements to be compatible, then her first claim is absolutely meaningless, since, according to her, God exists in this universe, and in her second statement she says that God works for everyone, including those who don’t believe. This is a hermetic fantasy, though the fantasy itself is also meaningless, since anyone can say something similar about virtually anything, and it can never be “disproven.” For instance, don’t you know that the real reason electricity works is that God created tiny invisible and undetectable people who actually run down wires holding electrons? These people live on the energy created by human beings loving God. If everyone in the world stops loving God, then all these little electricity people will die, and there won’t be any more electricity, just like in the days before Christians discovered electricity.

  45. Choobus
    May 9th, 2006 @ 2:18 pm

    you forgot to add that lily is a retarded cocksmoker who is to logic as flatulance is to elevator travel.

  46. Lily
    May 9th, 2006 @ 2:42 pm

    Facehammer: Calmez-toi. I am not trying to persuade you of anything. Merely clarify what we believe. Free will is the freedom to serve God or serve self. What you don’t understand and many Christians can’t quite articulate is that we believe that God is not just “out there”.

    Neither you nor I draw breath apart from His will. Birds don’t fly apart from His will, nor does the sun rise. He does not “intervene”. He is always present. We love, to the extent we do, because he made us in His image and created us to love Him. Every rightly directed earthly love is, ultimately, the love of God mediated through the things of creation. If we sever our connection to Him, we sever our life line.

    You ask, Why is it so difficult for you to accept that emotions are the effects of changes in the chemical balance of the brain (to absurdly simplify it), rather than the effects of some meddling god? And wasn’t this the same god that did a whole lot of GOD CRUSH PUNY HUMANS in the past – while they were still very much alive?

    Somehow, the idea that love is the result of chemistry makes me smile. I have no objection if you wish to believe that. If you are ever lucky enough to hold your own child in your arms, I will ask you then how much SO2 or Na2S2O3 is driving your emotions.

  47. hermesten
    May 9th, 2006 @ 2:46 pm

    Well, on the one hand, that sort of goes without saying, and on the other, I thought maybe she had a thing for Viole, and I was hoping Viole might turn her around and pull her back into the human race (assuming, of course, that Viole doesn’t find the idea too disgusting, and Lily isn’t already beyond redemption).

  48. hermesten
    May 9th, 2006 @ 3:00 pm

    Lily: “Birds don’t fly apart from His will, nor does the sun rise.”

    Ya see Face, for Lily, the wall between fantasy and reality is already paper thin -if it even exists. I think she’s just too proud to cop to the little electricity people. But one must have a very high capacity for self-delusion if they’re going to believe that Scalia is a “first rate citizen” (and faithful practicing Catholic –how the -fuck- could she possibly know that, unless she’s getting emails from God?), the Chimp didn’t lie about WMD’s in Iraq, and Iran is a threat to world peace (you don’t have to read her mind here, Lily is a Chimp worshipper, so it doesn’t take a genius to know that she believes anything the Bush Mafia says). In Lily’s world, we’ll all soon be drinking that green bubble-up and eating that rainbow stew.

  49. Lily
    May 9th, 2006 @ 3:06 pm

    Poor Hermy! Shouldn’t you be stocking your underground bunker with food and ammunition for the struggle against the upcoming theocon takeover?

    This is pitiful. If Lily intended these two statements to be compatible, then her first claim is absolutely meaningless, since, according to her, God exists in this universe, and in her second statement she says that God works for everyone, including those who don’t believe. This is a hermetic fantasy, though the fantasy itself is also meaningless, since anyone can say something similar about virtually anything, and it can never be “disproven.”

    Honestly H. Did I not say at the outset my aim was to clarify what we believe and not persuade (i.e. “prove” it)? Let me try to put this in words you can understand. God created the universe. So the universe is in God. God does not “work for” non believers, at least not in the sense I think you mean that; He works through them and through all believers to accomplish His purposes.

    It is, however, true that God loves atheists and agnostics and is the source of every good thing you have, experience, etc. That will not go on eternally unless you choose that path.

    But I guess I shouldn’t have assumed any knowledge of philosophy on the part of anyone likely to respond here. You might want to read up on ontology in an encyclopedia and see if you can understand what I wrote a little better.

    Or not.

  50. Rob
    May 9th, 2006 @ 4:43 pm

    Lily just seems to ooze empty arrogance and condescension, doesn’t she? And just for your knowledge, Lily, I am quite aware that many theists have tackled the problem of evil since Epicurus. However, none have really solved it. They get around it by redefining evil or omnipotence or what their god is supposed to do. Our philosophy is simple and easy to understand. Your philosophy is double speak.

  51. hermesten
    May 9th, 2006 @ 4:46 pm

    No one here, except maybe Christ Reborn, is impressed by your self-professed intelligence. I don’t think you’re stupid, but then, neither was John Nash, and he still thought, at times, that he was the King of Antarctica.

    Through, for, whatever. It’s all nonsense. There is no evidence for your claim, and it can’t be proven. Atheists can make the equivalent claim that, love, friendship, and “all that’s good” is possible precisely because there is no God to interfere. Given the fact that it’s merely a fantasy you happen to believe, what’s the point?

    And since you’re actually talking to me now, instead of not actually talking to me, why don’t you tell us all just how you know that Scalia is a “faithful practicing Catholic.”?

    Finally, one of the reasons I’ve got all the ammunition is so that I don’t have to stockpile food.

  52. Thorngod
    May 9th, 2006 @ 4:48 pm

    Lily, re philosophies, your statement “G does not ‘work for’ non
    believers…through them and through all believers to accomplish His purposes.” accords with Spinoza, the only philosopher ever to describe a possible God. I doubt, however, that your more conventional concepts (evil versus good, blood sacrifice, transubstantiation et al) would be allowed by any respectable philosopher–certainly not Spinoza. Stick to theology!

  53. Lily
    May 9th, 2006 @ 5:40 pm

    Rob: Huh? When/where did we address the problem of evil in this thread?

    Hermy: I am still not talking to you. At least, I am not going to indulge you with actual conversation; that is completely useless, as we see again in your latest Lily rant (above).

    I will answer simple questions in order not to be rude. Scalia’s writings and public speeches all seem to point to someone who practices what he preaches. It seems reasonable to assume the best rather than the worst.

    Thorn What on earth are you ranting about? Philosophy is or, rather, was a subset of theology in the Western world up til the Enlightenment. It seems safe to assume that you have never read Augustine, Boethius, Aquinas, Anselm, Abelard, Bacon, Ockham, Duns Scotus, Richard of St. Victor, Peter Lombard, Bonaventure, and, of course, the Philosopher, Aristotle, whose influence on Christian philosophy can scarcely be overstated.

    My “conventional concepts” have been argued, defined and accepted by a significant majority of the best minds the Western world has produced in the last 2006 years.

    Atheists, on the other hand, can point to such luminaries as …
    Choobus. BWAHAHAHAHA!

    Sorry. Couldn’t resist.

  54. Viole
    May 9th, 2006 @ 7:54 pm

    Lily did have a thing for me, Herm, and I admit I was seriously prepared to make an attempt at dragging her, kicking and screaming if need be, back to the side of the human race. Unfortunately, her sole intent seemed to be dragging me, kicking and screaming if need be, into the delusional depths of religion. Once she realized her mistake, she decided to ignore me; and unlike her attempts at ignoring you, she’s somehow found the willpower necessary to actually not reply to my comments, even when they are polite questions.

  55. Choobus
    May 9th, 2006 @ 9:31 pm

    That’s ok Lily. I love to turn the other cheek. You should know that by now……

  56. Lily
    May 10th, 2006 @ 6:57 am

    Chooby!
    You miss me. You really miss me!

    Viole, I was unaware that you had asked me any questions, polite or otherwise. All I ever recall seeing were sarcastic riffs, parading as questions. As they have been mere excuses for the exercise of your wit, I have not seen any need to get involved.

    If you would actually like my opinion on some matter, do go ahead and ask.

  57. hermesten
    May 10th, 2006 @ 10:29 am

    Lily: “Scalia’s writings and public speeches all seem to point to someone who practices what he preaches.”

    Yeah, him an Bill Bennett. I got a good chuckle out of that one. Maybe you should read something about Scalia besides the latest puff piece in the Catholic Reporter –but, whatever. It’s still very amusing to see that after about 4,000 years of fairly well recorded political history you “think” that it’s “reasonable to assume the best” about a politician. It’s a good thing our founders weren’t so credulous. But hey, so what if history isn’t your forte? War is peace, right? Thanks, though, for revealing that your entire world-view is based on the same kind of feel good emotionalism required for your silly religion.

    Again Lily, I don’t think you’re stupid, but your constant self-puffery suggests you’re pretty insecure. I’d rate you as solidly above the average intellect. Unfortunately, potential intelligence isn’t everything. A skeptical person with a 110 IQ is probably much better for society than some credulous pointy-headed self-congratulatory liberal arts professor clocking in at 130. On the other hand, I’ve never met a truly intelligent person who is as quick as you are to brag about how smart she is, what her credentials are, what books she’s read, and how stupid everyone is who doesn’t see things the way she does. I used to have a very smart Catholic boss with advanced degrees. He was clearly smarter than most of the people around him. I never once heard him brag about how smart he was, or how well educated, or well read. I can’t recall ever hearing him say that someone he disagreed with was stupid. My current boss is also very smart, but a lot of people are fooled by his unpretentious manner, and it takes a while to realize just how smart he really is. And I somehow doubt that Einstein bragged about his credentials or spouted laundry lists of the books he’d purportedly read. Fortnunately, he wasn’t as impressed by what all the “great minds” of previous centuries had said about our physical universe as you are by what they’ve said about the metaphysical universe. “Aristotle” for Christ’s sake? Talk about pathetic.

    And about philosophy. The one common thread in your writing is this: you are truly a slut for authority. If Scalia, or Bush, or some old Greek geezer said it, why, it must be true, or at least worthwhile. Assuming your acquaintance with your laundry list of philosophers extends beyond the Cliff’s Notes, and I highly doubt you’ve read all you’ve cited with anything near the attention you suggest (because if you had, you couldn’t possibly be such an authority slut), who cares? This may well be very important knowledge if you’re teaching a course in philosophy or the history of philosophy, or perhaps even logic, but otherwise, you’re just jerking-off. Philosophy is just a means to an end. It’s primarily an excercise in thinking and intellectual discipline, and it’s clear from what you say here that this excercise is one you have most clearly failed to master. Knowing that Aristotle said this or Aquinas said that, is worthless outside the history class if it hasn’t improved your ability to think. And in your case, it clearly hasn’t. All you’ve done is find a bunch of old guys to do your thinking for you. It allows you to feel good because someone you think is smarter than you said something you agree with; and since this old dude was smarter than you, what you believe must therefore be true.

  58. Lily
    May 10th, 2006 @ 11:46 am

    That is the saddest thing I have ever read Hermesten. I pity you.

  59. Rob
    May 10th, 2006 @ 11:58 am

    Hermesten doesn’t need your pity. The Lord is infinitely pitiful so there isn’t much more you can add to that!

  60. Viole
    May 10th, 2006 @ 1:09 pm

    Dearest Lily,

    For someone who claims a superior understanding of the human condition, you sure don’t understand me. I freely admit to the sarcasm, but the post in question is clearly lacking by my usual standards. No, I think the problem here isn’t my somewhat warped sense of humor. You dealt with that readily enough before, and I suspect you’d be willing to forgive it now.

    No, the trouble is that I’ve disappointed you. Not only have I proved unwilling to subscribe to your opinions, I for some absurd reason insist on basing my posts on biblical interpretations that you’re convinced have been proven incorrect. The sarcasm is just an excuse. You’d ignore anyone here if they’d just give you a reason you could justify. After all, arguing with you isn’t good enough.

    So you’re left with what you’re convinced is hopeless debate, since I failed to fall in line as you desired. Which comes to why you keep arguing with Hermesten. Not because he’s saying something you consider valuable, but because he shares my opinion of the current state of affairs in the world. You’re still fighting that battle to save me.

    In a way, it’s kind of sweet.

    Yours,
    Viole

  61. hermesten
    May 10th, 2006 @ 2:18 pm

    Lily: “That is the saddest thing I have ever read Hermesten. I pity you.”

    Now that line brought a smile to my face. You made me feel like Luke Skywalker delivering the final blow to the Death Star. Guess I really struck a nerve.

  62. Lily
    May 10th, 2006 @ 4:18 pm

    Viole: You have restored my good humor so thoroughly that I am likely to make it through the rest of the week with nary a care in the world.

    While we have had our ups and downs and some funny moments (you assuring your forum buddies that you weren’t really interested in me has not yet been topped), I have no more interest in you than I have in any complete stranger.

    Theoretically, I hope that you and all the world’s people will be saved. In reality, I don’t think about you at any time except, briefly, when I see a post from you, usually begging for my attention. Because you are not interesting any more, I ignore you.

    Hermesten, on the other hand, is interesting to me as a species of lunatic. It took me awhile to realize that he wasn’t just a cranky individual. Is there such a thing as a left-wing militia? I imagine he belongs to it, if there is. He is probably out there right now stockpiling ammo, food and garlic in his secret bunker to protect himself from the coming war with the FUNDY NUTTERS. Poor fellow. He thinks himself a cynic who better understands the nature of reality than the rest of us mere mortals. He is mistaken, just as you are.

    But while I did, in a moment of weakness, respond to him I am still not interested in talking any further to either one of you. We none of us have anything new to say to one another.

  63. hermesten
    May 10th, 2006 @ 5:45 pm

    “Is there such a thing as a left-wing militia?”

    This is funny for a number of reasons, including the whole silly left/right paradigm the Limbaugh crowd uses to shut down disagreement, and the notion that I’m a lefty–though there is no shame in being a lefty, especially given the bunch of fascists now huddling under the “conservative” and “libertarian” umbrellas. However, from the strictly historical perspective, maybe the question should be, when it counts, is there such a thing as a right-wing militia? There are right-wing fascists, juntas, and police states, but when push came to shove in Nazi occupied Europe, it was the leftists and communists who actually fought the Nazis, not, for the most part, Christians and conservatives. There was virtually no right-wing militia type opposition to Hitler. The right loved Hitler, even in countries like France and Britain. Right-wing “militias,” like, say, the Contras, are usually fascist militias. Has there ever even been a right-wing militia outside the US that wasn’t actually a client or creation of the US? Most anti-fascist, anti-authoritarian revolutionary movements are left-wing in orientation. Liberation theology is a leftist movement. Conservatism is authoritarian by nature.

    “But while I did, in a moment of weakness, respond to him I am still not interested in talking any further to either one of you.”

    Any it’s obvious why. Mission accomplished. Luke, out.

  64. Thorngod
    May 11th, 2006 @ 10:28 am

    LILY, “Philosophy…a subset of theology….” Yes, as chemistry of alchemy, as astronomy of astrology. And the assumption you hazzarded as to my familiarity with the sages and seekers was a lightyear off. As to the authority of “conventional concepts,” I will quote a first-rate philosopher-mathematician-sociologist, Bertrand Russell: There are two sorts of opinions, those based on tradition and those that might have something going for them.
    –But I apologize if I seem to be kicking you while you’re down. You have so many picking on you, I feel like a member of a wolfpack!

  65. Lily
    May 11th, 2006 @ 12:11 pm

    Bertrand Russell was a fine mathematician but a lousy philosopher. So no, you don’t seem to be kicking me while I am down, since you are not kicking me and I am not down.

    Anyone who can write off the philosophers I mentioned as the equivalent of alchemists and astrologists is too ignorant to be admitted to any game I am playing.

  66. Thorngod
    May 11th, 2006 @ 12:37 pm

    Lily, that “write-off” comment was a diametrical distortion of my sound refutation of your argument. I did not refer to any of the personages you named as an alchemist or astrologer, though a few of the earlier thinkers certainly gave some credence to alchemy, since the art had not yet evolved into a science. My point was–and I do not believe it escaped you–that knowledge of reality advances, though only among those capable of accepting tradition-refuting facts. Yes, philosophy was an outgrowth of theology, and it came into its own when it shed theology’s dogmatic presupposition of the guy in the sky.

  67. Lily
    May 11th, 2006 @ 1:06 pm

    Thorn:
    I apologize for being curt but I have very little patience with the peculiar myopia one finds among Americans in general and atheists, at least the ones here at RA’s, and the young in particular. You cannot just write off the past. Some of the thought in various areas of human knowledge has been superceded but not all of it, not by a long shot

    Yes, knowledge does advance, especially in scientific areas. But what does “advance” mean in reference to literature? Art? Philosophy? And, as a matter of indisputable fact, those philosophers I named are still important not just historically but as philosophers.

    They are still read today not just by theologians and theologian wannabes, like me. They are read in every philosophy department in every western university in the world. (Not to mention in many history departments, political science, etc.) Much of what they have written still stands unchallenged to this day. Much of it is necessary preparation for understanding the work of later philosophers.

    The past is still with us. You ignore it at the risk of never having an inkling of the riches of your cultural heritage and never knowing most of what is worth knowing.

  68. Tenspace
    May 11th, 2006 @ 1:09 pm

    Quotes from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Just thought I’d share some words from the man Lily holds in such high regard.

    …our constitutional tradition, from the Declaration of Independence and the first inaugural address of Washington… down to the present day, has, with a few aberrations, see Church of Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892), ruled out of order government-sponsored endorsement of religion—even when no legal coercion is present, and indeed even when no ersatz, “peer-pressure” psycho-coercion is present—where the endorsement is sectarian, in the sense of specifying details upon which men and women who believe in a benevolent, omnipotent Creator and Ruler of the world are known to differ (for example, the divinity of Christ). – Lee vs Weisman, 1992

    “Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.”

    “Indeed, it seems to me that the more Christian a country is, the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral.” – First Things, May 2002

    “When God brings Noah through the flood to a new earth, He re-establishes the Dominion Mandate but now delegates to man the responsibility for governing other men in order to protect human life. He does this by instituting capital punishment – the backbone of civil government.” – America’s Providential History

    “The reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it, but the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible” – University of Chicago lecture, 2002

    “It’s conceded by the state of Texas that married couples can’t be regulated in their private sexual decisions,” says Smith. To which Scalia rejoins, “They may have conceded it, but I haven’t.”

    “Title VII does not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment in the workplace; it is directed only at ‘discriminat[ion]… because of… sex.’ We have never held that workplace harassment, even harassment between men and women, is automatically discrimination because of sex merely because the words used have sexual content or connotations.”

    It is a Constitution that morphs while you look at it like Plasticman…. That is contrary to our whole tradition, to “in God we trust” on the coins, to Thanksgiving proclamations, to (Congressional) chaplains, to tax exemption for places of worship, which has always existed in America.

    “Certainly one cannot ban cross burning in the sanctity of his bedroom.”

    “The government has room to scale back individual rights during wartime without violating the Constitution. The Constitution just sets minimums. Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires.”

  69. hermesten
    May 11th, 2006 @ 2:54 pm

    Thanks, Tenspace, I was too lazy to hunt down any quotes. Scalia is a Statist nutball, as these quotes show, but he’s a great Catholic.

    And to give the old lying Statist his due, the man does understand the Christian death cult, as quotes like these demonstrate: “Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.”; “Indeed, it seems to me that the more Christian a country is, the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral.” But I guess it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that a bunch of people whose primary religious symbol is of the world’s greatest man tortured to death and hanging from a cross, fetishsize death, and love to kill the “other.”

  70. Lily
    May 11th, 2006 @ 3:00 pm

    Very good, Tenspace. You cherry picked a bunch of quotes that don’t say very much out of context, but sure sound scary (some of them) and brought Hermesten right out of the woodwork, as I predicted to myself as soon as I saw your post. How about some attribution so that those of us who care enough can fill in the missing background?

  71. hermesten
    May 11th, 2006 @ 3:16 pm

    “The past is still with us. You ignore it at the risk of never having an inkling of the riches of your cultural heritage and never knowing most of what is worth knowing.”

    You may love the Stawman, but he’s not a good pimp. No one here objects to knowing the past. In fact, I have never read a single post by any atheist here that suggests anyone should ignore the past, or be ignorant of the past, or of any other thing that can be known, including religion. Most atheists are atheists partly because of what we know about the past; and the more we know the past, the less we want to live in it.

    What you may or may not know about the past is debateable. You certainly display no impressive knowledge in any field, much less history. As I’ve said before, you’re not dumb, but you’re clearly one of the most willfully ignorant people posting here –particularly when that ignorance comforts you by serving your prejudices. The one thing your posts here demonstrate with absolute clarity is that whatever historical facts may be at your command, you’ve learned nothing from them: they remain lifeless facts that you clutch to your trembling bosom like a protective talisman. It’s interesting how infrequently –if at all– your citations include women. Does little Lily want a big strong man to take care of her and tell her everything is going to be alright? Is that why you find intellectual thugs like Scalia and the Chimp so appealing? Is poor little Lily just a frightened little girl looking for a new daddy?

  72. hermesten
    May 11th, 2006 @ 3:24 pm

    Lily, you’re probably the only one posting here who hasn’t seen most of these Scalia quotes before, yet you’re the big Scalia fan. Go figure. Another perfect illustration of my previous post. Your entire life –as displayed here– your religion, your heroes, your political beliefs, are all carefully tailored for your personal comfort.

    Oh, and your ignorance is showing, once again, but I guess you’re used to it. From the Cambridge online dictionary:

    “come/crawl out of the woodwork

    to appear after being hidden or not active for a long time, especially in order to do something unpleasant ”

    I may have to take those “you’re not dumb” comments back afterall.

  73. Lily
    May 11th, 2006 @ 4:38 pm

    Sigh. You are so predictable, H. What is so scary is that you are not only completely humorless but you take everything dead literally. What makes you think I haven’t read those quotes many times over? Do you really not get that I am demanding attribution because I think Ten culled those quotes from some ridiculous lefty hate site?

    Try to understand this. I will type slowly:

    I don’t think
    he has read
    those quotes in context

    and this is my subtle way of calling attention to the need for everyone to do so before passing judgement.

    Crawl back into the woodwork you annoying cockroach. I am getting tired of swatting you. You are a hopeless case. I am sure that somewhere in your neighborhood are some fundies you could go threaten with one of your guns.

  74. Tenspace
    May 11th, 2006 @ 5:52 pm

    I spent quite some time reading those quotes in context. In fact, I ignored the plethora of anti-Scalia quotes at the liberal websites, and instead focused on his actual briefs and dissents, excepting those quotes that came from media sources like the NYT and Times/Guardian.

    You should know from our past interactions that I’m very thorough in my research.

    I intended to make a point by highlighting some of his more egregious statements. Posting anything he uttered would have diluted my point.

    I assure you these quotes are very contextual, and they reflect his worldview, which was my point.l

  75. hermesten
    May 11th, 2006 @ 6:08 pm

    Lily 73: “What makes you think I haven’t read those quotes many times over?”

    Lily70: “You cherry picked a bunch of quotes that don’t say very much out of context, but sure sound scary (some of them)…”
    Lily70: “How about some attribution so that those of us who care enough can fill in the missing background?”

    Ok, you didn’t read them before. You read quotes attributed to someone you admire that “sound scary” “many times” over but never bothered to make the effort yourself to “fill in the missing background.” Personally, I think you’re just a liar, and you’ve never read them before. A normal person, and certainly a morally responsible person, when confronted with something that “sounds scary” attributed to someone they admire, and support as a “first rate citizen” and “faithful practicing Catholic “, would attempt to find out if the quote accurately reflected the mindset of this “first rate citizen” –if for no other reason than to protect their own integrity, not lend their support to a scoundrel, and avoid looking foolish –but then, I guess you’re used to that. Of course, you’ve made it clear here that you’re not a morally responsible person. On the other hand, as I said before, and as your latest comments attest, you’re unlikely to check something that might undermine a set of beliefs so carefully tailored for your personal comfort.

    Lily 73: “I don’t think he has read those quotes in context and this is my subtle way of calling attention to the need for everyone to do so before passing judgement.”

    So then what shall we conclude about one who claims to have read these quotes many times over, yet remains uncertain of their context, and asks for attribution so she can “fill in the missing background?” The obvious and reasonable conclusion is that the person making such a claim is a liar, but then, maybe she’s just passing judgment without the facts. Either way, she’s a moral slug, and not even a good toady.

    Lily 62, to Viole, regarding Viole and hermesten: “But while I did, in a moment of weakness, respond to him I am still not interested in talking any further to either one of you. We none of us have anything new to say to one another.”

    Lily 73: “Sigh. You are so predictable, H. What is so scary is that you are not only completely humorless but you take everything dead literally. What makes you think I haven’t read those quotes many times over?”

    Ah, Lily, caught in another lie. Or perhaps just another public failure of self-discipline. Keep it comin’ Baby, you’re giving me that Luke Skywalker smile again.

  76. Tenspace
    May 11th, 2006 @ 6:29 pm

    Damn, I only provided attributions for the first several quotes. Guess I just got lazy. Trust me, Lily, the remainding quotes have valid attributions as well. Google is a wonderful tool if you would like their sources.

  77. Lily
    May 11th, 2006 @ 8:56 pm

    I hadn’t posted in a while and, I admit, I got soft and forgiving. Well, I am over it. Would that you could say the same of me.

    I have long thought that you are obsessed with me. You have made me the monster who represents everything you hate (which is most everybody– and every thing you don’t personally approve of.) I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that you look for me under your bed before you turn in at night.

    You hijack every single thread to which I contribute and spew your anti-Bush, anti-America, anti-Christians, anti-all-human beings-who-don’t-think-the-way-you-do crap over and over again. Can it really have escaped your notice that it is rare that any one joins you in those tirades, with the exception of Viole the Red? There is a reason for that.

    There isn’t much worth responding to in your latest lilyrant. But let’s see:

    You read quotes attributed to someone you admire that “sound scary” “many times” over but never bothered to make the effort yourself to “fill in the missing background.” Personally, I think you’re just a liar, and you’ve never read them before. Yes, I have read them dozens of times; the left has made them famous.

    So then what shall we conclude about one who claims to have read these quotes many times over, yet remains uncertain of their context, and asks for attribution so she can “fill in the missing background?”

    I did not asked for attribution so that “I” could find the source of those quotes. I asked for attribution so that “we” could. The obvious conclusion one comes to is that I expect that not everyone has read those quotes in context and am gently suggesting that they need to be so read before one decides whether they are really scary or not.

    But what is the use? I would get more intellectual honesty from a slug than I am going to get from you. You can’t even draw correct conclusions from obvious statements. It is no wonder that subtlety flies right over your head.

  78. Lily
    May 11th, 2006 @ 9:05 pm

    Ten: I guess your comment showed up while I was responding to Hermy. If you are interested, I will discuss those quotes with you.

    One of those subtleties which Hermy doesn’t get is that I can admire someone with whom I don’t 100% agree. (If I were mean, I would mention Bush in this context but that will send the old guy over the edge.) But I mostly agree with Scalia to the extent I have read or heard his views on jurisprudence, religion, etc.

    I mean, this thread has been so thoroughly hijacked, what does adding Scalia to the mix hurt? But we will have to pick it up in the morning. I have a date with my pillow…

  79. Viole
    May 11th, 2006 @ 9:32 pm

    Oh! Elbereth. There she goes again. And she still doesn’t get it. Some one, please tell me; am I really being that obscure?

    Probably.

    Sorry, Lily, but I haven’t found the patience to respond, today. Maybe in the morning.

    Oh, yeah; Bush is a fascist monkey who should be impeached. And I’m only saying that because I hate America.

  80. hermesten
    May 11th, 2006 @ 11:46 pm

    Is the Death Star exploding or imploding, it’s hard to tell. It’s funny though, whatever is happening.

    First, for the sake of humor, let me repeat a previous Lilyism:

    Lily 62, to Viole, regarding Viole and hermesten: “But while I did, in a moment of weakness, respond to him I am still not interested in talking any further to either one of you. We none of us have anything new to say to one another.”

    That makes the next comment all the more hilarious, and certainly the sweeter:

    Lily 76: “I hadn’t posted in a while and, I admit, I got soft and forgiving. Well, I am over it. ”

    And it just keeps getting better. You can’t make this stuff up.

    Lily78 to Hermesten: “I have long thought that you are obsessed with me.”

    Ah, love, unrequited, robs her of her rest. Love, hopeless love, her ardent soul encumbers. Love, nightmare like, lies heavy on her chest, and weaves itself into her midnight slumbers! And here I thought “Viole the Red” was the only one who had to worry (Does that mean she considers you a Native American, a warrior hero, or a commie?). Ah, Viole, don’t you long for the superior wit of Joe McCarthy?

    Lily 78: “I did not asked for attribution so that “I” could find the source of those quotes. I asked for attribution so that “we” could. ”

    The royal “we.” But does “we” not include “I”? Ah, but it’s so like Lily, thinking of everybody but herself. Her lordly style we shall not quench, with base canaille! (That word is French.)

    Lily78: ‘You have made me the monster who represents everything you hate (which is most everybody– and every thing you don’t personally approve of.”

    Oh, my dearest Lily: when you’re lying awake with a dismal headache and respose is taboo’d by anxiety, I connceive you may use any language you choose to indulge in, without impropriety.

    Please don’t stop now Baby, keep it comin’. There is nothing more entertaining than disintegration, and you’ve got ole’ Luke grinning like a Cheshire cat.

  81. markm
    May 13th, 2006 @ 11:48 am

    “Yes, iron age men saw God in simple and, in modern understanding, brutal terms.” Quite true. Compared to most gods of 2,000 PC, Jehovah 1.0 was something of a pussy. He didn’t even require you to sacrifice your children.

  82. Devil's Rejects
    May 15th, 2006 @ 1:46 am

    I could only take the first handful of comments, but I have a question for you nonbelievers: why bother trying to reason with the fairy tale followers when reasoning is the antithesis of faith? This back and forth can be exasperating to read.

  83. Devil's Rejects
    May 15th, 2006 @ 1:46 am

    I could only take the first handful of comments, but I have a question for you nonbelievers: why bother trying to reason with the fairy tale followers when reasoning is the antithesis of faith? This back and forth can be exasperating to read.

  84. Devil's Rejects
    May 15th, 2006 @ 1:46 am

    I could only take the first handful of comments, but I have a question for you nonbelievers: why bother trying to reason with the fairy tale followers when reasoning is the antithesis of faith? This back and forth can be exasperating to read.

  • 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