Is it possible for a liberal to be a Christian?

Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Is it possible for a liberal to be a Christian?

IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A LIBERAL TO BE A CHRISTIAN?

Absolutely not. Consistently liberalism is Atheism. Now of course, they can be part of a liberal church that claims that they are Christian in order to justify their conscious from their sins. "Churches" like Episcopalians, United Methodists, Crystal Cathedral, etc. But they are extremely inconsistent and are not Christians, they are pagans. 

Remember in the 2008 election, when American called the democrats on their virtues. The democrats got stuck. Many of them attacked people that asked about virtues, and then they either made some up, or stole them from the Christians in the GOP. It was very amazing and funny how they did that.

Because consistently, Liberals have no values, morals, or ethics. They have no truth, and hate the truth. They want to run the government, so that it will both justify and allow for the rights of the wicked to do their wicked things.

Now look, a democrat can be a Christian, but this is DESPITE being a democrat, not because of it. This would mean that the democrat is an inconsistent democrat. ALL consistent democrats are pagans, hate God, and evil to the bone.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:IS IT

Jean Chauvin wrote:

IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A LIBERAL TO BE A CHRISTIAN?

Absolutely not. Consistently liberalism is Atheism. Now of course, they can be part of a liberal church that claims that they are Christian in order to justify their conscious from their sins. "Churches" like Episcopalians, United Methodists, Crystal Cathedral, etc. But they are extremely inconsistent and are not Christians, they are pagans. 

Remember in the 2008 election, when American called the democrats on their virtues. The democrats got stuck. Many of them attacked people that asked about virtues, and then they either made some up, or stole them from the Christians in the GOP. It was very amazing and funny how they did that.

Because consistently, Liberals have no values, morals, or ethics. They have no truth, and hate the truth. They want to run the government, so that it will both justify and allow for the rights of the wicked to do their wicked things.

Now look, a democrat can be a Christian, but this is DESPITE being a democrat, not because of it. This would mean that the democrat is an inconsistent democrat. ALL consistent democrats are pagans, hate God, and evil to the bone.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I guess this would depend on what you call a christian, what you see as a christian would obviously be different than mine.  So shouldn't the real question be is it possible for a liberal to be able to go to heaven?  I am asking it this way to myself if you are are similar in view to a calvanist?  Predestination?  I believe it is possible for a liberal to call themselves a christian obviously but what a christian is may be very subjective and based on ones perception.  Now I must point out the bible is not a good reference point because I believe it is simply a tool to be used to control man by other men so extremely fallible and suspect.  I understand that in many ways language can be interpreted in many viewpoints so I am just clarifyng. 

 

Respectfully

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, but this is just

Sorry, but this is just spamming. You have like 6 threads going and you just got here.

Pick a thread, and pick someone you'd like to debate with. If you ask the mods, you can have a one-on-one thread.

You like Ubuntu ? Talk to him then. We'll see how far you get.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Sorry, but

Anonymouse wrote:

Sorry, but this is just spamming. You have like 6 threads going and you just got here.

Pick a thread, and pick someone you'd like to debate with. If you ask the mods, you can have a one-on-one thread.

You like Ubuntu ? Talk to him then. We'll see how far you get.

He's trying to participate in all the threads and he's giving us something to talk about so I'm ok with it.  Spam isn't the word you were looking for...

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Nasty liberals.  What would

Nasty liberals.  What would you like to give up that liberals brought you?

40 hour work weeks?  (In the US anyway, less in France - lucky French)

Time and a half for overtime?

Health insurance?

Paid vacations?

Paid sick leave?

Social Security? - come on, you know you want to support all your old relatives - how many people are related to you who are receiving Social Security (or the equivalent in your area)?

Unemployment compensation?

Or are you a trust fund baby and you have enough money of your own to pay for everything out of pocket?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Now we know why Hitler was

Now we know why Hitler was such a shining example of the Christian faith.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Liberalism is Atheism ?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A LIBERAL TO BE A CHRISTIAN?

Absolutely not. Consistently liberalism is Atheism. Now of course, they can be part of a liberal church that claims that they are Christian in order to justify their conscious from their sins. "Churches" like Episcopalians, United Methodists, Crystal Cathedral, etc. But they are extremely inconsistent and are not Christians, they are pagans. 

Remember in the 2008 election, when American called the democrats on their virtues. The democrats got stuck. Many of them attacked people that asked about virtues, and then they either made some up, or stole them from the Christians in the GOP. It was very amazing and funny how they did that.

Because consistently, Liberals have no values, morals, or ethics. They have no truth, and hate the truth. They want to run the government, so that it will both justify and allow for the rights of the wicked to do their wicked things.

Now look, a democrat can be a Christian, but this is DESPITE being a democrat, not because of it. This would mean that the democrat is an inconsistent democrat. ALL consistent democrats are pagans, hate God, and evil to the bone.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I notice that you mention several faiths, that would identify themselves as "REAL" or "TRUE" Christians as pagans. Would you mind explaining to me why you would classify, say, the United Methodists, as pagans ? The definitions of pagans are very many, but the most common defintion that I am aware of as a pagan, would be a polytheist, or someone that holds the belief of multiple deities. Are you using the term pagan in that same context ?

I would like to point out that not every Atheist would identify themselves as a liberal. Although I consider myself an Independent, the closest thing that I have ever been able to identify with, has been the Libertarian Party. (I am not in total agreement with EVERYTHING that they espouse, but that would be the closest I could come to identifying with). On most issues I tend to be like this. When it comes to money and government spending, I lean in the direction of the conservatives, when it comes to social issues, I am totally liberal. By your definitions, I am sure that you would claim that makes me a liberal and an Atheist Liberal at that. Which probably has some accuracy to that.

However, what about the more liberalistic aspects of Christianity or should I say, the more liberalistic attitudes of Jesus (i.e. turn the other cheek, him without sin cast the first stone, forgiveness, love thy neighbor ) in some of his teachings ? Now me personally, I am not one of those people that believes in the existence of Jesus, I am not one of those people that believes that the teachings of Jesus were all that good either. The teachings of Jesus seemed filled with alot of contradictions and alot of ideas that I would not find useful or relevant for a moral compass. But, how do you, as a self-identified christian, explain or justify the more liberalistic teachings of Jesus ? If I have the definition of what most "Christians" use to identify themselves as Christians, it would be their belief in Christ and his contradictory teachings. As someone who believes the Bible is the sacred word of a God, how do you explain the contradictions of Jesus and determine that the Christian faith is not compatible with liberalism ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Let me reverse your

 

Let me reverse your thesis. Is it possible for a conservative to be an atheist?

 

The answer has to be yes. I am.

 

Do you think that I should pay more taxes? Tell me why.

 

Do we need to build a bridge somewhere? Fine. Do we need to make sure that a homeless shelter can pay the rent? Fine. Just don't tell me that I have to pay more money for unstated “programs”. That is the same as taking my money because the government would like to have more money to spend.

 

Don't get me wrong here. My employer is a government funded program. Your taxes pay my rent. However, the money is going for something specific. A while back when the Bush tax cut happened, people were pissed off because that money could have been spent on stuff.

 

Well, stuff is good. If I have more money in my pocket, I can buy more stuff. If I have less money, then the government can buy more stuff. However, the government should not be collecting money so that they can do whatever.

 

Let's say that there is a huge flood somewhere. A few thousand people are homeless. The red cross has to feed them and the national guard has to make sure that they don't steal whatever is left from each other. Well, having enough money in a contingency fund to cover that is not a bad idea.

 

If it happens near me, I have no problem sending in 20 pans of baked ziti. If it is farther away,for the I can make lots of garbage bags of random clothing. Hell's bells but I have been sending stuff to Haiti for the past half a year. Every time that I do, my employer takes a cash hit. Really, that is not a big deal. People should help people.

 

I use the flood example because three years ago, my office was destroyed by the once in a hundred years flood. The red cross and the national guard did what they are there for. So I personally know that the government needs a bit of extra cash.

 

The thing is that the government is already taking a quarter of my income and they can deal with stuff that comes up. Yet fucking liberals want a third of my money. They don't think that they need to say what they want it for. They just want it.

 

Here is an idea for a program:

 

Let's look at the cash that Obama has spent because banks are too big to be allowed to fail. We can take money from Joe the plumber and give it directly to the banks. Or we can give Joe the plumber money so that he can pay off his business loan and the mortgage on his house. Heck but he can replace his fleet vehicles that are 15 years old. Make all of that spending mandatory if you want your share of the money.

 

Do it my way and the banks still get the cash. Car companies get the cash. American wealth get's a huge shot in the arm. Obama's way, the banks get the cash and everyone remains in debt.

 

Either way, we still have to figure out how to pay for that. Do you think that doubling the wealth in America might actually help the tax base?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
ANSWERS

ANSWERS,

Quote:
I guess this would depend on what you call a christian, what you see as a christian would obviously be different than mine.  So shouldn't the real question be is it possible for a liberal to be able to go to heaven?  I am asking it this way to myself if you are are similar in view to a calvanist?  Predestination?  I believe it is possible for a liberal to call themselves a christian obviously but what a christian is may be very subjective and based on ones perception.  Now I must point out the bible is not a good reference point because I believe it is simply a tool to be used to control man by other men so extremely fallible and suspect.  I understand that in many ways language can be interpreted in many viewpoints so I am just clarifyng.

A Christian is one that is obedient to God's mandates via His Word. Very general, but very true. I can give you specifics if you'd like.

Since Liberalism is disobedience to God's mandates, then logically it contradicts Christianity and is non-Christian. And thus, it is impossible for anybody to go to heaven, unless it is through the mandates of Scripture (John 14:6).

Calling yourself a Christian does not logically equate you a Christian. Profession does not equate possession. The Bible is a way to control people. Absolutely. As a Christian, I am BOUND by Christ's righteousness. However, you as an atheists is also controlled by your desires. And these desires were determined before the foundation of the world.

So we are both controlled. I'm controlled in Christ's righteousness, you're controlled in your own evil desires. Fun huh?

____________________________________

Hi annonMouse,

Relax. I'm a nice person. I'm sure you will come to like me as the days go by.

__________________________________

Hi Cj,

It was actually the Christian Protestant Reformation that brought us Capitalism and the Middle Class. Those things are hated by liberals, logically, this is what you would expect since liberals are the enemies of Christianity. It's all logical and it flows beautifully.

_________________________________

Hi JCG,

Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics are pagans. They eat their Jesus and their Jesus turns into poop. That is a different Jesus then the Bible.

_________________________________

Hi HarleySportster,

Sure, in any given system of logical thought, you have two classes.

Essentials

Non-Essentials

The Essentials must ALL be held in order for that system to be. The non-essentials are those things that are negotiable, and you don't need to hold on to.

The United Methodist Church denies more then one essential. Since they do this, they are logically not of the system since the system is defined by its essentials.

Quote:
I would like to point out that not every Atheist would identify themselves as a liberal.

Of course not. That's because many atheists are inconsistent. BUT, if you apply the system of atheism consistently, they all lead to liberalism. Many atheists are inconsistent because their family is a Christian, and they still have presuppositional fleas on their backs they can't shake off.

Quote:
However, what about the more liberalistic aspects of Christianity or should I say, the more liberalistic attitudes of Jesus (i.e. turn the other cheek, him without sin cast the first stone, forgiveness, love thy neighbor ) in some of his teachings ? Now me personally, I am not one of those people that believes in the existence of Jesus, I am not one of those people that believes that the teachings of Jesus were all that good either. The teachings of Jesus seemed filled with alot of contradictions and alot of ideas that I would not find useful or relevant for a moral compass. But, how do you, as a self-identified christian, explain or justify the more liberalistic teachings of Jesus ? If I have the definition of what most "Christians" use to identify themselves as Christians, it would be their belief in Christ and his contradictory teachings. As someone who believes the Bible is the sacred word of a God, how do you explain the contradictions of Jesus and determine that the Christian faith is not compatible with liberalism ?

Seems and does are two separate issues. But the Quest for the Historical Jesus is a logical fallacy. They tried to find a Jesus that was separate from the theology of Jesus. They failed. They then move to the "Jesus Seminar" whom I've debated one member. They now have a rainbow bible. It's involved, so I could post a separate thread about this and discuss it if you'd like.

____________________________________

Hi Answers In Genesis,

You're a comedian aren't you? Is this your profession?

It is impossible for a conservative to be an atheist because a conservative has values and morals. Since this is only possible via a normative, and since atheists have no normatives, this makes it logically impossible.

I do not think you should pay more taxes. That was a liberal notion via President Theo. It was issues 100 years ago in article 1:9. Taxes is the result of atheism.

Bridges and things are find, but I would recommend this via the private sector. More on that later if needed.

Liberals want ALL of your money. Look at FDR. He was very consistent in his atheistic liberalism. So then, become a Christian so you can justify the means to get your money back.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

ANSWERS,

Quote:
I guess this would depend on what you call a christian, what you see as a christian would obviously be different than mine.  So shouldn't the real question be is it possible for a liberal to be able to go to heaven?  I am asking it this way to myself if you are are similar in view to a calvanist?  Predestination?  I believe it is possible for a liberal to call themselves a christian obviously but what a christian is may be very subjective and based on ones perception.  Now I must point out the bible is not a good reference point because I believe it is simply a tool to be used to control man by other men so extremely fallible and suspect.  I understand that in many ways language can be interpreted in many viewpoints so I am just clarifyng.

A Christian is one that is obedient to God's mandates via His Word. Very general, but very true. I can give you specifics if you'd like.

Since Liberalism is disobedience to God's mandates, then logically it contradicts Christianity and is non-Christian. And thus, it is impossible for anybody to go to heaven, unless it is through the mandates of Scripture (John 14:6).

Calling yourself a Christian does not logically equate you a Christian. Profession does not equate possession. The Bible is a way to control people. Absolutely. As a Christian, I am BOUND by Christ's righteousness. However, you as an atheists is also controlled by your desires. And these desires were determined before the foundation of the world.

So we are both controlled. I'm controlled in Christ's righteousness, you're controlled in your own evil desires. Fun huh?

First of all I am not an athiest, SURPRISE!! :P  nor am I a christian wouldn't want to be Smiling Now I am not obedient to God I walk with God as God intended, You are only assuming (you do that a lot you knowSmiling) that you know God's mandates, God's wishes.  I personally think any and all organised religion is a farce and that an individuals relationship with God is exactly that, church interjects itself in between and dictates what God's wishes are to the man in the attempt to control them.  God doesn't want to control us God gave us free will so therefore inherently free.  Since you are BOUND by Christs rigteousness I consider you a sheeple and you have given away the greatest gift ever given, free will and you are the poorer for it.  I am not controlled but by me, no one else and by the way just to point out evil is a viewpoint and I consider when you are dictating to others what God's wishes are you are committing the worst of evils, but that is my perception so be that as it may I will not impose my will upon you but I do get to tell you my opinion. 

 

Have a good 'un Smiling

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


El-ahrairah
atheist
El-ahrairah's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2010-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:It was

Jean Chauvin wrote:

It was actually the Christian Protestant Reformation that brought us Capitalism and the Middle Class. Those things are hated by liberals, logically, this is what you would expect since liberals are the enemies of Christianity. It's all logical and it flows beautifully.

No. The origins of capitalism have nothing to do with the Protestant Reformation and everything to do with the rejection of mercantilism.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics are pagans. They eat their Jesus and their Jesus turns into poop. That is a different Jesus then the Bible.

You do realize that without the RCC Christianity would never have existed, and you wouldn't even have the Bible that you use today (which is really just an altered version of the Vulgate, which is a Latin translation of a Greek translation of the original Hebrew)? I may like rock music, but that doesn't mean that I hate anybody who listens to blues.

"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
answers in gene simmons

answers in gene simmons wrote:

Is it possible for a conservative to be an atheist?

 

The answer has to be yes. I am.

Jean wrote:

It is impossible for a conservative to be an atheist 

Once again you have illustrated...

One must act ignorant, dishonest, or both when defending belief in a god. 

 

Answers in Gene Simmons is a conservative, we've had this discussion before.  Whether you choose to portray reality honestly is up to you.  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
If Jesus was A- Real, and B-

If Jesus was A- Real, and B- Alive today.... Nothing in the New testament would lead anyone with any sensibility to believe that he'd be a Republican, let alone a "conservative"...

For instance, I don't understand how Christians don't scream for socialized health care... I dont recall jesus ever charging for healing the sick in those fairy tales.... So that would be a Liberal sensibility....

Christians tend to align themselves with conservatives over the abortion issue...  but the disregard for human life that political conservatives consistantly exhibit (ie wars, death penalty)  far outweighs that....

Its my experience that "christians" all too often use "conservative" values to rationalize hate, bigotry, and in most cases, the inability to come to terms with their homosexuality.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:It is

Jean Chauvin wrote:
It is impossible for a conservative to be an atheist because a conservative has values and morals. Since this is only possible via a normative, and since atheists have no normatives, this makes it logically impossible.

Hahaha! *reality smashes into religion at 200 km an hour*

What about me? I consider myself a moderate libertarian. Do you think that is possible or do you think I'm a comedian too?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi ButterBattle

Hi ButterBattle,

I was actually being serious. I like O'Hair's quote and I think it applies to more then agnosticism. A moderate libertarian is really a liberal with no guts. There's no such thing as "moderate." Either you're moderately pregnant or you're pregnant? Um, It's black and white. Moderates like to see the gray in ethics, which is a logical fallacy to excuse their wishy washyness.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
The lady we rent our house

The lady we rent our house from is a christian and liberal too. Why is your baby jesus so picky? Gah, does he only love the stupid ones?

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Rebecca

Hi Rebecca,

Before I respond, are you a Satanist? Do you know Michael W. Ford? He's nuts. I ask because of the blood on you. Anyway, I will now respond my satanist friend.

First off, your statement in the end is absurd, and non-rational. Perhaps because you've done so many black masses, you can't help it, I don't know. But if your landlord says she's a Christian and a liberal, then logically she is INCONSISTENT.

And that would mean, that she PROFESSES to be a Christian, but does not possess the attributes of what a Christianity is. I could say I'm a satanist, but that would hardly make me a satanists. If I worshiped Jesus, and said I'm a Christian and a Satanist, that would be absurd and inconsistent. The exact same thing applies to your landlord.

So Mote It Be!!!

Hail Jesus!!!

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Rebecca,

Before I respond, are you a Satanist? Do you know Michael W. Ford? He's nuts. I ask because of the blood on you. Anyway, I will now respond my satanist friend.

First off, your statement in the end is absurd, and non-rational. Perhaps because you've done so many black masses, you can't help it, I don't know. But if your landlord says she's a Christian and a liberal, then logically she is INCONSISTENT.

And that would mean, that she PROFESSES to be a Christian, but does not possess the attributes of what a Christianity is. I could say I'm a satanist, but that would hardly make me a satanists. If I worshiped Jesus, and said I'm a Christian and a Satanist, that would be absurd and inconsistent. The exact same thing applies to your landlord.

So Mote It Be!!!

Hail Jesus!!!

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Let me translate for young Jean.

"Oh Rebecca, your counterexample totally kicked my ass! I have no choice but to slander and insult you because I can't back up my assertions!"

If you worship Jesus, you've bought into Paul's lie - deal with it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi JCG

JCG,

Oh relax. What's wrong with a little bit if comedy. Christians tend to be the funniest of the crowd. Perhaps if I knew you, I'd buy you a six pack of beer. And I did answer her question did I not? Perhaps you don't like the answer, so you are giving me smack. That's a good one.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:JCG,Oh

Jean Chauvin wrote:

JCG,

Oh relax. What's wrong with a little bit if comedy. Christians tend to be the funniest of the crowd. Perhaps if I knew you, I'd buy you a six pack of beer. And I did answer her question did I not? Perhaps you don't like the answer, so you are giving me smack. That's a good one.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Not a thing wrong with comedy. Your stuff isn't funny.I did find it interesting that you resorted to ad homs after calling out others on them.

Gave me an insight into your character.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi JCG

Hello,

Ad homs are only invalid if they are not true. Truth, makes them valid. But in the area of comedy, logic leaves the room.

Respectfully

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Rebecca,

Before I respond, are you a Satanist? Do you know Michael W. Ford? He's nuts. I ask because of the blood on you. Anyway, I will now respond my satanist friend.

First off, your statement in the end is absurd, and non-rational. Perhaps because you've done so many black masses, you can't help it, I don't know. But if your landlord says she's a Christian and a liberal, then logically she is INCONSISTENT.

And that would mean, that she PROFESSES to be a Christian, but does not possess the attributes of what a Christianity is. I could say I'm a satanist, but that would hardly make me a satanists. If I worshiped Jesus, and said I'm a Christian and a Satanist, that would be absurd and inconsistent. The exact same thing applies to your landlord.

So Mote It Be!!!

Hail Jesus!!!

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Oh there's some logic lol. I'm atheist. I don't believe in god or satan, duh.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
rebecca.williamson

rebecca.williamson wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Rebecca,

Before I respond, are you a Satanist? Do you know Michael W. Ford? He's nuts. I ask because of the blood on you. Anyway, I will now respond my satanist friend.

First off, your statement in the end is absurd, and non-rational. Perhaps because you've done so many black masses, you can't help it, I don't know. But if your landlord says she's a Christian and a liberal, then logically she is INCONSISTENT.

And that would mean, that she PROFESSES to be a Christian, but does not possess the attributes of what a Christianity is. I could say I'm a satanist, but that would hardly make me a satanists. If I worshiped Jesus, and said I'm a Christian and a Satanist, that would be absurd and inconsistent. The exact same thing applies to your landlord.

So Mote It Be!!!

Hail Jesus!!!

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Oh there's some logic lol. I'm atheist. I don't believe in god or satan, duh.

 

He thought he had absolute knowledge, but pissed against wind.

 


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
It's just the same babble as

It's just the same babble as the rest of them. The one's who actually make any sense at all don't have these types of arguments with us. I really have a low tolerance for ignorance and the ignorance is just oozing left and right. These questions of how we know it's wrong to kill our families and bullshit is just rediculous. I don't have to know this god character to be able to control the urge that I don't even have to kill my family.

So becausd he doesn't understand and can't fathom a life without christ he makes stupid comments like that? Rediculous! How do you use a word like logic when you don't even know what it is? Gah!!!!!!

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Rebecca

Hi Rebecca,

Actually, LaVey style satanism is atheistic. You become an animal and go nuts. So the question was valid.

Also, secular feminists like yourself tend to be the most emotional. It is harder for a woman to be logic, just by their nature. This is not a slam on woman, just how God made them.

So you may have to try harder. I'm available for free tutoring on here. Ask and you shall receive.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 rebecca.williamson wrote:

 

rebecca.williamson wrote:

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Hi Rebecca,

 

Before I respond, are you a Satanist?

 

 

Oh there's some logic lol. I'm atheist. I don't believe in god or satan, duh.

 

Doh!

 

You just played his game.

 

I have seen enough of his work to know that he is aware of much stuff that most people are not. So you missed what he did there.

 

The fact is that the ancient goat herders did not believe in Satan. They believed in “devils” but that was on par with the Greco-Roman “Daemons” or the Shinto “Death Gods”. They did not believe that there was one guy who was in charge of all bad things.

 

The whole idea of there being one dude who is in charge of evil was invented by the RC crowd around CE 1300 or so. As such, it is basically not possible to believe in Satan until you believe that god is real. So yah, if you don't do the god thing, then you can't do the Satan thing.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Poe   

Poe

 

 

 


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Rebecca,

Actually, LaVey style satanism is atheistic. You become an animal and go nuts. So the question was valid.

Also, secular feminists like yourself tend to be the most emotional. It is harder for a woman to be logic, just by their nature. This is not a slam on woman, just how God made them.

So you may have to try harder. I'm available for free tutoring on here. Ask and you shall receive.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Did you seriously think you were going to get anywhere here? You don't have a clue as to what you are going on about. I will explain again, I DON'T BELIEVE IN A GOD THEREFOR I DON'T BELIEVE IN SATAN. Got it this time?

Also, try carm.com and take alook at how christian women get butt hurt because some atheist dusagrees with them. They get all huffy and tell them "don't talk to me because I wasn't even talking to you". My only problem is beinv made out to be evil just because I don't believe in god.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Yeah I know. I should ignore

Yeah I know. I should ignore this mindless babble but it's just so irritating.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mmmm

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Poe

 

I thought so, too. He gets such pleasure out of rolling it all out. But he is very consistent for a Poe. Remember how Billy Bob used to slip from time to time. If Jean shows himself it's in a certain delight in the extremes of his position.

If he is a Poe he's operating very much 'in character'. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:
It is harder for a woman to be logic, just by their nature.

Ooohh, ouch. You got burned, women.

I'm sorry. I can't take you seriously anymore.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi ButterBattle,

I was actually being serious.

I don't know if you are serious. But, I think you're funny either way.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
A moderate libertarian is really a liberal with no guts.

Okay, just libertarian then. Is it logically possible for an atheist to be a libertarian? *giggle*

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

What is it with this poe? Do you think I"m the mascot for the Baltimore Ravens? Perhaps I am? Who knows when one is an empiricist. In the words of the Rational Response Squad against Kirk and Ray Comfort after that horrible debate.

I, I feel so bad. for a moment I felt bad for them for losing so badly. But you know what, I can't help being honest. I mean, I'm an honest person.

Of course, that was a paraphrase. Pretty funny stuff.

The problem Kirk and Ray Comfort had, was that they used atheistic arguments (empiricism) and then tried to defend Christianity, with that same pagan attempt at knowing

Via the teleological argument, which is 100% fallacious and empirical. You really don't know it is even a picture. You see a bunch of paint, not knowing what it is, but you can't compute via empirical interpretation that it is even a painting, since empiricists are so fragments.

Aquinas made this radically fallacious argument, and then many centuries later, William Paley picked up on the teleological argument with the watch and added his own spice. But it's still non-sense. In the same way it is logically full of fallacies with pagan atheists, it is still just as full of logical fallacies with untrained Christians in the arts and science of logic.

That was the first thing they did wrong. A huge first thing.

The second thing they did wrong, was regarding rhetoric. Very disorganized

The third thing they did wrong, was regarding evil. The atheists actually made some good points.

I would have to say the atheists won, if I am going to be objective about this. They picked on two Christians like Curly and Mo. I've met Ray Comfort and even preached on apologetics in his church on more then one occasion in Bellflower, California. This was a long time ago. I'm not sure if they still have the same church, across the street from a restaurant where you can throw peanuts on the floor.

Ray and Kirk should have come and listened to me, if they would have done this, then would have won the debate. Though I thought it was pretty creepy and funny how the red head girl argued for the defense of a transnational world, or a one world new world order. But this is what you would expect to find from an atheist.

China is nothing more then atheism with legs, however, that atheist has a gun and kills whomever, since there are no laws. This is why the occult is so appealing to so many atheists, because they think they are not accountable. And of course.

Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law

Love under will, love under law (book of thelma IV)

This is Satanism. And a Satanist and an atheist walk into a bar, and hug. They are essentially one and the same on a philosophical level.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I've made this point before obliquely, Jean,

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

What is it with this poe? Do you think I"m the mascot for the Baltimore Ravens? Perhaps I am? Who knows when one is an empiricist. In the words of the Rational Response Squad against Kirk and Ray Comfort after that horrible debate.

I, I feel so bad. for a moment I felt bad for them for losing so badly. But you know what, I can't help being honest. I mean, I'm an honest person.

Of course, that was a paraphrase. Pretty funny stuff.

The problem Kirk and Ray Comfort had, was that they used atheistic arguments (empiricism) and then tried to defend Christianity, with that same pagan attempt at knowing

Via the teleological argument, which is 100% fallacious and empirical. You really don't know it is even a picture. You see a bunch of paint, not knowing what it is, but you can't compute via empirical interpretation that it is even a painting, since empiricists are so fragments.

Aquinas made this radically fallacious argument, and then many centuries later, William Paley picked up on the teleological argument with the watch and added his own spice. But it's still non-sense. In the same way it is logically full of fallacies with pagan atheists, it is still just as full of logical fallacies with untrained Christians in the arts and science of logic.

That was the first thing they did wrong. A huge first thing.

The second thing they did wrong, was regarding rhetoric. Very disorganized

The third thing they did wrong, was regarding evil. The atheists actually made some good points.

I would have to say the atheists won, if I am going to be objective about this. They picked on two Christians like Curly and Mo. I've met Ray Comfort and even preached on apologetics in his church on more then one occasion in Bellflower, California. This was a long time ago. I'm not sure if they still have the same church, across the street from a restaurant where you can throw peanuts on the floor.

Ray and Kirk should have come and listened to me, if they would have done this, then would have won the debate. Though I thought it was pretty creepy and funny how the red head girl argued for the defense of a transnational world, or a one world new world order. But this is what you would expect to find from an atheist.

China is nothing more then atheism with legs, however, that atheist has a gun and kills whomever, since there are no laws. This is why the occult is so appealing to so many atheists, because they think they are not accountable. And of course.

Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law

Love under will, love under law (book of thelma IV)

This is Satanism. And a Satanist and an atheist walk into a bar, and hug. They are essentially one and the same on a philosophical level.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

But I may as well say it. Outside of the merry-go-round argument of your eternal reference point, you spray assertions and assumptions and flat out crazy shit like it's grapeshot.

Nevertheless, you are a funny bastard, with your warm asides. There must be some sort of droll humour lurking under all this improbable guff. You drive logic like a dune buggy.

 

P.S. A Poe is a person who seems to conform to Poe's Law...

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello Extremeist

Hello Extremeist,

You said I wasn't funny before. Now you say I am. You know what they say:

Quote:
Liars Go To Hell

The interesting thing about fundamentalism that you may not know, is that when you describe it, you must qualify it. You see, in the early 20th century, there were fundamentalist, and I would be of their Caliber. The concept of the term changed around the mid 20th century. It now means a belief without reason. The word is now regarding those who believe and purposely believe without reason, since they hate reason.

This has crept in the Churches across the country. Especially those TBN Pentecostal churches. I'm sure you've heard it. 18 inches from the head to the heart. The mind is being attacked in place of feelings. I hear this all the time from Christians, and many of them get upset with me. To use my mind and to think via logic to them is non-Biblical.

Quote:
They believe Jesus was some wimp (you've seen the picture) A Fabio Jesus with long hair from San Francisco who quietly knocks on their door, very softly, and purrs like a kitten, with a soft whisper, saying: "please, pretty please, can I come in your heat. I promise to be good. I'm crying out here. Please let me come in, it's cold outside.

The Biblical Jesus is NOT Fabio. Thinking and logic and reason are the central core means of the faith. For Christ was the Logos of God. Christ was the LOGIC of God (John 1:1, 1:14).

The Biblical Jesus would not knock, but throw you. He would not ask, but tell you. He would tell you to GO TO HELL if that's where you were going.

The Biblical Jesus was tough. He was not a member of the Pussy Cat Dolls. He made whips and whipped at people. Probably very muscular and ugly in appearance. He was a man's man. He was actually not a carpenter, but technically a Construction Worker, according to Josephus.

So the point I'm making is simple. Christianity by nature is logical. And you don't like it because it is so opposite. It's like me having tea with my Mother-In Law, it simply won't happen. It's completely antithetical.

And by the way, I do not argue via an eternal reference point, but rather an infinite reference point This is a play on words with Sarte's (an Existential Atheist) finite reference point. Eternity deals with time/change and immutability, infinite deals with the ontology of Being in reference to "boundaries." God is without boundaries in that sense. But you could say Eternal also, it is logically included. I like to say Infinite because it ticks off my Existentialist friends in the crowd.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:I would

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I would have to say the atheists won, if I am going to be objective about this. 

It's been a while since you said something accurate, congrats.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:So you

Jean Chauvin wrote:

So you may have to try harder. I'm available for free tutoring on here. Ask and you shall receive.

Jean Chauvin's School of Logic and Debate

 

Offering FREE classes for a limited time only. Don't miss the WONDERFUL opportunity to learn from the master. In this class you will learn to 

1. Randomly accuse your opponents of logical fallacies

2. Talk down to your opponent

3. Accuse your opponent of calling you names while calling them names

4. Mangle the English language

5. Write thousands of words without accidentally being logical even once.

6. Make naked assertions and pretend they came from some deep logical thought process

 

Sign up today, and you too can be pompous and condescending.

 

Bible Harness is required for class and is not included. Bible harnesses can be purchased from Beyond Saving for only 5 LOW payments of $200 plus $5.95 shipping and handling. Some assembly required.

 

 

Bible Harness does not come with a warranty and no returns are accepted. "Some assembly required" means make it your damn self. Beyond Saving Enterprises does not endorse Jean Chauvin's classes and is not liable for any embarrassment resulting from implementing Jean Chauvin's debate techniques. All opinions expressed in Jean Chauvin's School of Logic and Debate are solely the views of Jean Chauvin and do not reflect the views of Beyond Saving, Beyond Saving Enterprises or its employees.  

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
And since I've gotten into

And since I've gotten into all ths crap, I'll answer your original question. Liberals can't be christians like you said, since there is no god. How you like them apples buddy?

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Double post. Sorry

Double post. Sorry


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:The

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The Biblical Jesus would not knock, but throw you. He would not ask, but tell you. He would tell you to GO TO HELL if that's where you were going.

Yep. That's why he said all that stuff about turning the other cheek, and taking care of the weak and less-privileged. If he were around today, he'd drink Budweiser, and not any of that Light shit either, and especially none of that namby-pamby pussified craft beer that has actual flavor. He'd watch football on Sundays. He'd talk about sports while digging ditches using big fuck-off machinery. He'd greet people saying things like, "Hey, motherfucker, how was your weekend?" or, "Did you catch the game? That last-minute TD in the first half was fuckin' sweet!"

A *man's* man.

Quote:

So the point I'm making is simple. Christianity by nature is logical. And you don't like it because it is so opposite. It's like me having tea with my Mother-In Law, it simply won't happen. It's completely antithetical.

You know who else was logical? Mr. Spock. Therefore, being a Trekian and worshiping Vulcans is logical.

Was it logical for Christ to curse the olive tree just because it pissed him off, or knock over a bunch of tables in anger? Hardly. Spock would never do such a thing. Spock is far too logical for that. Ergo, Trekianity is far more logical than Christianity.

Quote:

And by the way, I do not argue via an eternal reference point, but rather an infinite reference point This is a play on words with Sarte's (an Existential Atheist) finite reference point. Eternity deals with time/change and immutability, infinite deals with the ontology of Being in reference to "boundaries." God is without boundaries in that sense. But you could say Eternal also, it is logically included. I like to say Infinite because it ticks off my Existentialist friends in the crowd.

How does an infinite reference point work? In which way is it infinite (how is it without boundaries)? What is its orthogonality?

You like to piss people, respectfully? How is that in any way respectful?

I'm not sure you really have a good grasp of what you're talking about. If so, you really need to work on precise and accurate communication.

And Sartre was a wanker. Like most philosophers. And especially people who think philosophy trumps reality.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Jean

Beyond Saving wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

So you may have to try harder. I'm available for free tutoring on here. Ask and you shall receive.

Jean Chauvin's School of Logic and Debate

 

Offering FREE classes for a limited time only. Don't miss the WONDERFUL opportunity to learn from the master. In this class you will learn to 

1. Randomly accuse your opponents of logical fallacies

2. Talk down to your opponent

3. Accuse your opponent of calling you names while calling them names

4. Mangle the English language

5. Write thousands of words without accidentally being logical even once.

6. Make naked assertions and pretend they came from some deep logical thought process

 

Sign up today, and you too can be pompous and condescending.

 

Bible Harness is required for class and is not included. Bible harnesses can be purchased from Beyond Saving for only 5 LOW payments of $200 plus $5.95 shipping and handling. Some assembly required.

 

 

Bible Harness does not come with a warranty and no returns are accepted. "Some assembly required" means make it your damn self. Beyond Saving Enterprises does not endorse Jean Chauvin's classes and is not liable for any embarrassment resulting from implementing Jean Chauvin's debate techniques. All opinions expressed in Jean Chauvin's School of Logic and Debate are solely the views of Jean Chauvin and do not reflect the views of Beyond Saving, Beyond Saving Enterprises or its employees.  

 

 

AND IF YOU ACT NOW WILL SEND YOU A FREE JAR OF EAR WAX AND A YEAR'S SUPPLY OF NAVEL LINT

We now return you to Faux News and Glen Beck

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:He was a

Jean Chauvin wrote:
He was a man's man. He was actually not a carpenter, but technically a Construction Worker, according to Josephus.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Oops the Jesus fan might get

Oops the Jesus fan might get cooties from gays. You know because you posted that picture he will magically turn gay and his dick will fall off. Jesus doesn't like gays, or haven't you read Leviticus. Oh, and he hates Red Lobster too.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Oops the Jesus

Brian37 wrote:
Oops the Jesus fan might get cooties from gays. You know because you posted that picture he will magically turn gay and his dick will fall off. Jesus doesn't like gays, or haven't you read Leviticus.

Actually, "construction worker" guy was one of the straight village people, so he's safe.

 

(Btw, try a mac if you're having pc virus trouble. *hugs powerbook*)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Brian37

Anonymouse wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Oops the Jesus fan might get cooties from gays. You know because you posted that picture he will magically turn gay and his dick will fall off. Jesus doesn't like gays, or haven't you read Leviticus.

Actually, "construction worker" guy was one of the straight village people, so he's safe.

 

(Btw, try a mac if you're having pc virus trouble. *hugs powerbook*)

I intend to someday.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
What?

WWWhat?

I know you guys have your minds in the gutter, being atheists and all, but perhaps we can get back to the arguments. Brian was suppose to open up a can of whoopass I was told, but I got everything except the whoop part.

Come on, that's a good one.

Now let's argue.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Gasp!!! Jean said ass! Real

Gasp!!! Jean said ass! Real christians don't say ass! They say gludious maximus.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:WWWhat?I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

WWWhat?

I know you guys have your minds in the gutter, being atheists and all, but perhaps we can get back to the arguments. Brian was suppose to open up a can of whoopass I was told, but I got everything except the whoop part.

Come on, that's a good one.

Now let's argue.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Argue? You have yet to meet the claim in your sig.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:
WWWhat?

Did you just read one of your own posts ?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Come on, that's a good one.

Thanks.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Now let's argue.

About what ? You're a few replies short of a full thread.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

WWWhat?

I know you guys have your minds in the gutter, being atheists and all, but perhaps we can get back to the arguments. Brian was suppose to open up a can of whoopass I was told, but I got everything except the whoop part.

Come on, that's a good one.

Now let's argue.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

See? You just posted on your other of many threads that uou aren't our enemy. Just a spiritual enemy. We have our minds in the gutter, being atheists and all? What in the fuck kind of question is that? Because we are atheists, we have our minds in the gutter? Theres really no other way to reorganize that statement. Well if you want to go that route then here. I know you think your shit don't stink, You've at least knce in your life thought of improperly touching a little boys privates, you more than likely beat your wife and the only use you have for her was to continue your family name but you really wanted it to be a boy cuz girls don't carry on family names, men do. The list could go on with my thoughts on christians yet this is the first time I've even bothered. You want to stop with the cut downs? I could do this all damn day. I'm on xanex right now and you annoy me that bad. Does that help you to understand? You've been a jerk off!!!

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Quick question

It's rather difficult to keep up with all these different threads on  similiar subjects (hehehe) but I do have a couple of questions.

 

Jean, from what I can tell thus far, your definition of a Christian is decidedly anti-liberal. Your definition of the Catholic Church, the Methodist Church, the Episcopalian Church, the Presbyterian Church has been that they are pagan branches of Christianity and thus not true Christians. (This sorta reminds me of the One True Scotsman Fallacy) . Now granted, as an Atheist, I do find the Catholic, Methodist, Baptists and all the others to be pretty ridiculous. But is there a particular church that endorses your brand of Calvinist belief ? Is there a particular church that you call yourself a member of ?

Calvinism, if I am not mistaken, was a belief system shared by the Puritan settlers of this country, right ? What would your opinions, as a Calvinist, be on the Salem Witch Trials ? Were those people innocent of witchcraft  ? Was it God's will in your eyes that they all hang ? Was it a by-product of religious hysteria and why ? Could we fault Calvinist principle and superstition for such an event taking place ? If you believe in the Devil, was it the Devil that orchestrated the entire Salem event or the Devil via Cotton Mather ?

If everything is truly pre-destined, couldn't that mean that I would have had no more control over being born an Atheist than you would be born a Calvinist ? Wouldn't the notion of pre-determined Heaven or Hell be a frighteningly cruel one ?

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
re: thread title

All too easily...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)