How New Testament Fundi Christians Bless Atheists, Roman Catholics And Others

Maybe I'm missing something. Is it wrong to profit from owning land where there's oil? Or is it only wrong for Native Americans but not for white Texans?

But today you do work and vote to make Christian morals obligatory. Except communism.Jesus's don't-be-a-prostitute agenda had nothing to do with government, nor was it obligatory. It was merely a voluntary condition to be a follower of Jesus and (later) a member of the Apostles' Church.Nowadays a good Christian will of course vote to make it illegal. But of course he won't vote to make communism compulsory. Indeed, he will not voluntarily turn his own church into a communist society.

Wow, that's a broad brush. And an enormous straw man.But I thought that you were yourself a member of the secular left, or at least member of the secular more-left-than-Buzsaw. As such, as the guy who used to post here as Nemesis Juggernaut, you must know very well why the thing you quoted is nonsense. It's not that we "have no idea what to make of those same quotations", and it's not that we "can't fathom why people today would make religious faith an essential part of their everyday lives".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, stop me if I'm wrong, but I thought that you were to the left of, for example, Buzsaw.I don't call myself a "leftist", but I bet he would. No it isn't.It says that "the secular left" don't understand this.Suppose that I said that "the religious right" don't understand why priests shouldn't sodomize choirboys.Then you call me on this, and I say "It's obviously a reference to those who cannot differentiate or those who refuse to".But that is not an excuse for a generalization.If I say: "Such-and-such a thing is true of this group" and then when I'm called on this say: "oh, except the exceptions", then what does this tell you except that I am a lazy stupid bigot?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This is probably the stupidest argument on the whole internet.If someone says that Jews eat babies in their secret religious rituals, then if I am a Jew and I do not eat babies, then according to you there is no reason why I should protest. It "should be of no consequence to me".Therefore, I cannot legitimately protest against any libel against the group that I belong to, because it should be "of no consequence to me" if it was false. I would only have a reason to protest against it if it was true.Ony a Jew who eats babies should be concerned enough to say: "Jews don't eat babies".The only good reason I'd have to point out that I don't fit your stereotype is if I actually do.Wow, you've got me coming and going. Either that or you're an idiot.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Ask Buzsaw.

Well, I keep on seeing people on the internet saying (in effect): "You wouldn't be annoyed at what I'm saying about you if it wasn't true."And I think that despite our differences, you and I have some things in common, and we should both be against that particular psychotic line of reasoning.Because if we go down that particular rabbit-hole it doesn't even matter what we say to one another.

Oh, I've read "downwind faster than the wind". It's a subtle point. And it's got nothing on "If you weren't a child molester you wouldn't object to me saying that you molest children".Or, to put it another way: "If that does not encompass you then it should be of no consequence to you."Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.