Top 10 signs you're a fundamentalist Christian

[LiberalPartisan]

I found this on Craigslist - apologies if it has been posted here before but it gave me a chuckle...:)

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

[Union Thug]

1. add one more: You are clinically insane.

[Sherman A1]

2. Priceless

Thanks, I am going to copy and save this one for a few fundie types......

[liberalmuse]

3. Absolutely dead on!

On the average, the atheist I speak with know more about Christianity than the Christians I've met do.

[muntrv]

4. AMEN!!!!

[Double T]

5. ....and another........

You carry a crucifix in one hand and a weapon in the other.

[swimboy]

6. and you think sex and violence should be kept off television

and out of the cinema, because there isn't any of that in the Bible

[ThomCat]

7. I get to be the 5th recommendation!

Yeah!
This is an awesome list. :rofl:

[silverweb]

8. All too true!

This is definitely a keeper.

[Ringo84]

9. Extreme stupidity is a good indication

Good list. But to be fair, belief in the Trinity doesn't mean belief in three gods. It's belief in God as three persons.
Ringo

[Poll_Blind]

10. Number 1 is all too damned true! (as well as the rest) LOL! n/t

PB

[calmblueocean]

11. I wonder what the Christians here feel when they read this.

I'm not in any way saying it shouldn't be posted -- this is DU, and BushCo has used the Christian faith as a political weapon for many years. Sometimes you just have to get a few things off your chest. I understand why this sort of thing gets posted so often.

But I read stuff like this, and I remember that there are a lot of good Christian people I know, people who believe in economic justice, helping the poor and taking care of our environment, people who even believe their religion shouldn't determine their political views because America isn't a theocracy... I know that they would read this and feel the hate it embodies. I know that they would read this and feel like maybe there's no place for them here, and maybe no place in our party. And when some talk radio demagogue tells them that liberals hate Christians, they might even think back to reading a post like this, and say, "Well, I've seen a little of that."

I don't think that's true. I think there's a small number of us who feel that way, and a large number of us who are exasperated with how we've been literally demonized by the Christian Right for the past few decades, but would accept and embrace Christians personally, and not look down on them for believing in a personal savior.

I'm not so much interested in hearing why some think Christian-bashing is appropriate, but I'd really like to hear what the Christians here think when they read articles like this on a liberal board. Does it make you feel like you don't belong here, or do you chalk it up to a few people blowing off steam? Do you feel that articles like these challenge your faith, or do you see them as annoyances you simply blow off? Does it make a difference in how often you visit DU?

[lvx35]

12. As a person of faith

with a lot of respect for Christian traditions and interfaith work (though I'm not Christian) its all a matter of of whether a post is attacking a topic or political action (like trying to have creationism taught in schools) or faith itself. I don't find the former offensive, but the latter I do. The difference is that political actions, like trying to get the state to ban gay marriage, are everybody's business. On the other hand somebody's individual beliefs are protected by the constitution, and really nobody's business...Yet when individual beliefs are attacked on political forums, they also become everybody's business, via the attacker, and its annoying and divisive.

edit: regarding the post above, I find it mostly funny, except maybe 2, because prayer is just about inner peace for most....but then again the fundies are not "most" - I have head the actually pray for the outcome of football games! :)

[Maat]

107. O.K. I confess ... I do pray quite a bit at Charger games.

Only a Charger fan would truly understand why. HeeHee.

On edit:
I'm a believer, and I giggled when I read the list; of course, I'm also a dedicated member of A.U. (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) and a dedicated foe of the actions of the Hardright Fundamentalists.

[SPKrazy]

13. " maybe no place in our party"

no

As a Christian I know that there are more people who are Christians in the Democratic party than there are that aren't.

This is DU

and I'm not a fundie so the sentiments of the OP are not related to me or my beliefs

I've seen them umpteen times and really just laugh at them

but in no way do I feel that there isn't a place in the democratic party for a Christian

[Patchuli]

18. It shows the division in the dem party

that there can be such bigotry. sigh...

[Zhade]

29. Where, exactly, is the "bigotry" in the OP?

All those bullet points are pretty much dead-on. Is describing fundamentalist beliefs now considered bigotry?

Yes, the list mocks fundie beliefs. IMHO, these beliefs are worthy of being mocked. And there's no rule that says beliefs are off-limits. All are expected to allow people the right to have beliefs; none are required to respect the beliefs themselves.

If the OP advocated, say, hating fundies for BEING fundies, then THAT would be bigotry. Criticizing - even vociferously attacking - beliefs is NOT bigotry.

If it were, every DUer who criticized Falwell's version of Christianity, or Muslim terrorists' version(s) of Islam, would be guilty of bigotry, and that's obviously not the case.

[Patchuli]

38. I don't believe

I said that the OP was bigoted and for the record, I disagree with pretty much most of those 'fundie' points. I do however, feel there is a bigotry towards Christians these days because of a contingency that is extremely far right and radical and like to wear Jesus like some kind of badge. I resent the hijacking of my faith.

I did see some bigotry in posts answering the OP, however and it is hurtful. You can like that or not, but I would not make fun of the beliefs of someone who worships trees and goddesses even though I don't agree with them. I don't think Democrats need these divisions right now either. Church and state should be separate. If the GOP hadn't used fundies like they have, it would not even be an issue.

[Raster]

14. Quite frankly, I don't believe this is the board the fundies would visit.

Too much thought and analysis. Fundamentalists discard both.

[Iowa]

16. Good question - and I'll be blunt...

Karl Rove would love the OP.

RW political hacks masquerading as fundie "pastors" are deserving of all the contempt anyone can muster. And anyone dumb enough to follow their lead into the political arena is also fair game.

The original post, however, goes further in that it ridicules the tenets of some faiths and reinforces the right-wing lie that the Democratic party is the party of religious intolerance. Furthermore, the OP is an oversimplified, "Readers Digest", Archie Bunker type of summation intended to be witty, but falling flat because whoever wrote it lacks the knowledge and the finesse to pull it off. It takes a special skill, that the writer lacks, to make bigotry funny.

Attacking the dangerous, intolerant, hate-filled political agenda of the religious right is a noble undertaking. It is an important battle of good vs. evil that will require the efforts of a great many "real" Christians to win, and the ultimate destiny of the progressive agenda may very well hinge upon the outcome.

Religious faith is a private matter of the heart. Ridiculing the tenets of the faith of any person or group undermines the efforts of the "real" Christians vs. the phony Christians. Irregardless, religious intolerance isn't something progressives should be pushing.

[trotsky]

22. Please explain to me what kind of "tolerance" we are supposed to show...

...for people who want religious dogma taught in science classes to explain the origin of life? Or who want abortion and birth control to be illegal? Or who want the 10 commandments posted everywhere, and Christian prayers at every public function?

How do we, as a pluralistic society, "tolerate" the demands of people like that?

[Iowa]

26. Wrong question...

Your question doesn't track with what I was saying. But since you asked, I'll reply to your question:

--You DON'T tolerate religious dogma taught in science classes.
--You DON'T tolerate posting the 10 commandments everywhere.
--You DON'T tolerate Christian prayers at every public function.
--You DON'T tolerate theocracy in ANY form.

All of this goes without saying.

The issue here is that the OP included comments that were gratuitous attacks upon the tenets (as opposed to the politics) of some faiths. The offending portion of the post was a bumbling, crass, ham-handed attempt to ridicule matters having to do with personal, private faith - and most who replied to this thread didn't even see it - it went right over their heads. Those who swallowed the OP whole don't seem to understand that the Democratic party is comprised primarily of Christians. If we don't have the good sense to strike at the religious right with surgical precision, we end up slashing at our own troops and thereby assist the religious right.

Witty comments designed to lampoon religion have a place, but they are best left to those with skill, knowledge of the subject, and finesse. Clods who attempt it usually bungle it. This is one of those times. Karl Rove would love the OP.

[trotsky]

27. You don't quite get it, do you?

Tolerant Democratic Christians are highly unlikely to believe any of the "tenets" in the OP. You are worried and fretting and lecturing about offending a group of people who A) are almost certainly not here reading it, and B) would never consider voting for a tolerant, open-minded Democrat anyway, no matter WHAT was posted here.

But hey, go on blaming the tiny secular left and the "clods" who attempt to make light of fundamentalist religion. That's so much easier than analyzing why it is your faith is so easily corrupted into right-wing politics!

[Iowa]

47. Wrong again...

"Tolerant Democratic Christians are highly unlikely to believe any of the "tenets" in the OP."

The OP ridicules belief in the resurrection and the ascension (among other things). Almost ALL Christians believe those tenets. I'll name just one - John Kerry. Oh hell, why not mention one more - Howard Dean. And another - Richard Gephardt. And another - Al Sharpton. And another - Al Gore. All of these people are "tolerant Democratic Christians" - and all believe in some of the tenets that are ridiculed in the OP - tenets like the resurrection and the ascension.

"...would never consider voting for a tolerant, open-minded Democrat anyway..."

What in the hell are you talking about? The Dem candidates THEMSELVES believe those tenets. Almost every Christian believes them. You don't think any Christian who believes in the resurrection and the ascension would ever vote for a Dem? You don't think the Dem candidates vote for themselves?

"...analyzing why it is your faith is so easily corrupted into right-wing politics!"

Do you not get it that the Dem candidates themselves believe in the faith you say is "so easily corrupted into right-wing politics"? I don't know how to make it any clearer. You are ridiculing some of the basic tenets of the faiths of the Dem candidates themselves (like the resurrection and the ascension). And you just don't see the contradiction. This is why I believe that comments designed to lampoon religion are best left to those with at least a rudimentary understanding of the subject and the ability to pay attention to details. They are far less likely to overlook the elephant in the room.

[trotsky]

48. I'm not sure you could miss the point much more than you did.

The OP ridicules belief in the resurrection and the ascension

No, it doesn't. It ridicules someone who believes in those things AND mocks or disrespects similar myths present in other religions. Do yourself a favor before you make yourself look even less informed - go back and read it again very carefully. And take off your "I'm a persecuted Christian" goggles before you do, mmkay?

The Dem candidates THEMSELVES believe those tenets.

Not in the way they are phrased in the list. Again, your reading comprehension - in particular the ability to intrepret according to CONTEXT - is sorely lacking.

Do you not get it that the Dem candidates themselves believe in the faith you say is "so easily corrupted into right-wing politics"?

Sure they do. But once again, it's not their faith that's being mocked. It's the intolerant, inflexible, fundamentalist viewpoint that rejects any other position as having some kind of merit.

Do YOU know any Democrats who espouse that view?

[Iowa]

49. Alright, I'll wrap this up...

"Not in the way they are phrased in the list. Again, your reading comprehension - in particular the ability to interpret according to CONTEXT - is sorely lacking."

There's nothing quite like watching someone yammering about something they simply don't get. It's like watching Gilda Radner's character, Emily Litella, on Saturday Night Live. Based upon the brash manner in which you charge headlong into matters you know very little about, I suspect that you're too young to remember that skit - but maybe you've seen it on re-runs. At least Emily had the good sense to grin and say, "never-mind", when she realized her predicament.

"Context". What are you trying to pull here? This isn't about "context". Any fourth grader can see through that simplistic, superficial excuse. The following two comments in the OP belittle and ridicule the tenets of the faith of a great many Dems in ANY context. The fact that you can't see it is evidence that you are (for lack of a better phrase) tone-deaf:

1) "...you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky."


2) "...some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity."

You just can't see it. It goes right over your head. You don't understand that when one presumes to characterize the values or beliefs of any group to which he/she does not belong, especially when it comes to matters of race, creed, sex, national origin, etc., it requires a certain finesse. You clearly don't get that. And even if you did, you'd screw it up because you are (for lack of a better phrase) tone deaf. Anyone who cannot grasp (even after it is pointed out to them) how the two characterizations above might be construed as ridicule of the religious beliefs/practices of many progressive Dems is like a bull in a china shop. But you don't give a rip. Other Dems might find your comments to be obnoxious, they might want to disassociate themselves from you, they might be left trying to explain away the blunders you make ("this guy doesn't speak for us... please understand that every large group has its crackpots") - but you don't care. Because you're always right. You have it all figured out. For every one who thinks like you, there are hundreds who don't, but they're all idiots. Yeah, our side has them too.

And another thing... YOU are not the judge of whether a characterization of a creed to which you do not belong is offensive or not. What matters is how those who are actually lampooned feel about it. Some progressive Christian Dems on DU took offense. But you don't care. Screw them! You know better. But here's the deal: When it comes to lampooning a creed to which you don't belong, nobody gives a rip whether you think it is offensive or not. But you don't get that. It goes right over your head.

"...similar myths present in other religions."

Ah, now these are YOUR words - not the OP's. Referring to the resurrection and the ascension as "myths" is condescending to those of the Christian faith and would turn off many Christian Dems, especially when uttered in a political arena. Again, you appear to be completely tone deaf. You're a blunder waiting to happen. No polish, no sensitivity, no finesse... and you don't give a damn. The rest of us are left to clean up your gaffes while you remain completely oblivious - because you're RIGHT! Granted, most Dems would probably just write such remarks off as the ramblings of a crackpot. Nevertheless, Dems who make such comments about the faith of other Dems serve our enemies ("See... they think your faith is a fairy tale. They think you're idiots.") You help their cause and hurt ours when you ridicule the beliefs of our candidates and most of our rank and file as "myths". I suggest you knock it off and you refuse. So there it is. And that's where it will remain.

In a previous post you claimed: "Tolerant Democratic Christians are highly unlikely to believe any of the "tenets" in the OP." Yet the OP included this remark: "...some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity." What you obviously don't know is there are many Catholics and Protestants who participate in practices typically viewed to be the purview of some of the Pentecostal religions. And many of them are Dems. You obviously don't know that. I know several of these people. Furthermore, you can't even grasp how this comment in the OP could be considered offensive! That's why comments designed to lampoon religion are best left to those with at least a rudimentary understanding of the subject (preferably members of the religion) and a bit of finesse. A progressive Christian would have tweaked the OP and probably would have pulled it off.

And take off your "I'm a persecuted Christian" goggles before you do, mmkay?

Why would you think I was being "persecuted"? All I'm saying is that it is dumb to create rifts, for no good reason, and based upon matters of personal faith that have nothing to do with public policy. I'm posting on a Dem board, supporting a Democratic agenda, and voting/donating/working for political candidates who are both Dem and Christian - just like me. Furthermore, most Dems are Christian - just like me. I am in the MAJORITY. Do you not get that? The religious right is pushing the notion that Christians are being persecuted and such nonsense is ridiculous on its face and we shouldn't be repeating it here. Furthermore, I'm saying that I want religion OUT of politics. Yet you insist upon bringing it in by seeking gratuitous fights about religion. You appear to be so blinded by your anger toward the Christian right that you are unable to distinguish between the Christian right, and all the Christians who stand with you as Dems on matters of public policy - people like John Kerry, Jimmy Carter, Howard Dean, Richard Gephardt, Al Sharpton, Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich, Ted Kennedy, John Conyers, most Dems, me, and all the other DUers who are Christian... The inability to distinguish between your allies who are Christian (and who want religion out of politics), and your enemies who are Christian (and who want a theocracy) is not only an intellectual blunder, but a strategic one that diverts energy from the important issues of freedom and economic security that we all face. I'm suggesting that you knock it off. You refuse. And that's where it will remain.

By the way, you might want to reconsider using the word "mmkay". It comes across as rather petulant, and some might consider it to be a little effeminate. It isn't a big deal, really, but I'd nix it if I were you.

[trotsky]

65. "Wrap it up"??

How, by further displaying your inability to read and understand the original piece?

1) "...you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky."

Hey, just wait a gosh darned minute. What are those three little periods in front of that quote? Hmm, oh I know! They have a fancy-pantsy name.... Oh yeah! They're an ellipsis! They indicate that part of the quote is intentionally omitted! Now why would you want to intentionally omit something? Let's see what you omitted:

You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but...

Oh my! That DOES change the focus of the statement, doesn't it? The first part of this list item actually sets it up to specifically refer ONLY to people who mock elements in other religions that are present in their own! No wonder you left that part out - it utterly destroys the point you were trying to make! I wonder if that's the same with your next beef:

2) "...some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity."

Now what was left out here? Oh I see, it's:

While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise

A-ha! Again, specifically referring to the science-hating fundamentalist. None of the tolerant, liberal believers that I have known dismiss the findings of science when it comes to the age of the earth, or the origin of humans, or any of that. Once again we see your inability to read in context to discover the true meaning of a statement. Or perhaps it was your intention all along? Trying to put on an air of intellectual and spiritual superiority, taking statements out of context to try and blame the non-religious for failures by the political Christian left?

Referring to the resurrection and the ascension as "myths" is condescending to those of the Christian faith and would turn off many Christian Dems, especially when uttered in a political arena.

Really? Why should they? Dictionary.com lists the primary definition of "myth" as:

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society

How is that demeaning? Or more to the point, how is it an inappropriate word to use? As a matter of fact, most theologians I have read are quite comfortable referring to many biblical stories as myths. So who has the problem here?

The inability to distinguish between your allies who are Christian (and who want religion out of politics), and your enemies who are Christian (and who want a theocracy) is not only an intellectual blunder, but a strategic one that diverts energy from the important issues of freedom and economic security that we all face.

Might I suggest you take a good long look at your own efforts here, blaming the clearly inferior (to you, at least) non-theists for the lack of political traction of the religious left? The non-religious vote Democratic in huge proportions. We are not YOUR enemy. Yet you expect us to remain silent if we cannot be reverent toward your sacred beliefs. Every Democratic candidate for major office invokes the name of god in public speeches. Every last Democratic Senator got up on the Capitol steps with Republicans to loudly recite the Pledge of Allegiance with "UNDER GOD" specifically emphasized, with "Onward Christian Soldiers" playing in the background! Where is the respect for the non-religious? Why aren't you concerned about scaring US away? Because we're a minority, and don't matter? Just how "Christian" is that kind of thinking? How do you feel you can so vehemently DEMAND special treatment for YOUR beliefs, but believe that thoughts and ideas of the non-religious should be censored? Is the basis for your double-standard truly just a case of numbers? You're Christians, you're the majority, so the rest of us should sit down and shut up?

Anyway, here you are, left only with your self-righteous indignation at out-of-context quotes that you were absolutely determined to use to try and bash the non-religious for supposedly scaring Christians away from the Democratic Party.

I'm glad we could "wrap this up." Unless you'd like to continue, and further embarrass yourself?

[Evoman]

109. I dub thee, The Grand Pwner!

PWNED!

[Goblinmonger]

103. mmkay

It is a pop-culture reference to South Park. You really didn't get it?

But the best part about your post that is defending Christianity, is that, in a great Christian moment, you called trotsky a sissy-boy fag for using the term "mmkay." OK, in your defense, you didn't use those exact mouth-breathing redneck words, you opted for "effeminate," but the ability to use 25-cent words does not less of a bigot make. Is that what your savior would have done?

[Zhade]

111. "some might consider it to be a little effeminate"

You say that like it's a bad thing. Ever wonder if YOU might be offending queer liberals like myself when you say things like that?

Probably not, seeing as how you were too 'wrapped up' in 'defeating' (:rofl:) trotsky's cogent argument.

Didn't your savior allegedly say something about the log in your own eye?

[beam me up scottie]

112. Judging from the homophobic comment,

the poster appears to have a log in some other part of his anatomy.

[beam me up scottie]

53. Forget it, trotsky. DUers can't criticize and/or mock anything from now on

New rule.

We can't afford to offend any of our own.

Has something to do with hypocrisy, glass houses and honesty, I think.

And even though some christians think they are the only "real" ones, we're not supposed to acknowledge the christian supremacy inherent in such statements, either.

[SPKrazy]

55. No BMUS, You Can Do And Say What You Want

but remember that there are DU'ers who are Christians and obviously some take offense to the OP

myself, I thought the whole thing was at best mildly amusing

I did see it as nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to try to get something started here (and I should know since I'm pretty good at getting things started here)

This thread has been here for a while and I guess it keeps getting kicked up by someone wandering in and seeing it.

[beam me up scottie]

58. No, obviously I CAN'T say what I want.

I can't discuss how I feel about religion without being attacked and accused and eventually having my posts deleted.

And the hypocrisy demonstrated in this forum by some DU christians who happily offend OTHER groups by mocking them is priceless.

Any one of you who mocks any other group or belief while crying persecution is a hypocrite.

And that label also fits the christians who think they are the only "real" ones.

[SPKrazy]

59. Hey, My Posts Have Been Deleted Too

so don't think it's unique to you

I've been "warned" as well here on this forum

[beam me up scottie]

61. Then why are you arguing with me?

I bristle when I'm told that we offend liberal christians because we poke fun at fundies, criticize religion or in some cases, are honest enough to post our thoughts on religion.

Like I said before, for every allegedly offensive post in this forum, ten more weren't posted because we don't want to offend believers, be attacked or have our posts deleted.

That poster doesn't HAVE to lecture trotsky about what's offensive, we've had it beaten into us enough times to know almost EVERYTHING we think about religion is offensive, and we heavily self censor our posts before they ever hit this page.

[SPKrazy]

63. Well I Guess I Agree With That Poster

over Trotsky

it isn't about you

but if you feel you have to get in there and say your posts get deleted I'm just saying my posts get deleted too BMUS

[beam me up scottie]

64. Oh, so this is about one-upping the atheists.

Instead of the hypocrisy of some christians who cry foul whenever they're offended by something on DU.

Got it.

[SPKrazy]

66. No, It's About Agreeing With The Poster

instead of and over Trotsky

read more into it if you want to

[beam me up scottie]

68. Okay then, we agree.

We all have the right to agree or disagree with other posters.
:)

[SPKrazy]

70. Of Course

how else could it be

I can't delete posts I don't like

I can alert (I rarely do unless it is something really out there IMO, and rarely on the R/T forum, usually in GD when I see something crazy, like citing a paleoconservative fascist as a source because he is anti war, and is basically using the same language as neonazis use)

or if someone says something directly about me that is insulting (not just about my beliefs)

So, I read posts I like and don't like, and I respond to them for better or worse.

Peace

B-)

[beam me up scottie]

75. I will say this,

you had the honesty and the guts to admit your hypocrisy when it comes to mormons.

And I also admire the fact that you are struggling with it, not many people are willing to confront or even admit their own personal prejudice.

[SPKrazy]

77. Thanks

although I won't say it is really a virtuous thing for me to deal with it

dealing with it is better than the alternative, which is to let people I can't stand ruin my life and live in my brain rent free.

[beam me up scottie]

79. I can relate.

I feel the same way about freepers.

The past six years have been extremely detrimental to the mental health of most liberals.

I so very rarely HATE anyone, but since * and his cabal were installed, I've given up on trying to take the high road.

[SPKrazy]

81. Well, Yeah, Freepers Are Hard To Take

I try to avoid them as much as possible

which means that I probably isolate myself too much since I'M SURROUNDED BY FREEPERS!

[beam me up scottie]

84. Me too.

That's why I joined DU.

I figured I might as well find something positive to do while waiting for the villagers to come up the hill with their torches and pitchforks.

[SPKrazy]

85. LOL

I hear ya

The only good news I have is that the number of W04 bumper stickers seems to have decreased significantly

although once in a while you still see a brand new vehicle with one of those stickers, or those "W The pResident", I call them Wastikas.

I guess they still give out W04 stickers for new vehicles?

[beam me up scottie]

86. There's a guy down the road

who used lights to put a giant 'W' on his roof.

I don't know if he's trying to let Santa know where he lives or if he thinks God might forget him at rapture time.

[SPKrazy]

87. With Any Luck

(I'm not a rapture person BTW)

he's made sure he won't be raptured with that mark

maybe we should put W's on every * supporter's home to help God out?

[charlie]

90. With any luck

a passing intergalactic restaurant will use the markers to "rapture" them up, after they discover that critters who've spent a lifetime stewing in their own juices make the best burgers.

[SPKrazy]

91. All Right, Let's Get Busy and Make W Lights

so we can get the attention of some intergalactic restaurant.

[beam me up scottie]

92. Yeah, the W isn't exactly the brand of tolerant and peaceful folks.

Advertisements like that remind me of how Angelina had that big ugly tattoo that said "BillyBob" engraved on her arm. :evilgrin:

[SPKrazy]

93. Wonder If She's Still Got BillyBob's Tatoo

I like old Billy Bob

he's a crazy Arkansan who I believe is quite liberal

Angelina is cool too

What does Brad think when he looks down and sees "Billy Bob" if she didn't have it removed?

[charlie]

95. Johnny Depp

was fortunate that he could easily turn Winona Forever into Wino Forever. Dunno what you can do with Billy Bob, except maybe append "sucks" to it.

[beam me up scottie]

96. I'm sure she had it removed.

It wouldn't be proper for Brangelina to have something as crass as a tattoo on their arm.

I don't know much about celebs since I killed my tv, but I do read the tabloids when I'm in line at the supermarket.

Weekly World News is my favorite.

[charlie]

97. "Best investigative reporting on the planet"

said Agent Q. They're certainly no weirder or less accurate than what passes for news in more "respected" venues.

[beam me up scottie]

98. When did they go liberal?

Or were they always left leaning and I never noticed it?

[charlie]

99. Dunno

Since one of them got whacked with anthrax and had every stray file, nut, and bolt in the building seized by the FBI?

Or maybe it's because liberal quirks and fetishes are usually pedestrian (and most of us don't give a shit about who knows about them), but the Moral Rectitude crowd is furtively into the reeeeally weird stuff, which makes much better copy.

[beam me up scottie]

100. Wasn't that the Enquirer?

I don't remember WWN getting any anthrax letters, and they don't publish hateful gossip.

These are the guys who created Bat Boy!

Check out their website: www.weeklyworldnews.com

[charlie]

101. I don't remember who it was

But, Bat Boy I know! He's an American Icon.

[beam me up scottie]

102. ROFL!

:D
See what I mean?
They're nothing at all like the trashy tabloids.

[trotsky]

69. Well won't it be fascinating when the next "dump on Scientology" thread...

pops up? Of course, a lot of those people in glass houses who have been here awhile will remember from past experience just how hypocritical their behavior was (they still haven't gotten a few of those windows fixed, as a matter of fact!), and probably won't chime in with their mocking of someone else's religious beliefs.

[beam me up scottie]

74. Oh yeah.

I love those. We're overdue for the next one, aren't we?

[Zhade]

30. Then don't criticize Muslim terrorists' beliefs, or you're a hypocrite.

Belief systems are NOT off-limits to discussion, even criticism. It is not bigotry to criticize beliefs, just the believer for having beliefs.

My saying "believing the Earth is 6,000 years old is fucking stupid" is not bigotry. My saying "fundies are evil because they have the stupid belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old" IS bigotry.

The former deals with the belief, the latter with the believer.

And with b*s* at, what, 29%, I don't give a FUCK what Rove says. Never have, really. They'll lie about the Dems no matter what is said.

[Iowa]

34. Yes, I think I can agree with what you're saying...

"It is not bigotry to criticize beliefs, just the believer for having beliefs."

Agreed. And mocking the believer is exactly what the OP does - in a couple of spots.

The point is, I don't give a rip what anyone believes. I might not follow their thinking, but I don't make it a point to go out and pick gratuitous fights with people who don't believe what I believe. If they're minding their own business they should be left alone.

The religious right is not minding their own business and the gloves should come off when it comes to them. They are influencing public policy in a way that harms me, mine, and (I assume) yours. They pose a threat to our way of life, and we are obligated to fight back - our economic survival and our freedom may depend upon it. But ridiculing specific religious beliefs or practices (such as the ascension, speaking in tongues, the resurrection, etc.) is completely irrelevant to the danger that the religious right poses to us. Many mainstream Christians (not just fundies) believe these things, so ridiculing such matters is simply dumb. It's akin to junior high girls being catty in that it serves absolutely no useful purpose, and is done purely to lash out. And it might alienate some who are on our side. A couple of DUers have already said that they found parts of the OP to be insulting/offensive. I actually don't find it offensive as much as just plain fricking dumb. Why would anyone want to ridicule what people believe, if it has absolutely nothing to do with the specific threat(s) they pose to us via public policy? And why would anyone want to publicly ridicule the religious beliefs of so many who, for the most part, believe what we believe when it comes to public policy? We need to ruthlessly fend off the hostile incursion of the religious right into our lives, but we should do so smartly, and with surgical precision.

There are many devout Christians Democrats, and many of them are outraged about what the religious right is doing... think Bill Moyers. There's nothing to be served by ridiculing the religious dogmas embraced by so many Dems when those dogmas pose no threat to us.

"And with b*s* at, what, 29%, I don't give a FUCK what Rove says. Never have, really. They'll lie about the Dems no matter what is said."

I agree, but this isn't about what Rove says or does. Rove is a fly-speck on history. It's about offending some of our own. Offending our own for no damn reason helps the right, in a small way. Why help them at all?

Zhade, I've read many of your posts. You're one of the brightest people on this board, IMO. If my original comments didn't fully express what I was saying, I hope this will. If you got this far, sorry for the wordiness, and thanks for listening. For the most part I think you and I are pulling in the same direction. I enjoy your posts.
:toast:

[Zhade]

36. Thanks very much for the compliment.

Not sure my posts warrant such praise, but it's still nice to hear. :)

I agree that it's not exactly relevant to go around laughing at how dumb those ideas are (and forgive me, but they ARE dumb to me), and that we shouldn't drive off allies who happen to think that way.

At the same time, such beliefs worry me, because anyone who can believe, without evidence (or often despite evidence contradictory to those beliefs), such things can fall prey to "Iraq has WMDs" or "Iran has nukes pointed at the heartland".

It's a balancing act.

[Iowa]

43. Yep, many of them worry me too...

A great deal of evil has been done in the name of Christianity, and there are far too many Christians who will eagerly cross the line between matters of private faith - and forcing others to conform to their view of the world. And many will gladly follow the lead of demagogues. The threat you speak of is quite real.

On the other hand, there are many Christians who will gladly slap the shit (figuratively, of course) out of any priest, minister, or rabbi who strays into matters outside the faith - especially if it involves any type of manipulation, oppression of others, or right-wing talking points. I have done it a number of times myself, and I know others who do it as well. And some who aren't as outspoken as I simply seethe with anger when they see it.

The origins of anyone's individual faith is far too involved to get into here (and it has very little to do with the type of evidence you referenced), but rest assured that many Christians share the worries that you outlined above, and will stand shoulder to shoulder with you on matters of public policy - not as do-gooders out to protect your interests - but to protect their own! We're in this together. We fight the same enemy. And we are just as worried as you are. I say this with the utmost sincerity - and many think like I do.

Anyway, I have enjoyed visiting with you about this.

[Patchuli]

17. Hurt, angry and betrayed

and I've been a liberal as long as I've been a Christian. I am very strong in my faith and I'm also very progressive. It makes me sad that some people keep lumping 'Christian' in with this war-mongering, frightened bunch who are happy to see Armageddon come no matter who suffers. What I think of as the Tim LeHaye people.

But it does feel as bad to me to hear Jesus and my faith belittled. It's bigotry of another type. It doesn't make me visit DU less but it makes me worry that our side's not much better than the rethugs.

[SPKrazy]

20. Interesting Take On It

I think that many here don't believe that they are belittling individuals when they belittle a religion, or belief.

I don't know if they are or not.

I've felt as if they were, but have been told by many here that it isn't an attack on my personal beliefs, but rather a critique of religion and faith in general.

I want to believe that, so right now I am.

But your post reminds me of a nagging little feeling I have sometimes, that I'm somehow catching the anger directed at the LaHaye people (fundies) because I happen to be a Christian, but have little in common with the La Haye people other than I call myself a Christian. I have anger at them too!

[Zhade]

31. SPK, you're right. We don't think we're putting down people.

And there's a good reason why: WE'RE NOT. We're belittling beliefs, which are chosen, unlike skin color which is not (I'm not saying you made this argument, bear with me here).

Bigotry involves hating people for what they are/say/do/etc, right? Well, saying "belief in _____ is dumb" is not hating people for having said belief, it is critiquing the belief.

Belief is chosen. If it weren't, conversion would never happen. So while believers certainly feel that their belief defines them, it is NOT what they were born as, and is not intrinsic the way skin color or gender is from birth.

Beliefs aren't off-limits for criticism, and it's not bigotry to even hate a BELIEF. I mean, Falwell et al believe GLBTers like me are evil - I hate THAT belief, and that hardly makes me a bigot, right?

[SPKrazy]

32. Zhade, Did I Say You Or Anyone Did?

no, in fact I said just the opposite:

I think that many here don't believe that they are belittling individuals when they belittle a religion, or belief.

I don't know if they are or not.

I've felt as if they were, but have been told by many here that it isn't an attack on my personal beliefs, but rather a critique of religion and faith in general.

I want to believe that, so right now I am.

But your post reminds me of a nagging little feeling I have sometimes, that I'm somehow catching the anger directed at the LaHaye people (fundies) because I happen to be a Christian, but have little in common with the La Haye people other than I call myself a Christian. I have anger at them too!

re -read this: I think I was pretty clear that "I've felt as if they were (belittling) but have been TOLD BY MANY HERE THAT IT ISN'T AN ATTACK ON MY PERSONAL BELIEFS, but rather a critique of religion and faith in general."

Now, the last part is true, I do feel that anger at fundies gets directed at me and other liberal/progressive Christians because we HAPPEN TO PROCLAIM CHRISTIANITY as our belief. I have anger at fundies too!!!!!!!!!!!

geez, Zhade, you coming down on me for agreeing with you now? I didn't agree right?


:crazy: :shrug:

[Zhade]

37. "I'm not saying you made this argument, bear with me here"

I thought I made it clear you DIDN'T say that! :P

I don't think we're disagreeing, and I don't *think* I'm coming down on you, though my post was written distractedly and probably came off as inelegant.

I'm sorry you feel that way regarding ire at fundies. It's a shame you share a religion, because I like your version better and would prefer people like you didn't feel acrimony not directed at you.

Seriously, since we worked through that first rough patch, I've grown to like your posts, and I think you're a decent guy. I hope my poorly-written posts don't cause you to think me a jerk.

[SPKrazy]

39. Okay

I re-read your post and I see that you weren't saying what I first thought you were.

You were agreeing with me.

Sorry.

:hi:

[Bill McBlueState]

23. can I ask a question?

I'd like to know which of the ten items make you feel hurt, angry, and betrayed. I look at the list and see how some of them might offend a politically progressive Christian while others shouldn't.

[Patchuli]

40. It's not as much the items on the OP

as it was the responses to it. I feel like if I tell people that I a born-again Christian, I will be treated like some rightwingnut job. It's like there is an assumption you are that way.

I did however feel offended by #3. I had an experience when I was saved and people do speak in tongues. That is all I am willing to say about it as others are too ready to ridicule. As for prayer mentioned in #2, prayer works a lot better in my life than 0.01%. Once again, that's all I want to say rather than open myself up to more ridicule.

I won't belittle others' faith and beliefs. I believe in One God for all called by many different names.

[Goblinmonger]

24. A couple thoughts

1. That war-mongering, frightened bunch ARE Christians. You may not like that, but they are.
2. The OP refered to FUNDAMENTALIST Christians which would definitionally not be you since you have identified yourself as a progressive Christian.
3. How is this belittling your faith? As I describe above, it isn't even aimed at your faith.
4. Oh please. Christianity is the majority in this country. Don't go all persecution complex on me. Is anybody telling you to get out of the party because of what you think in regard to religion? No. People have said that, on DU, to atheists. Are people telling you that things important to you because of what you think about religion shouldn't be addressed by the party? No. People have said that, on DU, to atheists. I'm not whining. Don't get me wrong. I can stand up for myself and have no problem being vocal, but, seriously, when I hear Christians whining about persecution and bigotry when they are so damn clearly in the majority in this country, I hope you can understand that I do a little eye roll. OK, often a big eye roll.

[Patchuli]

41. Excuse me, but I didn't "whine"

and you can "roll your eyes" all you want. I think I answered the question previously that it's not so much the OP but the responses and the stereo-typing that followed. Some people don't seem to understand that not all Christians are extremists and/or rightwingers. I am just as tired as you of the overzealous trying to shove things down people's throats like statues of the 10 Commandmants in places of law and government where they don't belong. I believe in the separation of church and state, in evolution and science being taught to kids but I also believe in the New Testament.

Someone asked how Christians feel when these kind of posts are made and I said how I felt. If someone doesn't like my feelings, oh well.

[calmblueocean]

44. I just wanted to say thanks

...for speaking up. I think you spoke for a lot of people. I know many Christians just like you, and I want DU to be a place where they feel welcome, not looked down upon or insulted. I really appreciate what you wrote. :)

[Patchuli]

46. Thank you for your open mind

I think we can all stand to learn more tolerance of each other, myself included.

I've heard people say that "I'm not a Christian because I'm perfect, I'm a Christian because I am NOT perfect!"

[SPKrazy]

50. Well Put Patchuli!

Let them roll their eyes.

Progressive Christians shouldn't be the focus of people's anger at fundamentalist Christians.
Good Post!

[beam me up scottie]

51. DU progressive xians AREN'T the focus of people's anger at fundamentalists

I roll my eyes whenever I see DU's persecuted christians resurrecting the same straw man used by O'Reilly.

[SPKrazy]

54. Well That's Your Opinion BMUS

as a progressive Christian (not an Xian) I beg to differ with you

I don't need someone else to tell me when I feel the anger coming out, really.

And bringing O'Really into the mix isn't helping matters here.

:spank:

[beam me up scottie]

56. xian=christian

You can feel offended as often as you like, but inferring it's because DUers are unable to tell the difference between liberal and literal christians is ridiculous, considering how the mods always lock or remove posts that broad brush christians.

Just alert on those who make broad brush statements and they'll be deleted.

It's more effective than being intolerant by implying non-believing DUers are intolerant.

[SPKrazy]

57. You're In High Form Tonight!

one can always tell when BMUS isn't posting because the board seems dead when you're gone

Glad to see you back

I don't believe that I'm intolerant because I said:
"I don't need someone else to tell me when I feel the anger coming out, really."

or maybe that wasn't where you decided I was being intolerant.

I don't appreciate that at all.

We all know that I'm intolerant of a very narrow segment (if not then search my posts and be reminded of where I've been labeled a hypocrite)

But overall, I believe I'm a tolerant person.

[beam me up scottie]

60. Did I say that you were being intolerant because of that sentence?

No, what caused me to cite intolerance was the fact that the poster you responded to claimed non-christian DUers are incapable of telling the difference between liberal and literal christians and you agreed with their conclusion, thus inferring that non-christians are intolerant.

[SPKrazy]

62. Okay

I see that we interpret things differently AGAIN

I give up

[beam me up scottie]

67. This is the problem I had with Obama's speech.

By claiming that the left is intolerant of religion, he hand delivered the christian conservatives, pundits and politicians a titanium straw man that they can use against the Dems.

And I'll ask you the same thing I asked his fans, if there are so few liberals who are anti-religion, why even bring it up?

[SPKrazy]

71. I Can't Comment On It Because I Didn't Hear It

but he may have done exactly what you said

[beam me up scottie]

72. I didn't either, at least not all of it.

I decided to read the transcripts when I started to get angry.

[SPKrazy]

73. I'm Not A Big Barack O'Bama Fan

I think he's too far to the right

I didn't read the transcripts

[beam me up scottie]

76. I fell in love with him when he made that speech at the convention.

But since then, he hasn't done much to earn my admiration.

Then again, I'm from Vermont, my standards when it comes to politicians are very high and probably not very realistic.

[SPKrazy]

78. Yeah, He Made A Great Speech At The Convention

and I had high hopes that he was the real deal liberal he sounded like

but as far as I can tell (and I really don't pay enough attention to be sure) he sounds more and more like he moved way to the center right

[beam me up scottie]

80. And there's the dilemma.

If catering to the religious right will get a Dem elected, I should support such actions, and sometimes I do.

But it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[SPKrazy]

82. With Him It Doesn't Seem To Be Just Religion

maybe it's just that he's a junior Senator and doesn't want to jepardize his chances of committees, and maybe chairing someday, or paint himself to be too clearly one thing.

But I've been disappointed at his lack of willingness to stand up to the Repukes as much as I imagined he would after hearing his speech.

[beam me up scottie]

88. It could be that he is so young,

and he's still trying to decide which side of the fence he's on for each issue.

But whatever it is, he's not helping us and in fact may have harmed us with that speech.

I just don't understand why, if his words were so carefully chosen, and his speech so meticulously crafted, he would screw up like that.

[SPKrazy]

89. Maybe He's Hoping For

a Hillary/O'Bama ticket?

edit:

I read where she is a "BIG Methodist, and used to be a Republican"

like that's going to excite me to vote for her

[beam me up scottie]

94. See?

They're all catering to christians.

The big tent always gets much smaller during election years since those of us who are intolerant of intolerance are told to shut up and/or get off the bus before we cost the Dems another election.

[charlie]

83. His speech was a good one

A fine example of the type of preachifying that usually goes over well with some religious audiences. Strong appeals to their better natures, his story of his come-to-God moment, he was doing fine. But he drove off into the weeds when he broke out the blather about Democrats making the mistake of not "reaching out" to believers. What codswallop. I could just hear O'Reilly saying, oh yeah, clip that one and store it in the vaults, it'll come in reeeal handy. It reminds me of the time ol' Joe Lieberman went to Florida, ostensibly stumping "for" Kerry, and told a room full of Jews that Kerry HAS TO COME DOWN HERE AND REASSURE YOU THAT HE HOLDS YOUR INTERESTS AT HEART. Now, we KNOW GeeDub is genuinely committed to American Jews and Israel, yessiree. And let me tell you, Kerry is too! But, he's got to COME DOWN HERE AND TELL YOU HIMSELF, so there can be no doubt.

Such farkin' idiocy from our own is pretty hard to take sometimes.

[beam me up scottie]

52. Which posters are you talking about?

Some people don't seem to understand that not all Christians are extremists and/or rightwingers.

Point them out for me.

[Goblinmonger]

104. OK

All Christians aren't right-wing freaks. I know that. Everyone on this board knows that. What's your point?

The right-wing freaks are Christian, though.

The OP pokes at the INTOLERANCE of the freaks. Not their faith. Not their beliefs. Their inability to allow others to have similar beliefs/mythology. That is the problem. Now if that is you, I can see how you might be offended. If it isn't you, especially when the OP and other responses have been clear on the point that this is a specific group of people, then why are you offended? Nothing has been said to you.

Are you saying that we should love the 6000 year old earth crowd and let them force their wrong beliefs on others. We should just stand by as the theocracy they want is put into place because to do otherwise would be to belittle Christians? I don't thinks so.

[okasha]

108. *The right-wing freaks are Christian, though.*

Except for the ones that aren't, of course. I believe Wolfowitz, Pearl and Feith are all Jewish. And I personally know three atheists who are right-wing whackjobs.

[lfairban]

28. Sometimes Christian beliefs need to be belittled.

How does it feel when you are told, "Your God is too small"?

Are you uneasy because you thought you were safe because you had been "doing the right thing" and now someone is questioning the validity?

Or are you challenged to see how your concepts could be made better.

I remember seeing a bumper sticker stating, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." In other words, end of discussion because I know I am right and I will not give any credence to anything suggesting otherwise. I am not sure that I want to know the person who put that there. They are probably living a warm comfortable life safe within their circle of friends. Been there, done that.

[SPKrazy]

33. This Christian's God Is Not Too Small

in fact, my concept of God is impossible for me to even imagine, so I use the ideas of Christianity to give me a small window into what God might be like.

[Patchuli]

42. Disagree with that one

and may I ask, what is your belief?

"How does it feel when you are told, "Your God is too small"?

It makes me feel like that person is talking out of their butt unless they have seen or know my God.

"Are you uneasy because you thought you were safe because you had been "doing the right thing" and now someone is questioning the validity?"

No, stereotyping and labeling people bothers me. What you mean by "doing the right thing" I don't understand. I don't believe in the majority of the points as worded in the OP.

"Or are you challenged to see how your concepts could be made better."

No. See response above.

"I remember seeing a bumper sticker stating, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." In other words, end of discussion because I know I am right and I will not give any credence to anything suggesting otherwise. I am not sure that I want to know the person who put that there. They are probably living a warm comfortable life safe within their circle of friends. Been there, done that."

Without knowing the context of what the sticker referred to exactly, I can't comment but I don't like people with closed minds either on either side. Bottom line is faith is not an item to be justified intellectually. It just IS.

[banana republican]

19. Frankly, As a Christian I am not offended,

What you have described is not christianity.(period)

I like Paul's response to those who persecuted him in Athens (
Acts 17:22)

I see that in every way you Athenians are very religious. For as I walked through your city and looked at the places where you worshiped, I found and alter on which is written "To an Unknown God". That which you worship, then, even though you do not know it, is what I now proclaim to you. god, who made the world and everything in it, is lord of heaven and earth; and does not live in man-made temples. Nor does he he need anything that we can supply by working for him, since it is he himself who give life and breath and everything else to everyone.

I will offer a toast to the Unknown God. Give me my glass of wine & a slice of bread. thank you.

[IronLionZion]

25. As a Christian, I'm glad the OP said "fundamentalist Christian" nt

[TallahasseeGrannie]

35. With what is going on in the world at the moment

I come here to RT to quiet down. What's a little hate mail among friends? I just laugh it off. It just isn't important to me anymore.

Truly, the world is on fire.

[varkam]

15. Very humorous

:)

[Ian_rd]

21. 11 - You get giddy when Jews and Muslims are slaughtering each other in

the Middle East because you think it portends the day you will float up to Heaven and laugh at all the infidels.

[stangoodwin]

45. Top 10 signs you're a ‘Literalist’ Nonbeliever

Top 10 signs you're a ‘Literalist’ Nonbeliever (fundamentalist co conspirator ;-)

10/ When someone states they are “broken hearted” and “adrift on a sea of misery” you seek out a Heart
Surgeon and contact Search and Rescue.

9/ “Pulling your leg”, “taking the piss”, “pulling your chain” must constitute in turn-
assault, bizarre theft and trespass.

8/ You are “Leaping with laughter” and “Jumping for joy” when you hear someone has been “walking on
water” or “raising the dead”….because they are just such stupid notions with only one clear literal
meaning.

7/ “Throwing some light on a question” involves determining how to capture such a particle or wave and
how to hold the question down to throw the light on.
“Throwing some light on scripture” involves, for you, exactly the same literalist approach and
process.

6/ If fundamentalist/literalists expect the “end of the world” to be a cataclysmic, apocalyptic
explosion involving “ten headed beasts” and an embodied demonic antichrist…then hell…that’s the kind
of ‘wiz bang’ entertainment we expect and demand…so lets go along and play along with these narrow,
shallow literalist expectations to the exclusion of all other readings.

5/ When advised that (just like the fundamentalists) you have failed to recognise or consider the
potential for ‘metaphor’, ‘allegory’ and ‘parable’ within scripture and that “You had better pull
your socks up”….you look down and declare “But I’m not wearing socks”!

4/ You are the “apple of your mothers eye” and clever enough to know that a “blood curdling scream”
wont effect the milk… but if the Messiah doesn’t float down “on a cloud” he aint coming and if the
‘raptured’ don’t float up into clouds they aint going.

3/ You want to know the precise weight of ‘The Golden Rule’ and its current value
on the Commodities Market. (http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html)


2/ Your girlfriend wants to know why you end up with “egg on your face” when you are told to “suck
eggs” and your God wants to know why your obsessed with turning “water into wine” and feeding a
multitude with a single fillet of fish burger.

1/ The notion that “raising up from the dead” might be an expression applicable to the living is absurd
and incomprehensible to you…..just as it is to fundamentalists.

;-)

[catbert836]

105. You're joking, right?

I really hope so. Some clarification is required.

[Goblinmonger]

106. No, I don't think so.

Check out the "prove love exists or admit there is a god" thread he has going.

Oh, well, it takes all kinds to make the world go round. And that is both figurative and literal since the world really does rotate. I just find it so damn funny when theists accuse me of not being able to understand figurative language. It's amazing how I ever got to be an English teacher lacking that skill. Poetry means nothing to me. Dominant metaphor, schmominant metaphor.

[Evoman]

110. I don't get it...why do people take time out to defend fundies?

If your a fundie, your probably too stupid to belong on DU. Actually, your probably too stupid to belong on the internet. So why do so many people defend the fundies, by attacking non-believers? Does this post actually describe anyone who actually, currently exists. Lol..commodity value of the Golden rule. WTF! At least the OP actually describes about a quarter of American people.