Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Lucia Christians are EVIL!!!


So, says Lindsay Perigo.
In the case of the good guys like Aristotle and Jefferson, their lapses contradicted their essential goodness. In the case of Christianity, persecution, torture and bigotry went with the territory (and still would if the fagot-lighters had political dominance)[ie, Christians are EVIL!!!]. They who believe absurdities (such as your lonely goblin story) commit atrocities. [See, see, EVIL!!!!] They who are capable of believing in the justice of eternal torture are not going to have any qualms about inflicting temporary torture [Oh, except for not wanting to end up there themselves, but we'll ignore that ... Christians are EVIL!!!!].
That was Lindsay's attempt to justify his position after Matthew pointed out that:
What your answers show is simply that objectivist attacks on Christianity are arbitrary. When its writers like Rand or Aristotle, or Jefferson, one should accept certain qualifications, take into account such things as historical context etc. When its Christian writers however one does not.
Enjoying the slinging match, guys. Though, it does seem to be a little one sided as Matthew is carving Lindsay up and eating him for breakfast, and all Lindsay can come up with is that Christians are EVIL, so there.

I would have put this on the M&M blog, but it's not accepting my comments for some reason.

Related Link: Gimme that old time religion ~ Solo

28 comment(s):

KG said...

They're real heroes when it comes to attacking Christianity, but usually silent on the subject of Islam, which a lot of adherants would murder them at the drop of a hat for criticizing.

Angus said...

Perigo is a homosexual who doesn't like the Christian religion. That has lead to a progression of thought which has jaundiced the thinking of Libertarianz party overall.

Colour me surprised.

ropata said...

When somebody tells you they are misunderstood and having a hard time, do you show them a little kindness, sit down with a cup of tea and listen to them? Or do you list all their faults, insult their family and friends, yell and tell them to shut up?

When Christians say they are misunderstood and unfairly portrayed in public discourse, the most common atheist response is option (b): insulting and yelling.

Most of the problem lies in simple ignorance; many people’s only knowledge of the Church comes from sensationalist media reporting, or from broadcasts on Radio Rhema which have a peculiar Conservative American flavour. Those critiquing “Christianity” often fail to grasp that with 2 billion adherents, there is more to Christianity than Catholics and Evangelicals; it’s a vast historical movement with countless different subcultures, people groups, and practices.

In blogs and opinion pages, religious people are routinely and unfairly castigated for crusades, inquisitions, or sexual assaults — as if they are personally responsible. However those casting aspersions conveniently forget that empire building and exploitation by ambitious and violent men has always been the greatest cause of human suffering. From pyramids to ziggurats, chariots to tanks, arrows to atom bombs, human history is written in blood, so it’s an audacious falsehood to pin all these human actions on God.

Martin Luther King and Gandhi both drew upon the profound spiritual traditions of religion. It was the influence of the Quakers in 18th century Britain and the thunderous activism of Evangelicals in 19th century America that powered the abolitionist movement and led to the end of slavery.

Religious people have a human right to free speech, and the deep philosophical perspective of religion easily triumphs over the childish hostility of people who cannot abide a subculture that runs counter to their fickle self-absorbed consumer lifestyle.

Read Jeremiah 6:16 :)

David said...

KG -"They're real heroes when it comes to attacking Christianity, but usually silent on the subject of Islam, which a lot of adherants would murder them at the drop of a hat for criticizing."

Are you kidding me? The objectivist brigade REGULARLY attack Islam.

Lucia - I agree that judging a loosely organised group of people by historical acts that they had nothing to do with is wrong. People should be judged by their own actions and beliefs, within the context of their own lives.

So, here you are, in the 21st century, still believing in supernatural entities of which there is no evidence. Using those beliefs to promote bigotry and intolerance of choices that have no effect on you other than to wound your pride. A pride built on your belief that only you and your lot have an insight into the creator of everything. A belief that is becoming less and less relevant with each passing decade. BUT, you're not violent, and counts for a lot. I doubt history will be that harsh on you.

Redbaiter said...

" Using those beliefs to promote bigotry and intolerance of choices "

Good grief. A perfect description of what libertarians are primed to do. What about the choice of a faith if one wants it?

You and your sappy little Progressive mind control cult are all you profess to despise in others. Intolerant, controlling, preaching, sermonising, deceitful, misguided, censoring arrogant, narrow and so often infantile.

Peter Cresswell's blog (that should be called "So PC"), is one of the most heavily censored blogs on the net.

You're a bunch of narcissists who have in reality done nothing for liberty. Endlessly preaching the doctrine of the mad Russian to an imaginary audience.

All those words, when all that is really needed is the simple expediency- "You leave me a lone and I will leave you alone". That and a demand for small government.

More or less what the American Constitution decreed all those centuries ago when there was not a Libertarian in sight.

What you poseurs need to do after you've finished slobbering all over Perigo's arse is to stop treading all over the traditional political ground of the Conservatives and pretending you're on to something new.

A cult of navel gazing narcissists, queers and control freaks, and as far as the road to liberty is concerned, a complete dead end.

KG said...

wow! Mind if I put that up as a post RedB?
Never mind-I'll steal it anyway. :)

David said: "I doubt history will be that harsh on you."
I'm sure that's a huge relief to both Christians and God, David. But you know what? I suspect history will be a damn sight harsher on a bunch of people who sat on their arses debating finer and finer points of their ideology while the very liberty they profess to support is being destroyed.

ZenTiger said...

David, you are sounding a little peeved:

So, here you are, in the 21st century, still believing in supernatural entities of which there is no evidence.

Well, there's lots of evidence. However, you seem to think "scientific" evidence is the only one that counts.

Using those beliefs to promote bigotry and intolerance of choices that have no effect on you other than to wound your pride.

Oh come on. Do you only believe in *direct* effects? We live in a socity where sex with 13 year olds is illegal. It wasn't always. Is it bigotry to keep the age of consent higher even if it doesn't effect me? Speeding is illegal, but that only *might* effect me. You make an accusation of pride, because you appear to have an inability to comprehend other valid reasons people act to prevent what they see is a greater harm.

A pride built on your belief that only you and your lot have an insight into the creator of everything.

You continue based on a false assumption. You believe you have insight to life after death (or lack of it in this case) - by attacking people's beliefs, then are you not speaking from pride in your own certainties?

A belief that is becoming less and less relevant with each passing decade.

You choose to ignore the totality of the belief offered here. It's not irrelevant to love others, to seek to be a better person, to attempt to live a good life. They are not unique aims, but now you are just quibbling on the methods.

Chris said...

David @ 1254

There are none so blind as those who will not see or even look. Just actually crawl out from underneath the rock and have a look at the evidence those horrible Christians have put up.

By the way, the comments facility in Firefox on this absolutely sucks. Can't cut and paste, askes me three times to log in. Frustrating. Anyone else have that issue using Firefox?

ZenTiger said...

Hi Chris - yes it does. I use Firefox and have the same problems. I've turned inline comments on because I like them (when they work) and have been playing around to try and fix the issue.

I'll turn inline comments off again for a while but will persevere to get inline comments compatible with Firefox. (and strangely, sometimes it just goes back to working then breaks again later)

WAKE UP said...

Perigo's a sad eccentric bastard, and only in li'l ol' NZ would anyone take any notice of him at all.

KG said...

Firefox here, and the comments work just fine.

I.M Fletcher said...

I haven't had any problem with the inline comments either in FF or Iron (Chrome).

I.M Fletcher said...

I see Perigo has been reduced to name calling employing the "c" word now; he really must be peeved. He is talking about the "atrocities" that Christians have committed while being ignorant on the fact (or just ignoring?) that there has been far more killing and atrocities done in the name of Atheism that Christianity.

Who are the real murderers?

Ciaron said...

trying to post through the post heading, Post a comment button does nothing but clicking comments and using the blogger window seems to recognize me.
Fix it fast Zen, least some atheist accuses you of being a bigoted christian and not allowing them to comment :p

leftrightout said...

Zen, you're a bigoted christian who won't allow me to comment.

leftrightout said...

Then again, maybe not. :-)

David said...

"It's not irrelevant to love others, to seek to be a better person, to attempt to live a good life. They are not unique aims, but now you are just quibbling on the methods."

I think the method is quite important. What if one of your children (if you have any, I know Lucia does, unsure about the rest of you) finds out that they're homosexual? Do you really think that your beliefs will have no impact on their happiness? Or yours? The methodology as you put it is hardly irrelevant.

As a side note, I think one of the problems with discussing beliefs is that there simply isn't a nice way to go about it. An athiest can't say, "I'm sorry, you believe a fairytale", and a Christian can't say, "I'm sorry, but you're going to hell because you don't believe what I believe" without sounding insulting. Such exchanges are bound to run a little hot.

Speaking as a bit of a geek, to all the FF users.. FF was great a couple years ago but it's really gone downhill in the past year or so, I recommend going to Chrome or even IE. Chrome is a pretty solid browser.

ropata said...

David
Clearly you want a *real* flame war :)

I am GREATLY offended by your anti-Firefox comment! And you have the audacity to recommend IE!!!!!

Wash your mouth out young lad.

Redbaiter said...

" What if one of your children finds out that they're homosexual? "

Oh Gawd. See this is the kind of wet Progressive garbage the NZ Libs give priority to.

Hey Davey- there was not one mention of homosexuality in the American Constitution. Should it be re-written??

(Don't answer that. Its rhetorical.)

David said...

Ropata: IE is better than FF in it's current state. I'm not saying IE is good, it's just that FF is THAT bad right now :P

KG said...

Curious...I'm using FF on OSX and no problems at all. None.

I.M Fletcher said...

I'm using SRware's Iron browser (Chrome with the privacy issues fixed).

Madeleine said...

We normally get a lot of comments and of late, suddenly, we've had very few - especially on this topic, which is why I have not been in a rush to edit Part II (that and an exam yesterday). If people are having commenting issues that might explain the silence - if anyone experiencing problems with commenting on MandM could flick me an email detailing any error message I'll get our tech guy onto it.

This may seem odd but in defence of Lindsay he emailed me and invited us into this discussion. Given our history, I think a lot of it is banter in his typical style - nevertheless he is utterly wrong and it will make Matt's day to see your assessment of the discussion.

Madeleine said...

PS. I have been having massive problems lately commenting on your blog. Same issues as others have mentioned, no ability to paste, repeated requests for log in info, comment text lost, etc..

Admittedly as I write this I have the old blogger pop up window and when all the above was happening it was occurring in a comment box within the page.

Seriously rather than recommend IE *shudder* I recommend to you Wordpress. You won't believe the boost you get in google the minute you switch and the features... oh the features... seriously worth all the teething issues!

Madeleine said...

"I suspect history will be a damn sight harsher on a bunch of people who sat on their arses debating finer and finer points of their ideology while the very liberty they profess to support is being destroyed."

KG well said. I love my Randian libertarian friends, including Perigo, to bits but you are so right!

Matt had a discussion at bloggers drinks with Peter Cresswell once where someone had raised the issue of Thomas Jefferson, libertarian hero of the enlightenment, being a slave owner and fornicator. Cresswell went into a lengthy explanation as to how when you look at thinkers from the past you must take into account the historical context, the fact that they were not perfect, they didn't know what we know, they were pioneers, etc... Matt asked if he would apply the same reasoning to the Inquisition who moderated torture and brought in due process in a context where society accepted severe punishments and unjust process and the conversation rapidly changed subject.

Matt said...

"there was not one mention of homosexuality in the American Constitution."

Maybe not, but Jefferson did write an amendment that argued for castration of men who practiced sodomy.

KG said...

"Matt asked if he would apply the same reasoning to the Inquisition who moderated torture and brought in due process in a context where society accepted severe punishments and unjust process and the conversation rapidly changed subject."

Lol! I bet it did!

Redbaiter said...

"Maybe not, but Jefferson did write an amendment that argued for castration of men who practiced sodomy."

I read somewhere that Washington (I think) had them shot if he found them in his army.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.