The Attack on Christians Continues (by Hiraghm)
Posted by ShrugInArgentina 10 years, 8 months ago to Culture
Hiraghm recently submitted new a topic which is hidden due to to his low "member score". It will generate a lot more comments if it is visible to everyone, so I am re-posting it here.
This is Hirgham's comment:
"It's getting close to time to vote with our feet.
I'm tired of these intolerant JERKS using this as a forum to attack Christian beliefs, not simply as part of a logical argument, but as ad hominem assaults, with insults, condescension and misattribution.
Go ahead, drive us out. Make this an echo chamber. And when you have to deal with your Moslem or Communist overlords, I hope it's the latter, because I'd like to be there to hear you whine about being fellow atheists and therefore exempt from persecution.
Cause I ain't going to fight 'em for you. I'm going to point right at you and say, "There they are; be so kind as to eat me last so I can enjoy their education".
Read more at http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/e9...
This is Hirgham's comment:
"It's getting close to time to vote with our feet.
I'm tired of these intolerant JERKS using this as a forum to attack Christian beliefs, not simply as part of a logical argument, but as ad hominem assaults, with insults, condescension and misattribution.
Go ahead, drive us out. Make this an echo chamber. And when you have to deal with your Moslem or Communist overlords, I hope it's the latter, because I'd like to be there to hear you whine about being fellow atheists and therefore exempt from persecution.
Cause I ain't going to fight 'em for you. I'm going to point right at you and say, "There they are; be so kind as to eat me last so I can enjoy their education".
Read more at http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/e9...
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
bwwwahhaaahahahaha. classic susanne
A=A I stop reading after that.
Most of us don't think that highly of the nation state anyway, so saying a nation is not Christian is not an insult to Christianity.
Different times had different sensibilities. At one time it was commonplace to refer to various people in various ways that one would consider inappropriate today. Particularly as those who grow older, they can revert to thought processes from younger years.
I do actually bother about the answers. Unfortunately, I rarely get anything in the form of answer that causes me to see that there is anything new or interesting. As several have said lately, what is often conveyed is nothing more than an echo chamber. Altruism is bad because AR said so. I ask what is altruism, and the response is AR said ..., but there is little challenge to how she twisted and tortured definitions - the two most critical being altruism and selfishness. Why did she see it so critical to do this torturous treatment to the definitions? My theory is that she recognized that many see altruism as a good and selfishness as being bad. She sought to undermine those definitions, so as to undermine those philosophies that recognized those definitions. Had she used proper terminology (from my perspective) of slavery or bondage, and self-interest, it would not have been controversial, would not have been given much attention, and would not have reached as many people. That's my evaluation.
He-who-must-remain-invisible can’t control his mouth, period. Nobody is complaining bout what he believes in or whether or not he can adapt; (although... we did use to waste a lot of time on his opinions); it’s that acid-dripping tongue that gets him into trouble, nowadays.
Load more comments...