Skip to main content

View Diary: Is the ground--at long last--finally shifting out from under the religious right's feet? (201 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  i read both of your links and even (0+ / 0-)

    saved them

    the first is Christopher Hitchen's work.  I cannot consider this reliable as to its theological wisdom as Hitchen's was an atheist.  As to the content of the article, it seems reasonable.

    The second includes this sentence

    At this point anyone would be better than the man in the White House today in my opinion.
    Interesting to note that even though this blog post declares Mormonism a heresy, Obama is somehow also verboten.  It would be nice to know why.  Are we back to the abortion issue?

    In any case, I do not feel at all positive about Mormonism based on what I can objectively verify as fact.  Nutty underwear aside, it does not seem remotely Christian at its heart, but neither does the Catholic Church or all of evangelical Christendom.

    If they want to call themselves Christian, I cannot really argue because I don't want evangelicals telling me that I am not Christian.  Whether I want to take them seriously on a spiritual level is another issue.

    Frankly, I don't want my President to discuss his religion at all, and I especially don't want him declaring himself Christian as a way to appeal to the voters.

    Donate to Occupy Wall Street here:

    by BlueDragon on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 01:30:01 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Are you saying that atheists (4+ / 0-)

      can't be theologians because they don't believe in God?
      Theology isn't even discussed in the first article, for that matter.
      And really, if you look at Christianity side by side with Mormonism, they're both rather nutty.
      I emphatically agree with your last paragraph.

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 03:29:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The idea that agreement with a thing (4+ / 0-)

        is a prerequisite for being considered knowledgeable about that thing is a great tool if you're trying to find a generic blanket defense of that thing, that always works regardless of the facts. It's a trick that a LOT of Christians use in regards to this topic.  Not a christian?  Then you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Christianity purely by virtue of the fact that you don't agree with it.

        It a very egotistical position to take because it's basically saying "To understand what I am saying is to agree with it.  It is impossible to correctly parse what I said and not agree with it."

        And it permeates the terminology they often use when proselytizing.  Not how it's not "we're going to talk to you to try to convince you to agree with us", but rather "we're going to teach you the good news" (as if you could grow up in America without already having heard about what they're going to tell you a thousand times before.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (128)
  • Community (60)
  • Media (32)
  • Elections (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Environment (28)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site