The Passion rotten so far

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
no

Satan considers you a slave to him

JM

Did he tell you this over breakfast?

I thought possibly there might be a Satanic equivalent of Tupperware, or home lingerie parties. Now I find it's a slave-master thing.

S & M isn't really my bag though.

Does Satan do pink slips or employee termination notices?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Boris:

Yeah, an opinion with plenty of evidence behind it from other sources.

No, Ben, there isn't. Even theologians acknowledge there's no corroboration for the Gospels. Tacitus and Josephus aren't corroborative, as has been explained multitides of times.

Yes, but when you convert, you do not feel the fulfillment until after you have converted. At least this was so in my own case.

But now that you've converted, you believe it to be the most fulfilling philosophy, which was the entire point. Also, people are lured to convert to it because of claims it is more fulfilling and that it promises a happy after life.

Secondly, I also find fulfillment in the Catholic church, in addition to my own, so this fulfillment does not really explain why I am a Mennonite in particular.

That doesn't mean much, as it's quite possible to find fulfillment from multiple sources on an equal level. If both philosophies appeal to you logically and/or emotionally, they are still offering a degree of fulfillment.

Again, reread my statement. I do not say that Atheism promotes hatred of Christians, but rather I ask the question on which foundation do they base their tolerance of Christians? And I got the answer I wanted, that there is no basis in Atheism to love Christians.

BK, this is where you're disengenuous. The statement you made that sparked this wasn't a question, it was a statement that went as thus: "I would argue that the ideal for Atheists is to reject all forms of Christianity, and to belittle believers."

See where you're trying to shift the focus to your question, which came later, and away from this little statement of intolerance? Then we have this howler: "I would argue they were accomodating themselves and their own desires at the expense of Christianity."

As if disagreeing with Christianity was at the "expense" of it. And then you continue: "Yes, but how do Atheists treat those who obey the so-called superstitions? With respect or with scorn? I would say the latter far more than the former."

Another generalization, unfounded, that atheists belittle people. These are the problems, not any questions you posed. Trying to switch the focus away from these comments and pretend I'm taking issue with you asking a simple question is indeed disingenuous.

I pose my case and I let you answer as you see fit. You seem to enjoy directly attacking me and not my arguments, to divert the point.

I attacked your statements, not you, and I did answer your arguments. There was no diversion, but you seem to be trying to divert things away from your initial generalization, which was a statement that wreaked of prejudice.

And how do I warrant the personal insults? Please, state your case.

Which personal insults? I called what you said bigoted, which it is. That's not a personal insult, that's a statement of opinion on the quality of the statement. I also am pointing out the disengenousness of your arguments by your bait-and-switching. Note how these are addressing your arguments, so they're not ad hominems? Thank you.

Again, I am not trying to decieve, but rather, I sought a direct answer to a direct question. And my question has been answered, so I am satisfied.

I'm sure you are, but I am not satisfied with these off-the-cuff slurs against non-believers that are being padded as just innocent questions. Claiming non-believers are will belittle believers is not a question, it's an attack on non-believers.