Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, yes, thanks for reminding me of hypocrisy quote, and I'll try not to use it too much against you. I guess the only relevant thing is that you seemed to direct it right at me, and that's what riled me up.

Yes, the NT is very accepting to non-believers and strangers. And Jesus was also not bothered about the guy who did miracles in His name. For me the bottom line is really that a non-Christian celebrating Lent is welcome to get whatever he or she wants out of it.

However, the issue of nasty atheist posters is a separate issue, and I do think they need to be challenged. If it takes some frank talk, instead of sweet talk, then I don't see a problem with challenging them frankly.

Oh no, I didn't mean it toward you. I don't really know which poster you are. I thought that you were commenting that my post was judgmental, and I was defending it by pointing out that Jesus also criticized people who tried to deny access to God. Maybe I should have quoted Luke so that it would have been clearer: '“Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.” It's the same passage, but Jesus' point is that the Pharisees tried to put barriers between ordinary people and God by denying them access to knowledge.

In any case, I do agree that there are some mean-spirited atheist posters. I'll probably post something on that at some point. But I mostly post if I think I can change something for the better. But I can't convince Christians to be more Christian, so what influence would I have on atheists?

Sadly, I really didn't get much discussion going about inclusiveness aside from your comments, which is a shame. That was the purpose of this whole thread.

Anonymous wrote:

RantingAtheist wrote:One last thing: this is usually where the discussion goes of the rails, and we get the inevitable response, "How dare you call me crazy!"

To reiterate, statements like this make you look like a douchebag.

Anonymous wrote:Once again, please explain for us how Mother Theresa, who had a little doubt, is an atheist. If you can't explain this, your fairy analogy falls apart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, some Hindus DO take offense at the cultural appropriation going on in US yoga -- sanskrit chants and whatnot. My SIL is Indian, and she told me she was quite surprised to walk into a yoga class in the US and hear Hindu prayers.

And to make matters more complicated ... yoga is not really purely Hindu anyway. The emphasis on physical postures (asana) is a new thing. There's been a lot of research on this lately, and there's evidence that the physical postures are actually derived in part from British gymnastic practices taken to India in the 19th century. When yoga came to the US, it got mixed up with all sorts of traditional US things, like the religious revivalism of the late 19th century.

Good one!...not. yet another attempt to warp history to fit the "greatness of the white man".

You do realize that Patanjali's Yoga Sutra was written before the "dawn of christ". Let's not forget that it is also in the written in Vedas, Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita. But you'll probably find some "reliable (christian) source" that says they were all copied from the bible as well.

Thanks, PP. That gave me a good laugh as well. I was going to say the same thing. The asanas are not a 'new thing' at all. Practice yoga if you want, but tradional forms of yoga are based in Hinduism. Now, if you're talking about power yoga at Gold's or something, yeah, it might not be the same thing.

RantingAtheist wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, please explain for us how Mother Theresa, who had a little doubt, is an atheist. If you can't explain this, your fairy analogy falls apart.

Could you flesh this out a bit? Because it doesn't seem to follow.

Anonymous wrote:

RantingAtheist wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, please explain for us how Mother Theresa, who had a little doubt, is an atheist. If you can't explain this, your fairy analogy falls apart.

Could you flesh this out a bit? Because it doesn't seem to follow.

No, because I've explained it several times already. If you don't want to engage, just say so. Or better, stop posting about fairies already, until you're able to defend the analogy.

"You can't make a man understand what he does not want to understand." (or something like that)
-- Sinclair

Obviously the people who want to redefine all agnostics as atheists realize that 100% certainty that God doesn't exist is intellectually indefensible. But this has always struck me as silly, because if everybody with a even slight question about God is an atheist, then you've redefined Mother Theresa as an atheist, and you've also redefined all people who call themselves "agnostic" right out of existence by relabeling them all atheists.

Anonymous wrote:Serious question for 7:11: Where did you study rhetoric? Because you should ask for your money back. When a five-year-old can figure out you're dodging the question, it's time to upgrade your skill set.

RantingAtheist wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingAtheist wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, please explain for us how Mother Theresa, who had a little doubt, is an atheist. If you can't explain this, your fairy analogy falls apart.

Could you flesh this out a bit? Because it doesn't seem to follow.

No, because I've explained it several times already. If you don't want to engage, just say so. Or better, stop posting about fairies already, until you're able to defend the analogy.

"You can't make a man understand what he does not want to understand." (or something like that)
-- Sinclair

Perhaps someone else can explain what PP is talking about.

"If you can't explain how Mother Theresa (who twinges of doubt) is an atheist, then "belief in gods" is saner than "belief in faries"?

Can anyone else follow this argument? Thanks.