[I'm not certain that she sees the implication of what she's saying...]
I have personally known mentally disabled and brain-damaged adults. The mentally disabled are usually quite open to Jesus because they think like a child...
62 comments
"Personally knowing" disabled people doesn't make you an expert. Try caring for one for an extended amount of time.
And no, the mentally disabled past a certain level of ability aren't open to much of anything. They require feedings, diaper changings, and all other kinds of assistance. The severely disabled have no apparent concept of self, much less a soul in the need of saving.
Manipulating those too disabled to think independently to your own twisted agenda is reprehensible. Mrs. Debbie, you make Baby Jesus cry.
"I have personally known mentally disabled and brain-damaged adults."
Of course you have, sweety, you ARE one.
"The mentally disabled are usually quite open to Jesus because they think like a child..."
And, taking advantage of their disablity to lead them into delusion is NOT laudable.
Bobdole Con Douchebag :
Yeah, dude? I don't think there's anything we could say that would be more idiotic than "we like converting retarded people because they're gullible."
And hey, we coexist just fine with the non-fundie Christians 'round here. Live and let live is the name of the game.
As an FYI, the LDS faith actually teaches that we are *not* to baptize a person with any sort of mental retardation, Down's Syndrome, or any other such condition.
Why?
If the person's condition has resulted in reduced mental capacity, then it means there's a good chance they can't understand what all it means to be a member of the faith.
As such, neither their lack of baptism nor their inability to comprehend is held against them.
Nutcase: In that case, every empty sack is a sack full of No Gold Bars. Or would it be a sack full of No Nuclear Submarines?
Learn the concept of the EMPTY SET, bub. It's taught in elementary school math classes. Not believing in a god is NOT the same thing as believing in a concrete thing called "No God." It amounts to accepting that God is simply an unproved assertion -- and, yes, that IS the scientific approach.
~David D.G.
Nutcase: You have a point, but the line between agnosticism and atheism is razor-thin at times.
True, there ARE some atheists who are "fundies" of that belief, who assert positively that God DOES NOT and CANNOT exist. (Personally, I agree that the only belief more ridiculous than the fundie certainty that God exists is a fundie-like certainty that he doesn't, since that is a weaker position logically, being a positive assertion of a negative -- but so far, it has never been proved wrong!) If one is not open to evidence and proof for God (or A god), then one is holding to this belief strictly out of faith, not scientifically or logically -- exactly as theists behave when they assert positively that God exists, in the total absence of evidence supporting this position and in stark denial of evidence, both physical and logical, to the contrary.
Most atheists, however, are closer to the technically agnostic view in that they simply hold to the fact that God remains an unproved assertion; and until or unless it is proved, the necessarily default position is that God does not exist -- pretty much the same attitude any rational person would have toward the existence of centaurs or mermaids.
Part of the problem may have to do with how God is defined in this matter. A prime-cause creator intelligence, while not apparent by what we see in the physical universe, may be not entirely impossible by the rules of logic. If you mean the biblical God, however, that character is pretty much impossible by any logical attempt to describe him; not only does the Bible regularly demonstrate him to be a monster rather than a nurturer, but just trying to put omniscience and omnipotence together simply doesn't work -- the principles are in conflict. Heck, just omnipotence by itself is logically self-contradictory, as is demonstrated by the question, "Can God make a rock so big that he himself can't lift it?"
Atheism is not just the positive assertion of a lack of a God; it also incorporates the lack of a positive assertion that God exists, which is something altogether different (sometimes called "soft" atheism). This is where atheism and agnosticism overlap somewhat; but I'd say that the position is more important than what label one chooses to put on it.
~David D.G.
Algore Lib Nutcase:
When you are talking about a general definition of 'god', it's quite difficult to assert that there is no god with 100 % certainty. We just are happy with our 99% true assertion (true for us, I guess not for you), and think that the other 1% is quite more difficult to be true. That is talking about not clearly defined gods.
But when you get to explain how is one particular god, you can say in some cases that that god doesn't exists, because his features are contradictory, as exposed, for the christian god, in the problem of evil, and in David D.G. post, for example.
Using an analogy, inexact as all are, when talking about geometric shapes, I cannot say that they not exist. But if you tell me that there is a perfect circle with a perfect square form, I know it cannot exist. I know it, I don't believe it. That's a big difference.
You also said: "Since Atheism isn't science, it's faith".
That is plain idiotic. Next time you have lunch think about the table. It's not science. Do you have faith in the table? Or do you deny it exists?
So...if they think like a child, and you believe in things like them (a child), then...
You are mentally disabled and brain damaged!
The world makes so much more sense now.
And AlGore, you're an idiot. Ignoring an unproven assumption does not a religious belief make.
Otherwise you are (I assume, and my bad if I'm wrong about your beliefs) of the non-Hindu, non-Thorite and a non-Muslim. You are also a non-Flying Spaggetti Monsterite. Indeed your point works better on you than it does on me, because, while I am basing my lack of faith on science and reason (or the lack of any science or reason in the Christian hypothesis), you are basing your position merely on (yet again, I assume) your upbringing/ religious experience, or brainwashing. Note: There is no scientific evidence for god, whatsoever.
Atheists don't congregate on anyone's Sabbath, nor do they subscribe to any scripture. They do not "follow" any "preacher", although frome time to time, people like Dawkins or Hitchens write a book and sell it.
I'm a Christian of the Thomasine [vice Pauline] apostolic tradition. From what I have read and understood, JC never wanted or needed a religion, and the Abrahamic god is the worst possible choice for a "Father".
Anyway, I behave like atheists do, in general.
I've met a developmentally disabled adult who was a devout Christian. She had a severely warped personality that came off as almost psychotic, and she was a very disturbing person to be around. And the last thing someone in her situation needs is a belief system that makes her look less normal (and probably more easily manipulated by the sort of people who abuse the developmentally disabled).
I saw a local church sign:
GOD WELCOMES SURVIVORS OF STROKE
Vultures! Same reason missionaries flock to places ravaged by natural disasters, with all the same enthusiasm exhibited by lawyers chasing after ambulances.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.