The difference between an atheist and a christian speaker : the atheistist can be a drunkard, a gay, a slanderer and a venoming fool, he is not accountable to his audience.
61 comments
Sigh. It's "venomous", not "venoming", and "representative", not "representant."
Jeez. At least the atheist has mastered spelling and grammar.
For a christian it is the other way round : he has to be of good reputation and decency, he has to be wise and a trustworthy representant of truth.
Yeah - just like Kent Hovind and Uncle Fred Phelps.
You've switched them. It should be:
"The difference between an atheist and a christian speaker : the christian can be a drunkard, a gay, a slanderer and a venoming fool, he is not accountable to his audience, because he is who god made him to be, so god would approve of his actions no matter what, and even if he does indulge in something sinful, it doesn't matter, because god will just forgive him anyway. For an atheist it is the other way round: he has to be of good reputation and decency, he has to be wise and a trustworthy representant of truth."
There, it's fixed.
Obviously the poster is 100% correct. I mean we all know what fine men Haggard, Swaggart, Paul Couch, Richard Roberts, Jim Baker, Kenty Hovind, etc. are...NONE of them have had problems with gay prostitutes, marital infidelity, tax evasion, or drug use.
Atheistist? Venoming? Representant? Wow. New Rule. You aren't allowed to post anything else until you learn basic language skills. No making up words, no adding "ing" to nouns, and learn when you need to capitalize words-especially when said word is the name of your own religion.
No, no, conservativevoice, you've got that wrong. Haggard wasn't getting man-love from that male escort, it was a "massage."
[The difference between an atheist and a christian speaker : the atheistist can be a drunkard, a gay, a slanderer and a venoming fool, he is not accountable to his audience.]
Bullshit. Speaking for myself, I call things like I see them, and if somebody's talking crap, I speak up about it.
For example:
[For a christian it is the other way round : he has to be of good reputation and decency, he has to be wise and a trustworthy representant of truth.]
Jimmy Swaggart. Jim Jones. Ann Coulter. Fred Phelps. Jim & Tammy Fae Bakker. Ted Haggard. Rush Limbaugh. Kent Hovind. Pat Robertson. Bill O'Reilly. Dinesh D'Souza.
Hell, Christians in the US fell all over each other to re-elect George W Bush for his second term, and he had already shown himself to be ANYTHING but wise and trustworthy.
For a christian it is the other way round : he has to be of good reputation and decency, he has to be wise and a trustworthy representant of truth.
Maybe that s/he has to be this way.
Sure. Being a pecksniffing, judgmental, holier-than-thou scold is bad enough without being a hypocrite, too.
Actually, atheists are ONLY accountable to the audience. We don't believe that our entire existence is accountable to any higher power, so the only people we ARE accountable to are ourselves and the people around us.
and a venoming fool
Verbing weirds language.
"For a christian [...] he has to be of good reputation and decency, he has to be wise and a trustworthy representant of truth"
You have Kent Hovind. We win.
"he has to be of good reputation and decency, he has to be wise and a trustworthy representant of truth."
Like Ted Haggard who bought crystal meth from a gay prostitute (who slandered gays to begin with)? Or how about Kent Hovind who's in jail cause he got really greedy?
"For a christian it is the other way round : he has to be of good reputation and decency, he has to be wise and a trustworthy representant of truth. "
By atheist standards, being a liar, or a child molester, or a mental patient does not constitute " good reputation and decency" or "wise and a trustworthy representant of truth".
he has to be wise and a trustworthy representant of truth.
I bet you have never found someone who fits this description, I surely have never met any religious people fitting that description.
Xian's get conned by televangelists.
As for atheist speakers: If a gay drunkard can make a coherent rational speech about something I'm interested in, then I'll listen.
'The difference between an atheist and a christian speaker : the Christian can be a drunkard, a gay, a slanderer and a venoming fool, he is not accountable to his audience.
See what I did there?
Yeah, because Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennet, Christopher Hitchens, Victor Stenger, Dan Barker, and all the rest have been picked up for violating their own moral codes.
Ah, yes. Nobody but Christians feel accountable for their actions. Me and my gay lover take shits on the sidewalk while singing Christmas carols in reverse for Satan.
See- that was a lie, because I take no responsability for anything I say. Aha!
Really. Because an Atheist believes that his word, and his presence is all he has. Christians believe that no matter how heinous the act, they just have to talk pretty to Jesus, and they're scot free. Who are the ones who aren't accountable...?
For a christian it is the other way round : he has to be of good reputation and decency, he has to be wise and a trustworthy representant of truth.
- Do you say so? Strange. So many Christians we see on this board are lying bastards for Jesus's sake. How do you account for this?
::snicker:: Then why is it that the Christians are usually drunkards, (closeted) gays, slanderers, and fools?
A christian has to appease his god.
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.
