I was looking for some remaindered books the other day, and found them at christianbook.com
Their slogan is "Everything Christian for Less"
That's just wrong in so many ways...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Why is it wrong?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I know what they mean but it still rubs me the wrong way on many levels.
The first is the implication that "everything Christian" can be bought with money.
The second is harder to pin point. It echo's of what Mormon's call "Satan's Plan" or the fallacious idea that all the rewards that come through the Atonement of Jesus Christ could have been obtained at a lower price.
[ April 11, 2007, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
"Everything Christian for Less" is kind of how I view atheism. You get the happiness, the good life, the family and friends, the feeling of being at peace, the "full" feeling (just to cover my bases), and you don't have to get up early and get all dolled up every Sunday, you get to choose what you believe on your own, and you don't have anyone else telling you what your morals need to be.
Heck, it's not just less, it's free. Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: "Everything Christian for Less" is kind of how I view atheism. You get the happiness, the good life, the family and friends, the feeling of being at peace, the "full" feeling (just to cover my bases), and you don't have to get up early and get all dolled up every Sunday, you get to choose what you believe on your own, and you don't have anyone else telling you what your morals need to be.
Heck, it's not just less, it's free.
No, you don't.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: "Everything Christian for Less" is kind of how I view atheism. You get the happiness, the good life, the family and friends, the feeling of being at peace, the "full" feeling (just to cover my bases), and you don't have to get up early and get all dolled up every Sunday, you get to choose what you believe on your own, and you don't have anyone else telling you what your morals need to be.
Heck, it's not just less, it's free.
Seconded. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
stihl1,
You don't and I don't; others might.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Really, I do. I haven't been to church in years, and I feel pretty awesome. My friends and family love me, I love them. I live a good life. I feel content and peaceful. I help people who need help. I treat others as I want to be treated. No religion necessary.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't find the idea of a "discount" Christian store any more troubling than the idea of Christian stores or Christian merchandise.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
They actually had some non-painfully-bad Christian fiction for sale (Lord of the Rings! Wooo!)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I don't find the idea of a "discount" Christian store any more troubling than the idea of Christian stores or Christian merchandise.
I haven't heard anyone say they were troubled by the idea of a discount Christian store. It is the particular wording of their slogan which bothers people.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: They actually had some non-painfully-bad Christian fiction for sale (Lord of the Rings! Wooo!)
I find it odd that "Lord of the Rings" is considered Christian fiction.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
A little odd, but not so strange once I think about it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by plaid: I was looking for some remaindered books the other day, and found them at christianbook.com
Their slogan is "Everything Christian for Less"
That's just wrong in so many ways...
Plaid, Where on the site did you find the "Everything Christian for Less" slogan? I've looked but I don't see it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Neither did I.
Rabbit -- is your objection that when they refer to "everything Christian", they don't explicitly make it clear that they're only taking about merchandise?
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Huh. It really was there on their website Monday, and it is in the shipping confirmation email they sent...
In my own case, I hate it when religion and business get mixed so overtly.
I hate the implication that you can find EVERYTHING Christian at a business, that everything that's Christian can be bought. (Want to be Christian? No need to mess around with praying and reflection and repentance when you can just BUY something!)
And, perversely, there's something annoying about the idea that if you CAN buy something Christian, then get it CHEAP! It's taking consumerism to a whole 'nother level. It's had me thinking about ads like Crazy Jesus's -- Our Prices Are Insane! and Big Bob's Discount Jesus and Kwik-E-Jesus ...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
mph, My problem is that the phrase "Everything Chrisitan for Less" can be misconstrued in so many different ways. I listed two of them above and yes one of them was the idea that "everything Christian" can be purchased for money.
I suppose that at the root of all my various objections lies a general discomfort with the commercialization of religion. Its hard to explain exactly. I personal own a substantial library of religious books and music and own some religious art items. Still there is something about stores that market to "Christians", or "Mormons" or "Jews" that strikes as both more worldly than religions ought to be and a scam to separate the faithful from their money.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:In my own case, I hate it when religion and business get mixed so overtly.
And yet you buy Christian merchandise from a Christian book store? How do you expect to buy that stuff if there aren't any stores who sell it?
quote:I hate the implication that you can find EVERYTHING Christian at a business, that everything that's Christian can be bought. (Want to be Christian? No need to mess around with praying and reflection and repentance when you can just BUY something!)
I don't see that implication at all, at least not from their slogan. It's a store. To me, it's obvious that they're only talking about things which can be bought at a store, like books and music.
quote:And, perversely, there's something annoying about the idea that if you CAN buy something Christian, then get it CHEAP!
When I buy a book, I prefer to pay less than pay more, as does everybody else. I don't see why that would change for anybody just because it's a religious book.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by plaid: And, perversely, there's something annoying about the idea that if you CAN buy something Christian, then get it CHEAP! It's taking consumerism to a whole 'nother level. It's had me thinking about ads like Crazy Jesus's -- Our Prices Are Insane! and Big Bob's Discount Jesus and Kwik-E-Jesus ...
Exactly plaid. In part what bother's me is that Christianity teaches that the worker is worthy of his wages -- which implies, at least to me, that a good Christian should not pay less for something than it is worth or sell something for more than is fair.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: "Everything Christian for Less" is kind of how I view atheism. You get the happiness, the good life, the family and friends, the feeling of being at peace, the "full" feeling (just to cover my bases), and you don't have to get up early and get all dolled up every Sunday, you get to choose what you believe on your own, and you don't have anyone else telling you what your morals need to be.
Heck, it's not just less, it's free.
No, you don't.
Please explain. I know many atheists who have all of these things.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Do you pay retail price for everything?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I suppose that at the root of all my various objections lies a general discomfort with the commercialization of religion. Its hard to explain exactly. I personal own a substantial library of religious books and music and own some religious art items. Still there is something about stores that market to "Christians", or "Mormons" or "Jews" that strikes as both more worldly than religions ought to be and a scam to separate the faithful from their money.
I really don't get that. "Christian" or "Mormon" goods come from people who are selling "Christian" or "Mormon" goods. I don't see how selling it is any worse than buying it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:When I buy a book, I prefer to pay less than pay more, as does everybody else. I don't see why that would change for anybody just because it's a religious book.
But mph that is exactly why consumerism and christianity are fundamentally incompatible. A good Chrisitian shouldn't desire to pay less for the book than is just compensation for the writer, the publisher and others involved in its production and sale.
If this store is able to sell Christian books for less than other places it suggests one of two things. 1. There are other places which are making excessive profit for Christian books and things. 2. Someone in this operation is being under rewarded for their work. Both of those options violate the spirit of Chrisitanity.
So while I recognize that its hard to determine what constitutes a fair price for any item, its also clear to be that it is possible for a seller cheat the buyer by demanding to much and for the buyer to cheat the seller by refusing to pay enough.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I just sold half a dozen of my old Jesus text books to the used book store, so someone is going to get a bunch of Christian books for less there. I'm going to use the money to buy an altar to sacrifice baby kittens to the Lord of Darkness. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If this store is able to sell Christian books for less than other places it suggests one of two things. 1. There are other places which are making excessive profit for Christian books and things. 2. Someone in this operation is being under rewarded for their work. Both of those options violate the spirit of Chrisitanity.
Or 3. this store is more efficient with how it does its business.
quote:its also clear to be that it is possible for a seller cheat the buyer by demanding to much and for the buyer to cheat the seller by refusing to pay enough.
I don't see how either one is a cheat. It's not as though I am obligated to buy a CD just because somebody records it. If I'm willing to pay a high price, then it's obviously not too high for me. If they're willing sell it to me for a low price, then it's obviously not too low for them.
[ April 11, 2007, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I always thought 'just compensation' was determined by the law of supply and demand.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I always thought 'just compensation' was determined by the law of supply and demand.
Then I guess you haven't actually read Adam Smith.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:In my own case, I hate it when religion and business get mixed so overtly.
And yet you buy Christian merchandise from a Christian book store? How do you expect to buy that stuff if there aren't any stores who sell it?
It was a secular book that happened to be sold there (the "Garden Fun" book for families) and the publisher had gone out of business since last fall and this was the only place I could find it. But yeah, I did spend some money at a place that I don't agree with, my bad.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I always thought 'just compensation' was determined by the law of supply and demand.
Then I guess you haven't actually read Adam Smith.
I'll admit that I haven't. What do you define as just compensation?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:its also clear to be that it is possible for a seller cheat the buyer by demanding to much and for the buyer to cheat the seller by refusing to pay enough.
I don't see how either one is a cheat. It's not as though I am obligated to buy a CD just because somebody records it. If I'm willing to pay a high price, then it's obviously not too high for me. If they're willing sell it to me for a low price, then it's obviously not too low for them. [/QB]
Take it to the extreme mph. Suppose I walk into the store and the owner has left an 8 year old running the cash register. I negotiate with the 8 year old using a bunch of math that's way over his head and get him to sell me the book for 1/10th the price marked on the book. Would that be cheating the seller?
What if I'm selling you a used car and I know that the car isn't worth more than $500 because its transmission is on its last legs but I don't tell you that and charge you $2000 dollars? Would that be cheating the buyer?
Some years ago I remember a general conference talk on honesty. Unfortunately I can never remember which Apostle gave which talk so I haven't been able to find this one. What I do remember clearly is that one of the questions he asked was, "Do you pay the same amount for a car if the owner has to sell it as you would if he didn't?" I have always understood that to mean that paying less for something than we know it reasonably worth is dishonest. This is particularly bad if we are taking advantage of someone who is in a less favorable position than we are perhaps because they know less, have fewer resources or have some other disability.
Of course determining what something is honestly worth outside of a market system isn't an easy proposition. And no, I don't always buy things at list price. I'm a sucker for a sale. But more and more now I will pay a premium for items if I can receive some guarantee that the workers who make it are being paid a living wage.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It was a secular book that happened to be sold there (the "Garden Fun" book for families) and the publisher had gone out of business since last fall and this was the only place I could find it. But yeah, I did spend some money at a place that I don't agree with, my bad.
OK, I made an erroneous assumption. Sorry about that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I always thought 'just compensation' was determined by the law of supply and demand.
Then I guess you haven't actually read Adam Smith.
I'll admit that I haven't. What do you define as just compensation?
Adam Smith (father of capitalism) writes in The Wealth of Nations that the true value of any item is equal to the number of hours of human labor (including training, education, etc) which were required to make it and bring it to market. Adam Smith argues that a free market will ultimately result in achieving that just rate of exchange but its pretty clear that no real world market system has ever done that.
In my mind, just compensation would dictate that all the workers involved in making and selling a book (for example) should be paid well enough for their efforts to be able to afford a quality of life that I would be willing to accept.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I negotiate with the 8 year old using a bunch of math that's way over his head and get him to sell me the book for 1/10th the price marked on the book. Would that be cheating the seller?
What if I'm selling you a used car and I know that the car isn't worth more than $500 because its transmission is on its last legs but I don't tell you that and charge you $2000 dollars? Would that be cheating the buyer?
Certainly, both of these are cheating; but you'll note that both of them rely on one side having less information than the other. In the usual case, both sides know what's being bought and sold, and what it's worth to them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Take it to the extreme mph. Suppose I walk into the store and the owner has left an 8 year old running the cash register. I negotiate with the 8 year old using a bunch of math that's way over his head and get him to sell me the book for 1/10th the price marked on the book. Would that be cheating the seller?
That's not taking this situation to the extreme -- it's taking it into a whole other realm. They're not analogous for many reasons, one of them being that in your example the seller was denied the ability to choose the price at which he sold the book.
quote:What if I'm selling you a used car and I know that the car isn't worth more than $500 because its transmission is on its last legs but I don't tell you that and charge you $2000 dollars? Would that be cheating the buyer?
That would be cheating because you withheld vital information about the car, denying me the ability to accurately judge how much the car is worth to me. No such thing is happening at the book store.
Rabbit, I'm wondering if you have an answer to my earlier question -- if you think it's not good to mix religion and business as a merchant, do you think it's equally wrong to mix religion and business as a seller? In other words, if you think it's wrong/distasteful to sell "Mormon" or "Christian" items, do you think it is wrong/distasteful to buy those items?
quote:"Do you pay the same amount for a car if the owner has to sell it as you would if he didn't?"
Was the assumption that you'd pay less in order to gouge them, and that's wrong against him, or that you'd pay more because you know they need it, and that's wrong against the other people you buy cars from?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
pffft. It's all cheaper on amazon or ebay or half.com anyway.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Certainly, both of these are cheating; but you'll note that both of them rely on one side having less information than the other. In the usual case, both sides know what's being bought and sold, and what it's worth to them.
While I agree that the examples I gave were extremes and I chose them specifically for that reason, I disagree that its usual for both sides to know equally well what is being bought and sold and what it is worth to them. In most cases, one of the parties has an advantage in terms of either knowledge of the object, resources available, persuasive skills or something which allows him/her to shift the deal to their advantage. Deals in which both sides have truly equal leverage do exist but they are far from the norm.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I must say that the case of books strikes me as a really perfect example of the parts having exactly equal information. The seller knows what the book is worth to him: What he paid for it, plus a small profit. The buyer knows what the book is worth to him: Whatever enjoyment he expects to get from a book. (Sure, sometimes you buy a stinker; but the seller didn't know that you wouldn't enjoy it, any more than you did.)
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
In my mind, just compensation would dictate that all the workers involved in making and selling a book (for example) should be paid well enough for their efforts to be able to afford a quality of life that I would be willing to accept.
Aren't the usefulness of the product to the rest of society--the buyer--, and its quality also relevant? Is everyone engaged in some kind of employment entitled to that quality of life?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Aren't the usefulness of the product to the rest of society--the buyer--, and its quality also relevant? Is everyone engaged in some kind of employment entitled to that quality of life?
I see it as a matter of personal ethics. When I buy something I am benefitting from someone elses labor. The golden rule dictates that if I wish to benefit from their labor, I should be willing to pay them enough that they can enjoy a quality of life that I would be willing to accept. If I don't desire to benefit from their labor because its useless to me or is of poor quality the same rules don't apply but once I decide to benefit from anothers work, Chrisitian ethics dictate that I pay them what I would desire to be paid had I done the work.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That does not seem to make sense. Suppose we are speaking of widgets. You are a very bad widget-maker. It takes you three days to make a widget. So, the 'just price' for you is three days' wages. The guy you are actually buying from, though, is an extremely skilled widget maker. It only takes him an hour. What's more, he really loves making widgets. He'd pay to make widgets if he had to. Are you still going to give him three days' wages? I assume not. In fact, I would assume you would like to pay him what you yourself would like to be paid for a job where each unit took you an hour to make, and you loved the work. And how would you signal that price? Why, you'd set up a sign: Widgets! Ten dollars each! (Assuming of course that you thought ten dollars a reasonable hourly wage.) Which, in fact, is just what the widgetmaker has done: The price he wants to be paid is clearly marked on the widget you are contemplating buying. So where is the unfairness?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Aren't the usefulness of the product to the rest of society--the buyer--, and its quality also relevant? Is everyone engaged in some kind of employment entitled to that quality of life?
I see it as a matter of personal ethics. When I buy something I am benefitting from someone elses labor. The golden rule dictates that if I wish to benefit from their labor, I should be willing to pay them enough that they can enjoy a quality of life that I would be willing to accept. If I don't desire to benefit from their labor because its useless to me or is of poor quality the same rules don't apply but once I decide to benefit from anothers work, Chrisitian ethics dictate that I pay them what I would desire to be paid had I done the work.
But that takes away all the quantitative assessments that go into the equation. That seems reasonable if, say, you were hiring a builder to build your house. But do you owe it to everyone you buy from to pay them according to what they need and not what they offer you in fair trade?
I find wage slavery and the state of affairs in most African or SEAn economies to be deplorable. But your system turns the table around and exploits the buyer on the basis on the producer's needs, not his or her ability or products.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Rabbit, I'm wondering if you have an answer to my earlier question -- if you think it's not good to mix religion and business as a merchant, do you think it's equally wrong to mix religion and business as a seller? In other words, if you think it's wrong/distasteful to sell "Mormon" or "Christian" items, do you think it is wrong/distasteful to buy those items?
As I said before, its a struggle to clearly define what I mean here. First let me define materialism to be the belief that material things are the only things exist or matter. And let me define Commercialism as the belief that everything in life should be turned into objects and services that can be exchanged for profit. I believe that commercialism and materialism are fundamentally at odds with the message of Christianity and most other major world religions.
The problem is that some level of material well being is essential and that exchanging goods and services can add to human well being. So this isn't an all or nothing proposition. The point being that I find some level of owning material possessions to be good and yet I find dedicating too much of ones life to the pursuit of material goods to be a form of idolatry. I find some level of trade to be beneficial and yet I hold that somethings should not be bought or sold at any price.
You are asking me to draw a clear dividing line but I can't. All I can tell you is that while I see a legitimate need for religious books, inspirational music and art and have no objection to those who are trying to meet those needs, some religious marketing schemes I've seen cross over a line. They are no longer simply providing inspirational material at a just price but they seem to me to be trying to reduce Chrisitanity to a commodity that can be bought and sold. They seem to be trying to get people to buy things they wouldn't otherwise buy because they have a "Christian" twist which in my mind is fundamentally un-christian.
I guess the short answer is that I have no problem with people selling the kinds of Christian or Mormon things that I buy. What I object to are the kitch items like religious action figures, Jesus coloring books, 14 carrot gold CTR rings, Moroni tie tacks and Jesus refrigerator magnets. And I have just as much problem with the people who buy them as I do with the people who sell them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What I object to are the kitch items like religious action figures, Jesus coloring books
I'm not baiting you, but I honestly don't don't see where you're coming from, so I hope you don't mind if I ask you some more questions.
I take it that you don't have anything against coloring books with secular pictures. Why then, do you have a problem with coloring books that have religiously-themed pictures?
Same thing with refrigerator magnets -- do you have a problem with magnets relating to other aspects of people's lives, such as their occupation, hobbies, or ethnicity? If not, why do you object to magnets that relate to people's religion?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But that takes away all the quantitative assessments that go into the equation. That seems reasonable if, say, you were hiring a builder to build your house. But do you owe it to everyone you buy from to pay them according to what they need and not what they offer you in fair trade?
But what constitutes fair trade? Isn't that the root of the question?
Suppose I want a high quality chocolate bar. I assume that more effort goes into making a high quality chocolate bar than goes into making a low quality chocolate bar. I suspect this is only true if you include in "effort" not just the time in making my specific chocolate bar but all the human hours that went in to learning how to make the chocolate bar but my system does include that effort.
So if I want a high quality chocolate bar, then I should be willing to compensate all the effort that went into making that bar at a rate which I would be willing to accept. If not what I'm saying is that I'm not wouldn't be willing to put forth the effort necessary to make the chocolate bar but I want it anyway.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Not all high quality chocolate bars take more effort to produce than low quality ones, even taking into consideration the training required. Some people have more abilities than others; more talent; they might make use of their manhours more efficiently. And what if a chocolate bar is just badly designed?
Fair trade occurs when two people who have, through honest work, produced something, deem that it's in their respective interests to exchange goods. Money being the middle-man.
If you want to buy a Bible that would be very important to you, you yourself assign a high value to it. You'd be willing to pay more.
You would want a dancing hula doll a lot less. But the man producing it may work the same hours as the man in the publisher's assembly lines.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Same thing with refrigerator magnets -- do you have a problem with magnets relating to other aspects of people's lives, such as their occupation, hobbies, or ethnicity? If not, why do you object to magnets that relate to people's religion?
At least with some Christians, I think it's the 'graven images' commandment spilling over a bit.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I take it that you don't have anything against coloring books with secular pictures. Why then, do you have a problem with coloring books that have religiously-themed pictures?
Actually, I do have problems with coloring books with secular pictures in them. I think coloring books stiffle creativity and that children are much better off with a box of crayons and a blank page than a coloring book in general. I think coloring books only exist because someone figured out that they could charge more money for a coloring book than they could for a blank pad of paper. Kids are particularly susceptible to advertising so its easy to deceive them into thinking that a coloring book is better than a blank pad of paper even when they always have at least as much fun coloring on a blank pad of paper. If no one had ever inventing coloring books, no would ever have thought they wanted one. Its a classic example of consumerism and materialism.
But I find religiously themed coloring books even more distasteful than secular ones because Christian teachings are supposed to espouse values other than consumerism and materialism.
Let me make analogy. Suppose someone is going around swindling old ladies out of their pension by getting them to invest in swamp land. I think we'd all agree thats bad. Now suppose that someone is swindling old ladies out of their pensions by getting them to invest in swamp land diguised as "a Christian missionary project". I would find that even more offensive. Why? Christianity teaches the importance of being honest, caring for the poor, the sick and the elderly. Using a facade of "Christianity" for an end that is so clearly antithetical to Christianity is deeply offensive to me.
Now I don't consider selling Christian themed coloring books to be anything like swindling old ladies. I suspect that those who are selling Christian coloring books have no ill intensions at all. I also expect that they are so deeply immersed in our culture of Materialism and Consumerism that they don't even recognize the conflict between consumerism and Christian ideals.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Same thing with refrigerator magnets -- do you have a problem with magnets relating to other aspects of people's lives, such as their occupation, hobbies, or ethnicity? If not, why do you object to magnets that relate to people's religion?
At least with some Christians, I think it's the 'graven images' commandment spilling over a bit.
No its not the graven images thing at all. I have no problem with Christian art in general. My problem is with consumer products that create a market for themselves.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Goodnight!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Rabbit -- I can understand your analogy if you're coming from the position that action figures, coloring books, gold rings, tie tacks, and refrigerator magnets are offensive in and of themselves, which is then exacerbated by tying them to religion. Is that what you're saying?
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Please explain. I know many atheists who have all of these things.
If you really believe that, then I cannot explain.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: stihl1,
You don't and I don't; others might.
They might think they do, but they don't.
The assertion was that atheists get all the happiness that christians get, for less work. This is not true at all. In this world, and certainly not in the next.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In MY hypothetical next world, only atheists get the helper monkeys.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1, from 2 diff. posts: Who needs a war? Just park a couple of nukes in downtown Tehran and watch chaos ensue.
Frankly, I think a good nuking and the horrors that ensue is more than overdue. It would bring home a reality check to these idiot nations that think it's cool to push the US's buttons on these issues, and refresh people just how bad a nuke will screw them.
Yes, stihl1, if only atheists realized how refreshing a good nuking is, they would convert post-haste to obtain that serenity that you are such an examplar for.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Yes, stihl1, if only atheists realized how refreshing a good nuking is, they would convert post-haste to obtain that serenity that you are such an examplar for.
Next time, you should look for my posts about how Obama is an islamic sleeper agent. Those are much more effective. If, that is, you continue to miss the context and tone those are posted in as well.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In MY hypothetical next world,
Is that how you rationalize hell?
Just wondering.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm trying to imagine a less productive conversation.
So far, I've got nothing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
We could bring up abortion.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
You claim that atheists are not as happy as Christians. I was just wondering if along with the joie de vivre you get a healthy desire to spread radioactive death far and wide.
You seemed very serious that you think "a good nuking and the horrors that ensue is more than overdue." Were you joking? No one on that thread thought so. If I missed tone or context so did every one else. In fact, several others were horrified at that post. link Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In MY hypothetical next world, only atheists get the helper monkeys.
Ahem...virgin helper monkeys. Just thought I should clarify that detail. It makes all the difference, really.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Or I could join. Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: You claim that atheists are not as happy as Christians. I was just wondering if along with the joie de vivre you get a healthy desire to spread radioactive death far and wide.
You seemed very serious that you think "a good nuking and the horrors that ensue is more than overdue." Were you joking? No one on that thread thought so. If I missed tone or context so did every one else. In fact, several others were horrified at that post. link
Of course they were. That's what happens on Hatrack. It's almost as predictable as the inevitable atheist attack that will show up in any religious thread.
And you're just further illustrating that.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Please explain. I know many atheists who have all of these things.
If you really believe that, then I cannot explain.
Funny that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My second-favorite religious kitsch: the Popener. My all-time favorite religious kitsch: when I was in Israel in 1991, I came across someone in the street outside the Church of the Nativity selling lovingly-rendered little "bronze" figurines of Jesus and Moses duking it out over the Ark of the Covenant for $4 apiece.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
At least he's honest.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I give up stihl1. I'm neither atheist nor Christian, sorry I don't fit in your illustrated pigeonholes.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: I give up stihl1.
Okay.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: They might think they do, but they don't.
The assertion was that atheists get all the happiness that christians get, for less work. This is not true at all. In this world, and certainly not in the next.
Possibly I'm deluding myself, but I'm pretty dang happy, and I get to sleep in on Sunday. As far as I'm concerned, that's a win-win. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:I'm pretty dang happy, and I get to sleep in on Sunday.
Hey, me too!
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: They might think they do, but they don't.
The assertion was that atheists get all the happiness that christians get, for less work. This is not true at all. In this world, and certainly not in the next.
Possibly I'm deluding myself, but I'm pretty dang happy, and I get to sleep in on Sunday. As far as I'm concerned, that's a win-win.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)