Tags: religion


Stand up for freedom while mocking the Infidel

It's win-win!

US company posts cartoons of Mohammad

"An American distributor of religious press releases has published the caricatures of Mohammad that have sparked violent protests in the Muslim world."

"McCullough said he's concerned that some American media are censoring themselves in the face of "terroristic threats," and he wants to stand with those who won't be intimidated."

Because displaying something for no reason other than causing anger and humiliation with a side effect of 'neener' is absolutely something that Jesus would do.

It's not like anyone is unable to see the caricatures. There are plenty of sites displaying them, including the Danish articles where they were first released. While I certainly don't support the riots, or any form of religious extremism, it's a tenet of Islam to not depict Mohammad. By posting the caricatures, they are mocking a legitimate faith.

Yes, plenty of mocking is aimed toward Christianity...I've indulged in it myself, although I'm generally mocking the actions of its wackier members. I'm not going after Jesus or whatnot (Paul is always fair game). There's enough room to go after suicide bombers without involving Mohammad, who by all accounts, wouldn't have condoned them.

This is being done by people who are in their own lights "The good guys". If you're a good guy, like it or not, you're supposed to hold a higher standard. It's like being a police officer. There was a vague possibility that the media didn't show the cartoons out of respect for members of the Islamic faith.

There was moral high ground to be seized here, and it was abandoned by those who would seek to define it. Christianity is supposed to be the home of peace and understanding. Of loving thy neighbor, feeding and clothing the enemy and confronting evil with good. But that's the hard stuff. Displaying these in the name of freedom was the easy way out.
  • Current Mood
    pessimistic pessimistic
  • Tags

God is a Cylon

Last week's Battlestar Galactica episode, not to mention The Handmaid's Tale, isn't that far off.

A submissive bow of my properly covered head to Jesus General for pointing this out.

Deliberate Childlessness Against God's Plan

It starts off with evil couples (although the only ones quoted are women, the selfish sluts) who don't want children because they don't want their house messed up or their lifestyle altered, which is much, much worse than having children because it's expected of them.

"Christians must recognize that this rebellion against parenthood represents nothing less than an absolute revolt against God's design. The Scripture points to barrenness as a great curse and children as a divine gift."

"Marriage, sex and children are part of one package. To deny any part of this wholeness is to reject God's intention in creation -- and His mandate revealed in the Bible."

Hey, all you guys whose wives aren't in the mood, go ahead and have sex with her anyway. It isn't rape, it's God's divine plan.

"The Scripture does not even envision married couples who choose not to have children."

I don't know. There's the whole Whore of Babylon thing in Revelation. I bet she wouldn't have had children in marriage.

Of course, the Scripture doesn't have a problem envisioning handing your daughters over to be raped, killing everyone in a city, or God axing the firstborn of unbelievers.

"Couples are not given the option of chosen childlessness in the biblical revelation."

Yes, if you don't die from constant childbirth by the time you're 30 or so, you aren't doing something right.

"Those who reject children want to have the joys of sex and marital companionship without the responsibilities of parenthood."

That does sound like me, yes.

"Parenthood is not a hobby, but represents one of the most crucial opportunities for the making of saints found in this life."

Saint-making. It's not a job, it's an adventure!

"Willful barrenness and chosen childlessness must be named as moral rebellion. To demand that marriage means sex -- but not children -- is to defraud the creator of His joy and pleasure in seeing the saints raising His children. That is just the way it is. No kidding."

How about sex outside marriage? That ok?

My folks went to the Crucifixion

...and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.

It's heartening to see that places other than America can be totally insane.

Sidney asks Gibson to re-create the Passion

"Mel Gibson has been asked to recreate the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in the streets of Sydney if the city is selected to host a major Catholic gathering in 2008, a newspaper reported Saturday"

Now, really, aren't you just dying (heh) to see that? Don't you wish they would stage a horrific bloody death in the middle of YOUR town? It would be so much fun to take the kids. They could have a few rides, too, or sell hotdogs and souveniers, like the t-shirt mentioned above.

"would begin with the Last Supper staged at Sydney's landmark Opera House at sunset, and would end with the crucifixion of Christ at St. Mary's Cathedral"

I think they're holding back a bit here. Flogging Jesus through the streets of Sidney would be much more lively. Or maybe they'd do that, I'm not sure.

What are the folk of Sidney who aren't participating in this hootenanny supposed to do? It would be tricky to shop while Christ is being beaten just a few feet away. What if you're trying to drive? Will the police stop traffic while the Romans move through the intersection? Will the crosswalks be used?

ETA: mr.mir had a few good ideas. Wouldn't a little crown of thorns be fun to buy for the kiddies? Or you could introduce carnival games on the order of throwing the ball and dunking the guy. "Five dollars gets you three whip strokes."