Jonathan H. B. Lobl

You're right. I made an assumption.

Von: There are Christians who go into a foaming lather when they are told "Happy Holiday's" instead of "Merry Christmas". We still don't know what it was, that set off this particular Christian, over this particular incident. If it was all that important to her, she would have explained how it was offensive. She didn't. Everybody is simply expected to know. Still, since she is a neighbor, perhaps you can ask her what was so upsetting? I suggest asking her to be specific. If she complies, we will know something. If she refuses, we will also know something.

It seems like a charming idea. I'm not drawn to it -- but alright.

If the woman had said WHAT was offensive, or WHY it was offensive, we might have have something to examine. She simply expected you to know that it was offensive. In the absence of anything more tangible, this suggests that she was Christian rather than Buddhist. It's an attitude. Christians own the culture. Their feelings matter. Anyone who does not care is making "War on Christmas". Support, such as it is, is that she thought it was offensive "especially at Christmas time". Again, the rest of us are supposed to be on hyper alert lest we tread on Christian sensitivities. Well, if she wanted you to understand, she would have told you. I do despise cultural bullies. Merry Christmas.

1. Yes. It does. What is a church without moral high ground? I will rephrase. What does it profit a church to gain the whole world -- and lose it's soul? 2. I don't want to tax God. I want to see the churches get taxed. 3. "In God we trust. Everybody else pays cash."

Yes. Crime does pay. Otherwise, there would be no criminals. So much for the moral high ground. So much for being in the world, but not of it.

If you think it's murky now; just wait until the Johnson Amendment is destroyed. The churches themselves will become political slush funds. Then again, nothing sanitizes quite like Sunshine. John 8:32 [Full Chapter] And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

When the churches don't pay, everybody else picks up their slack. Yes. There are other thieves gaming the system. Some of those other thieves might well be Atheist groups. That hardly justifies church theft. Even less so, if the churches want to pretend that they have the moral high ground. It seems that they would rather have the money. Like any other thief.

Because life isn't fair. Because the vested interests in power, make the rules.

Yes. They do. And they do it without preaching. China has it's own tradition of "rice Christians". The poor would pray until the rice ran out. Then they would lose interest.

You are now asking a different question than when you started. Psalm 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations Psalm 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations There are more Scriptures explaining why Church folk are superior. Do you want them? Not that those good people are being smug or arrogant or bigots. God said it. Speaking of which: Isaiah 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations That is the problem with inerrant Scripture. The ugly and horrible never goes away. In answer to your question, that is how this particular projection is explained. This is why the church membership think that they are better than everyone else. God said so. Now, my question. Why should secular people be subsidizing churches?

In fairness, any organization run by people is going to be flawed. The higher the aspirations of the group, the more obvious the failings. This is not a church failing. It's a Human reality.

The presumption behind all nonprofits, is that they are making a contribution to society.

This is not a simple matter of business profit. Churches pay no land or property taxes. No utility taxes. No taxes towards trash removal. Nothing towards fire department or police services. No matter how we dice it, the community is supporting the church by taking on the church's responsibilities.

"Everything I say is a lie." "I'm lying."

"When you come to a fork in the road -- pick it up."

That was impressive. Any thoughts on herbal teas? In particular, chamomile, peppermint or ginger?

That sounds Taoist. Is it?

Apatheism is different. It's not about "not knowing" or "not believing". It's about not caring whether or not God exists. For the people are don't like arguing. "Nones" is misleading. A "none" could have any beliefs at all. The "none" simply has no affiliation. "No Preference"? Really? Someone who gives equal weight to Atheism, Islam, Christianity or Wicca?

I understand why the distinctions between Atheist and Agnostic don't excite you. They don't excite me. I tend to go with the Agnostic label, because I get into fewer stupid arguments with it. The difference is nuance. People get seriously over heated over that nuance. On Youtube, Agnostics and Atheists flame each other over the nuances. I know. It's silly, but there it is. I've had to drop out of some Facebook Atheist groups. They had raised the same tired question yet again. If you had to -- gun to your head -- take on a religion -- which religion would you pick? I said "Agnostic". From the reaction, you would think I had walked into their church and pissed on the altar. Free Thinker is more of a cultural thing. In a place like Saudi Arabia -- where Atheism gets you the death penalty -- the Free Thinker label makes a lot of sense. The Free Thinker label got it's start in the Christian world. It's rather old fashioned, but still has a following. Pantheism is for the people who have outgrown the Abrahamic God, but don't want to be Atheists. If nothing is God, then God is everything.

You might surprise yourself. We don't have an actual expiration date.

Some scientists have a great sense of humor. My favorite physics term is W.I.M.P. Weak Interactive Massive Particle.

You do know what running amuck means, don't you? It's a way of committing suicide. Fifteen minutes of fame? Be careful what you ask for. I can imagine the headlines. "Crazy old man running with dagger. Falls down and hurts himself."

If your memory goes back far enough, I used to advocate for Pantheism on this board. Things change. At least, I do.

I needed some time to consider a response. Not all gods are equally improbable. I am satisfied with the evidence, that the Universe exists. I am less satisfied with the evidence, for the existence of other gods. As for what you know, I have been paying attention these past years -- while you explained what you know, and how you know it. Good reasoning for a Pantheist. Not so much for a Monotheist. As for Howdy Dowdy Time -- by all means. Let the good times roll.