New KATG Format: All anti-religion all the time?

[Earl Dukes]

Originally Posted by Greg In Oakland

I would disagree. Not sure it's quantifiable though to compare two different types of mediums.

Also, South Park has never made a blanket comment, 'All of these types of people are bad or good or whatever.'

Okay, that's a real answer, but you must have understood that my South Park question was rhetorical. I was using bw81 as an example. It was rhetorical, and choosing to single that question out with an answer makes it seem like you answered it facetiously out of principal and not because you genuinely had a response. Do you see how these things can be construed as you being a douche?

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Greg In Oakland

I eat pork too. And I mix milk and meat.

ain't neither o' those Big 10, son. eat your pork. kill your mom. steal from home depot. don't mix your wool with your linen. it's all relative.

[Greg In Oakland]

Originally Posted by Earl Dukes

"Curt" is more what I meant. What I meant by "cheap shots" is commentary that is worth nothing. You haven't even been offering commentary. You haven't said a damn thing. Everyone here, until it got out of control, was putting real and valid viewpoints down on the table, and you shot them all down. You're not sure what questions you've been avoiding because it seems you haven't taken the time to consider them. Every time something in your direction comes up, you steer it back to your original question. A conversation that doesn't go anywhere is not a conversation. It's just you being a douche. If you don't have the time to consider our opinions fairly, then you should probably focus more on your Sunday, and stop wasting your and our time.

I didn't waste my time at all. I got quite a bit out of this thread. And I'm sorry if I didn't want to have a discussion trail off into one direction or another. As I said, my time was finite during the day.

But, I'm now free of distractions...PJs and TV on. If you still want me to attempt to add value for you in this conversation, you have my undivided attention.

[Greg In Oakland]

Originally Posted by Earl Dukes

Okay, that's a real answer, but you must have understood that my South Park question was rhetorical. I was using bw81 as an example. It was rhetorical, and choosing to single that question out with an answer makes it seem like you answered it facetiously out of principal and not because you genuinely had a response. Do you see how these things can be construed as you being a douche?

I think 80% of conversations are lost in translation over the internet. Even among friends.

[jorjo]

Like many (and perhaps even most) I adore Keith's rants. The subject doesn't matter so much as the passion. If it's religion I'm good with that

There has never been any suggestion (well, at least not BEFORE this thread) that KaTG would move to 100% religion bashing content and your suggestion that it's ALL the time is, quite simply, a ridiculous exaggeration.

As already stated - the subject comes up on KaTG because it comes up in the media - there are regular news stories that illustrate the crazy, hypocrisy that the 'voice' of religion seems to be. KaTG is simply responding to that.

And what Keith actually says is that you can't be a Good Christian AND a Good Person. And he's right. You can't obey and follow a literal translation of the bible (Good Christian) AND be a Good Person (eg accept same sex marriages - not the only example, just a timely one).

You may well be a Good Person and a Christian, but if you're not following all the dogma you are not a Good Christian.

[Greg In Oakland]

Originally Posted by jorjo

And what Keith actually says is that you can't be a Good Christian AND a Good Person. And he's right. You can't obey and follow a literal translation of the bible (Good Christian) AND be a Good Person (eg accept same sex marriages - not the only example, just a timely one).

I don't think you are right. In order to be a good Christian, you have to follow the word and teachings of Christ. Love they neighbor, and the like. He, for example, makes no statements regarding homosexuality or same sex marriage. And he definitely doesn't recommend shunning someone for who they are (e.g. blind hate). I believe I am a good Christian, because as Christ teaches, I don't judge. Moreover, I don't think you have to take the bible literally to be a good Christian. It was a collection of events recorded by men, with most of the events likely bastardized in order to satisfy the 'My God's dick is bigger than your God's dick' test. If full acceptance of the bible as fact was a requirement of being a good Christian I would imagine there would be much less bickering over the bible's interpretation by various biblical scholars.

[DWarrior]

Maybe if you didn't rewind, you'd realize you're saying the same shit Keith dismisses every time he talks about religion. Now you're just trying to be mentioned on the show.

[Greg In Oakland]

Originally Posted by DWarrior

Maybe if you didn't rewind, you'd realize you're saying the same shit Keith dismisses every time he talks about religion. Now you're just trying to be mentioned on the show.

I don't understand your point. How is what I'm saying the same as what Keith is saying?

I have no interest in being mentioned on the show. And I'm taking amyuilani's advice and taking a listening hiatus. If he does mention this thread on the show I won't hear it.

[jorjo]

Originally Posted by Greg In Oakland

I don't think you are right. In order to be a good Christian, you have to follow the word and teachings of Christ. Love they neighbor, and the like. He, for example, makes no statements regarding homosexuality or same sex marriage. And he definitely doesn't recommend shunning someone for who they are (e.g. blind hate). I believe I am a good Christian, because as Christ teaches, I don't judge. Moreover, I don't think you have to take the bible literally to be a good Christian. It was a collection of events recorded by men, with most of the events likely bastardized in order to satisfy the 'My God's dick is bigger than your God's dick' test. If full acceptance of the bible as fact was a requirement of being a good Christian I would imagine there would be much less bickering over the bible's interpretation by various biblical scholars.

I agree 100%. All except for the bit about you not having to take the bible literally ...

My understanding is that the bible, although written by man, was, supposedly, the word of God. Now, you and I both seem to agree that's not true - of course it was bastardised; of course interpretations have been made to suit the needs of those who interpreted it. That's really rather the point. If you don't truly believe it is THE WORD OF GOD and you choose NOT to follow it literally (even if we're just talking the New Testament), then you're not a GOOD Christian.

Sure, Jesus makes no statements with regard to homosexuality, but the people shouting the "Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve" and "Marriage is between one man and one woman" rhetoric sure as heck do. And they do it in YOUR name as a Christian. They also seem to conveniently forget what Jesus did say about such things as divorce and that little story about how the only way a rich person can get to heaven is to sell everything and give the money to the poor. I guess Christians only need to follow some of Jesus' teachings ...

It's the convenience of what parts of the bible people choose to follow and what interpretations they choose to make that cause the religion and it's followers to fall somewhere on the spectrum between fairy story believers and crazy nutters.

If religious folk are making claims and assertions in the name of your religion that you don't agree with, what are you doing about it? What has your congregation done to show the members of your community that you're not all judgmental hypocrites?

[dannyhatch]

Riddle me this, Gregothy. What if God was one of us?