 |
| Virtually no doubt in my mind that today's conservative would continually criticize Jesus. |
 |
| Hee Hee |
 |
Can anyone explain to me how guys like Paul Ryan and Steve King can claim that Christ is their savior and also espouse Ayn Rand?
|
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Sunday Funnies
Here are a few cartoons that caught my eye this week that are perfect for a Sunday morinng.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
About your last question, it occurs to me that shouldn't be so hard for you to understand. You mash together incoherent things frequently and don't feel any tension between the two.
That's not true, juris. And that doesn't answer my question. Now, I know that you are athiest/agnostic so I get why you would like Rand (even though I know you have some problems with her) so that makes sense. But King and Ryan? It just shows how little their followers think.
Except of course I don't like Rand. I've told you that before. I guess you just can't let reality intrude into the little mental images you have carved into your brain.
Can anyone explain to me how guys like Paul Ryan and Steve King can claim that Christ is their savior and also espouse Ayn Rand?
Because agreeing with the economic, political or liberty ideas of a writer does not also mean that one has to agree with the religious views of that same writer.
Does that really need to be explained to you?
So, let me see if I understand you correctly, GD. It's OK to agree with someone on an economic, political or liberty level even if they regard religion as "a sign of weakness and an evil?" Really?
I wonder what you and others on the right would say if President Obama had said those words....:)
And what would you have thought of a republican saying they passed legislation because that's what Jesus would have wanted like obama said recently?
If she had said 2+2=4 would you insist we disagree with her?
Obama apparently surprised that he pissed off Catholics. Just out of curiousity (and expecting the worst) anyone know what Muslim teaching is on birth-control?
Well, rld, I think it's more genuine coming from the president because he doesn't beat people over the head with this faith like the right does all the time. He's a fairly humble guy but, in all likelihood, he's not in your eyes because that's how YOU are. See how this perception thing gets warped?
My main frustration with Rand, GD, is she was completely wrong and yet people still believe. If she had said, "2+2=4" then at least she would have been right about one thing anyway.
A humble man with 2 autobiographies before he's forty?
Have you read them, dave?
And he was 45 when we wrote Audacity. 36 for Dreams.
Except, Mark, you weren't discussing whether or not her arguments had merits or not. You were trying to imply that since she held a view that anyone of faith would disagree with (although the majority of atheists would agree with it) then anyone of faith cannot possibly agree with any of her other arguments.
That is why I brought up 2+2=4. Under your totally flawed logic - because she says something A that can't be agreed with, then Mark thinks we cannot also agree with her when she says B, C or D, even if that includes such a obviously correct statement such as 2+2=4.
That is your logic. That is your argument Mark.
That is ridiculous.
Addendum: That you also are incapable of recognizing your own argument and cannot stay on the topic of it is also ridiculous.
Overall, I'm talking about the issue of belief...belief in Rand...belief in Jesus, right? I don't think it's possible to believe in both. I just don't see how you can reconcile that if, as some of you have assured me, you have principles.
I get where you went with the 2+2=4 thing. I just wanted to take it to a broader level which tied back into my main focus of being perplexed at the dichotomy.
It seems to me that Rand is just another tool that folks on the right can use to win the argument/prove the left wrong and I think that's bullshit considering you guys are supposed to have "principles."
Belief in Rand? WTF dude? Just like I said on the other post - liberalism is you religion and you expect the other side to approach things the same way you do.
Hint - one does not have to 'believe' in Rand to agree with what she wrote.
There is no dichotomy.
I'm talking about the issue of belief...belief in Rand...belief in Jesus, right? I don't think it's possible to believe in both.
Yes, of course you are talking about belief, at least you recognize it this time. And no, you don't think.
Post a Comment