So You Want To Know What's Wrong with Religion? (10)

Apparently Vista Print is being sued by a Gay couple who ordered wedding programs and were slightly (heavy sarcasm) perturbed when they opened the box the evening before the event and found anti-gay propaganda pamphlets instead. They are suing! Read a little about it yourself: "A Gay Couple Ordered Wedding Programs; They Got Anti-Gay Pamphlets Instead".  If had been just a messed up order, they would be upset, but not to the point of suing.  The fact it was some pretty vile anti-gay pamphlets makes more than likely a deliberate act.

Now, unlike some organizations, Vista Print does not have a history of being anti-LGBT.  So what probably happened is an employee took it upon themselves to make the change.  What I figure will probably happen is the Vista Print investigation will find the employee who decided printing programs for a Gay wedding violated their sincerely-held religious beliefs.  I hope Vista Print has the testicular fortitude to fire them!

You know, now that I think about it, Vista Print also should sue them for any damages they [VP] ends up paying because of the screw-up.  I mean they are being sued by the Gay couple, and at first glance, the responsibility certainly is their responsibility.  It also might be more than one person because I would assume some quality control.  

The more I think about it, I am willing to bet the person, or persons, get fired also sues Vista Print for a perceived violation of their religious rights.  I mean theists are known for not accepting responsibility for their actions, they try and pass it all onto their deity, don't they?

In any event I hope Stephen and Andrew have a long and happy life together and this incident didn't wreck what should have been a joyous occasion.

Jesus and Mo Strike Another Chord!

I just love Jesus and Mo!  You can easily see why:

Self-awareness is not exactly a trait I have found to exist in most theists.  Now, self-righteousness certainly, but not self-awareness.  Often I like to point out the hypocrisy to a theist for fun.  They never get it!

Look at those theists who support a certain hamster-haired serial liar and misogynist for example.  Or how about those who supported that silly clerk in Kentucky or Roy Moore in Alabama.  The mental gyrations theists have to go through to self-justify their support for such people just cracks me up!  No, self-awareness is not a common trait in theists.

Even now after hamster-hair has broken most of his campaign promises, they still support him!  Many of his supporters are on the verge of losing medical coverage, and they still support him.  Many are not going to see any advantages in his tax bill, and might even end up paying more in taxes, they still support him.  It boggles the mind!  It would be even more entertaining, if it wasn't so tragic.

Here is how I see it.  To all too many theists, it doesn't matter what someone actually stands for, as long as they appear to stand for some of what the theists believe that counts.  Hold up a Bible and you will have lots of support.  It doesn't matter if it's never even been opened, it doesn't matter if you are a liar, a misogynist, or a pedophile -- it's the appearance that matters, not the content of your character! 

Pandering politicians are another popular example.  Regardless of what they actually believe, saying the right things and supporting ridiculous bills, such as trying to have the Bible as the official State Book, gains them lots of support -- even though it's a meaningless gesture.  Seriously, how many people even know what their State Book is, or even if their state has a State Book.  Ohio has a State song ("Beautiful Ohio") and a State Rock Song ("Hang On Sloopy"), but no State Book.  I think something by Paul Laurence Dunbar or Erma Bombeck, perhaps?

You would think they would learn, but no, they have no desire to learn -- especially anything that might cause them to question their own beliefs.  They would much rather rationalize than learn.  Appearance seems to be the only criteria to gain support from theists, and the more conservative the theists, the more support they give to the appearance of sharing their beliefs.

Kennie Ham Doesn't Like Santa Claus

In a new post over on AiG, "Naughty or Nice?" one of kennie's 'Hamians' said a few things, like this:

"Believing that Santa is watching their every move and judging their actions to see if they deserve gifts may be an effective way of getting children to behave during the holiday season, but what message is this sending?"

However, isn't that exactly what kennie does with his religion?  Let's paraphrase part this a bit and see where we go:

'Believing that God is watching their every move and judging their actions to see if they deserve gifts [like everlasting life]'

God, that omniscient and omnipresent 'entity', is doing pretty much what is also attributed to Santa.  The Hamian also said:

"It also urges children to “be good for goodness’ sake!” But some vague idea of “goodness’ sake” or the hope of reaping a reward from Santa (or anyone else) should never be our motivation for being good."

Wait a minute, a reward should never be our motivation for being good . . . yet isn't that the main selling point for religions?  Listen to the preachers when they are trying to convince you to join their particular religion!  They use both the threat of everlasting punishment as well as the reward of everlasting life in their sales pitch.

What I hear from every theists who wants to talk to me is how I am going to burn in hell for my failing to share their particular belief set -- and if I simply join them and repent all my sins, then I can live forever in one version of a heaven or another.  The same exact sales pitch, only Santa's rewards come in annually instead of running a lifetime account and coal in your stocking is certainly better than burning in hell, but the sales pitch is the same.  Do this and be rewarded, or fail to do this and get punished.  That's the message!

Here is where the post gets confusing . . . here is another quote:

"But this is completely upside-down compared to the gospel . . . Now he offers the gift of eternal life and freedom from slavery to sin to all who will put their faith and trust in him (Romans 10:9). And it has nothing to do with what we do—but it has everything to do with God’s mercy to us."

If it has nothing to do with what we do . . . why are religions so controlling?  Romans 10:9 says:

"because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

So now I have a question for little kennie ham and any of his Hamians, why are you so homophobic?  Romans makes no mention that an LGBTQ person cannot do that confession and believe in their heart the rest, if it really has nothing to do with what we do -- then why be so homophobic?  Those are the authors words.

No, this post is nothing but trying to hide their controlling behavior and claiming one thing, but their behavior says something very different. It is all about what you do, not just what you believe. Ham won't hire someone for his ministries if they don't share the same set of beliefs. He's rabidly homophobic, while claiming love the sinner -- as long as they don't actually behave in a way he dislikes. He was even dis-invited to a couple of home school conferences because of his:

""unnecessary, ungodly, and mean-spirited" remarks about the conventions and other speakers."

Here is the last thing.  Early in the post, the poster briefly discusses "for goodness sake" as something too vague and ambiguous to actually be applied.  Yet, look at this quote toward the end:

"As believers, we have favor with God because we are clothed in Christ’s righteousness."

Talk about vague and ambiguous!  Every version of Christianity has a different list of what is righteous!  No one really knows what that means, but they were it like a cloak.

In closing, a little bit of timely humor.  Calvin and Hobbes is no longer being written, but the strips are being re-run.  Yesterday's strip was quite timely and appropriate, don't you think?

(From: http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2017/12/20)