You're not a good Christian...

[Satan]

From http://www.wpni.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-10/05/044l-100599-idx.html :

"Creationism," said the Rev. Terry Glidden, leaning halfway over his desk, "is everything. If we take that away then we're left with a chance-filled life, a meaningless existence."

An intense evangelical preacher who rarely blinks, Glidden explained that the Bible predicts evolutionists, in Romans Chapter 1:

"Professing to be wise, they became fools. . . . For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator."

It also predicts God's vengeance on them. "For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions," he read. "Men abandoned their natural function and burned in their desire toward one another."

So according to what this guy says, you cannot believe that God created the Big Bang and be a good Christian. If you decide to look at scientific evidence and realize that it is correct, "God will enact his vengeance upon you," even if you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord & Savior, Inc.

It is absolute "truths" like this that turn people off from Christianity, and make ALL of it's followers look like mind-melded zealots.

I know a very good Christian who believes God created the whole universe, and helped things evolve, but he does not think the universe is any less than billions of years old.

Guess he's going to Hell...

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan

[Occam]

In order to believe, I think one must put so many 'blinders' on to the facts like you've just pointed out that one doesn't wonder if they are blind completly, ie. 'blind faith'.
Ignore what heathens and sinners say to you about knowing the true way. Ignore what you can see for your own eyes. Ignore what some equally faithful people say about your holy book. Sometimes Ignore the Holy Book until it coincidedes with what you believe is gods chosen path for you. Just believe and you will go to heaven.
Right.
Ignore your roomates. Ignore that you can see 70 feet down from your 5th story apartment. Ignore the pictures you've seen of people crushed. Just believe you can fly.
That's all you have to do, just believe.
Hmmm...
I think the late J.C. was wacked out on crystal meth. 2000 years ago.

[tomndebb]

What's the matter, Satan? Do you miss Adam/ARG220?

It isn't as though we haven't already had contributors to this Forum who actually believed the way Glidden does.

Rather than posting for Adam, why don't you just ask God to tell Adam to post, again?

------------------
Tom~

[Pickman's Model]

Did God create the world in six literal days, or did He take billions of years, allowing the DNA to work its way up from primeval puddles of snail snot to human beings? Hard to say, since I wasn't there at the instant it all commenced. God could've done it either way; He isn't limited. Whichever way He did is fine with me; as is whichever way people choose to believe He did it.

So according to what this guy says, you cannot believe that God created the Big Bang and be a good Christian.[quote]

Sure you can. Even the Pope says so. This fellow may not believe it, but that's only his opinion; he doesn't speak for the rest of us.

[quote] If you decide to look at scientific evidence and realize that it is correct, "God will enact his vengeance upon you," even if you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord & Savior, Inc.

"Lord and Savior, Inc."? Wow, I knew the televangelists were touting themselves, but I never realized they'd gone quite that far! As for scientific evidence and divine vengeance, they're two different things. Divine vengeance is reserved for those who willfully disobey God (and let's not revisit that particular debate again, if that's okay--we already did that one, and it waxes both redundant and wearisome); but acceptance of scientific evidence is not a sin, or at least it wasn't the last time I checked.......

It is absolute "truths" like this that turn people off from Christianity, and make ALL of it's followers look like mind-melded zealots.

ALL of them? That's a rather sweeping statement, don'tcha think? I could say the same thing about Pat Buchanan and all members of the Republican Party, or Marilyn Manson and all devotees of rock music. "I have one example of a fringe extremist here, who declares A, B, and C to be true; therefore, ALL members of the particular organization in question believe exactly the same thing---they are all mind-melded zealots." Everybody likes to feel like they belong to something, but please do not bunch me in with our friend described in your post above, thank you very much. You can't apply examples of extremists to all Christians.

I know a very good Christian who believes God created the whole universe, and helped things evolve, but he does not think the universe is any less than billions of years old.[/i]

I know one who believes that, too-----me. (I do not, however, make any claim to being a "very good Christian". I am a very, very, poor one, at best.)

[quote]Guess he's going to Hell...

Hopefully not, but if he did, it certainly wouldn't be for belief in evolution, or in creationism.

Or quails!

[Mojo]

From the article that Satan cited:

"The God that created the earth also created the fossils," Smith said. "And he can put them anywhere he wants to."

Wasn't that a quote from Inherit the Wind when the biblethumping guy goes on the stand?

They're trying to make a monkey out of you.....

Yes,God created the fossils.Thats why Jesse Helms is with us today :D

------------------
BURP! "excuse me.";D

[Polycarp]

No, orangecakes, fossils are extracted from rocks, not found under them....

[C K Dexter Haven]

I normally stay out of these threads for obvious reasons, but this one caused me to spurt my coffee --

<< It also predicts God's vengeance on them. "For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions," he read. "Men abandoned their natural function and burned in their desire toward one another." >>

Hey, so the punishment for believing in evolution is that you'll be gay??

What about women who believe in evolution?

And does it work the other way around? Is the punishment for being gay that you'll evolve?

Man, you gotta admit, when it comes to being both scarey and funny at the same time, you can't beat the fundamentalists!

[Polycarp]

I've been waiting for an opportunity to throw this quote in. Thanks, Dex... (but put down your coffee)

"The universe is not only queerer than you imagine; it is queerer than you can imagine." - J.B.S. Haldane

[tracer]

If we allow the teaching of Evolution in our schools, it's only a matter of time before they'll start teaching heresies like Heliocentrism and religious toleration!

[Pickman's Model]

My apologies to the Dark One if I misread the intent of his post. FWIW, I'm no big fan of guys like Senator Helms either, although he does have a sort of obsolete charm----reminds me of the days when George Wallace and Orval Faubus were in their prime. They were nothing if not entertaining.

Awful lot of Republicans in trouble, then, if St. Paul is condemning people for worshiping Bushes.

Does this mean if we tied George Dubya to a stake and lit him up with coal tar, we'd have a "burning Bush"?

[manhattan]

I especially loved this: But then she remembers another night, many years ago, when she was in college and working in Topeka, and drove home across the Kansas Avenue bridge. Fifteen minutes later, she took off her coat, turned on the TV, and saw the news that the bridge had collapsed, tossing several cars into the river, and drowning the drivers.
"When I look back I know God was there," she said. "And he was telling me, there's a reason for me to be here, even if only he knows the reason." Yes, Ma’am, that’s exactly right. God has something special in mind for you, so he delayed the bridge collapse and killed all those other people instead. I guess it didn’t occur to him to make the bridge, uh, not collapse at all. Some God you got there, lady. Does he make your favorite football team win, too?

BTW, tracer, that was perfect! So who’s going to write a letter to the Kansas School Board asking for its position on Heliocentrism?


------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[Drain Bead]

Does he make your favorite football team win, too?



One of my favorite comedy bits involved someone (and if anyone can remember who, I'd appreciate it) pointing out how amusing a blend Christianity and sports can be sometimes. I'm paraphrasing wildly here:

"It's funny, you know...you interview the winning football team after the Super Bowl, and all of the players make sure they mention that they never would have gotten this wonderful victory without God's help. You never see anything like this when you interview the losing team. 'Yeah, and we would have won this game, if Jesus hadn't made me fumble!'"

An interesting observation. If I believed in God, and I had a string of bad luck, you'd best believe I'd be blaming him just as much as anyone else. I'd have made a terrible Job.

[Polycarp]

Oh, PM, you mistake our Infernal Friend's motives. In point of fact there are a lot of people who sincerely believe the stuff he posted. A prominent state representative down here is a devout literalist and regularly makes obnoxious noises about including unchristian stuff like evolution and the big bang in the state curriculum. And the result is that nonbelievers of all stripes, hearing these idiots and not folks like you, me, Jodi, and Tom, think that all Christians think like these goombahs.

Sheesh...does this make me a devil's advocate?

I think the verse meant they worshipped trees and bushes and stuff like that.(creation).Yep,we do need arg back here to bounce this stuff off of( or anything else to bounce off of him!)

[Polycarp]

Awful lot of Republicans in trouble, then, if St. Paul is condemning people for worshiping Bushes. ;)

[Temujin]

... the result is that nonbelievers of all stripes, hearing these idiots and not folks like you, me, Jodi, and Tom, think that all Christians think like these goombahs.Most of the Christians I know believe in evolution. Moreover, most of them are politically left-of-center and socially conscious, as well as open-minded about others.

I'd like to believe that you and Brian have underestimated the intelligence of non-Christians. Not all non-Christians who hear people like the Rev. Terry Glidden conclude that all Christians are "mind-melded zealots." But non-Christians who are predisposed to bigotry might arrive at that conclusion.

[Surgoshan]

You know, I don't think I see a single Christian opinion on this page. What happened? Were they all driven away? I must say that although I'm not Christian, you don't seem to be any more charitable or open-minded than they are.

They believe in a god and you don't (please forgive me if you aren't atheistic), and that's where you draw the line. You've no more proof than they and are just as close-minded to argument.

You dismiss their arguments as rubbish based on hearsay and faith. They dismiss yours as heretical and faithless. Neither accepts any possibility of truth in the other.

Quite frankly, it depresses me. I find it difficult to express. Are all of those who call themselves free-thinking individuals as close-minded as those I see here?

Do you object to being called close-minded? Look at this "Great Debate!" It started off as a sally against someone in the opposite camp and quickly devolved to insults to prominent figures.

If this is a Great Debate, then I've lost all faith in the Straight Dope Message Board.

[Temujin]

Hi Surgoshan,

Which post (or posts) were you responding to?

[DrFidelius]

Surgoshan:

How are you able to tell from a person's posts whether or not they are Christian? I know that most folks don't label their posts with their religious orientation.

As for me, although I'm active in my church I have been told that I am not a "good" or a "real" Christian. I have always felt that I have a very good relationship with the Almighty, and if He has a problem with my thoughts and opinions He can say something to me about it. If my personal heresies are such that I am a "bad Christian," so be it. I will continue to try to be a good Man and take it up with the Judge when my time comes.

[Polycarp]

Temujin, you called me to account on a blatantly false statement, and I am grateful. Apologies to all non-Christians that I may have slandered with that remark.

As for me, my reaction to the last few posts would be that I am very proud to acknowledge Jesus as my savior and lord, but I don't feel jealous about his caring about others as well, and I get very highly offended by those who allege themselves as Christian and start drawing lines in the sand with demands that you have to believe seven impossible things before breakfast in order to be saved.

I don't recall whether you were posting regularly about a month ago, Surgoshan, but those of us who regularly read and posted this particular board dealt with an argumentative fundamentalist Christian who considered that we were all on the fast track for Hell (I speak figuratively) for not adhering to his particular beliefs. If I have in any way misrepresented his views, I ask any other regular poster to correct me.

[GLWasteful]

Poly: I don't think that you necessarily misrepresented his views, but I imagine that in Adam's head we were all rushing headlong toward damnation literally.

Was ist dis "figuratively"?

Waste
Flick Lives!

Poly, I meant that Mr. Helms was so OLD he could be considered a fossil!

[Surgoshan]

How can I tell from a post whether someone is Christian? Given statements such as "...if I believed in God..." and "Some God you got there, lady," it's fairly easy to tell. Wouldn't you say so? Or maybe I'm genuinely misconstruing the beliefs behind those comments. After all, it's theoretically possible that one branch of christianity teaches that all others worship false gods.

As to everything else, I'm just never going to look at anything remotely resembling religion on this board again.

[tomndebb]

Surgoshan, the problem we are having with your original post is that you seemed to be responding to specific comments, but you claimed that you saw no Christians on the thread. At least four Christians ("high church" at that--3 RC and 1 Episcopelian) have posted on this thread.

Of course, if you had similar beliefs to the aforementioned Adam/ARG220, you might deny that any of those four are Christian. (He had decided that only his version of Christianity was real--prompting some of the comments you have seen.) :::shrug:::

Religious threads on this message board take several different paths: serious discussion among people of different faiths clarifying the similarities and differences between their beliefs; attempts to castigate or ridicule people of other faiths; attempts to castigate or ridicule people of any faith; serious attempts by believers and non-believers to reconcile differences in their various apprehensions of the world.

You may find all such discussions distateful, but if you look around (or wait a day or so) you will find many different types of discussions. You can try to avoid them, but you will miss many fun (and some nasty) exchanges.

------------------
Tom~

[manhattan]

And Surgoshan, don’t get too bent out of shape because of comments like "That’s some God you’ve got there, lady." Even among non-believers, the derision directed at people like those discussed in the Original Post does not necessarily extend to all people of faith. I have many friends of faith to whom I could say, nicely and sincerely, "Hey, that’s some God you have there!" (meaning that they have chosen to worship a good one)

But yes, when someone claims that God as she understands him altered things here on Earth to drown others for her personal benefit, I’m probably gonna throw some fruit at her.

So put me squarely in Temujin’s camp as regards my ability not to see all believers as being out on the fringes.


------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[Jodi]

Well, I'm a Christian, and I don't post as much as I used to, and this is a prime example of why. Here we have someone who is (so far as we know and his posts indicate) a fairly intelligent and usually tolerant guy, and he posts an article quoting someone most people (Christian or not) would consider pretty far out on the fringe, and then says something like "See! this is what all Christians are like!" This makes me really tired. I mean, several of us who consider ourselves moderate Chistians post here consistently, and yet people who ought to know better continue to represent Christianity as if it were limited to fundamentalism. I am a Christian. I am not a fundamentalist. I have enough trouble wrestling with and (when necessary) defending what I do believe to waste my time defending what I do not. But if someone decides to extrapolate this man's -- or any man's beliefs to be the beliefs of all Christians, then that person is being willfully ignorant -- an interesting position to take on this site in particular.

[Just Ed]

jodih said: . . . he posts an article quoting someone most people (Christian or not) would consider pretty far out on the fringe, and then says something like "See! this is what all Christians are like!"

I have a healthy respect for the opinions of others, also, and have become familiar with many members here by reading through the SDMB fairly regularly. But I must say this is not my impression of the OP. Here is (I think) the actual quote in question:It is absolute "truths" like this that turn people off from Christianity, and make ALL of it's followers look like mind-melded zealots.

My impression of this is a head-shaking generalization of the fringe as it applies to most people's perception of the whole. It sounds like, "Gee, there they go again. I know some intelligent Christians who must be embarrassed to have this guy on their 'side.'"

I may be wrong, but I don't think it was intended as a slam. Putting aside religion, have you ever been involved in a group where some members of the group were acting idiotically? Did you feel embarrassed to be associated with them? It's the same thing here.

To put it another way, I know some atheists who go out of their way to deride the beliefs of others - the blatant disrespect bugs the hell out of me - but I'm still an atheist. There's always going to be extremists on either side. It's up to the level-headed amongst us to communicate, respect each other's views, and commiserate about the crazies. :)

------------------
I know you understand what you heard me say, but what you don't understand is what I said is not necessarily what I meant.

[David B]

Dex said:so the punishment for believing in evolution is that you'll be gay??Those happy evolutionists! Oh, wait, that's not the meaning of "gay" you were using, was it?

Anyway, don't forget that one Senator (anybody recall which one?) recently got up and essentially blamed school shootings on the teaching of evolution. Whoa.

Jodih said:he posts an article quoting someone most people (Christian or not) would consider pretty far out on the fringe, and then says something like "See! this is what all Christians are like!"Maybe you ought to reread Satan's original post, because that certainly wasn't there. In fact, if anything he was saying the opposite. Perhaps you were seeing what you thought you were going to see instead of seeing what was actually there.

[Satan]

jodih:

Two people above this post came to the defense of my OP, so I hope it's obvious to you that what I said was NOT what you said I said. (Say THAT ten times fast!)

I just have a problem when ANYONE says, "Do this or burn," because that is the ultimate hypocrisy since one big rule in that Book of yours is to not judge, that only He can judge, right?

[Temujin]

I just have a problem when ANYONE says, "Do this or burn," because that is the ultimate hypocrisy since one big rule in that Book of yours is to not judge, that only He can judge, right?a reference to:Judge not, that ye be not judged. (from Matt. 7:1)Am I seeing things? Satan says he AGREES with something in the Bible? ;)

I love it when a boxer wins and says he's like to thank Jesus.I guess when a boxer loses, he should thank Satan!

[David B]

Or when athletes pray for victory before a game. What, God doesn't have anything better to do than to rig the outcome of a football game?!

DavidB: Rep. Tom Delay, R-Texas, made the comment you are referring to. He placed the blame on the Columbine shootings to teaching children "that they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud."

His understanding of science is only exceeded by his grasp of the language.

[joemill]

Quote:
"Or when athletes pray for victory before a game. What, God doesn't have anything better to do than to rig the outcome of a football game?!"

I usually didn't pray for victory when I was in sports. I prayed that no-one would get hurt and that my conduct on the field of play would be representative of being a Christian.

Ask Reggie White what he prayed on the field after games (with members of the opposing team). I bet it had nothing to do with the score of the game and everything to do with thanking and praising God, and praying for each other.

[Pickman's Model]

As with sports, so with war. Everybody thinks God is on their side. The belt buckles worn by members of the Wehrmacht (German Army) in World War II had a logo written right above the eagle-and-swastika insignia: "Gott Mit Uns", or "God With Us". I'd sure hate to think that was true. Somehow I sorta doubt that it was.

[Jodi]

Post in haste, repent in leisure, I guess. I didn't really convey what I meant to convey, which is this: Why does it "make ALL of it's followers look like mind-melded zealots"? YOU KNOW a lot of its followers, aren't, right? If you recognize that these are the words of an extremist, why are you assigning his attitudes -- or the appearance of his attitutes -- to Christianity as a whole? Granted, that is something that someone who doesn't know any better might do, but you do know better.

I guess I'm just not getting the point of the post. That there are Christian extremists and Christian idiots? Granted. There are also Jewish extremists and idiots, and Moslem extremists and idiots. Would you attribute the beliefs of the most extreme adherents of these religions to all adherents, even when you know not all adherents hold the beliefs in question? I would hope not. So why do it where Christianity is concerned?

[Satan]

jodih commentary in quotes:

I didn't really convey what I meant to convey, which is this: Why does it "make ALL of it's followers look like mind-melded zealots"?

Because it does. Obviously I don't buy into that all of it's followers ARE like mind-melded zealots, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Get to a power of position and say you're a Christian nice and loud but you disagree with the more fundamentalist-types on a lot of issues and you will make a difference - but they will also get ink saying YOU are wrong and NOT a Christian (a la ARG).

It's a fact, whether you like it or not.

YOU KNOW a lot of its followers, aren't, right? If you recognize that these are the words of an extremist, why are you assigning his attitudes -- or the appearance of his attitutes -- to Christianity as a whole? Granted, that is something that someone who doesn't know any better might do, but you do know better.

How do I know better when all I hear about Christians is that they are against people having abortions when nobody wishes to force them to have any?

How do I know better when all I hear about Christians is that they are against teaching science correctly in schools?

How do I know better about Christians when all I hear about is them thinking the world is 6,000 years old?

How do I know better about Christians when I read Chick tracts which flat-out lie about important issues to scare people into a point they can't make any clearer without lying about it?

How do I know better about Christians when they tell me that what a human being they will never meet will do in their own house with a consenting adult should be outlawed?

Of course I know better, but guess what - I have very little evidence, outside of the likes of Polycarp, to the contrary. And God bless Polycarp and those like him as voices of reason.

I don't stereotype, but Lord knows I have ample reasons to be able to.

I guess I'm just not getting the point of the post.

The point is simple - a fundamentalist Christian leader believes that all Christians have to say the world is 6,000 years old and God made fossils to fuck with our heads, carbon dating is wrong, blah, blah, blah.

And according to this person of influence and power within the church, if you choose to think otherwise, you are NOT a Christian.

If I were you, I'd spend the outrage on the likes of him instead of the likes of me.

That there are Christian extremists
and Christian idiots? Granted. There are also Jewish extremists and idiots, and Moslem
extremists and idiots. Would you attribute the beliefs of the most extreme adherents of
these religions to all adherents, even when you know not all adherents hold the beliefs
in question? I would hope not.

In this country, we do not have a voting block of extreme Muslim groups calling itself "The Moral Majority."

In any country, the more conservative the Jew, the more likely he or she will not WANT you to follow his path.

And yes, as a matter of fact, extremists Muslims do have stereotypes attatched to them - they're the loonies who want to bomb your pre-school and kill Salmon Rushdie.

Don't think Christianity is such a martyr for negative stereotypes... It's just that you're the easiest target because you're the loudest and the most self-centered.

[Jodi]

"Because it does"? Oh, excellent defense. If you "don't buy into it," which you say you do not, why do you assist in perpetuating a stereotype you apparently recognize is not universally valid?

Obviously I don't buy into that all of it's followers ARE like mind-melded zealots, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Gets what grease? I mean, I understand that this gentleman wants to appropriate the term "Christianity" for his views, and only his views, but when you yourself know that Christianity is more than that, why would you assist him in doing so?

Get to a power of position and say you're a Christian nice and loud but you disagree with the more fundamentalist-types on a lot of issues and you will make a difference - but they will also get ink saying YOU are wrong and NOT a Christian (a la ARG).

So what would you suggest moderate Christians do? You appear to be saying on the one hand that such proclamations should not go unchallenged (as I agree) while on the other hand saying that challenging them just gives the speaker another platform from which to declaim. Well, where does that leave us?

You list a bunch of fairly fundamentalist views, saying "how do you know", but then admit that you do know better -- which is it? Is your view of Christianity as limited as you know apparently represent it to be? Because your previous posts had led me to believe your view was considerably wider than that.

Of course I know better, but guess what - I have very little evidence, outside of the likes of Polycarp, to the contrary. And God bless Polycarp and those like him as voices of reason.

So you do recognize: (a) "reasonable Christians exist; and (b) their status as "reasonable" Christians is laudable. So, again, I ask you: why do you choose to perpetuate a stereotype of narrow-minded, unreasonable Christianity? Because it's more prevalent? That doesn't make it correct, as you apparently realize.

I don't stereotype, though Lord knows I have ample reason to be able to.

Don't kid yourself. When you say that all Christians appear to be mind-melded zealots based upon the opinion of one, you are stereotyping us.

The point is simple - a fundamentalist Christian leader believes that all Christians have to say the world is 6,000 years old and God made fossils to fuck with our heads, carbon dating is wrong, blah, blah, blah.

So? Fundamentalist Christians believe a lot of things many moderate Christians do not. That doesn't mean that their beliefs should be imputed to anyone but them.

And according to this person of influence and power within the church, if you choose to think otherwise, you are NOT a Christian.

Again, so? How does his proclamation make me seem like "a mind-melded zealot"? Do I seem that way to you? If so, why? And if not, why would you say that it does? That's the part I'm not getting.

If I were you, I'd spend the outrage on the likes of him instead of the likes of me.

You don't outrage me; he does. But he apparently really believes what he says; I wouldn't have thought you believed what you posted, as you are not generally given to such gross over-generalizations.

In this country, we do not have a voting block of extreme Muslim groups calling itself "The Moral Majority."

The point is that if you know ONE moderate Moslim, you are irresponsible in attributing the beliefs and actions of extremist Islam to all Moslims. The same goes for Christianity, and it's relative position in this country (or lack thereof) enters into it not at all.

And yes, as a matter of fact, extremists Muslims do have stereotypes attatched to them - they're the loonies who want to bomb your pre-school and kill Salmon Rushdie.

But would you perpetuate those stereotypes when you knew them to be untrue?

Don't think Christianity is such a martyr for negative stereotypes... It's just that you're the easiest target because you're the loudest and the most self-centered.

I never said Christianity is a martyr for negative stereotyping; I merely said that people who know better (as I thought you did) should not engage in the sort of stereotyping you have in fact engaged in and continue to engage in. It would be a different matter al together if I thought you really believed this man spoke for Christianity as a whole, but I didn't think you did. Maybe my problem wasn't that I misinterpreted your post, but that I overestimated you.

[Gaudere]

I think the reason most Christians don't worry about their image is that they don't *have* to...yet. Despite the bitching I hear about how "secular" our society is, you can't throw a biscuit without hitting a Christian church, politicians have to swear belief in a deity (almost always Christ) or face political repercussions, and everyone assumes you're a Christian unless you make a point to tell them otherwise. Christians wield most of the political power right now. So they don't need to worry if non-Christians are getting a skewed vision of them...what can they(non-Christians) do about it anyhow?

I tell you, if a group of atheists was hassling mourners at a Christian funeral, I'd be making every effort to make sure people knew all atheists weren't like that. Bad enough that first question I always get when I say I'm an atheist is "why don't you just steal/murder/lie all the time?" The way people perceive your group *does* matter, whether your "group" is race, religion or nationality. Do you think George Bush would have gotten away with saying he thought atheists shouldn't be considered patriots or citizens if there wasn't a perception that atheists are immoral and un-American? Sure, no one should ever sterotype based on such things, but they do, and are you going to let them get away with it without challenging that? Lots of people *do* stereotype, and honestly, it could be dangerous for you to ignore this. If you were black and blacks were becoming known as "violent" due to a few extremists, shouldn't you denounce the extremists or try to show that most blacks weren't like that?

Christians don't seem to feel any need to publically separate themselves from their nastier sects, since they're in the majority. But if you ever lose that majority, is that how you want your religion to be perceived? The extremists are getting the most press now; I think a firm stand against the wackos by the more liberal Christians would help the current perceptions a great deal...and who knows, maybe make the extremists reconsider their position if they realize they're *way* out on the fringe of Christian society. Most of them seem to believe that the vast majority of Christians back them; I'd love to see them get some evidence to the contrary.

------------------
"Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting."
- Bertrand Russell

[neuro-trash grrrl]

Hmmm, they imply that if you believe in evolution, you'll turn gay? Well, I believe in evolution and... Holy fuck, it's happened already! I don't see why it's considered torture, though...

------------------
Modest? You bet I'm modest! I am the queen of modesty!

[manhattan]

Then may I humbly suggest that perhaps you're doing it wrong. ;)

------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[Satan]

You know what, jodih? I can tell you are one of them because you and them are alike in a very simple way: Neither the fundies nor yourself knows how to listen and understand someone who doesn't think exactly like them.

I'm done with you here... You still insist I am saying everyone is like him when I am patently not. And appealing to your sense of logic does not work because you don't seem to have a sense of logic.

Face it: YOU stereotyped someone who would bring up with displeasure a fundie. When called on it (by more than just I), you simply say the same thing over and over again.

Yep, you're one of them alright...

[Satan]

Okay, I promissed myself I wouldn't do this, because jodih just DOESN'T GET IT, but I will still answer to her enlightened post, maybe for the benefit of others:

"Because it does"? Oh, excellent defense.

Yes, actually, it is. I am not saying that the stereotypes are a GOOD thing, only that they exist. You admit as much - you do understand the difference between knowing other people feel a certain way and feeling that way yourself, right?

I mean, I understand that this gentleman wants to appropriate the term "Christianity" for his views, and only his views, but when you yourself know that Christianity is more than that, why would you assist him in doing so?

And I maintained all along that this was HIS view, and it DOES coincide with the views of MANY people who identify themselves as a Christian.

A majority? Well, they CALL themselves that, but I don't know. I hope not.

An absolute? I never said that, and never would.

You list a bunch of fairly fundamentalist views, saying "how do you know", but then admit that you do know better -- which is it?

Both. I gave evidence that others can use to stereotype Christians. Then I said that I PERSONALLY did not fall into that trap.

So you do recognize: (a) "reasonable Christians exist; and (b) their status as "reasonable" Christians is laudable. So, again, I ask you: why do you choose to perpetuate a stereotype of narrow-minded, unreasonable Christianity?

Oh, so I bring to the attention the views of someone I consider a fanatic - all because I DO think he's a fanatic and not representative of all Christians (reread the original OP. Again. Third time's a charm. Notice the part about my friend who aligns himself as a Christian but disagrees with this person? Maybe? Huh? Do ya?) - and I am somehow endorsing his ideology and encouraging others to think you're all like him?

Wow... I bring up Republican candidates for office all the time... Guess I should change my party affiliation now.

When you say that all Christians appear to be mind-melded zealots based upon the opinion of one, you are stereotyping us.

You might want to look up the word "appear" in a dictionary.

People like him makes it APPEAR that all Christians think in a certain way.

Now, notice how if I were to say "people like him PROVE that all Christians think in a certain way" how it is a lot different.

And if you don't think that people like this bozo put all Christians in a bad light, you're more delusional than I previously feared.

Oh, and as for "opinion of one," that is a generalization on your part... Are you saying that NOBODY ELSE thinks the way this dude does?

Fundamentalist Christians believe a lot of things many moderate Christians do not. That doesn't mean that their beliefs should be imputed to anyone but them.

And point out anywhere where I even implied as much.

I'm waiting.

Still waiting...

How does his proclamation make me seem like "a mind-melded zealot"? Do I seem that way to you? If so, why? And if not, why would you say that it does? That's the part I'm not getting.

A person in a position of power is claiming that Christians have to all think the same way. How you change that fact into, "You think that *I* think that way" is beyond me.

The point is that if you know ONE moderate Moslim, you are irresponsible in attributing the beliefs and actions of extremist Islam to all Moslims.

I did not attribute his beliefs as the beliefs of all Christians.

How many times must this be said before it gets into your head?

But would you perpetuate those stereotypes when you knew them to be untrue?

Rinse and repeat.

Maybe my problem wasn't that I misinterpreted your post, but that I overestimated you.

Your feelings of me mean less than the width of a gnats ass hair to me, and I don't even know if gnats have asses or hair on their asses.

Which is a slightly larger than your ability to comprehend one simple thing that should have been drilled into your head several posts ago:

Me thinking that other people think a certain way does not mean that I personally think that way.

PHIL! HEY PHIL!! I'll send you a nifty Lynyrd Skynyrd CD if you come to my aid here. Try as I might, I always bow in awe to the way you dispose of arguments such as have been levied against me... The devil needs an advocate!!

[David B]

Good luck, Satan. Phil has tried explaining some things to Jodi (as have I and others) in other threads and ended up coming to much the same place you have here -- banging your head against a wall. Once she makes up her mind about something, you can pretty much forget about explaining anything to her. No matter what you say, she will sit there and pound away at the keyboard without comprehension -- and then blame you for failing to explain yourself.

[pldennison]

Satan, I promised myself I wasn't going to tangle with jodih on this topic again.

As long as the folks like the guy mentioned in your OP, or Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson, are the people the media chooses to represent Christianity to the public, and as long as they wield the political power, I will do everything I can to undermine that.

I mean, take Christianity out of the equation--does the average Joe think most homosexuals are like the guy who plays "Bulldog" on Frasier, or does he think they're like Harvey Feirstein or RuPaul? Why is that? Is that the situation Christians want to be in?

I challenged moderate Christians on one of the other threads you started to take people like this buffoon on, and confront them vocally and frequently. If they care about their religion, and really think it provides a benefit to humanity, they won't let it be destroyed by these sorts of morons. Polycarp took my point, and so did Dr. Jackson to an extent, but most people seem inclined to let these people continue their campaign of divisiveness and ignorance.

------------------
"I love God! He's so deliciously evil!" - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

[Satan]

Phil: Good points all, but really I'm not looking for you to tangle with jodih about her religious beliefs. I'm merely looking for vindication that people like ME are not responsible for these feelings and that jodih either cannot read or comprehend the writen word.

In other words - Am I guilty of the things she accuses me of?

[Doctor Jackson]

I wasn't going to chime in here either, but since Satan is throwing around Skynyrd CD's...

The article in question presents the views of extremists whose interpretation of Biblical passages is, IMO and the opinion of the majority of biblical scholars, wrong. To take those passages from Romans 1, which talk specifically about worshiping the creation instead of the Creator, and apply them to the concept of creationism, is a bit if a stretch. In every translation I have read, Romans 1 was written in the present tense. These things were happening in Rome at that time. To use those verses as prophetic (to "predict evolutionist") is also a stretch.

But there are extremists in every walk of life. Aways have been, always will be, accept that as fact. There were religious extremists in Jesus' time. He did not seek them out, though He did correct and rebuke them when they came to Him. This is the path that I choose as well. To chase extremists with the goal of defending the truth is to tilt at windmills. To defend my family, church and community against the teachings of extremists is where I see my duty.

Satan, there was one statement in one of your posts that made me cringe:

A person in a position of power is claiming that Christians have to all think the same way.

According to the article, Rev. Glidden is the pastor of a local church. I would not equate that to a "position of power". It's possible, but not a logical conclusion. It certainly could be considered a position of influence, but the scope of that influence is determined largely by the size of the congregation related to the size of the community. That information was not given. He was interviewed because the subjects of the article attend that particular church.

BTW, most religions in general, and all monotheistic religions with which I am familiar, state at some level "You must believe this or be punished". Wouldn't be much of a religion otherwise. ;)


------------------
The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. -- E. Grebenik

[Polycarp]

From Satan's OP:
It is absolute "truths" like this that turn people off from Christianity, and make ALL of it's followers look like mind-melded zealots.

I'm sorry, Brian. Jodi does have a point. IMHO, not one that should have provoked the almost-flame-war a few posts up from this. But a point.

No matter what, the rabble-rousers with the weird theories are going to be the ones that get the press coverage. Sensible atheists like Phil and David are not going to get the coverage that Madalyn Murray O'Hare did (I think I spelled her name correctly?), and the opinions of, say, the Methodist Bishop of Missouri are not going to be covered half so well as the keynote speech at the National Conclave of Fundaloonies.

Posting here, writing to the N&O or the Independent Weekly, is going to get me a minimal amount of attention for what I believe and have to say. And J. Falwell will inform the Teeming Millions that the Indigo Girls should be shot on sight, and get front-page coverage.

Maybe I should come up with something controversial. How about "love everybody as yourself" or "stop judging everybody else until you've taken a good look at yourself." (I picked these up from a bearded Jewish friend, a Capricorn IIRC.)

Yeah, you did say that that loonie tars the rest of us with the same brush. After a moment's thought, I realize you didn't mean quite what you posted. But Jodi, who is even rawer than I am about being classed in with the weirdos, took it as a personal slam, and reacted accordingly.

Hello, world? Making a formal announcement:

Jodi, Tom, PM, Jeffery, and I are not mind-melded zealots. Zealots maybe, but with semi-functional minds.

From all accounts, Jesus was a nice guy who got pissed off at judgmental self-righteous types. So do his followers.

I detest Chevy Chase Christians ("I'm a Christian and you're not, nyah, nyah, nyah).

Now can we stop the infighting and get on with the business at hand?

Anybody got any suggestions how to combat these clowns? Something those of us who happen to believe in the God and the Jesus of the Gospels, not the Zeus-after-having-been-bitten-by-rabid-hyenas those clowns are portraying can do to make people hear our point?

[Satan]

Doc: Power is a relative term. The guy has power within HIS church even if he doesn't within THE church. And judging from the amount of people who have enough power as to get a state like Kansas to reject scientific teaching of evolution, I would humbly sumbit that even if this guy does not have power himself, others like him do.

I guess what needs to be said here is that I have no idea what percentage of people who call themselves a Christian believe that the world is 6,000 years old, but I've heard enough people say this that I don't think this guy is an isolated case.

[manhattan]

Anybody got any suggestions how to combat these clowns? Something those of us who happen to believe in the God and the Jesus of the Gospels, not the Zeus-after-having-been-bitten-by-rabid-hyenas those clowns are portraying can do to make people hear our point? I'll try. Most mainstream religions in this country are reasonably large and reasonably well funded. Beat the wackos at their own game – use the media. I’ve seen some pretty terrific ads from the LDS. I’ve also seen some sensitive pro-life ads from some foundation. More of that is good.

Additionally, have church leaders meet with the news directors of major media outlets to say, explicitly, "Stop giving the fringe idiots more press than the millions of mainstream believers. When the local Synagogue sends its members to help rebuild a burnt Church (and vice versa), we want that as national news at least as often as you print some congregation-of-one bonehead’s uneducated ramblings." Insist that stories about fringe sects be labeled as such and contain reaction from mainstream Christians of some authority.

When the second part doesn’t work (it won’t – the media are jackals that way), try again. And again.


------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[pldennison]

Satan, yes, that is a good point--whatever the extent of this man's influence, I would guess a large proportion of Christians, especially in "flyover country," aren't as contemplative of their faith as some of the people here.

If their pastor tells them that the Earth is 6,000 years old, evolutionism and feminism are godless Commie plots, and homosexuals are all damned, and that they must believe those things to be Christian, they're going to buy it. And teach it to their kids. And try to teach it in their kids' schools. You only need to start with a few people to get an idea to spread.

------------------
"I love God! He's so deliciously evil!" - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

[Satan]

Poly: If you take the word "look" out of the snippet of the OP you quoted, you would have a very good point, IMHO.

When you take into consideration the last two paragraphs of my OP which you did not quote, I think it shows my tolerance level to be open-minded.

At this point, I am merely defending myself against jodih's assertions that I am part of the problem, that I am lumping everyone in with this asshole, when she in fact attacked me based upon, as David noted earlier, what she BELIEVED was there.

In fact, what I said (and everyone got it except for her) was this:

This guy says you're not Christian unless you reject evolution, and that this one issue is amazingly important to being a good Christian. Isn't that stupid?

[Polycarp]

Yep, it is.

Now, the spiritual leader of 2.5 million Christian Americans recently spoke out using his house organ on this issue, and said something amazingly irenic and ameliorative, to wit, that one could be a "creationist" in believing that God created and an "evolutionist" in accepting the Darwinian theories. It was good solid reasoning, if you accept his perspective that God does exist, worked through Jesus, and continues to work in the world today, largely through his faithful people.

How much press coverage did that item get? Anybody but me read it?

[David B]

Satan asked:Am I guilty of the things she accuses me of?No. But don't expect my word to convince her.

Polycarp said:Sensible atheists like Phil and David are not going to get the coverage that Madalyn Murray O'Hare didSometimes yes, sometimes no. But when somebody within the atheist or humanist or skeptical or whatever movement I'm involved with says or does something stupid, you will see me (and others) step up to the plate and point it out. I have not seen that type of self-critical analysis as much with the types of folks Satan is talking about.

pldennison said:If their pastor tells them that the Earth is 6,000 years old, evolutionism and feminism are godless Commie plots, and homosexuals are all damned, and that they must believe those things to be Christian, they're going to buy it. And teach it to their kids. And try to teach it in their kids' schools. You only need to start with a few people to get an idea to spread.Precisely! I'm sure you already know this, but I can't tell you how many creationists I've debated who really haven't the foggiest notion of the science involved. They repeat the mantras taught to them by their local pastors. Things like: "They haven't found the missing link." Ask them, "What missing link?" and they don't have the foggiest notion what you're talking about. Their pastors didn't go into detail -- just enough to keep them as little zombies.

[Satan]

Be careful, David! I think you are saying ALL Christians are zombies! You closed-minded, stereotypical, Godless heathen you! Burn in hell with the rest of the so-called Christians who would think we are of simian descent!

[manhattan]

Polycarp: Your last post got me thinking about another way to "combat the clowns." Does there exist, or should there exist, a "Cosmos for Christians?" I’m talking about a big, multi-part miniseries hosted by theologists and scientists and whoever, with full hype, ads in TV Guide, subway posters, etc. There’s about a billion cable channels that would probably love to run/re-run such a thing.

------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[neuro-trash grrrl]

First Battalion, Clown Containment Task Force, swinging into action:

I have known many obnoxiously close-minded, fire-and-brimstone Christians in my time. I have also known many open-minded, thoughtful, intelligent Christians in my time. Thankfully, the latter have far outnumbered the former. So, why do we hear so much about the fundies? Because they have well-funded organizations to speak their views, like the Christian Coalition and the now thankfully defunct Moral Majority. What this nation needs is a well-funded organization devoted to spreading the views of the non-fundaloonies. I'm sure this can be done, a lot of non-fundamentalist individuals and churches have a lot of money, the question is "Why haven't they?". Anyway, such an organization would have my support, even though I'm not a Christian, because getting some opposing Christian views into the debate would be the best thing for everybody in the long run.

[Jodi]

I'm actually a little surprised by all this, because my posts weren't intended to be "flaming" and because this isn't a topic that upsets me even a little. I didn't take the original post as a "personal slam;" I just didn't understand it, and I still don't.

Satan posts some total idiocy perpetuated in the name of Christianity and then concludes "this is the sort of thing that makes all Christians look like mind-melded zealots." My point -- which I'll make AGAIN -- is that I don't see why that necessarily follows. Why does it make all Chistians appear that way? Since I didn't receive a satisfactory answer from him ("Because it does."), I'll answer it myself: It makes Christians appear that way because people who don't know any better assume that Christianity is nothing more than what they read in the press and because, for Christianity as for every other affiliation, it's the sensationalism and the idiocy that gets the press.

But my point is that most of the people who post here should know better than to assume Christianity is nothing more than that, or is in all cases that. Satan says he does know this. So, in light of this personal knowledge, why would the words of one Christian make all Christians "appear" to be mind-melded zealots if an individual knows in fact that they are not? In my mind, the conclusion drawn simply doesn't follow, and that's the point -- and the only point -- I was trying to make.

If you want to carefully distinguish between saying that people are "mind-melded zealots" and saying that people appear to be "mind-melded zealots," that's fine with me; I understand the importance of linguistic precision. I think you can see, however, that the distinction between "is" and "seems to be" can sometimes be pretty fine, as in: "I didn't say you were a moron; I said you appear to be a moron." This is beside the point, however, since the original post, however phrased, didn't offend me so much as puzzle me.

For me, the irony here is that so many people take issue with moderate Christians because we do not "stand up" for the voice of reason and against being lumped in with extremism and fundamentalism that does not accurately reflect our faith. But when I attempt to do just that thing -- by pointing out that one man's extreme and illogic viewpoint should not make every other adherent of this particular faith "appear" to be anything -- I'm jumped on as "flaming" and as being hyper-sensitive about my faith. The people who told me to start standing up on these issues were you guys. I'm sorry if the way in which I tried to make my point got Satan's knickers in a twist, but I still believe the point itself is a valid one.

David, way to add nothing productive to the debate. I wouldn't have thought irrelevant, third-party attacks on people were your style, but I guess I'll keep that in mind. If you have a problem with me, however, I'd invite you to address me directly. That "she doesn't" and "she never" stuff as if I'm not here is pretty junior-high, don't you think?

[Jodi]

GRRL -- The problem with trying to set up a national "nonfundaloony" group is that moderate Christians generally don't have any particular agenda they want to further. This is a problem many "tolerant" organizations have, by the way: How do you "force" toleration upon people when the whole idea of toleration is antithetical to telling people what they should believe or (within the most general parameters) how they should behave?

Fundamentalists have a national organization because they have a national agenda; if they can't get everyone to believe as they do, they can at least attempt to have everyone live their lives according to what the fundamentalists consider the "right" way -- no abortion rights, no teaching of sex ed or evolution, whatever. Moderate Christians don't have such an agenda.

As I said before, I also think part of the problem is that moderation and reasonableness rarely make good copy; who wants to report on people who try to lead good (if quiet) lives, going to church once a week (most of the time), and giving some of their time and money to charity? Where's the news in that? So we read about people saying that the earth is only 6,000 years old, or that God wants every copy of Huckleberry Finn to be burned, or that Jesus appeared on a tortilla in Mexico. That's interesting; moderation is not.

[Triskadecamus]

Some sincere desire for Christians to speak out against the excesses of other Christians has been expressed. I think the question comes up fairly frequently, in this sort of form:

"If you are a Christian, and you are not an Idiot, why do you let these Idiots speak for you all the time?"

I am a Christian. I will always affirm that, if it becomes a part of the conversation. I don't feel that it is the most important fact to bring up in every conversation. Whether or not you are a Christian, or should be, or could be, is a subject, which I would be happy to discuss with you, individually, if you bring it up. Whether or not you are an idiot is something I am unlikely to bring up, no matter what your religion is.

Christianity is not a team. We don't even have a flag. For me, even the symbols that are associated with Jesus are only small mementos of spiritual matters. The spiritual matters are not of a nature which lends itself to intellectual examination. I am not a Christian because I am smart, or even particularly good at it. I don't even like all the Christians I meet. (I am supposed to love them, and I do try, but it isn't easy.)

Being a Christian is not a political point of view. If you think it is, then go vote for Jesus. I don't think he is running for anything. But I am not interested in dragging my spiritual life and personal relationship with the God of all Creation through the gutters of American Politics. I don't have the authority to judge your theology, and will express my judgement of your politics at the polls.

So, the answer is, no, I don't think I am an idiot, although opinion does vary somewhat. I don't always speak out against "those Christians" because Christians do not speak for me, or, in my opinion, for Christ. (This includes me, of course.) They speak for themselves. When they speak like idiots, then they will be heard as idiots. If you decide that everyone else who is a Christian is exactly like them, then the number of idiots goes up. Pardon me if I stay out of the party.


<p align="center">Tris</p>

[Satan]

Out of curiosity, jodih, what are your thoughts on evolution?

[Jodi]

::Stepping very gingerly and warily::

My thoughts on evolution are that there is nothing about that particular theory that is inconsistent with my personal faith or my personal understanding of the Christian faith in general. The idea that God would create the world 6000 years ago and make it only seem to be millions of years old makes no sense to me. Why do you ask?

[Doctor Jackson]

Satan - without getting onto a battle over semantics, allow me rephrase what I said. The Pope has power. He can make a decree that affects the lives of millions of Catholic believers. Certain people in the Mormon religion wield power. Glidden is a local evangelical pastor. He has no power. He does have influence, which can be equally as dangerous, but is not synonymous. Billy Graham is one of the most influential Christians of this century, but he has no power. His "decree" would be binding on no church or individual Christian. Apparently, those of Glidden's ilk in Kansas have influenced some very powerful people.

Perhaps I read too much into your statement, but to me, "person in a position of power" conjures images of Popes and Kings.

Does this mean I don't get the CD? :P

------------------
The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. -- E. Grebenik

[David B]

Jodih said:I wouldn't have thought irrelevant, third-party attacks on people were your style, but I guess I'll keep that in mind. If you have a problem with me, however, I'd invite you to address me directly. That "she doesn't" and "she never" stuff as if I'm not here is pretty junior-high, don't you think?If you don't like the way I accurately described you, then change the way you act. It's just that simple. As for your whining about "junion-high" stuff, I was specifically addressing my comments to Satan. Thus, you were mentioned as a "she." If I were addressing it directly to you (as I am now), you would be "you." I'm not sure why you have such problems understanding the concept of pronouns. Oh, and there was nothing "irrelevant" about what I said -- it was directly relevant to the way you were acting here in your responses to Satan. Again, if you don't like it, don't act that way. I'm sure I'd want an attorney to have many of the qualities you've displayed here if I were in court; that doesn't mean that same attitude serves you well in a discussion like this one.

[Jodi]

DAVID -- If you have a problem with me, or my attitude, take it up with me. Posting things like that I pound away without comprehension in a thread you know I am likely to read -- insulting me, in other words -- and then taking refuge in the lame excuse that you weren't talking to me but only about me is immature in the extreme. If you have any problem with me, here I am.

If you don't like the way I accurately described you, then change the way you act. It's just that simple.

I affirmatively deny that you have "accurately described" me, and I feel under no obligation to change the way I act to please anyone -- but especially not someone who comes out of right field to attack me and doesn't have the guts to do it to me personally. Since we're airing personal opinions, here's mine of you:

You are so absolutely convinced of the rightness of your opinions, you are apparently unable to recognize that anyone might legitimately disagree with you. You therefore insist upon interpreting anyone's disagreement as a failure to comprehend what you are "really" saying. In other words, it's not that you might possibly be wrong, but that the other person is stupid. The breathtaking vanity of this is self-evident. You will notice, however, that I have the courage to address my comments to you. Give it a try.

I'm sure I'd want an attorney to have many of the qualities you've displayed here if I were in court; that doesn't mean that same attitude serves you well in a discussion like this one.

When I want your opinion about whether my attitude serves me well or not, I assure you I'll ask you for it. Heck, give it to me anyway; just have the maturity to address it to me.

[pldennison]

jodih, IMNSHO, moderate Christians should have an agenda, if they care about their religion as much as they claim--protecting it from yahoos like Rev. Glidden, et. al. That should be enough of an agenda, don't you think?

As an aside, I would like to point out that any time I say something akin to:

I affirmatively deny that you have "accurately described" me, and I feel under no obligation to change the way I act to please anyone

you seem to have a real problem with it. It sure feels different on the other side, doesn't it? I'm not publicly agreeing with or disagreeing with what David said, simply striking while the irony is hot.

------------------
"I love God! He's so deliciously evil!" - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

[David B]

Jodih said:If you have a problem with me, or my attitude, take it up with me.I have, thanks.Posting things like that I pound away without comprehension in a thread you know I am likely to read -- insulting me, in other words -- and then taking refuge in the lame excuse that you weren't talking to me but only about me is immature in the extreme.I neither took refuge nor made an excuse. I knew you would read it. I expected you to read it. It's not like I was talking behind your back. Again, I'm sorry you can't seem to understand the use of pronouns, but again you are going off on a silly tangent that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.If you have any problem with me, here I am.Yes, I noticed. Thanks.I affirmatively deny that you have "accurately described" meWell of course you do. That's fine. But considering how many others have noticed the same thing, you don't suppose there might just be something to what I said?I feel under no obligation to change the way I act to please anyoneOf course you don't. I'm just some guy on a message board. That's your perogative -- as long as you recognize that this is how others perceive you.especially not someone who comes out of right field to attack me and doesn't have the guts to do it to me personally.Let's see. I posted it in a public area where you were involved in the discussion, knowing full well that you would see it. Yup, it's obvious that I didn't have the guts to say it to "personally." I was obviously trying to hide behind your back. Oh, that would be sarcasm, by the way.Since we're airing personal opinions, here's mine of you: You are so absolutely convinced of the rightness of your opinions, you are apparently unable to recognize that anyone might legitimately disagree with you. You therefore insist upon interpreting anyone's disagreement as a failure to comprehend what you are "really" saying. In other words, it's not that you might possibly be wrong, but that the other person is stupid.Wow. Have you looked in a mirror lately, Jodi? Because that's about who you just described -- not me, but you. I very well recognize that people can legitimately disagree, and I have perfectly good discussions with some folks here even when we do disagree. The problem is that even when things are explained to you (often several times), you stubbornly insist on continuing to misinterpret, misunderstand, or otherwise misrepresent what has been said. You refuse to acknowledge when correct information has been given to you (remember the Jews for Jesus thread?). I could go on and on, but I'm a bit short of time right now, and I'm sure you're just shaking your head because you don't recognize any of this in yourself, so there is little point in continuing anyway.When I want your opinion about whether my attitude serves me well or not, I assure you I'll ask you for it.You should know by now that I don't wait for people to ask for my opinions. That's why we're all here -- to discuss our opinions. If you don't like my opinion of you, well, as an attorney friend of mine says: "Too bad, so sad."

[RTFirefly]

As another Christian who didn't check his brain (or heart) at the door when he found the Lord a few decades back, I thought I'd jump in for a moment.

First, I have to give the devil his due: Satan, I think your initial point is well taken. jodih, if I may try to be helpful, I don't think Satan's saying anything insulting about Christians in general; he's just reporting on something that's going on in our society.

Richard Cohen was making the same point in his column in the Washington Post this morning when he said, "I would [be] happier if we could come up with the names of contemporary religious figures who have the stature and fame to stand up to the religious right. None comes to mind. It's not that good
people are not doing good things; it's rather that for some reason, the public at large is unaware of them. The national pulpit has been left to the religious right."

And, yes, that fact does make Christians in general look like a bunch of illiterate zombies that will follow their blow-dried TV preachers anywhere, so long as it sounds like that old-time religion.

I'm far from sure how to solve this problem, but I think one ingredient needs to be some sort of rallying point, some catalyst, for Christians who don't buy what Falwell, Robertson, Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, Beverly LaHaye, Pat Buchanan, Don Wildmon, and all those...well, whatever you want to call them...are selling.

People for the American Way (and a couple of similar organizations) exist to speak out against the 'Christian' right for purely secular reasons. I think it does a good job, so far as it goes, but I'm biased; my brother-in-law used to be a veep there, and still works for them as a consultant.

But it doesn't do what I'd like to see some organization do: tell the world, point by point, why the religious right's agenda and conduct have absolutely nothing to do with the Gospel. (Imagine if we could point out to all those people wearing 'WWJD' bracelets that what Pat Robertson does is exactly what Jesus WOULDN'T do!)

I wouldn't want such an organization to have a political agenda of its own; its raison d'etre would be to compare the words and deeds of persons publicly claiming to speak for Christians, or for God, with the Gospel accounts of who and what Jesus was (and, for those of us who believe, *is*).

That wouldn't take care of the problem, but, IMO, it would be where to start.

[Jodi]

I told DAVID "If you have a problem with me, or my attitude, take it up with me," to which he replied:

I have, thanks.

No, actually, you haven't. Well, you have now, because I called you on it, but you didn't originally. Instead you insulted me to other people and then tried to take refuge in the fact that you weren't talking to me but only about me. That was, is, and always will be, lame in the extreme and cowardly.

I neither took refuge nor made an excuse. I knew you would read it. I expected you to read it.

So you were just being a gratuitous jerk? You certainly didn't add anything productive to the debate by characterizing me as you did. No, instead of taking issue with my post, which would be legitimate, you took issue with me personally, which is not -- and without the balls to do it to me personally.

Again, I'm sorry you can't seem to understand the use of pronouns, . . . /quote]

I understand them perfectly well; I just have the personal integrity to direct my attacks at the person I'm actually attacking.

. . . but again you are going off on a silly tangent that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Listen, you are the one who chose to personally attack me instead of taking issue with the substance of my post. If I call you on it -- which I have and always will -- it is not a "silly tangent."

You say you noticed my presence but yet apparently could not bring yourself to address your mean-spirited and gratuitous post to me directly. What am I to make of that? What I make of it is that you're not just a jerk, as you would be if you directed your comments to me, instead you are a jerk and a coward.

[qupte]That's your perogative -- as long as you recognize that this is how others perceive you.

That is how you perceive me. If you are going to present yourself as speaking for more people then just you, then I suggest you get your troops in order before you do so. I frankly don't give a damn how you preceive me, because I no longer have the iota of respect for you that would be necessary to foster such a concern. But I refuse to believe you speak for anyone but yourself.

Let's see. I posted it in a public area where you were involved in the discussion, knowing full well that you would see it. Yup, it's obvious that I didn't have the guts to say it to "personally."

"Personally" would be to me, as you are now doing because I have forced you to.

I was obviously trying to hide behind your back.

Not behind my back, precisely, and yet not quite to my face, either.

Wow. Have you looked in a mirror lately, Jodi? Because that's about who you just described -- not me, but you.

What -- 'I know you are but what am I'? I'm hardly going to get into an argument about which of us is correct, but I will point out that I have never mounted the sort of attack upon you that you have now mounted upon me.

[quopte]The problem is that even when things are explained to you (often several times), you stubbornly insist on continuing to misinterpret, misunderstand, or otherwise misrepresent what has been said.[/quote]

I have never intentionally misrepresented anything posted here. If I contiue to disagree it's because -- stay with me here -- I disagree with you.

You refuse to acknowledge when correct information has been given to you (remember the Jews for Jesus thread?).

Bullshit. Once it was pointed out to me that the information was in fact correct, I acknowledged it and apologized for my misapprehension.

I'm sure you're just shaking your head because you don't recognize any of this in yourself, so there is little point in continuing anyway.

Correct. In fact, there was little point in starting it in the first place. Why did you, anyway.

You should know by now that I don't wait for people to ask for my opinions. That's why we're all here -- to discuss our opinions. If you don't like my opinion of you, well, as an attorney friend of mine says: "Too bad, so sad."

Well, here's the question: When an opinion seems calculated to do nothing more than offend someone, what is the value in posting it? MY opinion is now that you are an asshole of the first order, and if you don't like it -- too bad, so sad.

[Pickman's Model]

Well, correct me if I am off the point here, but I think part of Satan's point was that the anti-evolutionist pastor and people like him tend to wield a lot of power, and they sway lots of people into thinking things like the earth is only 6,000 years old, etc. I would say that this is probably a bit of a misconception which is fed by the news media, because, as Jodih pointed out, the people who are reasonable and intelligent, not to mention responsible, do not make money for the media, and ergo, we never hear about them.

I would point out that the number of Christians who think that folks like the guy described in the OP are way out in left field is twenty times larger than the "fundaloonies". Most (not all, but most) Roman Catholics have no problem with evolution, and they are tolerant with other believer's views. Granted, they're pretty vociferous about the abortion debate, and they tend to get more than a little uppity whenever they feel that their faith has been inpugned, such as the Brooklyn Museum debacle, but by and large, they're pretty quiet, and they don't threaten people with hellfire and damnation, nor do they try to convert people by beating them about the head and shoulders with 14-pound Schofield reference Bible. How many Catholics are there in the United States? 60 million. The next largest body is the Southern Baptist Convention, at 16 million. Even if the SBC were all believers in the things put forth by the pastor in the OP (and I hasten to affirm that they are NOT), the relatively "quiet" Catholics have them outnumbered by 44 million members. I can only imagine how far they outnumber the "fundaloonies" who get all the press coverage. My point? As I said, for every goofball Christian out there, you have 20 or more Christians who think he's a nut. The nuts have far less influence and power than you might be led to believe, however, by reading the press reports about them.

As for the question of why do we let these loonies speak for us instead of standing up and denouncing them, there are a couple of different reasons why. One is, if you have large groups of Christians standing up and denouncing other groups of Christians, it makes us all look like a bunch of squabbling little warmongering nabobs, which is as bad as the statements made by the fundaloonies contrasting what more moderate Christians believe, so we really aren't gaining anything anyway. Furthermore, it drives wedges, it alienates people, and it causes resentful feelings between various denominations. That isn't the Kingdom of God, that's Yugoslavia. On top of that, most Christian organizations have enough on their plates anyway, what with trying to run their churches, their schools, and their various ministries, such as shelters, colleges, hospitals, soup kitchens, etc., to spend time debating boneheads like our friend in the OP.

Besides, it is to be assumed that most reasonable and intelligent people, Christian or not, are going to be able to discern the difference between a guy like our OP pal and the bulk of Christian believers in the same way that they can discern the difference between Pat Buchanan and the rest of the Republican Party; or any other individual of any other group that's on the fringe. I've never heard of anybody looking at Carl Sagan and saying, "Wow, I guess all atheist scientists are weirdos who stumble around in a cannabis haze all the time." I've never heard of anybody looking at Werner von Braun and Walter Dornberger and saying, "Look at that! Seems that all rocket engineers are former Nazi officers in the SS who used slave labor before the CIA brought them over here to build our moon rockets!" Most people can tell the difference between the fringe and the mainstream. But once again, if you believe the extremist reports you see on the news, you might think that they don't. I have said this before, but it bears repeating: America, if you want unbiased and accurate reporting, two acronyms: NPR and BBC.

The next little shootin' match I'm going to address does not concern me, so I'm sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong, and it will undoubtably get me flamed, and I'm going to do it anyway.
Dave, go easy on Jodih. Those of us who are regular posters here know what your philosophy concerning religious matters is, and we know what Jodih's is, as well. Attacks and rebuttals on subjects that have been done before does not add anything of value to our discussion here, all it does is clog up web space. Unless you are deliberately trying to provoke a flamewar, give it a rest or take it to the Pit.
Jodih, my advice is not to react in anger or indignation to Dave's posts. Granted, we have all done this before, myself included; it's not easy to be slammed and to take a step back and not respond with the outrage that you feel at the moment. But we can do better than this; you can do better than this. This is not what Jesus would do. I'm asking your forgiveness for what I'm about to say, Jodih, but you are not responding to Dave's posts in a Christian manner. I'm sorry to put it this way, and you have every right to be angry with me for saying this. I agree. But instead of slamming back when Dave slams you, why not turn the other cheek? Why not pray for him? Why not pray for yourself, as well? And while you're at it, would you please pray for me, too?

As St. Ambrose once said, "For the love of God, let us have peace."

[Jodi]

PICKMAN -- You are, of course, right, and I appreciate your pointing it out to me. One of my main vices is a world-class temper, and I despise it when people who choose to attack me don't even have the integrity to do it honorably. But it isn't Christian of me to respond in kind, I know, and I hereby pledge to stop. I wish I could say it's mainly because I have listened to your voice of reason, but the truth is I think I've said everything I need to say anyway. But thanks for reining me in.

[Just Ed]

Hmmmm . . .

Does anybody but me find it wildly ironic that Satan started a thread that resulted in a couple of flame exchanges, and even prompted people of faith to (amiable) disagreement?

:)

------------------
I know you understand what you heard me say, but what you don't understand is what I said is not necessarily what I meant.

[SterlingNorth]

Not me, Quixotic.
I wouldn't have expected anything less.

[Satan]

jodih asked of David:

That is how you perceive me.

Um... Me too, actually. Not that you care and not that you think my opinion matters, but this was my first battle of wits with you, jodih, and the troops I sarcastically called to my side almost unanimously said, "Uh, thanks, but she doesn't listen, and I ain't going through THAT again..."

I would say that both Christians and secular folks in this thread seemed to have no problem with what I was saying or how I was saying it for the most part.

If you would read this thread - print it out, read everything - not just your own posts over and over again like I'm sure you do - you will find that MANY people perceive you in an unflattering light when it comes to spirited discourse.

Most of them are just nicer about it than David and myself. Hell, even Phil gave you a light pennance this time around (I can only wonder what you DID to him...)

I asked you your thoughts on evolution because I was going to use your logic to the answer and start making bizarre claims by reading things into what you said, and when you enevitably rebuffed them, to continue to argue with you as if you didn't say anything to clear your name, either ignoring what you said or continuing to twist words.

I was thinking, then you'll know what it's like to talk to you...

But you know what? You're not worth the effort...

I'm really glad not all Christians are like the jerk in the OP. But I'm even more glad that not all PEOPLE are like you...

[VegForLife]

Of all the fun stuff in this thread, this cracked me up the most:
And yes, as a matter of fact, extremists Muslims do have stereotypes attatched to them - they're the loonies who want to bomb your pre-school and kill Salmon Rushdie.
I have this picture in my head of a pack of Uzi-toting muslims running alongside a stream, watching a group of fish swim upstream. Suddenly one of them yells, "that's him! That's the one!" as he unslings his rifle and points it at a fish with a Rushdie-face who's got a strap with a book attached to it trailing behind him.

Salman. It's Salman. But thanks for the laugh!

As to the actual topic, and the players involved, I'll say this: Satan, I think you have a point, which could have been made clearer if you had amended your initial wording after Jodih first questioned it. Maybe something like, "It is absolute "truths" like this that turn people off from Christianity, and make ALL of it's followers look like mind-melded zealots to people who don't have much exposure to the large number of moderate Christians out there. For that matter, I think the point would have been accurate, and clearer, if you had just left it at, "It is absolute "truths" like this that turn people off from Christianity." Unfortunately, I think it's the second phrase that caused the problem, and I can see why Jodih would have a problem with it: since you don't explicitly state who the audience is, it's reasonable to infer that it's everyone, your intention to the contrary notwithstanding.

As to the matchstick-flamewar that ensued, David, I'd have to agree with Jodih, the manner of attack was sorta lame. And while I have a great deal of respect for both you and Phil, I have to respectfully disagree with your characterizations. While I doubt that I agree with Jodih on more than one or two religious points, I've always thought she argues well, and when she continues to disagree I always have the impression that she actually disagrees, not that she continues to fight because she doesn't understand the argument put forth against her.

Now you can flame me. . .

Rich

[David B]

Well, I'll leave out most of the profanity and insults slung around by our resident Christian Lady, but a few things need replies.

Jodih said, in response to me noting that "I have" taken it up with her:No, actually, you haven't. Well, you have now, because I called you on it, but you didn't originally.Sorry for not being clearer (I should've known that if pronouns upset you so much, I needed to explain this one more) -- I have done it before -- in earlier threads. I can remember at least once, if not more, that I specifically explained what I thought about the way you were arguing and ignoring points, etc.Instead you insulted me to other people and then tried to take refuge in the fact that you weren't talking to me but only about me. That was, is, and always will be, lame in the extreme and cowardly.Now this is exactly what I was talking about with regard to you ignoring what has been said and repeating yourself. I've already posted an explanation. I've already told you that I knew full well you would read it. I've already said that since I was responding to Satan's message, of course I would talk about you using third-person pronouns. Since I had expressed these thoughts before, they should hardly come as a shock to you. But, by all means, continue to whine about my use of third-person pronouns. This is the last I'm going to say about that non-issue.That is how you perceive me. If you are going to present yourself as speaking for more people then just you, then I suggest you get your troops in order before you do so.As soon as I sent that, I knew I should have written "some others" instead of just "others," to make it clearer. In any event, I used a plural. Satan has since chimed in to note that he agrees. Guess I was right. I suspect there are others who may or may not post to this thread about it, but that really doesn't matter now.But I refuse to believe you speak for anyone but yourself.You refuse to believe a lot of things. That doesn't make them any less true.'I know you are but what am I'?Sorry, but you described yourself in those sentences better than I possibly could have. It's not my fault that you project your own personal weaknesses onto others. I've seen you do it before.

I said:The problem is that even when things are explained to you (often several times), you stubbornly insist on continuing to misinterpret, misunderstand, or otherwise misrepresent what has been said.You replied:I have never intentionally misrepresented anything posted here.Hmmmm. That's funny. The word "intentionally" wasn't in my original statement. Yet you act like it was. How odd.

Frankly, I can't say what causes you to do it, but you do. You did it in this thread -- that's what started the whole discussion, when you misrepresented what Satan had said. You've done it before. You'll probably do it again. I can't say it's "intentional" because I can't read your mind. Frankly, I doubt it is intentional. But that doesn't change the fact that it's happened.If I contiue to disagree it's because -- stay with me here -- I disagree with you.Disagreeing is fine. As I've noted, I have disagreed with lots of people here. But you do more than that -- you ignore posts when people explain things. Over and over again. Then you blame the other person. I have no problem with somebody disagreeing with me; I do have a problem with somebody acting like you do. And it's not like I'm the only person who's noticed it. But, by all means, keep acting like it's all me.

I said:You refuse to acknowledge when correct information has been given to you (remember the Jews for Jesus thread?).You retorted:Bullshit. Once it was pointed out to me that the information was in fact correct, I acknowledged it and apologized for my misapprehension.BS back atcha. Both I and Phil pointed out that the information I'd provided was, in fact, correct. But you didn't like our answers. To you, it made no sense (even though I explained it several times -- per your usual pattern). It was not until somebody else said the very same thing that you accepted it.

So there you have it. If you're just going to sling around more insults, I'm not going to bother to respond again. The ball's in your court.

[David B]

VegForLife said:And while I have a great deal of respect for both you and Phil, I have to respectfully disagree with your characterizations.Hey, that's fine. It's the "respectfully" part that I care about, not the "disagree" part (and not just using the word, but meaning it -- which I know you do). Perhaps you've seen our previous discussions, perhaps not. It's certainly up to you to make up your own mind. But I've seen enough of her behavior that I think I have accurately described it.Now you can flame me. . .Nah. I don't flame people just for disagreeing. Heck, I don't think I've even flamed Jodi here, though she may disagree (I guess it depends on what you think of as a flame -- where I come from, what I said to and about Jodi would not qualify; I certainly didn't go around calling her a "jerk" and various profanities; but your mileage may vary :) ). Anyway, I think you know what I mean.

[Jodi]

DAVID -- The problem, of course, is that what you consider a "non-issue" is the precise issue as far as I'm concerned -- which is that you do not have the personal intergrity to first bring whatever problems you have with me to my attention without initially posting them to someone else's attention, apparently in the full knowledge that I would read them as well. That may be a non-issue to you, but it speaks volumes about you to me. And by the way, if you didn't care for my language in the last post, let me remind you that it was you that strongly implied that insulting people is okay under the guise of "sharing opinions" and that a proper response to an offensive remark is 'if you don't like it -- too bad so sad.' You say:

Sorry for not being clearer (I should've known that if pronouns upset you so much, I needed to explain this one more) -- I have done it before -- in earlier threads. I can remember at least once, if not more, that I specifically explained what I thought about the way you were arguing and ignoring points, etc.

Yes, you did, and I denied it then, just as I deny it now. In fact, I specifically invited you to re-post those points you thought I was ignoring and demand a response -- a suggestion that, for some reason, you declined to follow. I'd suggest it again here, but you didn't bother to actually take issue with any of the substance of my post this time -- you went directly to the personal attacks. And that's what's funny: You're now talking about me "ignoring" points you made in other posts -- not even this post -- when you could have had this fight with me then, when it was actually relevant, if you had chosen to. But you didn't -- instead you've apparently been waiting in the weeds to air some long-held grievance in an inappropriate manner and in an inappropriate forum. It's intellectually dishonest and it's cowardly -- and those are not words I throw around lightly.

Satan, respectfully, you don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not trying to solicit a popularity contest, although if you read all the posts (and don't just repeatedly read what you've posted), you will find that more than one poster has agreed with me, as well. I still maintain that the point I was making regarding your original post is a valid one, but if you haven't gotten it by now, it's not worth repeating. Incidentally, if I'm "not worth the effort," please stop addressing posts to me and I in turn won't go to the effort of responding.

VEG -- I know you're not taking sides (which I don't expect anyone to do), but thank you for your post.

[David B]

Hmmm. I find it more than a little amusing that you first claim:you do not have the personal intergrity to first bring whatever problems you have with me to my attentionAnd then, just a few lines down in the very same message, you admit that I had, in fact, brought them to your attention in previous discussions. So then what, exactly, are you so upset about? Should I start every discussion by repeating, in a message directed to you, of course, my opinions about the way you argue? You have just contradicted yourself and yet you are still upset about something that, by your own words, you should not be upset about. What more can I say?And by the way, if you didn't care for my language in the last post, let me remind you that it was you that strongly implied that insulting people is okay under the guise of "sharing opinions"Really? Where did I imply that? I described your behavior in various debates we've both been involved in. I certainly didn't sling around profanities and insults. I didn't call you a "jerk" or an "@$$#ole." Was the description I gave of you complimentary? Not at all. Did it somehow imply that slinging insults like you have done is ok? Again, not at all.

[Jodi]

DAVID now says:

Heck, I don't think I've even flamed Jodi here, though she may disagree (I guess it depends on what you think of as a flame -- where I come from, what I said to and about Jodi would not qualify.

Can't we at least strive for some intellectual honesty? DAVID said:

Once she makes up her mind about something, you can pretty much forget about explaining anything to her. No matter what you say, she will sit there and pound away at the keyboard without comprehension -- and then blame you for failing to explain yourself.

Now, that pretty strongly implies that I refuse to listen to reason regardless of the merit of the argument presented, and flat-out says that I am "without comprehension." Regardless of what "spin" he may try to put on it now, that's a flame in anyone's world.

[David B]

Incidentally, lest anybody think I'm ignoring your claim regarding when I have called you on ignoring points made in previous discussions (I forgot to include it in the above message) -- In at least one case that I recall, I did repost things that you ignored. And as I recall, you continued to ignore them. There may have been others; I don't remember every single discussion we've had here. But after a while, it gets real old. In several cases, I just stopped replying to you because it was about as effective as talking to a wall. Others have done likewise.

[David B]

Sorry, Jodi, but that's not a flame where I come from. As I said, it's not very nice, but I don't consider it a flame either; nor would most of the folks on FidoNet where I spent many years. A flame is something like, I dunno, calling somebody a jerk or an @$$#ole or some other sort of direct insult like that. But, like I said, your mileage may vary. Obviously, you took it as a flame. I'm not going to apologize for it because I still stand by it as being true. But I was not intent on "flaming" you when I said it -- just making a snide remark describing the likelihood of you listening to anybody who took Satan's side of this discussion, based on my previous experiences with you.

[Jodi]

DAVID now says:

And then, just a few lines down in the very same message, you admit that I had, in fact, brought them to your attention in previous discussions. So then what, exactly, are you so upset about?

I am upset that you chose to post derrogatory comments about me but did not have the guts/integrity to post them to me. Don't you get it? If I have a problem with someone I bring it up with them, not with others under the lame excuse they're sure to hear about it/read about too.

I am further upset that you are now apparently talking about exchanges or debates we've had in the past when if you had a problem with the substance -- substance, not style -- you should have brought it to my attention then. As far as style is concerned, who made you the Joan Rivers of the message board, anyway? Very few other people seem to have any trouble comprehending me. I think that you recognize that you haven't succeeded in making me agree with you on a number of subjects, and for some reason that pisses you off. I also think you recognize that I don't take the "word of David" as gospel on anything (as in the Jews for Jesus thread), and that pisses you off as well.

I start every discussion by repeating, in a message directed to you, of course, my opinions about the way you argue?

I don't give two pins what your opinion is about "the way that I argue;" if I wanted an evaluation of my rhetorical style, I would request one. It seems to me far more productive to take issue with what I post then with how I post it -- especially since I might conceivably listen to you on the former (or would have until today) but am guaranteed not to listen to you on the latter. But you had nothing of substance to say about my post in this instance; you just leapt in with a gratuitously insulting post that -- for the 900th time -- you lacked the courage to even direct to me, although I was clearly the subject of it.

You have just contradicted yourself and yet you are still upset about something that, by your own words, you should not be upset about. What more can I say?

You can point out -- in short, clear sentences since you doubt my powers of comprehension -- where I contradicted myself.



Must I quote you? Well, okay:

[quote]"You should know by now that I don't wait for people to ask for my opinions. That's why we're all here -- to discuss our opinions. If you don't like my opinion of you, well, as an attorney friend of mine says: "Too bad, so sad.""

I described your behavior in various debates we've both been involved in. I certainly didn't sling around profanities and insults. I didn't call you a "jerk" or an "@$$#ole." Was the description I gave of you complimentary? Not at all. Did it somehow imply that slinging insults like you have done is ok? Again, not at all.

Did it foster the debate? Not at all. What it intend to do anything but make me mad? Not at all. What it brought to my attention instead of being directed at third persons? Not at all. Did it connstitute "slinging insults around"? Sure it did.

In at least one case that I recall, I did repost things that you ignored. And as I recall, you continued to ignore them.

Bushwa. Let's see a cite for this.

There may have been others; I don't remember every single discussion we've had here.

That's because you're basically making it up.

In several cases, I just stopped replying to you because it was about as effective as talking to a wall.

In several cases, you stopped replying because you could not convince me that you were right, and it was more comfortable to tell yourself that I just didn't get it rather than admit that someone might simply disagree with you and the conclusions you've reached.

Others have done likewise.

Who? Seriously. If you're going to present this a problem perceived by wide segments of the message board, I'd like names. I've disagreed with Phil repeatedly on religion (though agreed with him in other areas); I've now managed to tangle with Satan; and then there's you. If I've left anyone off of your "others" list, I'd like to know who it is.

[Jodi]

That wasn't a flame, huh? Well, I did flame you, just so we're clear on that, and I to stand behind every word I said because it's "basically true."

[Gaudere]

Now, David, I don't know if you are responding in a Secular Humanist manner. This is not what Kant would do. :)


(No offense intended, PM)

[David B]

Jodih said:I am upset that you chose to post derrogatory comments about me but did not have the guts/integrity to post them to me. Don't you get it?Don't you get it? You have already admitted that I did post similar things to you in previous threads. So your complaint is invalid. Case dismissed.You can point out -- in short, clear sentences since you doubt my powers of comprehension -- where I contradicted myself.Already did. First you claimed you were upset because I had talked about you instead of to you first. Then you admitted that I had brought these things up before to you. If I brought them up before to you, then you do not now have a basis to claim that I brought them up about you without bringing them up to you. Get it?Very few other people seem to have any trouble comprehending me.I don't have trouble comprehending you, Jodi. Again you bring up something as if that were the topic, but it isn't. I have very clearly described what, exactly, I have a problem about regarding the way you act.I think that you recognize that you haven't succeeded in making me agree with you on a number of subjects, and for some reason that pisses you off.You can think that all you want -- you'll still be wrong. As I have said several times (per your usual pattern, you ignored those), I can and have disagreed with many people on many subjects here, and I'm perfectly ok with them. It's not the fact that you disagree, it's the way you go about it. The way you ignore things. The overall way you argue. Need I repeat it again?I also think you recognize that I don't take the "word of David" as gospel on anything (as in the Jews for Jesus thread), and that pisses you off as well.I don't expect people to take my word as gospel. Hell, I spend much of my free time encouraging people to think critically and be skeptical! I don't mind being questioned -- I expect it. What I don't expect is people to simply ignore what others say. In that particular thread, your questions were answered legitimately, validly, and correctly. You ignored those answers. Instead you just kept repeating that it didn't make any sense to you and made some invalid assumptions. You want to disagree with me? Fine! You want to try to prove me wrong? Go for it! You want to ignore me and just insist that you're right? I'm gonna call you on it.It seems to me far more productive to take issue with what I post then with how I post itIndeed it does. I've been there, done that. As I've noted, you tend to ignore things like that, alas. Then, when I point out that you ignore things, you complain that I'm taking issue with how you post.

I said:In at least one case that I recall, I did repost things that you ignored. And as I recall, you continued to ignore them. You replied:Bushwa. Let's see a cite for this.Believe it or not, I have better things to do with my time than search back into the old threads -- like sleep, right now. I'll see what I can do, but no promises. I mean, you don't care what I say anyway, so it seems like kind of a pointless exercise...

I noted that "Others have done likewise." (given up on having discussions with you) You responded:Who? Seriously. If you're going to present this a problem perceived by wide segments of the message board, I'd like names. I've disagreed with Phil repeatedly on religion (though agreed with him in other areas); I've now managed to tangle with Satan; and then there's you.Phil was one of the others. I recall an early discussion involving several people who are no longer on the MB (one of the Great God Debates) who gave up on talking to you for similar reasons. I admit that I wasn't following that portion of the debate as closely as I was following the part I was involved in, but I do recall they seemed to be making complaints that were very similar to the ones we've been discussing here. Of course, even if it's just Phil and Satan, that still constitutes the "others" I mentioned. But then, you don't care what any of us think anyway. < shrug >

[David B]

In looking at some old messages (against my better judgment, instead of going to sleep), I found something interesting. In the "Is 'In God We Trust' Unconstitutional?" thread, I specifically pointed out to you on August 4:I don't like to be ignored -- and that is what seems to often happen in some of these threads when you respond. We go over the same thing, I explain it, you ignore it, I re-explain it, you ignore it, etc. By the time I've gone thru this a few times, I feel in a bit of a patronizing mood, I'm afraid. I'm not saying this always happens with you, but it's happened before and it's happened in this thread. I'm sure you'll blame me and say that I shouldn't fault you because you disagree, but if it were simply disagreement, it would be different -- and I don't think that's the case. So if you don't think this is happening, fine. There is certainly no way I can change your mind. But I'm not going to continue to play into it here.So, again, we see that I have said this to you before, so your complaint that I said it about you instead of to you is simply invalid.

I searched that thread because it was the one I thought I had reposted stuff for you at your request. However, in reading it, I see that I decided "it's not worth it to go over the others again." Even then, I was tired of repeating myself and being ignored (and I had repeated myself several times to you previous to that message). As I am going to go to bed now (presuming you haven't posted another message while I've been posting this one), I will concede that on the one I remembered, I did not repost when you specifically asked me to do so. I did post the same things several other times, mind you, but that's not what I said above and I recognize that.

[David B]

Gaudere said:Now, David, I don't know if you are responding in a Secular Humanist manner.What would a Secular Humanist manner be? Saying I don't believe in Jodi's existence? :)

Ok, now I really am going to bed. Goodnight, all. I don't know if I'll have time to tackle this again tomorrow (busy, busy day). I'll, of course, be checking in but I have a busy weekend planned as well and don't know if I'll have time to post much. We'll see.

[Pickman's Model]

Now, David, I don't know if you are responding in a Secular Humanist manner. This is not what Kant would do.

(No offense intended, PM)

None taken, Gaudere. :)

[longhair75]

friend manhattan,

you asked:

Does there exist, or should there exist, a "Cosmos for Christians?" I’m talking about a big, multi-part miniseries hosted by theologists and scientists and whoever, with full hype, ads in TV Guide, subway posters, etc. There’s about a billion cable channels that would probably love to run/re-run such a thing.

a co-worker who is a pentecostal much like young adam loaned me some of his books on this very subject. (pseudo science that supports biblical arguments)

the subject that sticks in my mind is "christ and the cosmos" where the discussion is of the age of the universe.

the author states that although the speed of light is a constant, and the distance to stars 4 to 5 million light years is a mathmatical certainty, this does not prove that the light from these stars is 4 to 5 million years old, as the laws of physics and mathmatics would lead you to believe. an all powerful god is not bound by the laws of physics, and that this does not prove that the universe is older than 6,000 years.

[kaylasdad99]

Okay, everybody, David's gone for maybe as long as three days. Now, don't say anything about what you may or may not like about him while he's away. We wouldn't want him to accuse us of talking about him behind his back. OOOOPS! I said that behind his back! Wait. I'll fix it.

Okay, David, you're gone for maybe as long as three days. Now, we won't say anything about what we may or may not like about you while [b]you're/b] away. We wouldn't want you to accuse us of talking about you behind your back.

Hey, hold on. Jodih, you're the one who objects to that, aren't you? Please note that I am assiduously avoiding the faux pas. More seriously, I will reserve personal judgment on how you "are" until I have been with the group long enough to absorb a representative sampling of your posts. I will say that with regard to matters of calm, reasoned debating styles, you have not acquitted yourself with distinction on this thread tonight. I will go on to acknowledge that you are not the only one of whom this statement could be made (these are my personal opinions, of course). I sincerely hope that in your next attempt at resolving to behave in accordance with what you have implied are the true tenets of your faith, you are somehow able to find the inspiration to make it last for more than four hours.

My three-year-old is clamoring for my attention right now, so I'm going to join her for the remainder of the evening. But I'm kicking myself for having taken the time to read all of today's posts, when I have a perfectly good copy of The House at Pooh Corner just waiting for us. :(

------------------
Heck with this.. I'm goin' over and find out about Harry Potter bein' the AntiChrist.

To get back to something Satan mentioned earlier,some folks believe that indeed,the earth is billions of years old.It's been pretty much proven. But that God created humans roughly 6,000 years ago! Me,I don't care when or how it all happened.I just believe that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected. Everything else is debated,but I'm not betting my life on it.

[Polycarp]

Abbie, the whole resurrection issue got discussed a short while ago at Resurrection (http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000357.html ). I've brought that thread back to the top to enable you to find and review it. Maybe you'll have some cogent comments.

[David B]

Orangecakes said:To get back to something Satan mentioned earlier,some folks believe that indeed,the earth is billions of years old.It's been pretty much proven. But that God created humans roughly 6,000 years ago!Hmmm. Don't think I've heard that one before -- unless it's a variant on old-earth creationist beliefs.

I have seen letters to the editor from people saying they represent the Bahai (I know there's an apostrophe in there somewhere, but I don't know where) faith indicating that they agree that evolution did happen -- for all creatures except humans, who are special.

[manhattan]

longhair75, thanks for responding. What you saw is, unfortunately, the opposite of what I kind of hoped exists, which is a mass-audience-oriented work on real science by serious, scholarly Christians. You know, maybe a few chapters/episodes debunking claims that Christianity has stood in the way of scientific discovery, sections on reconciling Biblical stories with current theories such as evolution and Universe age, that sort of thing.

On further thinking, though, it may not be a good idea anyway. I think maybe attention spans have dropped even since the ‘70’s to the point where such a thing would not be seen.


------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[Polycarp]

Manhattan, I've been taking your suggestions seriously. The majority of them do seem to involve serious money, which would require demonstrating to the religious leadership of my or another denomination that there is a real need for this sort of thing. (I'm convinced; but as a NYC-ite you are very clear on the distinction between culture there and in, to refer back to a post you put in the Pit, Topeka, Kansas.)

I apologize for not responding online before; I'd gotten a little depressed at seeing another good thread go downhill in a flame war or reasonable facsimile. (I originally typed "go to Hell" instead of "go downhill" but in view of the OP that might have been a bit tacky ;))

[manhattan]

Don't worry about it, Poly. It's only happenstance that I saw longhair's post in the middle of everything else going on.

And yea, your point is part of what got me rethinking. Some well-intentioned person makes the thing. Then, if anybody even watches the thing, they're caught between people like me, fascinated and impressed but (probably) not converted on the one side and people calling them heretics and boycotting advertisers on the other side. Pretty depressing way to make a living. :(

------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[Jodi]

I am not going to take up any more time in this thread with my problem with David. The entire exchange belonged in the Pit, and that's where I'm taking it. David, I'm sure you'll be able to identify the thread pertaining to you.

[Satan]

Yeah, and go here while you're at it:
http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000291.html

[SpoonsJTD]

There is a fine line between believing all Christians look like MMZ's (mind-melded zealots) because of an extremist and all Christians are MMZ's. Perhaps Jodih has come across as saying there is no line, but I think this line has also been exaggerated.

Clearly, Satan (with the help of David) has tried making it clear that he personally doesn't believe that all Christians are MMZ's. But Jodih has also (if I understand her correctly) tried to make the point that she doesn't agree with the statement as is, regardless of whether Satan thinks Christians are or aren't MMZ's.

To me, the following quote
It is absolute "truths" like this that turn people off from Christianity, and make ALL of it's followers look like mind-melded zealots.
says 'A majority of the general public will believe that all Christians are mind-melded zealots because of the reverend's statement and the various other statements/actions made by like-minded groups or individuals.' Even if the person who made that comment doesn't personally believe the implication made in the comment.

The rest of my discussion is based on the above interpretation of Satan's statement. If this is an invalid interpretation, Satan, please correct me, because if my interpretation is wrong, and the interpretation that 'you believe all Christians are MMZ's' is incorrect (which I believe it is), then I have no idea what you were trying to convey with that assertion. Please clarify.

Anyway, I don't believe that a majority of the general public would label Christian's as MMZ's because of the Rev.'s comments, et al. (When I talk about the general public, I am basically referring to this continent, English speaking people, basically those people who have a chance to be swayed one way or another by comments made here in the U.S., using the American media.) For one, a good percentage of the general public are Christians, who don't have the same beliefs as the Rev, and people don't generally attribute negative stereotypes to themselves. Secondly, albeit somewhat trivial, the people who do have the same beliefs as the Rev. probably aren't going to label themselves as MMZ's either.

Let's also whittle away the people who don't care enough to even make a judgment of Christians based on news they are probably ignoring anyway. This basically leaves us with non-Christians who care enough to make a judgment about Christians. I find it difficult to believe that all or even most of these people would be ignorant, mis-informed, or illogical enough to come to the conclusion that the words and actions receiving the most attention, those from a fringe group, automatically must be attributed to everyone in that group. I think most people could make that distinction. I would also assert that a lot of those people who appeared swayed by the Rev. et al into attributing the MMZ stereotype to all Christians already had a predisposition to believing it (personal biases, other misinformation, first-hand experience with Christians acting very 'un-Christian-like', etc.) and the comments from fringe 'fundies' only strengthened their personal attitude (which is a far cry from saying that the comments and exposure 'caused' these people to feel this way).

Yes, it's unfortunate that the loudest and most visible members of the group collectively known as Christians often don't represent everyone. Yes, it's unfortunate the rest of us don't speak as loud and don't become as visible to try to counter (I believe there are some good reasons for this, some of these points have already been made.) But are the loud words and visible actions of a fringe group enough to convince a majority of people to attribute a negative stereotype to the group? I don't think that it does.

[Monty]

Jesus was a nice guy who got pissed off at judgmental self-righteous types. So do his followers.

Wouldn't that just be his judgmental self-righteous followers?

[tracer]

David B wrote:

Anyway, don't forget that one Senator (anybody recall which one?) recently got up and essentially blamed school shootings on the teaching of evolution. Whoa.

Wow. That's almost as ridiculous as blaming school shootings on easy gun access or violence in the media.


I spew forth the above little piece of sarcasm here and now because, last night, The Learning Channel had a show about school shootings, in which a "respectable" university guy said "This epidemic of school shootings is caused by kids having easy access to guns." That there is an "epidemic" of school shootings (7 or 8 out of a U.S. pop of 300 million?!), that kids have easier access to guns now than they did 50 years ago (when you could buy guns at a gas station), and that gun access is the cause of these school shootings, are all OPINIONS unsupported by evidence. And NO ONE CAME ON AFTER HIM to give an opposing viewpoint! T.L.C. just presented his views as indisputable fact! Grrr! It makes me want to pick up my easily-accessed guns and go shooting up his university!

------------------
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.

[Polycarp]

Ouch. :::putting bandaid on where Monty's shot hit home::::

Yeah, I suppose you've got a point. What business do I have criticizing people who use the name of the Person in whom I put my faith to push their own ignorant prejudices?

Especially when it's only people like Satan, PLD, and Manhattan who suggest that maybe I as a committed Christian who is not one normally inclined to be self-righteous and judgmental of others needs to speak out when others claim that that's what He stood for.

Well, I suppose I've been put in my place on that one.

[Gaudere]

SARCASM??? From Polycarp?

[Satan]

SpoonsJTD:

Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket, I'm sick of explaining this.

X = Y is a solid mathematical statement that says under all circumstances that X does in fact equal Y.

What I said (and more exasperating, repeated several times) is that X = Y + Z.

X is of course the population as a whole.
Y are people in the population who who think that ALL Christians are like this loony.
Z represents people in the population who do not subscrbe to this theory, knowing that all religions have shades of gray.

As a firm member of the Z people - a point which was also made in the OP in the VERY NEXT FUCKING PARAGRAPHS WHEN I MENTION A CHRISTIAN WHO DOES NOT FEEL THIS WAY - I can still say with an open mind that the Y people exist, and even go so far as to say they have ample evidence to come to this conclusion, even if it is misguided.

Example: My grandma was a racist. I hate racism. But I also realize that she did not even see a black person until she was in her '30s and that she was of a generation that was predisposed to these thoughts.

DID I CONDONE HER RACISM? Not at all.
DID I UNDERSTAND WHY SHE WAS A RACIST? Yes.

Now then, the OP was put in for several reasons, aside from my own amusement:

It would give moderate Christians a chance to say, "I'm like your friend you mention in the OP."

Some did this.

It would give athiests and agnostics a reason to snicker and make jokes at the rube in particular and those who share his feelings.

Some did this.

It would also give non-believers of all spiritual inclinations a chance to give evidence why he is wrong, on a scientific or spiritual level.

Some did, kinda, though a lot of specific opinions in the evolution vs. creation debate have been given in other threads in this forum.

It would give like-minded Christians a chance to say, "I feel this way, and this is why!"

The mere fact that nobody came to the aid of the guy in the OP shows a lot for the intelligence of members in this forum (jodih notwithstanding).

It would give a Christian a chance to say, "Wait, I don't think like this guy - I wonder what my Christian friends think of this? I also wonder what the person who I identify as a spiritual leader and depend on for guidence thinks of this?" and open up a personal dialogue into the nuances of their own faith.

I don't know if some did this, but it would be nice.

It could even make a Christian say, "Well, if this is what people call Christianity, maybe I should have chosen what was behind door #3, because this is not me."

I doubt this happened, but I imagine it within the realm of possibility.

So the post could have produced a lot of constructive dialogue both on and off the board, which is a good thing.

Here is what jodih got out of it:

"Why are you saying that all Christians are like this?"

And in spite of 4,572 assertions from myself and people who realized that I never said that, she still says, "Oh yes you did."

Which means that instead of opening up an intelligent discourse, or even offering an opinion on the issue at hand, the douche bag argued semantics until she was blue in the face, refused to listen to calm responses that rebuffed her, and ultimately did nothing to distinguish herself from the jerk in the OP.

But more importantly, this shows that she cannot argue her faith compellingly without getting defensive. Look at her first post for proof. And this, by extension, shows me that when it comes to the hard issues (or discussions that take a modicum of insight and speculation) it's much easier to just say, "Why do you hate all Christians?" than answer the questions at hand.

Sounds like someone not too sure in her own faith, to be honest, but that is just informed speculation.

She's a lawyer, huh? Well, if this was a court case, she would have been held in contempt for constantly asking "irrelevent" questions to the case at hand from an increasingly more furious judge, while a very confused jury scratched their heads in bewilderment.

Case fucking dismissed!

[Satan]

SpoonsJTD:

Having reread your post, especially when you DID address some of the issues I mention in my diatribe above here (which though addressed to you, should not be implied as blasting you, I hope), I have to say one thing: You get it. And I appreciate your support...

[Satan]

Polycarp:

I don't know if what you intended was sarcasm, but I for one think that your self-righteous quotient is far from overbearing. In fact, I can't think of a single occassion where I would have even thought that word applied to you, and in fact have seen you fight against it when it popped up in others.

Take it for what it's worth, but I think you're okay. even if you DON'T buy me dinner at Angus Barn!

[Strainger]

Something's missing from this debate. Wait, I know ...

THE GOOD REVEREND IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! YOU'RE ALL GOING TO HELL!!

There, that's better.

[tomndebb]

I don't recall any references to a good reverend. The only reverends even mentioned have been Glidden, Falwell, and Robertson. (Did I miss someone?)

------------------
Tom~

[andros]

off topic . . .

Satan, my wife used to know Van Eure, the owner/manager of the Angus Barn. We got lots of free dinners. Neener neener neener.

(god, I love doing that.)

[Monty]

In reference to Poly's sarcastic remark above, two things:

1) Poly: you just might want to quit taking logic cues from Jodih.

2) Nowhere did I say that it was you being a judgmental self-righteous follower. You inferred that, and you inferred that incorrectly. What it appears to me that Satan was addressing at the outset of this particular thread was mainstream Christianity's (hereafter referred to as MS) silence in regards to the fringe elements. Heck, MS doesn't seem to have had a hard time in demonizing LDS and a couple of other groups. Apparently, you've never heard "silence is consent."

[Monty]

Sorry about the typo above, folks. MS should've been MC.

[kaylasdad99]

Hey, Satan:
What is a "Chick tract", exactly? I presume that it's one of those little comic books (approximately 2 1/2 inches by 5 inches) that evangelical vandals/litterbugs sometimes leave in telephone booths, newspaper racks, or hidden in among the Playboy magazines at the convenience store, but this forum is the only place I'e actually sen the term. Could you provide me with an etymology for it? Or, if my presumption is wrong, a definition?

[Satan]

Yes, that is a Chick tract.

[Temujin]

I'm sorry, Brian. Jodi does have a point. (from Polycarp)I have to agree with this. Jodi has taken a lot of personal abuse in this thread that she did not deserve. The OP was provocative, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it was just a matter of time before someone objected to the manner in which Christianity was portrayed in the OP. Jodi took the bait and suffered the consequences.

Christians have been in the news for their wide variety of opinions, ranging from right-wing to left-wing. One of the biggest ongoing stories lately has been about the various Protestant ministers who perform same-sex unions. There is no lack of news about Christians who support homosexual rights, who work on behalf of the homeless, who fight against racism, and so on. The Rev. Jesse Jackson, one of the nation's most prominent Christians, is always speaking publicly on behalf of labor and minorities.

Newspapers sometimes frame the news by presenting stories that cast certain groups in a negative or positive light. The OP is an example of framing the news. You are correct, Brian, that you did NOT say "all Christians are mind-melded zealots." But Jodi is correct that you chose to present a negative stereotype of Christianity. The operative words in the OP were:It is absolute "truths" like this that turn people off from Christianity ...That might be true for some people, but only if they disregard the more tolerant forms of Christianity.

[Satan]

But it was just a matter of time before someone objected to the manner in which Christianity was portrayed in the OP.

Jodih did not object to the way Christianity was portrayed in the OP. That would have made sense...

What she did was object to MY PERSONAL feelings on the matter, and debate me incessantly on how I can possibly say that dudes like the Rev. make all Christians look bad, yet maintain that I don't believe it myself.

What you said SHOULD have been the issue, but it wasn't. Instead of answering the HARD questions the OP posed, she instead took it as a shot to complain, "I hate it when people say loonies like he make us all look alike, just like Satan did," even though the complaint was not valid, not particularly relevant.

[Temujin]

Jodih did not object to the way Christianity was portrayed in the OP. That would have made sense...Actually, I think she did. In her second post, she said she had made a mistake in her first post. Then she clarified what she meant. She wrote:If you recognize that these are the words of an extremist, why are you assigning his attitudes -- or the appearance of his attitutes -- to Christianity as a whole?It's possible that I misunderstood what Jodi was saying here, but I interpreted her words to mean that in her opinion, your OP portrayed Christianity negatively.

The way I read Jodi's posts, she's saying that by framing Christianity in the way you do in your OP, you perpetuate a negative stereotype of Christians. It's possible to perpetuate a stereotype without believing in that stereotype, but why would anyone want to? At first, Jodi did not accuse you of believing in this stereotype. On the contrary, she wrote:Granted, that is something that someone who doesn't know any better might do, but you do know better.Later, she muddied the waters by suggesting that you DO buy these negative stereotypes. Your exchanges became more and more personal. But her core objection, as I understood it, was that she felt you perpetuated a negative stereotype of Christianity when you said views like Glidden's "turn people off from Christianity, and make ALL of its followers look like mind-melded zealots." Your statement is a generalization; it's not true unless these people are ignorant of or disregard more tolerant forms of Christianity, such as those espoused by prominent pastors who perform same-sex unions.

Subsequent posts focussed mostly on personal attacks, and I won't defend Jodi for engaging in them. But I think the point she was trying to make in her second post got lost in the shuffle. One of her questions in a later post was:So, again, I ask you: why do you choose to perpetuate a stereotype of narrow-minded, unreasonable Christianity?Your response:Oh, so I bring to the attention the views of someone I consider a fanatic - all because I DO think he's a fanatic and not representative of all Christians (reread the original OP. Again. Third time's a charm. Notice the part about my friend who aligns himself as a Christian but disagrees with this person? Maybe? Huh? Do ya?) - and I am somehow endorsing his ideology and encouraging others to think you're all like him? Wow... I bring up Republican candidates for office all the time... Guess I should change my party affiliation now.If I understand your response, you were saying that you highlighted Glidden's views to show that he is a fanatic who does not represent Christianity. If that is what you were trying to do (and I apologize if I misinterpreted your words), then it becomes even more difficult to understand why you said views like Glidden's turn people off to Christianity.

If you are trying to show that his views aren't representative of Christianity, why did you say that his views turn people off to Christianity? People would only be turned off to Christianity as a result of hearing Glidden's views IF they felt his views were representative of Christianity. Otherwise, they would merely dismiss him as a fanatic, as you do.

So, a reasonable person might interpret your OP as a straw-man argument against Christianity. I suspect that's what originally motivated Jodi to raise her objections (although I might be wrong).

[kaylasdad99]

Satan,
Glad to know my first guess was on the money (re the definition of a Chick tract). Could I trouble you for some type of explanation as to how the term developed?

Incidentally, I took my daughter to the IHOP for b'fast today. I went to a bank of paper vending machines to get a copy of the comics, and the available selections included an adult tabloid. Sure enough, somebody had slid a tract behind the door, evidently in an attempt to lure some porno-mongers onto the True Path.

[Satan]

Temujin, Temujin, Temujin...

It's possible that I misunderstood what Jodi was saying here, but I interpreted her words to mean that in her opinion, your OP portrayed Christianity negatively.

But it did not portray Christianity negatively. It portrayed THIS GUY negatively, it portrayed THOSE WHO ARE LIKE HIM negatively, and it said that PEOPLE LIKE HIM give evidence to people that all christians are like this.

The VERY NEXT FUCKING PARAGRAPH OF THE OP (I repeat... NEXT PARAGRAPH IN THE OP) states a personal friend who is not like this.

As such, the OP represented BOTH VIEWS QUITE NICELY. The problem is that SHE (and apparently YOU) refuse to acknowledge the OP AS A WHOLE!

It's possible to perpetuate a stereotype without believing in that stereotype, but why would anyone want to?

And it is IMPOSSIBLE to SQUASH A STEREOTYPE if one buries his or her head in the sand and pretends that it doesn't exist! Think about that for a moment...

If I understand your response, you were saying that you highlighted Glidden's views to show that he is a fanatic who does not represent Christianity. If that is what you were trying to do (and I apologize if I misinterpreted your words), then it becomes even more difficult to understand why you said views like Glidden's turn people off to Christianity.

As much as this bothers jodih, it is the only response this question deserves - BECAUSE IT DOES!

I hate it when I see a black person arrested on television. The reason why is because it gives more evidence to racists that ALL BLACKS are bad.

And I can, and will, point this out. I do not think that pointing this out will take the civil rights movement back 20 years. In fact, if more people in the black community would point this out, maybe the stereotype would be easier to dismiss.

The way I see it, you and jodih (and your kind) can react to this a couple of different ways:

(1) "I know that some people will stereotype all Christians based on the words of a few extremists, and I will fight that any way I can."

(2) "I know that some people will stereotype all Christians based on the words of a few extremists, but I really don't care to do anything about it."

(3) "Why on earth would anyone stereotype us because of this guy?"

If you choose option three, which you and her apparently have done, you are deluding yourself and obviously know bubkis about human nature.

But even worse, she (and it seems you) added another choice (methinks to avoid the hard issues brought up by addressing it in the other ways) by saying:

"Anyone who brings up an extremist is stereotyping that all Christians are like this."

And as a glance at the OP AS A FUCKING WHOLE will attest, that is also a stereotype, and you and she are wrong.

If you are trying to show that his views aren't representative of Christianity, why did you say that his views turn people off to Christianity?

Because I am not stupid enough to think that everyone is as smart as I am. Or as educated. Or has friends (who are mentioned in the OP, did I mention that yet?) who they trust who can and will debunk extremism such as this when they ask.

But I still have yet to figure out why you bury your head in the sand... People ARE turned off by people like him. I AM turned off by people like him. Other CHRISTIANS are turned off by people like him.

But I NEVER said that EVERYONE is like him. I only said that it happens that people hear someone like him and say that everyone in the religion is like him. And people do this. Not I, but people do. Deal with it, or continue buring your head in the sand.

I could care less - it's not my religion. And if enough people start to believe the nonsense said by the likes of him, it won't be yours for long either.

[Satan]

kaylasdad99:

They are called Chick tracts because they are published by Chick Publications, owned by one Jack Chick. They have a website, but I refuse to look it up because I am weary of dealing with fundaloonies and those who claim to not be, but act even worse.

[Temujin]

Hi Monty and Brian,

I don't think I was deluding myself.

What I saw in this thread was a person (Jodi) who made an observation that could legitimately be made, namely, that your OP appeared to portray Christianity negatively. Brian, you acknowledged just a few posts ago that this criticism would ''make sense.'' Jodi's observation could have led to an intelligent discussion. Instead, it degenerated into name-calling and recriminations. During the arguements that followed, it seems everyone lost track of the original point in Jodi's second post.

Brian, you must realize that people interpret all of your posts in the context of how you present yourself elsewhere on this board. You use the name ''Satan.'' You are an avowed non-Christian. You frequently create new threads and write posts that offer up unreasonable examples of Christianity for public ridicule (Chick, shove Bible up butt, etc.).

It would be the same if an avowed Republican started a thread that said: ''John Smith, a prominent Democrat, says he believes in euthanizing people older than 85. There are some Democrats who agree. This is the kind of view that turns people off to the Democratic party and makes ALL Democrats look dumb. I have a friend who is a Democrat, and he doesn't agree with Smith. Guess he's a bad Democrat.''

A person could reasonably interpret this post as a straw-man argument against the Democratic party, if it were written by a Republican. Likewise, a person on this board who is familiar with your other threads could interpret your OP as a straw-man argument against Christianity. That might be an inaccurate interpretation, but it would not be unreasonable.

Your OP lends itself to misinterpretation, because it's as if you are speaking with two voices. First, you make a blanket statement about absolute ''truths'' uttered by fanatics, ''truths'' that turn people off to Christianity as a whole and make ALL Christians look like zealots. Then, in what appears to be an afterthought, you mention that you have a Christian friend whom you respect, and who does not agree with the fanatic. The second statement does not alter the meaning of the first statement.

I am reading your OP as a whole. Taken as a whole, a reasonable person could interpret it as an attempt to perpetuate a negative stereotype. This is not an unreasonable interpretation, especially in light of your other public posts, and the fact that you post as ''Satan.''

I am not attacking you personally, Brian. I believe you when you say that you respect many Christians, and that you dismiss Glidden as a fanatic. I think you try to be honest. I'm merely saying that if you look past Jodi's annoying posts, she had the seed of an observation that made some sense.

I realize that by posting this unpopular position, I am opening myself up for personal attacks from Monty and you and others. Unfortunately, that's that nature of this game. I cannot control how you decide to respond to me. (For example, in your post, you make some assumptions about me and my ''kind'' that I don't think you know me well enough to make.)

All I am saying is that a reasonable person could intepret your OP differently than you intended. You and Monty and others will argue that your OP was so crystal clear, no person could misunderstand you unless his or her head was in the sand. I just don't think that's true.

[Monty]

Temujin: you are evidently willfully deluding yourself.

Satan explained himself very well point-by-point and you, as Jodih did, have taken it into some other realm.

Perhaps you realize you (and she) are now making yourself appear as one of the fringe types he asked about in the OP.

Perhaps you don't realize that, but it's still the truth.

[Satan]

*sigh*

What I saw in this thread was a person (Jodi) who made an observation that could legitimately be made, namely, that your OP appeared to portray Christianity negatively.

Don't read much, do you. Now, how about addressing the last two paragraphs of the OP and get back to me at some point? After all, I don't think I nearly brought that up enough, so it's no wonder both you and jodih missed it...

During the arguements that followed, it seems everyone lost track of the original point in Jodi's second post.

Her second post was more crap which refused to acknowledge the complaints lodged against her by the first batch of people who took issue with her interpretation of the OP.

Here is her second post in it's entirety:

Post in haste, repent in leisure, I guess. I didn't really convey what I meant to convey, which is this: Why does it "make ALL of it's followers look like mind-melded zealots"? YOU KNOW a lot of its followers, aren't, right? If you recognize that these are the words of an extremist, why are you assigning his attitudes -- or the appearance of his attitutes -- to Christianity as a whole? Granted, that is something that someone who doesn't know any better might do, but you do know better.

I guess I'm just not getting the point of the post. That there are Christian extremists
and Christian idiots? Granted. There are also Jewish extremists and idiots, and Moslem
extremists and idiots. Would you attribute the beliefs of the most extreme adherents of
these religions to all adherents, even when you know not all adherents hold the beliefs
in question? I would hope not. So why do it where Christianity is concerned?

Now, what point is there to get from this mess of defensiveness and "I don't get it" commentary?

What I got was that she still at that point had not gotten the point that, whether she or I like it or not, people like this Reverend DO make all Christians look bad, the same way a million other analogies that have been brought up can cause people to stereotype.

But including even her LAST post was the fact that *I* believe that all Christians are like that. Again, I guess we have to get you to do this READING thing...

Oh, and if you will notice, Pickman's Model made commentary similar to jodih's at the start of this. Polycarp - not myself - suggested to him that he misunderstood me, and PM simply said, "Okay, sorry." He took Poly and I at our word that I did not say this after one post... Yet, after a million posts, jodih has yet to have listened to a word said.

Brian, you must realize that people interpret all of your posts in the context of how you present yourself elsewhere on this board.

I think the way I represent myself on this board is consistant with being open-minded. I also listen. jodih is neither of these things.

You use the name ''Satan.'' You are an
avowed non-Christian. You frequently create new threads and write posts that offer up
unreasonable examples of Christianity for public ridicule (Chick, shove Bible up butt,
etc.).

Yeah, and why don't you saunter over to the thread about Promise Keepers where I defend them in a room of people who can't deal with them. Oh, but you know me so well. Because I go by the name "Satan." Did someone mention stereotyping around here...?

It would be the same if an avowed Republican started a thread that said: ''John Smith, a prominent Democrat, says he believes in euthanizing people older than 85. There are some Democrats who agree. This is the kind of view that turns people off to the
Democratic party and makes ALL Democrats look dumb. I have a friend who is a Democrat, and he doesn't agree with Smith. Guess he's a bad Democrat.''

How can you type this with a straight face? Of course if I read this, I would assume that you were making the exact point I did. I would not take offense at that, and I don't think any rational human being would who could read.

Now, if you are someone who regularly says things you don't mean, or if you don't know how to communicate and you meant to impute all Democrats, well, there are remedial English classes...

That might be an inaccurate interpretation, but it would not be unreasonable.

Even IF it is not unreasonable, is it reasonable to continue to post that inaccurate interpretation when the original thought has been reposted, hacked to death, and explained by both myself and others through dozens of posts?

Even IF I was unclear in my OP, I think by now, having explained my intentions 100 times, that a reasonable person would just say, "okay." But jodih does not do this. And now you do not do this.

I am reading your OP as a whole. Taken as a whole, a reasonable person could interpret it as an attempt to perpetuate a negative stereotype.

Thus far, no reasonable person has.

(For example, in your post, you make some assumptions about me and my ''kind'' that I don't think you know me well enough to make.)

But you know enough about me to know how much I hate Christians, eh. Because I use the name "Satan." Okay. Whatever.

You and Monty and others will argue that your OP was so crystal clear, no
person could misunderstand you unless his or her head was in the sand. I just don't think that's true.

You are entitled to think whatever you want.

Now then, after explaining to you personally how I meant it, you would figure your NEXT post would actually stop battling semantics and get to the question as posed.

Instead, I am still explaining it, and you have yet to add a single thing of merit to the discussion.

Thus far, every avowed non-believer knew what I meant, and many of the Christians whom I respect. One (Polycarp) has fought for the REAL issues to be heard here, but it has fallen upon deaf ears. Pickman's Model questioned it at first, and quickly said, "okay" and moved onto other business.

A few people of various faiths might have wondered, but took my subsequent many words as to my intentions.

Meanwhile, instead of protecting your faith from the likes of this Reverend, you and jodih feel the need to protect yourself from me and my supposed feelings.

That's ironic...

And whomever stated that if Polycarp started this thread the responses from jodih and yourself would have been very different (and Polycarp could VERY WELL have started this thread, and using the same verbiage, I would venture to say) is an insightful person.

It's funny how so-called "moderate Christians" can be so against the extremists, but in the same breath act like the very people they clam to warp their own spirituality.

[Satan]

You know what? Answer these simple YES / NO questions, jodih and Temujin:

1) Do you honestly believe that I personally think that all Christians are like the Reverend in the OP?

2) Don't you think that some people will think (whether it's right or not) that all Christians are like the Reverend in the OP?

If the answers are NO and YES, then you have finally got the point.

If not, then I have to wonder what you've been reading all this time...

[Temujin]

But you know enough about me to know how much I hate Christians, eh. Because I use the name "Satan." Okay. Whatever.I never said you hate Christians. That's just one example of you misrepresenting what I wrote.

The issue is not my ability to read, as you suggest. Why do you always resort to attacks on people themselves, rather than attacks on what they say? It seems to me that you are not listening to what I said. Yet I am not going to attack your intelligence or your ability to read.

I said that I BELIEVE you when you say you respect many Christians. Look back. You'll see.

You also wrote:Now, how about addressing the last two paragraphs of the OP and get back to me at some point?I did, in my previous post. Again, it seems you're not listening.

My points are simple and not directed against your person. They are:

1) It is not unreasonable for someone to object (as Jodi did) to the way your OP portrayed Christianity. You yourself said ''that would have made sense.''
2) It is not impossible for a reasonable person to misinterpret your OP.
3) Many of the personal attacks against Jodi were undeserved.

That's all. That's everything I really wanted to say. I also tried to explain to you why a reasonable person (such as Jodi) might misinterpret your OP.

Please remember: I posted to this thread within 24 hours after you created it, and I did NOT accuse you of hating Christians. I never have. Instead, I addressed the negative stereotype and suggested an alternative. If you don't recall my post, feel free to look back.

OK, I accept that you reject all of the reasons I gave to explain why someone might see your OP as an attempt to perpetuate a negative stereotype. You don't think there's ANY POSSIBLE WAY a reasonable person could misinterpret your OP, because you believe it was so well written. Fine. Let us agree to disagree.

But in the future, I hope you will thoroughly read my posts before responding to things I never said.

In response to your two questions, my answers are 1. no, and 2. yes. However, I would say that any person who thinks all Christians are like the reverend in the OP must be predisposed toward bigotry, because it's just not reasonable to think ALL Christians are mind-melded zealots.
Also, please stop lumping my views together with Jodi. It's not appropriate.If the answers are NO and YES, then you have finally got the point.I got the point all along. It's just that unlike you, I understand why some might view your OP as an attempt to perpetuate negative stereotypes.

[kaylasdad99]

Damn, Satan, now it's looking like YOU'RE off in thin-skinned land. As far as my scorecard shows, the only person who (possibly, and I'll make that probably, if you insist on it) doesn't agree with you that you weren't trying in your OP to portray Christianity in a negative light, is jodih. Well, jodih's gone to the Pit, and she said she won't be back to this thread. All that the rest of the people coming to jodih's aid (I won't say defense, because in my mind, that's an entirely different thing), as far as I can tell, are just trying to pour some oil on troubled waters. It occurs to me that pouring some oil on troubled waters is just what their faith and its attendant philosophy call for them to do, and I applaud them for answering the call. I sense that sincerity and consistency are qualities which you also find valuable in a person, so I invite you to join me in that applause. I can't say that I find their tactics to be too effective, but I can't really tell if it's because they are being too insistent that you acknowledge some responsibility for the deterioration in the level of discourse on this thread, or because you are interpreting any suggestion that you do so as a personal attack.

Let me just say this: I feel that my outlook on evangelical Christians is closer to yours than to, say, Polycarp's. When I read in your OP:It is absolute "truths" like this that turn people off from Christianity, and make ALL of it's followers look like mind-melded zealots. I had no trouble with assuming the unstated qualification that the word "people", in this context, referred to a stereotypical (ironic, isn't it? ;)) Joe Six-pack who gets his information about the world from the bubbleheaded bleach-blond who comes on at five, and his wife whose primary source of the printed word is most readily found at the checkout counter of the local grocery store. I've become that pessimistic about the critical-thinking abilities of the average adult in our society. Having said that, allow me to add that nobody on this thread has impressed me as a paragon of debating etiquette, and I say that without regard to who has been more culpable of shrillness in these exchanges.

But that's okay. I have no right to expect ideal behavior from anyone. I haven't behaved ideally on the SDMB myself. I would like to suggest, however, that you lighten up, recognize that you have achieved victory by virtue of the fact that your most vociferous opponent has withdrawn from the field, and accept that victory gracefully. You may feel that jodih let herself in for slash-and-burn responses by seeming to demand that you retract your OP, and stubbornly refusing to accept your well-argued assertions that no retraction was required, and perhaps she did. But I'd like to point out that every minute she spends on the SDMB is a minute that she's not playing the part of Mrs. Joe Sixpack. As far as I'm concerned, that puts her fundamentally (sorry for the choice of words; I couldn't resist :)) on our side.

So, what do you think of the Dodger's chancs this year?

And thanks for the education about Chick tracts.


------------------
Maleficent: Touch the spindle . . . TOUCH IT, I SAY!

Princess Aurora: (eyeing the spinning wheel, the first one she's ever seen) What's a spindle?

from the screenplay for Walt Disney's "The Sleeping Beauty", first draft

[Satan]

I never said you hate Christians. That's just one example of you misrepresenting what I wrote.

Okay, then what does this say:

Brian, you must realize that people interpret all of your posts in the context of how you present yourself elsewhere on this board. You use the name ''Satan.'' You are an
avowed non-Christian. You frequently create new threads and write posts that offer up
unreasonable examples of Christianity for public ridicule (Chick, shove Bible up butt,
etc.).

Seems to me that says that I, while not hating (and I think I can be allowed a moment of glibness from time to time), certainly show no tolerance for Christians. Which is not the case. I don't see a mention of the Promise Keepers thread reply I gave you - I assume this is the jodih debate method... Ignore points that prove you wrong by pretending they didn't come up.

Why do you always resort to attacks on people themselves, rather than attacks on what they say?

If you cannot understand my level of frustration at this point, I'm sorry. I just don't have a great love of repeating myself over and over, that's all.

1) It is not unreasonable for someone to object (as Jodi did) to the way your OP
portrayed Christianity. You yourself said ''that would have made sense.''

2) It is not impossible for a reasonable person to misinterpret your OP.

3) Many of the personal attacks against Jodi were undeserved.

In order..

1) Again, you disregard what I said, which was even IF the OP was unclear, why was it still being debated after numerous piosts to follow it up?

But you didn't respond to this question before, so I doubt you will now.

2) Again, I say that no reasonable person would continue after many clarifications on the matter were offered.

3) My language and personal attacks grew exponentially as to the frustration level of constantly trying to debate someone who cannot debate worth a shit.

And further more, my language is what I choose, and I do not need your permission to be nice or naughty to anyone on this board. You don't like the way I talk to someone, stay out of it.

You don't think there's ANY POSSIBLE WAY a reasonable person could misinterpret your OP, because you believe it was so well written.

I maintain that the OP as a whole, combined with numerous follow-up posts, cannot be misinterpreted by a reasonable thinking human being.

I understand why some might view
your OP as an attempt to perpetuate negative stereotypes.

Fine. And I understand why people look at the Reverend's actions and words and decide that ALL Christians think like that.

I also say they, and you, are equally wrongwrong for doing so.

[Monty]

No, Satan; it's evidently not Temujin's inability to read that's the problem here. It's obviously his inability to think.

My neighbor left me some chick tracts from her church by my door this morn.Theres one about Halloween;where some teens go to a haunted house,then one gets killed while driving home. Its mentioned that he went to hell because he didn't accept Jesus in time. Like,hey,he got what he deserved!

[Satan]

Tnank you, John.

Once again, a reasonable person - and *gasp* a Christian no less (another one, actually) comes to my aid.

Though I'm sure your words will either be ignored or twisted in some way. In fact, since I feel like I'm an expert at this, having been a victim of it for so long, I would say THIS (in italics) would be the reply of jodih and probably Temujim:

It's true that it was possible to misunderstand Satan's opening post to believe that he believed in the stereotypw.

And that's what jodih said all along.

Notice how they might avoid the rest of the comments you make, thus taking the point far out of context.

There are now three threads about this thread, all of which are at least two pages.

Well, is it our fault that Satan cannot clearly make his point?

Hey, I'm GOOD at this debating style. Maybe I should try it sometime. Oh wait - That would make me as bad as them. Scratch that thought...

I am what is often called aborn-again Christain, though avoid the term like the plague. I prefer to call it a messianic cult of Judaism, if pressed.

Well, I don't think you are a real Christian if you don't have the guts to say Jesus.

Well, maybe they even wouldn't go THAT FAR, but I take nothing for granted anymore.

If Satan perpetuated a stereotype, it's obvious by now that he didn't mean to.

Well, why doesn't he just admit what he really meant then?

This is where they take it back to square one, negating every other word on the subject posted since. A brilliant tactic for those with ADD.

Now you're making me look bad.

Why do you feel the need to indict me personally? You have to turn it into a personal insult.

This is where they claim that YOU have the faulty debating skills instead of looking in a mirror.

[kaylasdad99]

:::sigh:::



------------------
Maype I should just stick to smart-ass remarks.

[Temujin]

Hello Ai\ Yue- Ha\n,

Thank you for your post. It's refreshing to find someone here to listens and responds without personal attacks.

You wrote:It's true that it was possible to misunderstand Satan's opening post to believe that he believed in the stereotype.So I am not the only one who can understand why Jodi made her initial posts.

I acknowledge that in subsequent posts, Jodi lost track of the issues and began engaging in a fight with Brian instead of in a discussion. I never suggested otherwise.

My whole point was that the OP was provocatively written (nothing wrong with that), and Brian should not have been surprised when someone responded the way Jodi did. I can understand Jodi's response. That doesn't mean I agree with it (are you listening, Monty and Brian?).

I tried to explain to Brian WHY someone might initially misunderstand his OP. I don't think he understood what Jodi was saying. Brian was very quick to launch personal attacks against Jodi and draw her into a fight. (He has tried to do the same thing with me.) If Brian had wanted to, he could have responded to Jodi with a reasoned discussion. He did not do this.

I thought it was clear from my posts that I was referring to the first page of this thread, in which Jodi is relatively nice to Brian, and Brian launches into her with personal attacks.

The OP was provocative, especially this sentence:It is absolute "truths" like this that turn people off from Christianity, and make ALL of it's followers look like mind-melded zealots.Brian could have phrased this in a way that would make it less likely to unintentionally offend Christians. His subsequent reference to his Christian friend does not change the meaning of this quote. If he had said of a prominent black person: ``It is guys like this that make ALL black people look bad,'' the same thing might have happened.

Jodi was responding in her initial posts mostly to this quote, and to the manner in which Christians were portrayed by the example of Rev. Glidden that Brian offered us. Brian's lenghty post of Oct. 13 at 5:12 p.m. did not address her concerns as I understood them. His main defense of his quote was ''because it does.'' Of course that is only going to elicit more questions.

Here is what Brian could have said, if he had wanted to avoid compounding the misunderstanding he provoked with his OP: ``Jodi, some people are uneducated and do not realize there are moderate and left-wing Christians in abundance. These are the people I was referring to. I can understand why you might have misunderstood my post, so let me clarify: The only people who would believe this stereotype of Christians are those who are ignorant or predisposed to bigotry.''

Eventually, Brian made this point, but not until subsequent pages in the thread, well AFTER he already had began attacking Jodi personally.

But in his 5:12 p.m. Oct. 13 post, Brian did not do this. Instead, he said bluntly: ``because it does,'' which isn't completely true, because sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes, absolute ''truths'' like this do NOT turn people off to Christianity, because they understand Christianity is more complex than what this guy is saying. Sometimes, guys like Glidden do NOT make all Christians look like mind-melded zeolots, for the same reason. Brian did not make these qualifications in his response to Jodi's second post.

Instead, Brian was even more provocative, listing other unreasonable things that people like Glidden believe, and then saying of Christianity as a whole:I don't stereotype, but Lord knows I have ample reasons to be able to.Brian's OP was provocative and unclear, and his initial responses to Jodi were provocative and unclear. By the end of the first page of this thread, Brian already was verbally assaulting Jodi as a person.

Jodi didn't help her case by playing along with the fight, but what Brian did was not fair.

[Monty]

Yeah, Temujin; I'm listening to someone who's obviously self-deluded: you. I still don't agree with a thing you've said. But I sure as hell listened to it.

Temujin--

It's true that it was possible to misunderstand Satan's opening post to believe that he believed in the stereotypw. But Jodih had it explaind to her that he didn't mean to and switched to the "perpetuating the stereotype" defense. She had it explained to her again that Satan's intentions were not to perpetuate the stereotype.

But she wouldn't drop it. There are now three threads about this thread, all of which are at least two pages.

Personal opinions: The OP didn't perpetuate any stereotype. He said that people like Glidden perpetuate the stereotype. Then he said that he knew that wasn't the stereotype, so this bothered him.

If Satan was a Christian, this wouldn't have made any waves. If he had said, this guys makes us look bad, no one would take offense. So I'll do it.

I am what is often called aborn-again Christain, though avoid the term like the plague. I prefer to call it a messianic cult of Judaism, if pressed.
My church believes in healing by faith and speaking in tongues. I accept as literal as
much of the Bible as I can without violating the thruths of science. I think much more of it can be than the average person would think. Those are my qualifications for indignation:

This guy is an ass. He makes me look bad and that pisses me off. I am horribly sure that at some point I'll be arguing a point with a science teacher and he'll compare me to this guy.

Jodih, you'll probably yell at me because I'm not involved, but you should get over it.
If Satan perpetuated a stereotype, it's obvious by now that he didn't mean to.

Now you're making me look bad.

--John

[Temujin]

Brian,

You wrote (in reference to my comments about your screen name):Seems to me that says that I, while not hating (and I think I can be allowed a moment of glibness from time to time), certainly show no tolerance for Christians.That's not what I said. My comments were intended to explain to you why a reasonable person might misunderstand your intentions. I never said you were hateful of or intolerant toward Christians. I said a reasonable person might erroneously infer from your actions that when you post anything about Christianity, it is to belittle the religion. (BTW, I don't think you always do this.)Which is not the case.You're right.I don't see a mention of the Promise Keepers thread reply I gave you - I assume this is the jodih debate method... Ignore points that prove you wrong by pretending they didn't come up.I didn't ignore it. I looked up the thread. But since I was never trying to say you hated Christians or were intolerant, the PK thread did not prove me wrong.1) Again, you disregard what I said, which was even IF the OP was unclear, why was it still being debated after numerous posts to follow it up? But you didn't respond to this question before, so I doubt you will now.I apologize if I didn't respond to this adequately. Let me clarify: You are right. Jodi should not have continued the pointless fight that both of you started.2) Again, I say that no reasonable person would continue after many clarifications on the matter were offered.I think you're right about this. But I was referring to the initial posts in this thread. I thought I had made that clear, and I'm sorry if I didn't.And furthermore, my language is what I choose, and I do not need your permission to be nice or naughty to anyone on this board. You don't like the way I talk to someone, stay out of it.You're right. You can say what you want. But I don't have to stay out of it, particularly when I see a thread like this one in which people gang up unfairly on one person whose original observation was legitimate (if incorrect).

I hate to see unfair personal attacks, such as the attacks you launched against Jodi. They make me angry. That is my emotional response to injustice, and sometimes I act on it.I maintain that the OP as a whole, combined with numerous follow-up posts, cannot be misinterpreted by a reasonable thinking human being.With all of those qualifications, you might be correct. However, that does not alter the fact that it is possible (even likely) for someone to misunderstand your OP. All I'm saying is that I don't think you understood why Jodi initially raised her objection, and you provoked her into a fight by attacking her person.... I understand why people look at the Reverend's actions and words and decide that ALL Christians think like that. I also say they, and you, are equally wrongwrong for doing so.You think I'm doing what now? Sorry, but I don't understand what you're responding to here. If you mean to imply that I think ALL Christians think like Glidden, then you misunderstood me.

Thank you for a post that did not attack me personally.

[Temujin]

Monty,

Your post was hilarious. Especially:I still don't agree with a thing you've said.Well, here are a few things you disagree with, then:Sometimes, absolute ''truths'' like this do NOT turn people off to Christianity, because they understand Christianity is more complex than what this guy is saying.andJodi lost track of the issues and began engaging in a fight with Brian instead of in a discussion.and... Some people are uneducated and do not realize there are moderate and left-wing Christians in abundance. ... The only people who would believe this stereotype of Christians are those who are ignorant or predisposed to bigotry.In any case, I think you really DO agree with these statements. In response to the issue you raise: Am I delusional? In all seriousness, if I am, then how would I know?

Then again, I can't take your post seriously. Your comment about my state of mind is, obviously, an attack against my person, not a response to what I said.

I'm sure you can come up with some other real zingers, too. You're really good at it! ;)

[Satan]

Brian's OP was provocative and unclear, and his initial responses to Jodi were provocative and unclear.

To one person. No, make that two now...

[Temujin]

To one person. No, make that two now...Probably to more people than that. Pickman initially misunderstood what you meant in your OP. You might think all your early (Page 1) responses to Jodi were crystal clear, but it seems to me you could have avoided an argument if you had been clearer, instead of trying so hard to draw Jodi into a fight.

I can recognize clear writing when I see it. I know what it looks like when a person expresses an idea in simple, straight-forward terms that are unlikely to be misunderstood. I'm sorry, Brian, but your writing does not meet this standard. Your ideas get muddled. For example, early in this thread, Jodi said, ''I'm guess I'm just not getting the point of the post.'' You responded:The point is simple - a fundamentalist Christian leader believes that all Christians have to say the world is 6,000 years old and God made fossils to fuck with our heads, carbon dating is wrong, blah, blah, blah. And according to this person of influence and power within the church, if you choose to think otherwise, you are NOT a Christian. If I were you, I'd spend the outrage on the likes of him instead of the likes of me.Huh? THAT was the point of your post? The point of your post was that Jodi shouldn't be outraged with you? Of course, I see where you try to get Jodi to direct her outrage at Glidden, which is what your post intended. But the way you wrote this was not clear. Your ideas are muddled. This post was more likely to put Jodi on the defensive that help her understand what you meant.

Don't you think it would have been clearer if you had said something like: ''The point of my post is that Glidden does not represent Christians, but unfortunately, some people who don't know any better will stereotype all Christians based on what this guy says. The point is that this is bad, so I wanted to highlight Glidden's views and give more reasonable Christians an opportunity to set the record straight.''

That was the REAL point of your post, right? So why didn't you come right out and say it clearly? If you had done so, I doubt Jodi would have been drawn into a fight.

[Polycarp]

Whoosh....did anybody happen to notice the thrust of the OP, in our thorough analytic of what Brian, Jodi, Temujin, and for all I know the Dalai Lama thought the other one was saying?

Item...fundaloony pastor says, and gets press for saying, "You can't be a good Christian unless you...." (fill in your particular shibboleth here; Glidden, the guy that Brian quoted, said "Creationism").

Dex picked up on the particular quote that suggests that God condemns evolutionists to be gay, which I hadn't noted originally, but which cracked me up.

The issue is not whether Brian can write clear English posts (yes, IMHO) or controversial ones (the fact we're on P.3 of this one should answer that question), or whether Jodi can (a) read clearly, (b) reason logically, or (c) argue selectively. (IMHO, she can do all three, all good traits in a lawyer, and simply misread Brian's post (something I think we've all done), argued herself out on a limb, and then was unwilling to climb back off that limb.

Now:
1. As I've argued elsewhere, the offbeat has more story value than the everyday thing. If Jodi's minister preaches a sermon suggesting that Christianity calls for giving to the aid of those in need, the only way that's going to get coverage is if the local weekly shopper needs a filler item. If he suggests that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a wild affair, that'll be all over the papers, and provoke a letter-writing campaign that would make this thread and the ones in the pit look like the Tuesday Morning Ladies Sewing Circle.

Monty: I read your post, and thought I understood what you were saying. Let's review the data, and see if we are in agreement, because it sounds like one of us misunderstood the other, and I'm not sure which.

I said, in essence, Jesus spent a lot of time condemning judgmental, self-righteous types (the Pharisees), and tended not to condemn sinners quite so much as those who thought they were "holy." So do his followers. (That is, committed mainstream christians condemn, or should condemn, fundaloonies who arrogate Christian to only their beliefs, and condemn everybody else, MS Christian and nonbeliever alike.)

You said, "only the judgmental, self-righteous ones." This I took to mean that someone who truly tries to practice what Jesus did and taught would not be judgmental and self-righteous, even against those who are themselves judgmental and self-righteous (i.e., the fundaloonies). Since I do stand in judgment over them (WWJD? Well, in this case, He did!), I took that personally, and was zapped for it.

Hey, I'm only human. Maybe it's possible to condemn their viewpoint and still feel brotherly affection towards them (i.e., the fundaloonies). On a one-on-one basis, e.g., my RL friend Brian and Adam (ARG220),I can do this. As a whole, when Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or the not-so-reverend Terry Glidden condemn whole groups of people of whose relationship to God they have no concept and whose shoes they have never even looked at much less walked in, I get outraged. It is a failing in me. It's one I don't plan repenting any time soon, because somebody has to get mad and speak out, and it should not be just outraged atheists and agnostics who do so. But your line, whatever you meant by it (and it appears you were condemning the fundaloonies, not me, by it), did strike home because of this. I may owe you an apology for my reaction, and if so, you have it gladly. But you did zap me, however inadvertently.

Kayla's Dad: I'm a bit confused. The fact that I am an active churchgoing Christian and Brian (Satan), AFAIK, i not, did not surface here, and otherwise we seem to be in general agreement on the issues at hand in this thread. On what particular issues relative to evangelical Christians do you tend to agree more with him than with me? This is not a subdued flame, just trying to figure out where I may have misrepresented myself or failed to see a nuance Brian pitched and I didn't catch. Thanks.

[kaylasdad99]

Polycarp:
Thank you for making a response to my post, and congratulations on the sharp eyes that caught the ambiguity where I took your name in vain. Upon re-reading my post, I realize that my wording could have been clearer. I will endeavor to clear up your confusion.

Regardless of whether your level of activity in Christianity was brought up in this thread, you have identified yourself as an active churchgoing Christian in other places on the SDMB. Similarly, Satan (or Brian, if you feel that his choice of screen name tends to trivialize a decidedly non-trivial entity/concept), has pretty effectively identified himself as a non-churchgoer.

As to my choice of terms, I said:Let me just say this: I feel that my outlook on evangelical Christians is closer to yours than to, say, Polycarp's.
Probably less confusing would have been:

". . .my outlook on evangelical Christianity (etc.)"

As to my making any assumptions with regard to your outlook on evangelical Christianity, I feel safe in assuming that whether you identify yourself as an evangelical Christian or not, you share many core beliefs with them; e.g., the existence of Heaven, the necessity of salvation for entry into Heaven, the acceptance of Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior as the necessity for obtaining salvation, etc.

Satan, on the other hand, has not struck me as a person who believes in any of those things. I will say right here that I don't share those beliefs in any literal sense.

You have pointed out that you were in general agreement with Satan regarding the content of this particular thread, yet unless I am misremembering, you were among those who entreated him to be a bit more gentle in his responses to jodih's "attacks." In making the statements I presume you were alluding to, I was trying to back up that general effort, and at the same time make it clear that my motivation in backing up those efforts was not born of any belief system that I share with jodih, or Temujin, or you.

At this time, I would also like to say that my referring to jodih's departure from the field as a "victory" for Satan is not intended to be construed as meaning a "victory" that should be celebrated. Indeed, if Satan is half the debater I think he is, he's seeing it as a forfieture (in the sense a victory being granted to one whose opponent has failed to show up, or quit the playing field without acknowledging a loss). This type is not viewed by the victor as a triumph of any kind. I am very distressed to think that Pickman's Model was influenced by phraseology in my post to withdraw himself from the Great Debates forum. More importantly, my prayers are with him, his partner, and the people involved in the incident he reported to us in his farewell post, as they deal with the new reality they face today.

Polycarp, If I have not left you any less confused regarding my previous post, or if any of the assumptions I have admitted to in this one are faulty, please feel free to correct me. This is, after all, the place to witness, if you feel you must. ;)

------------------
Maype I should just stick to smart-ass remarks.

[kaylasdad99]

my motivation in backing up those efforts was not born of any belief system that I share with jodih, or Temujin, or you.


Make that religious belief system.

[Polycarp]

Okay, I get it. Or rather, to quote a college professor I thought a lot of, I'm still confused, but at least I'm confused on a higher plane! :)

Warning: "witnessing" follows. For me, the essence of faith is a radical commitment to a relationship with God, particularly as he (as I believe) showed himself through the person of Jesus Christ. It does not necessarily involve the sorts of things you outline, though I think they do "come with the territory." My "faith" in (=commitment to) God has resolved a lot of personal-integration issues that were leaving me a troubled and unhappy person and made me the sort of person that I've tried to show myself as being through my posts. I feel "saved" not in some fundamentalist sense but in the same sense that Gwyneth Paltrow's character in Titanic refers to "having been saved in every possible way" by Leonardo diCaprio's character. There's a wholeness and sense of fulfillment (not to mention a sense of purpose!) there that wasn't present before. Heaven? I believe that life continues after death. I leave it to God's goodness to work out the details. The necessity for salvation? Well, let's just say that I think that salvation is generally a good thing, unless it becomes a badge to show who's "in" and who's "out" as it has for some fundamentalists. The acceptance of Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior? Well, I did. And He did say, "No one cometh to the Father except through me." But no, I don't believe in a God that will take Fred Phelps into heaven and keep Chaim Keller out because one recited some dumb-ass formula and the other didn't. I think God's grace is sufficient for anyone who is willing to accept it, and his omniscience is working through us all in an imperfect world. Certainly Kayla is being cared for because you love her, and there is not a one of us who would see God's will as being other than she be cared for and loved. So in that sense, you are certainly doing God's will. David and Phil were, IMHO, doing God's will a few months ago in opening Adam's eyes to the fact that there's more to life than reading the Bible, and that good will is possible in people who don't happen to adhere to your particular creed.
End of witness

I confess that I do have the shortcoming that I (nearly) always try to be a peacemaker, even when what is needed is a good thunderstorm to clear the air. But I stand with him on the idiocy of the statements he quoted in his OP. I have no personal interest in any dogmatic statement regarding the Prince of Darkness, and the only reasons I didn't refer to Brian as Satan in these posts are (1) when something gets theological in nature, it could be unclear whether you're ascribing a given attitude to the Prince of Darkness or the Prince of Music Promotion, and (2) I feel like a friend to Brian and like him as a person, and therefore used his name rather than his username as a way of implying that. FTR, my ward had a nickname of "Evil" when we took guardianship over him, and we used to joke about my "trying to bring good out of Evil." (It will be fun sometime in the future to introduce Satan to Evil! ;))

[SpoonsJTD]

Satan, while I too think the original post may have been a little unclear, the actual thrust of the point was driven home today as a browsed through the website for Kevin Smith's soon to be released 'Dogma.' They have a section devoted to hate mail they have received by people who could not have possibly seen the movie yet. Although some of the authors generically posted as Christians, some specifically identified themselves as Roman Catholics.

As a RC myself, I was truly appalled and embarassed by the close-minded and ignorant rantings of some of the authors. Keeping in mind this current thread, I wrote an e-mail myself, begging the web site people to provide my e-mail an equal forum as the hate mail. I am not holding my breath for them to post it, which I recognize as a very big problem with holding moderate views. I think it is an overwhelming task for the moderates of groups to counter the extremists because of the fact the media at al are quick to provide a forum for those whose views are inflamatory, and therefore newsworthy. They are slow, however, in providing equal time for those of us who represent the views held by the majority of the group.

I would like to thank you, Satan, for helping me recognize a problem I really didn't think much about.

Jodih, if you are reading this thread still, please recognize the points I have made. I initially understood your point that an intelligent person shouldn't be susceptible to believing in stereotypes. But IMO, even if 1% of the population is persuaded into believing them because of fringe members who aren't representative of the whole, then it is our duty to try to at the very least make it known that the fringe views aren't the pervading views. I think we are capable of doing this without looking like we have so much internal disagreement that our underlying principles are shaky.

[Kameryn]

Yeah Satan. Nice of you to start this thread. By the looks of your user name, we know where you're going.

[Satan]

Kameryn:

Gee, three whole posts to this board and not an iota of info on who you are.

It must take real convictions to be so trollish and anonymous.

Hey religious friends - Here's SOMEONE ELSE making you look bad...

[VegForLife]

You know, Satan, that's a perfect example of the way that I think you often read too much into what people write on this board.

Kameryn has made all of one post that made any reference to religion at all in a different thread. She stated, "I believe like she does" (referring to another poster).

Now, it could be that what you've assumed is correct, namely that Kameryn doesn't like you because of your screen name, and because you "bashed" a fundie in your OP.

With so little information to go on, however, I think it's equally likely that the first statement, which was in response to *your* post in which you accepted a "thank you," was sincere, and that she's glad you made the OP. The last statement could very easily have been a joke.

There are obviously a lot of people around here who like what you contribute. In general, I'm one of them. But here you've made an assumption based on too little information. Even if you're right, you come off looking like you're overreacting by calling Kameryn a troll, and attacking the anononymity that many around here make use of.

Lighten up, man.

Yer pal,
Rich

[Satan]

Well VegForLife, what have we here!

I, like jodih, made an interpretation of a post. I do this with evidence that, while purhaps is all circumstantial (low posting history, no contact info, lack of ability to find the shift key, poor punctuation skills, lack of smiley face that would denote humor), is still prevalent.

I, unlike jodih, will gladly retract the commentary if said poster is to clarify what (s)he means by the post.

But until then, I stand by it.

Maybe I should lighten up, and maybe i get too wound up over shit like this. But don't tell me that I can't interpret a post and make a comment on it... Especially after all I've been through.

[Polycarp]

Well, I have it on good authority that Brian intended to take the screen name "Santa" and portray a jovial old elf from the North Pole. Unfortunately, he made a typo in signing up. :)

There. Kameryn, ball's in your court. One suggestion: don't jump to assumptions. I think every flame war I've seen on this board has come from somebody misassuming something. And I believe I could get a lawyer to back that one up! :)

[Jodi]

I don't really have anything to add, and could've handled this in an e-mail, but he (she?) doesn't have e-mail so I'll post it here:

TEMUJIN: Your posts are correct, both in the attempt to explain what I was trying to say and in criticizing the way that I said it. I'm sorry all you got for your troubles was someone else jumping in to label you "willfully deluded," but I deeply appreciated all your posts.

I hope we're about done with this in any case.

[AuraSeer]

Kameryn's username was just registered today. (S)He has made precisely three posts so far; I haven't found the other two yet, but the one to this thread consists solely of pithy condescension.

At this point, it appears that Kameryn is either 1) trolling for flames, or 2) a reg wanting to take an anonymous dig at Satan. Either way, the poster deserves no respect until (s)he proves otherwise.

------------------
Laugh hard; it's a long way to the bank.

[Satan]

For some reason this thread is acting screwy... Just a quick test-post to see what happens...

You may now go back to flaming me, trolls and/or organized religion...

[Gaudere]

Yeah, the whole board's acting screwy for me too. It's showing no posts since 1:41 until I get in the thread, then half the time it can't find the page. Think I'll wander over to "about this message board"...

[Polycarp]

Just for the record, I did just what Gaudere is saying, for the reason that shortly after Jodih's post on page 4 was added, all of page 4 disappeared. My post to About this Message Board showed up, then disappeared. I'm not sure what's going on, but I'll leave this message here so David can alert TD, in case the alert stays gone.

Sheesh...I was beginning to doubt my own existence there for a minute!

[VegForLife]

I, unlike jodih, will gladly retract the commentary if said poster is to clarify what (s)he means by the post.

But until then, I stand by it.
Well, that's your perogative. Personally, I tend to think a quick, "hey, Kameryn, haven't you read any of my posts yet? Don't take the 'Satan' name so seriously!" makes you look reasonable, while a sharp, "yo, troll, piss off!" makes you look unreasonable, when it's in response to a post with questionable intent.

Maybe it's just me, but tend to think that asking for clarification is better than over-reacting and then having to retract something. Your mileage may vary.
Maybe I should lighten up, and maybe i get too wound up over shit like this. But don't tell me that I can't interpret a post and make a comment on it.
Oh, I'd never do that. I was simply making the observation that you might want to lighten up in order to appear more reasonable. You might think you always appear reasonable; you might disagree, and not want to appear more reasonable than you already do, regardless of how reasonable that is; and you might specifically want to appear unreasonable. Naturally, it's all up to you. I was just making an observation, nothing more.
Especially after all I've been through.
Sorry, whining will get you nowhere.

Rich

[VegForLife]

Oh, and FTR, I'd actually love it if you were right, I'm sure the exchanges between Kameryn and others who have been participating in this thread would be loads of fun!

Rich

[Polycarp]

Rich, that sounded reasonable. So why are you posting it in this thread? ;)

[Satan]

I would like to thank you, Satan, for helping me recognize a problem I really didn't think much about.

Well I'm glad SOMEONE got something out of my post other than heartburn...

[Satan]

I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but dammit, I was scrolling through the thread about Kansas ( http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000219.html ) and I came across a post jodih made on the subject. On August 12th, which was way before this thread was started by yours truly. Here it is:

It also makes it appear like people who live in Kansas are backwards idiots; I know that's an over-generalization, but that's what it looks like, so I'd be doubly dismayed if I lived in Kansas.

Compare this to the working in my OP and tell me that they're not saying the exact same thing, just about a different issue.

You can say you're sorry anytime you want, jodih... Hypocrite!

[Monty]

Damn, Satan! That's far better than quoting scripture!

[Temujin]

The difference, of course, is she came right out and said: "I know that's an over-generalization." In your OP, you didn't do this, opening a significant possibility for someone to misunderstand you.

Frankly, I think you should just apologize to each other and be done with it. You are both intelligent enough to see what happened here, and to know that neither one of you is an idiot. But I know you'll do whatever you want any way. That's the fun of this board!

(Never mind me. I'm delusional! ;) )

[Satan]

Grasping at straws. It was obvious that I was talking about a generalization as well.

Well, obvious to everyone but you and her.

[VegForLife]

Jesus, Satan, you really don't let things go, do you?

The same things you've accused jodih of can be thrown back at you: despite *repeated* explanations of jodih's motives for questioning your OP, you *continue* to state that she was "confused" about your position.

She stated *several times* that she assumed that you hold the position that you have repeatedly made more clear. It is *because* of that assumption that she was questioning your wording in the OP.

She stated it several times. What are you, an idiot?

Rich

[Jedi-667]

I am a Christian and the thought of the big bang is absurd.
Newtonion mechanics says: (on earth) An object at rest tends to stay at rest.
While astronomy says: (in space) an object in motion tends to stay in motion.
So, after the big bang, how did these flying planets stop and start orbiting in intricate patterns (some even opposite to others)?
And the 5 stable nuclei left after the BB:
hydrogen-1
hydrogen-2
helium-3
helium-4
lithium-7
Shouldn't have even survived a blast that reached 10,000,000,000 degress Kalvin, or even 10,000,000 Kalvin for that matter!
And yes, it was 6 literal days!!!!!!!

[David B]

I have responded to Jedi's post by starting a new thread, The Big Bang, at http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000529.html (I think this thread got cluttered up enough that it was worth it to start anew).

[Coldfire]

Jedi 667,

You have GOT to be kidding. You know, the Bible is a great book. I know, because I read it entirely when I was of the age to make a more or less adult choice as to what to do with my religion (I was raised slightly catholic, and read the bible when I was 15). I've never considered myself a REAL christian since. I did however appreciate the value of the Bible as a book which holds some eternal truths (anyone who really lives according to the 10 commendments is basically one righteous dude !) and beautiful analogies and cryptical stories that could certainly guide one in making difficult decisions.

HOWEVER.

It is also a book that was penned down some 1600 years ago after 4 centuries of verbal transport, exageration, devotion and sorrow. Not quite the settings if one desires to keep a story pure and true. This is OK though, as long as you don't take things too literally.
I'm not even getting into various translation errors.

So, yeah, around the year 0, a charismatic healer with some political talents must have lived somewhere in current Israel. And he probably WAS crucified. But did his Dad create the world in six days ? Hardly. Did the guy walk on water ? My best guess is he probably was a decent swimmer, but no, walking seems unlikely.

My advice is to value christianity and the Bible all you want, just filter out the outrageous parts. Everybody knows there's a certain amount of bullshit to any fictional story. Then please accept the fact that a book that originated like the Bible did may also be holding some half-truths and exagerations, even if they DO serve a point or illustrate a principal.

Failure to do so will often be seen as fundamentalist behaviour. Sorry to break this to you, but that's the way it is - with all due respect.

These days, when asked to describe my religion, I usually say somthing like "pragmatic agnostic" or something. Sounds cool, and it's the truth. Seek validity and doubt everything unprovable. If there IS a God, he would never disapprove of such an intelligent attitude.


------------------
Coldfire
________________________________
"You know how complex women are"
- Neil Peart, Rush (1993)

[Polycarp]

I tend to agree, Coldfire, though most everyone here knows that I push the idea of a personal relationship with God, because I think life is more enjoyable that way. (Not, I hasten to add, with the image of God that the typical right-wing Christian has, with the One who loves His creation, including us). I doubt strongly he's going to be sending the sincere seekers after truth who frequent this board to listen to Styx for all eternity (well, they were threatened with punishment administered by Satan!) just because they did not recite some magic formula that "saved" them.

As for the Jesus Myth and the reality behind it, we ended up with a "not proven" verdict on the Resurrection thread here. Suffice it to say that something happened about 30 AD that caused a dozen Jewish men to go around claiming that their lives had been changed by a series of events that were reasonably easy to check out at the time, and which have strange metaphysical implications. David is operating on the working hypothesis that it was an urban legend; I reject that for reasons good to me.

But that does not mean that I threw my brain into the baptismal font and never pulled it back out. If God had wanted to teach earth science, he never would have chosen the Jews.

[DrFidelius]

Just jumping in here for a moment to say that I take the Bible far too seriously to take it literally.

[Coldfire]

SpoonsJTD,

I suppose you're right. My generalistic approach regarding the factuality of the bible has little chance of convincing fundamentalists. Then again, I was merely voicing my opinion regarding a general attitude towards the bible, no matter how important this book (or indeed rather, books) is to you.
I don't have any illusions whatsoever that I will be able to convince ANY fundamentalist of my beliefs and disbeliefs. For the simple reason that the very term "fundamentalist" implies a larger that life devotion to a certain belief or conviction: not the sort of people that are generally openminded towards rationality and well-supported arguments.....

But your point is noted, and you're also right in stating that this should probably be a thread of its own.


------------------
Coldfire
________________________________
"You know how complex women are"
- Neil Peart, Rush (1993)

[SpoonsJTD]

Coldfire, while you did make some good points, I would ask that you not confuse the issue by bringing up topics better left to another thread, i.e., whether there is any factual relevance to the New Testament. These arguments don't seem very appropriate in trying to convince a fundamentalist that the stories of Genesis might be a metaphoric, as opposed to a scientific, explanation.

The book we call a 'bible' is only a 'book' because the Old and New testaments are physically bound together. IMO, the authors, source materials, and content are so varied, that by trying to lump them all into one book that might have some 'outrageous parts' only causes these fundamentalists to cling more tightly to their (IMO incorrect) assumption that trying to debunk the literal interpretation of any part of it (specifically the stories of creation, using the current scientific theories of evolution, etc) is an attack on the entire 'book' and the 'truths' held within.

I am no way saying that you should not question the factuality of the New Testament (even as a Christian I do it nearly every day of my life). What I'm trying to say is that I think you will find it more effective in debating fundamentalists to limit the battle to the literal interpretations of creation (which seems to be the real topic of Jedi's post).

And we definitely agree on one thing:

Jedi, you have GOT to be kidding!

[yosemite]

Coldfire: to quote you: "For the simple reason that the very term "fundamentalist" implies a larger that life devotion to a certain belief or conviction: not the sort of people that are generally openminded towards rationality and well-supported arguments....."

Oh my, that just sounded so condescending, but maybe I am missing something here...Sorry if I misunderstood you.

I don't know if I am "fundamental" or not, but I have certain deeply-held beliefs that are not really open for debate. They are personal beliefs, and if they seem irrational to the non-religious mind, fine. I do not know that I speak for all people who hold simular beliefs, but I think many of us can consider ourselves open-minded on many things. We all are entitled to believe certain things, and not be grilled about them, as long as we don't go out of our way to make them other people's business. (Not that I am accusing anyone here of doing that, but it does sometimes happen.)


I can understand if someone wanted to argue with me if I had some homophobic or racist viewpoint, but unless a religious viewpoint directly instructs someone to be hurtful to someone else, I don't get what the big deal is. I consider the mere belief that God created the World (not via Evolution) to be something that really wouldn't matter to anyone else. Unless a person was trying to force this belief down others' throats (and I am aware this does happen sometimes) I just don't get what the big deal is. I have argued with people who really, really seemed bugged that I might possibly accept the Creation theory. I kept on asking them "Why do you care?" I reasurred them that I did not intend to hurt anyone else, or impose my belief on any unwilling minds. I never got a straight answer about why my personal private belief was apparently so offensive to others.

Sorry for the ramble, it's late, and I am probably totally off topic now.

[# 00: The Fool]

. . . is reminded why he stays the hell away from the GD forum.

------------------
"Oh we were brought up on the Space-Race, now they expect us to clean toilets. When you have seen how big the world is how can you make do with this?"
Pulp, "Glory Days"

[Coldfire]

Yosemitebabe:

I fully agree with the statements you made. Religious beliefs can be personal and not open for debate to a person. As a non-religious person I'll just have to accept that and move on, just as you would have to accept that my views on the same matter might be opposite to yours. What I was trying to refer to by defining "fundamentalists", were the sort of people that try to push their ideals and beliefs down your throat no matter what. There's two things I'd like to say to such people:
1) Stick with your beliefs, and I'll stick with mine;
2) If you choose to get into an argument with me based on your own relgious beliefs, and then fail to recognize the facts that I bring up in the discussion ("The world REALLY was created in 6 days", "No it was not. Carbon dating shows that, for example, dinosaurs were extinct before modern humans even came into existence", "Ooooooh don't you see that's just the way God WANTS us to see things ?", etc. etc.), consider yourself labeled: FUNDAMENTALIST.

Yosemitebabe, with your post you have clearly put yourself in the "non-fundamentalist christian" category ;)

As for Jedi-667.......


------------------
Coldfire
________________________________
"You know how complex women are"
- Neil Peart, Rush (1993)

[Kat2]

Kameryn and I don't post much. We just "lurk." I am sorry you cannot seem to respect either of us. We remain anonymous for our own real-life safety. I think that I speak for both of us when I say that neither of us will apologize for our beliefs. I do also believe that neither of us will be visiting these boards any more. I began visiting only because I had a question about an urban legend type thing, and all either of us find here are cursing and slandering of each other. And I am not just talking about the "BBQ Pit." I will say goodbye now, forever.
www.leftbehind.com (http://www.leftbehind.com)

[Kameryn]

I agree, both of us are sorry we ever came here in the first place. You can reply and say whatever you want because NEITHER of us will be back!

[Satan]

Good riddance... Anyone who leaves with that as their epitaph, I don't give permission to stay anyway! That applies to both Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum above, by the way...

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan