sorry folks…thought I was really dealing with a troll here but alas, I was mistaken. (what can I say? I’m used to dealing with this nuttiness on Newsmax.com … )s:confused:
That cracked me up Spoofe !
Paete, non dolet
Eonwe, perhaps you don’t get it.
He agrees with your OP. He really does. To him, it’s not parody, it’s not ridiculous.
Posted by Eonwe - “This is mainly directed at Sweet Willy, who seems to ascribe to the ideas in the thread title.”
Seems to me to be pretty directly directed towards you.
And FTR, I’m Christian and I don’t feel taunted. I followed the link and saw the OP for the satire it was. That’s straw-man reference #1 after the OP has already been pointed out as being a parody.
No. Would you consider taking care not to misrepresent yourself in your posts and try to avoid this sort of thing from happening? Misunderstandings have been cleared up in the Pit before. You don’t want to clear anything up in this thread though, you want to evade. You defend your own statements, don’t put the responsibility on others to form a favorable opinion of you. That’s your job.
Wow, so much to cover…
Again, he wasn’t flaming Christians - straw-man reference #2 after being told it was a parody.
Request for being addressed properly #2 after already having been addressed.
Refusal to explain your comments in the linked thread, evasion of the issue, twisting one’s words, and creating straw-men are methods of the coward.
**
I’m not Guin, but…
Animosity? Like when Eonwe says, “Also, Sweet Willy, it is not my intent to hurt your feelings. What could I possibly gain from that? The only reason I’m bringing this into the pit is because some of what you said seems (as I said before) ignorant, and frankly it gets me upset. I don’t have anything against you personally, just some of your opinions. Call me a coward, but I don’t feel that it’s necessary to insult a person just because he/she has an opinion I disagree with.”
Wow, such stinging words! I’m surprised you’re still emotionally stable enough to respond so calmly, Sweet Willy. (BTW, since you seem slow to pick this sort of thing up, that was sarcasm with a dash of animosity.)
Stop acting superior to what’s going on here, when in truth, you’re only evading the issue.
Wow, this is either really fucking funny or really fucking sad. I’m not sure yet. Are you this dense IRL, too? Does light bend around you? I don’t want to speak for Eonwe, but since you need things spelled out for you, I’d wager the issue is with your comments in the other thread which have been construed as anti-semitic. I’ve divined this tidbit from Eonwe’s previous post when he said, “The point is that your comments about Judiasm are ridiculous (subject to ridicule) and are just as silly as saying “____ ideology is a threat to us all,” when most of “us” ascribe to one ideology or another. You are generalizing and stereotyping and being quite anti-semitic in the process. Unless you declare you’d say the same things about Christians, or Muslims, in which case I’d say you are being ignorant and anti-whichever it was.”
Willy, your act is getting old fast. I find your posts to be extremely ironic, since you evade the issue in one sentence while calling Eonwe a coward in the next.
At least you’re finally admitting that the OP was a satire and not a flame against Christianity.
Cite? 
:rolleyes:
Cite?
We go through this again and again. Every group has assholes, including vegans, stamp collectors, gay people, Christians, firemen, Masons, dog catchers, and so on. BUT YOU ALREADY KNEW THIS.
I am a vegetarian. I hear stories about the “asshole” vegan or vegetarian someone else has met. So what exactly does this prove? Is that supposed to convince me that all vegetarians or vegans are assholes? Am I supposed to say, “Well, golly, now that I’ve heard about the flakey hippy vegan chick you met, I guess that trumps all the positive and wonderful experiences I’ve had with vegetarians and vegetarianism!” Please. Give me a break. I remain unconvinced that because your stepfather was an asshole, he represents Christianity. He represents himself.
Hey gobear, I’m a Christian, and I posted to that thread. Please copy and paste my flame against Manhattan, please.
The thing about Christians, and vegans, is that you don’t always know when you meet them. You may have a really positive experience with a Christian (or vegan, or Christian vegan) but never connect that they were Christian and/or vegan. (We sometimes forget to wear our identifying nametags, you know.) But an aggressive Christian asshole will always make sure you know they are Christian, because often they are obnoxious sanctimonious judgmental jerks, who are using Christianity as their “weapon” of choice. (Not unlike obnoxious sanctimonious judgmental jerk vegans or vegetarians using vegetarianism as their “weapon”.)
I know, I totally missed the point of this thread, which was to be facetous about Sweet Willy. So sue me.
Well, it is a little ridiculous, as it is intended to be. But if you want to talk about threatening aspects of the Christians I’ll will be happy to oblige with what I can.
Yes he does direct it at me. It was not clear in the OP. It was clearly parody of the other thread title but that wasn’t even my thread. I never supported or quoted any of the Talmud quotes or dissent offered by the OP. He made a point about the threat of Jewish ideology and used a very poor argument to support it. Any support of such an idea would best be supported by making an argument against the Israeli goverment, which I did. I do concieve of a threat in the form of Israeli policy that is based on Jewish Ideology.
What is there to clear up? I see Jewish Ideology as a threat to all of us in the policy of Israel. I see Jewish Ideology as a threat to all of us in the policy of Israel. I see Jewish Ideology as a threat to all of us in the policy of Israel. Do I have to say it again? This is all in the other thread. What do you want from me here?
What issue? What are you not clear about? I do not see any issue other than the fact that Eonwe doesn’t like what I think of Jewish Ideology in Israeli policy. If he doesn’t ike it what exactly is he trying to do about it? He did not chime in on the thread with some reasonable attempted to convince me otherwise. He started a pitt thread.
What comments? Does he bring them here for me to defend? Does he challenge them in the thread? Are ther comments there not supported by fact? If there are bring them here or dispute them there. All I am hearing is “I don’t like you for what you think”. That is not a very specific argument. As for being anti - semitic, suit yourself. I would shy from it but if that is how you see it, that is how you see it.
I did say the same things about Islam in the thread. Read it. I am no more anti - Islam than I am anti - semitic but I can see that they teach some stupid things in the name of religion and use it as a military means.
So tune out.
O praeclarum custodem ovium lupum!
Here’s a question - since the original GD thread was posted by a returning troll, why was it allowed to remain open (especially given its seeming inflammatory nature)? Most other threads started by trolls are closed immediately upon their re-banning.
Esprix
Read what I posted. I didn’t say Christians are “assholes,”; I said that American Christianity is just belonging to a club, like the vegans or the stamp collectors. I stand by that. Christians are no more moral, and no less, than the rest of the unsaved populace. If you were a nice person already, you’ll be a nice Christian. If you were an asshole, then you’ll be an asshole Christian. The church has no supernatural power to transform people, it does no gextraordinary good, it is not kind or charitable, it lacks moral authority. It’s just a clubhouse for people on a Sunday morning.
And go back and re-read the Manhattan thread yourself, for yours was not the only post.
Zen Buddhists. We should kill them all. My arse they’re up in their monasteries meditating. They’re developing nuclear weapons with the illegitimate son of Saddam Hussein and Hitler, who’s about to emerge from his South Pole bunker and contaminate the seas with anthrax.
…ducks for cover lest Swee Twi Lee is armed with ninja prayer-wheels…
Do you have any evidence to back this up? If you do have facts of this I would like to see them. That would definitely make them a threat. Unfortunately, I know of no such facts.
You’re asking Willy to look something up in the dictionary?
The first rule you must adhere to, if you’re going to attempt communication with Willy is to never, never, NEVER ask him to look something up in a dictionary.
The basic thrust of all his arguments is “Well, the dictionary says…”
Don’t encourage him!
Fenris
Fenris, Dictionaries provide the meaning for the words we use. I use it to make sure I am using words in the same light as those who would debate with me. I was not compelled to look up satire as we all seem to agree on its use.
Well, right. This was that point I was always trying to make to the posters over on the P.P. Christians always claim that they have this divine presence that somehow imbues their being with a magic ability to be nicer and more loving and more truth seeking or whatever. Poppycock.
The most damning evidence against the veracity of Christian claims is that Christians are no more (and as gobear pointed out, no less) moral than the rest of the populace. And since this is not GD, no, I don’t have a cite, though maybe gobear does.
Gotta disagree with you here, or at least nitpick. “The church” is a nebulous term, so if you don’t mind I’m going to clarify it a bit as “an organized body of believers.” Since you’re referring to Christianity, I’m going to tack on “and followers of Christ.”
You’re right in that the church itself has no supernatural power to transform people; however, I have seen people who made a commitment to Christ completely revamp their lives. These people were led to make that change by members of the church. So, while the church itself didn’t transform the people, they were led to do so by members of the church – who also provided support and help when those life-changes caused problems and heartache.
The church of which I am a member regularly organizes food drives, offers monetary assistance to the poor, provides counseling services, and performs a host of other humanitarian duties. On a personal level, my wife and I just had a baby, and members of our Sunday-School class have been bringing dinner to us every night. This is a much-appreciated kindness.
I disagree with some of the stands my church takes; a couple of weeks ago our pastor spent 10 minutes of his sermon trying to explain that Jesus didn’t really drink wine. My eyes rolled so much that I sprained a muscle in my skull. But to say that the church does no extraordinary good and is not kind or charitable is wrong, in my experience.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mars Horizon *
Christians always claim that they have this divine presence that somehow imbues their being with a magic ability to be nicer and more loving and more truth seeking or whatever. Poppycock.
I honestly cannot recall a single instance of a Christian saying this, although I’m sure there are some fundies who believe it. The Christians I know struggle constantly with the vagaries of life, and fail as often as not. Some of the best lessons I’ve ever learned came from Christians and how they dealt with major setbacks or problems in their life.
Gobear, would you mind throwing a few “many” or “most” type adjectives into that assessment? As amended, I’d give it a strong “damn straight, and a crying shame.” As it stands, it’s a slam on those of us who do try to live out what Jesus taught, to the best of our imperfect abilities, and detest the idiots who insist on using the church as a rubber stamp for their prejudices. And I’d have to call you on it. I don’t wanna do that if I can help it.
How about “the vast majority with a few exceptions here and there?” If you’ll scroll up, Poly, you’ll note that I named you specifically as an example of the behavior Christians should aspire to.
I’m not God and you’re not Abraham, so we’ll dispense with the haggling over the number of righteous men sufficient to spare the Cities on the Plain. In my life, I have met a throng of people who cliam to have been saved, who say they know Jesus, yet whose moral behavior is no different from that of the unsaved. Their opwn text says that by their fruits we shall know them, and that faith without works is as dead as a body without breath.
I don’t want to engage in brainless Christian-bashing. That’s best left to the sullen, brain-damaged folks like Sweet Willy. But
I have noticed that affronted Christians are just as venomous when their beliefs are challenged as Star Trek fans are when you say that Shatner can’t act.
Jesus Himself said that you are the salt of the earth. But if that salt has lost its savor, it is fit only to be thrown to the ground. If you have been redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb, then the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit should be a living witness of the power of God in your lives.
IMO, Christians are just people, not special, not holy. Sure, some Christians are good people, but that’s because they were already good people, not because they were changed by God.
This my opinion. You may disregard it because, after all, I’m just a filthy, Hellbound heathen, who is clearly ignorant of the teachings of the Bible and true Christianity.
Very very well said. I’m a atheist and I believe that I am act a lot more “Christian” to people than a lot of real church going people I know.
First, I’d like to thank Crunchy Frog for basically outlning my point, but as it didn’t seem to work I’ll try one more time…
Quoted from the thread in question Jewish religion and ideology is a threat to us all
So, you say twice, quite clearly, that you find Jewish idealogy a threat. What about Jewish idealogy threatens you, or the world, or whatever? What makes Jewish idealogy threatening in a way that other idealogies are not? That is what I’m asking, and that is the point of the satire, which, to reiterate, is not a stab at Christianity!!! It is no more a stab at Christianity than Gulliver’s Travels is an attack against tiny people and horses!
You say in this thread that the OP of the original thread didn’t support his argument and that you then made arguments against the Israeli government. Then, “I do concieve of a threat in the form of Israeli policy that is based on Jewish Ideology.” So, what is it? Now it’s Israeli policy, and not Jewish ideology? Sounds like you’re attempting to backtrack here. Nowhere in the offending thread (at least in the 2.5 pages of it I read) do you make any distinction between Israeli policy and Jewish ideology.
You say here that I don’t, “like what [you] think of Jewish Ideology in Israeli policy.” That is false false false!!! What I don’t like is what I quoted above, that you think that Jewish idealogy is a threat to us all!
Do you know what Jewish idealogy is??? Do you know who and what the Jews are??? Here’s a news flash for you… Jew does not equal Israeli!! Israeli political policy does not equal Jewish idealogy any more than U.S. policy is equal to Christian idealogy (well, perhaps slightly more, but only slightly). Israel is not run by Rabbis.
Think about what you are saying. Jewish idealogy is a threat. Does that apply to the idealogy of the Jewish family down the street? How so? How are their Jewish beliefs a threat to you?
Also you ask of me…
Many others had already chimed in to no avail. I felt that “great debate” wasn’t accomplishing much, and this is the place for less, um, rigid forms of debate.
What comments? The ones quoted above.
Now they are here for you to defend.
No I didn’t challenge them in the thread, because Great Debates is no place to call a person’s ideas ridiculous and ignorant in the fashion I have done.
No, your comments are not supported by fact. You have yet to give one example of Jewish (not Israeli) belief/behaviour that shows that Jewish idealogy (and hence Jews) are a threat to us all.
And congratulations on being able to use Latin. It typically is not an effective method of communication, unless you’re just trying to be clever and have a little private joke. But, I can read Latin reasonably well, so at least I’ll get your humor also.
And on preview, gobear, I hereby banish you for hijacking my thread, and more importantly, insulting Star Trek fans!
Fair enough. You can add to my set of sins that I sometimes skim threads that are fairly long when I open them or that have grown rapidly since I last looked at them. The former was the case here, and I missed your initial disclaimer.
Thank you for the kind words, and I completely withdraw my protest – which was based on the mistaken impression that the post with the paragraph you quoted was your first contribution. You certainly did the distinguishing I’d asked for in the real first post, and no one could expect you to have to reiterate such a nuance every time you respond (most of us, unlike me, have the common sense to read the whole thread and keep the context of a poster’s earlier comments in mind).
If “by their fruits you will know them” is the truth, then a lot of us need to be shaking in our shoes – because as you point out, many Christians are much more interested in defending their theology than in showing Christ to others, in preaching His will (or what they think it is) than in doing it.
As for the last paragraph, I would not disregard your views in any case, and certainly disagree with the “who is…” clause – your relative cleanliness I cannot testify to, though nobody else who knows you one-on-one has ever objected, whether you hold any heathen views is your business (though I had formed the perhaps mistaken impression that you were an agnostic leaning to neopagan views) and as for Hellbound, only if you so choose. (And that’s philosophic opinion, not evangelism, in that last clause.)
Thanks, friend, for setting me straight.