Izzy, I have Fundie friends and we have had this very discussion. I was not angry because a) they are my friends and they care for me, and b)they listen to what I have to say and they respected me, even if they thought that I would end up in Hell for not repenting.
It’s completely different if some stranger comes up and starts saying it.
I could not agree more.
Basically, I see witnessing on the Internet to be worse than useless because it actively drives away people who might otherwise listen and repent. The Fundies on the board talk at people, not to them,and they do it with no real compassion in their hearts. Real witnessing needs to be donw with people you see every day. Here, it just seems rude and intrusive. Do you see the difference?
I agree and disagree what your saying here. And I do see “the difference” that you talking about. Yes, witnessing by friends is the best form of witnessing because they can see your life as an example. But I feel I have friends on the internet. And even if someone is not a friend alot of times you could plant a seed is something that was typed to them.
And while it might as you said run some people off it might be the only place people will get to hear about God in a thoughtful conversation(they may hang out where the word is never talked about or have any friends that are Christians.
Btw thanks for the post on the rudeness. I also apologize for some of the comments I made to you that were rude.
To clarify, I think you could be concerned about the welfare of others regardless of whether your house is completely in order (no one’s ever is). But I think worrying about the welfare of others is in terms of saying “this is the right thing to do” etc. Thinking about “is so and so going to Hell or not? hmm, looks like he is…” is never a good idea.
Well, they can start by saying , “This is what I believe,”
or, “This is what the Bible teaches about…,”, but when they start the “I don’t know you, but this how you are supposed to live your life,” I get angry.
Frankly, I see Christian conversion as something akin to being replaced by a pod person out of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” It’s the same face with the same memories, but the person inside has been replaced by a hollow-voiced automaton who replies to everything, “Jesus loves you, praise the Lord.” or maybe it’s more akin to “The Stepford Wives.”
Far be it from me to stop two guys from making peace with each other. But I would point out that judgements such as these are inherently subjective. As are statements about the debating techniques and attitudes of Christians. Neither of these can be expected to be objectively proved. And both have equal claim for being shared with the board.
Point taken, but I think if you look at Christ’s teaching style, the importance of conversion outweighed the requirements of being non-judgemental. You have to look at these things from a street theatre perogative, and maybe that method doesn’t translate to the web very well. What works beter as an attention getter IRL: “repent, the kingdom of heaven is at hand” or “Hey, want to talk about Kant’s moral imperetive?”
Well, my experience is that when you start to bring up what the Bible teaches the fundies themselves get pretty upset!
Right – that is judgemental if they are naming you specifically without evidence as someone who is living their life incorrectly. But, and this is a lousy example, if you are a soldier, and perhaps that would make you a warmaker in their eyes, and they say “Blessed are the peacemakers” getting in a huff about it isn’t helping your case, if you have one, that you’ve never killed anyone and maybe you’ve only gone on humanitarian aid missions. If you don’t speak their language and can’t make your case, trust that someone else can step in and make it for you.
LOL. Pod people! You know, that’s not too far from the truth.
And now, people towards the back during the Sermon of the Mount, courtesy of Monty Python’s Life of Brian
“What did he say?”
“I think he said: blessed are the cheesemakers”
“The cheesemakers??”
“Oh, I’m sure he’s just being symbolic. I’m sure he means the makers of all manner of dairy products.”
His statement as originally made was “Christians are persecuted on this board and Pagans are not.”
This is a position that can ba backed up and could potentially be “objectively proved,” and in fact, i feel that myself and others have provided evidence to the contrary of this.
When brought to his attention, instead of backing this up with some kind of facts, he made further statements which included, “Other religious people do not get criticized here,” “People are treated badly or no other reason than they are Christian,” and (this one is verbatum) “The SDMB is less tolerant of Christians than any other faith.”
Again, defensable positions. Show us links. Show us situations. Go ahead.
And again, other people and myself show him situations and links which directly counter what he claims.
Then, his final resolution is to say, “I don’t have any evidence, but I maintain my position.”
This is not subjective. Not even close.
Either Daniel can provide threads where Christians were treated like shit NOT for being assholeds but just for being Christians or he cannot.
Either he can show that Muslims and Pagans were never called out for the same disgressions that Christians are or he cannot.
Either he can show that “The SDMB is less tolerant of Christians than any other faith,” or he cannot.
If it is not possible for him to show his opinion has any backing aside from some strange martyr complex, then why is it myself and other posters here have pointed out evidence that he is not correct?
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, three weeks, two days, 17 hours, 16 minutes and 21 seconds.
5828 cigarettes not smoked, saving $728.60.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 5 hours, 40 minutes.
Provocation, arrogance, judgementalism and the other transgressions being discussed are all subjective judgements. One person may perceive it one way and another person the other way. So if the question is one of whether the Christians are being treated harshly for these and similar crimes, or not, cannot be dealt with objectively. Your perspective may be that this Christian was being judgemental and that’s why he was treated badly, and the other guy was not and that’s why he wasn’t. Another person’s perspective may be that one was not more judgemental than the other. Obviously if Person A is hostile to Person B, he is more apt to judge Person B’s words as a provocation than a non-hostile observer would. This difference in perspective makes it impossible to judge the situation objectively.
This is a wide disparity in how any specific post may be treated. There is no doubt that there have been instances of Christians who deserved to be flamed, Christians who were not flamed, others who deserved to be flamed, others who were not flamed etc. The question is whether, looking at the overall picture, there is a greater tendency to treat this group with less tolerance than others. This is impossible to prove by pointing to this or that example.
I’ve never stepped in before on this. I’m not aligned with either Danieletc… or Satan… and pointedly refuse to disclose my personal religious preferences here 'cause they’re personal… but… here’s where I see a problem:
Satan does not, IMHO, appear to be telling you that your perception is not your perception. What he seems to be trying to show you is that your perception is based on faulty evidence.
Just 'cause you percieve the color green to be red, doesn’t make it so.
He then calls on you to show evidence that only Christians are disdained and shown disrespect * simply * because they are Christian. And he demonstrates evidence that speaks well that this is ** not ** a truism. This evidence consists of threads that show there are people who are shown disrespect that happen to be Christian, that happen to be Jewish, that happen to be fill-in-the-blank. there are also other people who are shown respect even-though-they-happen-to-be Christian, Jewish, fill-in-the-blank. He seems to have ample evidence to support his position that Christians are NOT singled out to be disrespected based solely on their religious stance.
You respond to his calls for evidence by re-stating your assumption as fact “I percieve” and “are you telling me that my perception isn’t what I say it is?”
No, he’s telling you that what you percieve is simply not a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.
That may very well be true. Problem is that one needs to first see something before one can judge it.
The issue is not, “I disagree that your interpretation of the evidence presented.” He himself said that there IS no evidence to back him up, and he has not taken issue with the interpretation of the evidence that I and others has presented.
Even if we assume it is impossible to “prove,” we have NOTHING to go on! He has not brought up a link or a person or a situation or a conversation or ANY SOLITARY THING which would even make me think, “You know, he has a point,” even if it wasn’t “proven” to my own satisfaction.
But there is NOTHING which even HINTS that he is right. Nothing at all. He claims that he himself has gotten fair treatment. He claims that he doesn’t have any evidence to think the way he does, but will think it anyway. He never even claimed to apply either of these points to the evidence that myself and others DID present.
The issues you bring up here, Izzy, are great for when something is presented. Certainly, the interpretation of the evidence might be open to a reasonable person. And certainly, “proving” something outside of hard mathematics is debatably impossible.
But when you haven’t even done the first step - SOMETHING to examine in the first place - and in fact have stated “I have no evidence,” well, I think that’s something else entirely, wouldn’t you say?
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, three weeks, two days, 18 hours, 5 minutes and 59 seconds.
5830 cigarettes not smoked, saving $728.77.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 5 hours, 50 minutes.
That may very well be true. Problem is that one needs to first see something before one can judge it.
The issue is not, “I disagree that your interpretation of the evidence presented.” He himself said that there IS no evidence to back him up, and he has not taken issue with the interpretation of the evidence that I and others has presented.
Even if we assume it is impossible to “prove,” we have NOTHING to go on! He has not brought up a link or a person or a situation or a conversation or ANY SOLITARY THING which would even make me think, “You know, he has a point,” even if it wasn’t “proven” to my own satisfaction.
But there is NOTHING which even HINTS that he is right. Nothing at all. He claims that he himself has gotten fair treatment. He claims that he doesn’t have any evidence to think the way he does, but will think it anyway. He never even claimed to apply either of these points to the evidence that myself and others DID present.
The issues you bring up here, Izzy, are great for when something is presented. Certainly, the interpretation of the evidence might be open to a reasonable person. And certainly, “proving” something outside of hard mathematics is debatably impossible.
But when you haven’t even done the first step - SOMETHING to examine in the first place - and in fact have stated “I have no evidence,” well, I think that’s something else entirely, wouldn’t you say?
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, three weeks, two days, 18 hours, 5 minutes and 59 seconds.
5830 cigarettes not smoked, saving $728.77.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 5 hours, 50 minutes.
Well, I guess that depends on what your meaning of “is” is.
I think there are plenty of things in the Bible which can be interpreted in various ways and I’ve had fair and honest disagreements about them. I’ve had open minded discussions about Revelations even though I think the whole book is symbolic just because I find it interesting to postulate and read what others postulate.
There are, though, other parts that are perfectly lucid to someone who can read.
“It says here: ‘Jack and Jill went up the hill’”
“What? Are you saying you literally believe that Jack and Jill went up the hill?”
“Well, that is what is says.”
“You’re so close minded. That is obviously a symbolic hill. And even if they did go up the hill, they certaintly didn’t do so together.”
“Well, it says ‘Jack and Jill’”
“That doesn’t mean Jack might not have gone up first and Jill went up much later. Besides, ‘Jill came tumbling after’, my italics”
“Yeah, well, probably after Jack.”
“Well, I don’t think that is implied at all by the text. It doesn’t say what or who Jill was tumbling after so I guess we’ll never know.”
That seems to be the kind of thing I have to put up with sometimes. Although I’ve been wrong and when that occurs I try to make sure I admit it.
Byz: No, you are the Queen of the Pit (altho Techchick as a claim also). I don’t like this “kind” of debate. As Izzy said so succinctly & well, this is a subjective arguement, not objective. Nor was it my intention to start a debate on the subject, it was simply an observation. I have mentioned an example, ie “support”- the FoG “goodbye” thread- but satan has even said I have listed NO evidence to support my statement. If my evidence is dismissed as not even existing, why bother to continue? And, yes, you are right, even tho I might not convince satan, I could convince others- but who?
Izzy, even tho we have both disagreed & agreed on several subjects, your support here is very welcome. Thank you.
Oldscratch: I appreciate your peace-making attempt (hey isn’t that usu MY job? ), and I’ll go along with it.
You got off quite easy here, you know. I was trying to keep it somewhat factual with an occassional “go fuck yourself” thrown in.
**
I believe I replied to what Izzy had to say.
**
You make a public observation - especially one as full of shit as what you said - it’s gonna get called on.
**
You are right, you did mention this thread. Now reply to the following observations that I ahve about that thread:
People treated FriendofGod fairly well for the most part until he started having “revelations,” didn’t listen to what others posted, and generally showed to be a piss-poor debater, and even then most people were still not totally busting his chops but simply showing frustration with his “techniques.”
The thread in question was a “I’m leaving” thread. Whenever a poster from here did an “I’m leaving” thread for an emotional reason - not a “I am not going to have access to a computer for a while,” but the people who posted sayingh they were leaving because of how the board administrators treated them (such as after the two issues with Melin, for example) - that poster was killed for being a martyr and told not to let the door hit them on the ass on the way out. This was not about religion, this was about leaving and whining and taking your ball with you.
Now, if you are reasonable (I have yet to see evidence of this), you will consider this and either admit that I have a point, or you can show me how FriendofGod was crucified specifically because he was a Christian and NOT for things which you already admited happen to everyone else guilty of the “sins” he was guilty of, or show me threads where people said, “I’m leaving,” where they did not get slammed in some way.
Ball is in your court.
**
I thank you for bringing that back to my attention. I was under the impression that I and others already showed you how FriendofGod was flamed not for being a Christian but for acting in the manner he did and - as I just added above - for leaving the way he did.
Honestly, if the best example of how “intolerant towards Christianity” this board is, is a single thread from a Christian who was treated fairly well, was still not torn apart even when he did do things which this board does not appreciate out of anyone, and finally got a few negative comments directed towards him when he packed up and left, you’re just fooling yourself here.
**
If you could show that this board is intolerant towards Christians, which is what you claimed, I’ll be the first to agree with you. However, I fail to see it. And pointing out a thread where a frustrating individual who did several things that would make everyone scream whether he was Christian or a Unicornian (or is that Unicornist?) pack his bags and go home doesn’t help me see it at all.
Yer pal,
Satan
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, three weeks, two days, 22 hours, 54 minutes and 18 seconds.
5838 cigarettes not smoked, saving $729.77.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 6 hours, 30 minutes.
), and I’ll go along with it.