This is on my list of “Get X Albums for $1.00!” initial purchases.
No, you were wrong. The poster to whom you replied said that Christians can be idiots. She said this in the context of a Christian who most absolutely was being an idiot. If we Christians can’t acknowledge when fellow Christians are being idiots, well, that’s a pretty big plank in our eye.
As I said, there’s plenty to criticize. As I also said
Style reminds me of…
I mean that in a very positive way. Very well done.
The relevant song starts around 1:50 in
I was referring to Dark Sponge.
Stephen Fry:
It’s in the Bible …Alan Davies:
I haven’t read it!Stephen Fry:
You should-it’s hilarious.
[From QI, season one.]
@Saintly_Loser, I’m completely confused why you’re disagreeing with @HMS_Irruncible but agreeing with @Chronos for saying the same exact thing…
Yet @HMS_Irruncible literally wrote the same thing @Chronos did which you just agreed with:
Read back over the thread. I responded to HMS_Irruncible not for saying
But for saying, when asked if he/she meant all Christians:
Which is pretty typical here at SDMB. All Christians are the same, right? All Christians get accused of believing whatever the poster wants to accuse them of. One Christian believes something stupid, or does something bad, then we can attribute that false belief, or that bad behavior, to all Christians? That is the very essence of bigotry.
So you (and @Chronos) have mischaracterized my response. My response was not to HMS_Irruncible’s first statement, which I merely questioned, quite politely (especially for the Pit). As you can see, I responded to his/her “don’t give a shit” post.
As I said, I wish I’d never come into this thread, but that pushed my buttons.
That’s your gloss.
My gloss is they were obviously speaking of a subset of Christians (this is implicit in their use of “can be” rather than “are”), and did not give a shit about responding to your pathetically transparent “#NotAllChristians” non sequitur response. Which was accusatory and not at all polite, even for the Pit.
It is indeed my gloss. Based on I don’t even remember how many years year. Twenty? Close to that, anyway. And my response was hardly a “non sequitur.” If someone says “Christians can be…,” it’s fair to ask if that person means all Christians, or some subset, or perhaps one or more denominations, or all Christians.
So you’re saying you have a personal beef with them, going back 20 years? That’s … a thing.
No, I’m saying that I’m pretty familiar with the SDMB attitude towards religion, and particularly Christianity of any stripe, having been posting here for nearly twenty years.
So you’re projecting your general view of an overall Dope stance (which, BTW, is pants - I warrant most Dopers are actually religious) onto a specific poster despite the actual meaning of the words they wrote?
Yeah, no wonder they noped right out of the conversation.
Again, my response wasn’t to the original statement, it was to the “no idea, don’t give a shit” response.
And maybe most Dopers are religious. I don’t know. I don’t actually care – this isn’t where I come for conversations about faith. But when there is a thread on religion, you can count on the usual suspects invoking, completely off-topic, invisible pink unicorns or something like that. So it’s been my impression that, going by actual posting (rather than an assumption, which may be correct for all I know, that most Dopers are actually religious), the SDMB is pretty overtly hostile to religion. And that’s fine. But you you know, I can call someone on it once in a while. Especially in the Pit.
Which was an appropriate response to your bullshit post.
The irony, it burns!!!
And maybe this isn’t where HMS comes to for penny-ante nitpicking of their general statements?
IME, it’s more hostile to sanctimonious religionists with bad logic skills.
My question about whether or not the poster meant all Christians wasn’t bullshit. I was genuinely curious.
Nothing like quote-mining to make a point, right. You’ve truncated what I said – I said I don’t care because this isn’t where I come for conversations about faith.
ETA: I see you’ve edited your post to at least include what I said. And, of course, accuse me of being sanctimonious.
And HMS clearly thought this wasn’t the thread to give a fuck about your “curiosity”.
Not that I think you were genuinely curious, because your posts just now show you were already primed to view their post in a hostile light.
Your post was right before mine, I quoted the relevant part, the rest of what you said didn’t signify as to the irony.
You’d have preferred the more traditional references to Roman execution devices and the availability of wood?
It did signify. You quoted part, and left out a relevant part. What I said was that I didn’t care because this isn’t where I come for conversations about faith, not that I didn’t care because I don’t want facts to get in the way of what I’m saying. There’s a big difference, and you selectively quoted me to make it appear that I was saying one thing when in fact I was saying another.
As to being sanctimonious, sure, whatever. I would suggest that a review of my posting history would show that I’m not a particularly sanctimonious person, and that I’ve never proselytized here, or even suggested that anyone should follow my particular faith, and that I try, with varying degrees of success, to keep my participation in threads about religion confined to pretty factual stuff about what a given faith may or may not believe.
But whatever, you’ve made up your mind. Just as I have, admittedly. So this is pointless.
Which is you projecting onto HMS. Their reason could be the same as yours. Like I said, doesn’t signify.
No, I selectively quoted you to highlight the ironic part only. Like I said, your actual post was right above that, anyone could read the whole thing (and should already have)
That’s not what sanctimonious means. It means to be hypocritically devout.
Like, oh, waving your Christianity around while forgetting about all that “not lying” stuff.