no, she never did. She became less vocal because of the backlash, but she has never publicly repudiated her words and actions back in 1977.
gobear, I don’t mean any disrespect and I know there are plenty of Christians similar to what you describe. But I just haven’t seen dreamer try to “censor, shut down, or destroy” anything. And hate would definitely not be a word that I would use to describe her feelings towards gay people. I know that when I came out to Mr and Mrs Dreamer, I was shown nothing but love and compassion. I have a hell of a lot of respect for how they responded.
And perhaps it is true that, as someone so elequently stated here. nobody gives a flying fuck how she is in real life. But I can’t, just sit back while people insinuate that because she is a christian, she must hate gays, judge everyone, and want to censor any opposing viewpoint.
I can understand why her debating skills might be frustrating but being that she is almost always kind and respectful, I don’t understand why some can’t explain to her how she might improve those skills without having to take such a condescending tone. She is here to learn, as we all are.
My words were directed at fundies in general, and not specifically at Dreamer. I know she;s your froend, amd that you know she’s a good person IRL, but all we have to judge her are her words, which so far haven’t been encouraging.
I’ll try to be less harsh if she, in turn, will promise to listen and learn to debate.
Ahh religious debates.
I’ve always wondered about the purpose of debating religion. If you believe in God and in a reward system for living a ‘good’ life…* Wouldn’t you want to dedicate the time you spend argueing your beliefs to make you a better whatever so you can get into heaven? I mean, that is the goal of life, right. To follow God’s will and get into heaven?
I’ve never been able to understand use purpose of heaven or hell in christian mythos. If God created mankind with free will to freely choose to love him, then why would he also create a system of reward and punishment that reinforced the loving behavior. It’s counter-logic.
“I want you to freely choose a path of love, but if you don’t you will suffer for all eternity.”
One would think that the punishments in life for living contrary to the moral majority would be enough of a punishment.
What does strike me as odd.
You threaten me with deamons, with an eternity of suffering because I don’t believe in a way that fits in with your world.
What have I done? I don’t care what you believe or how you worship as long as you don’t hurt anyone or force me to follow your beliefs.
For that I get to suffer for all eternity after I die.
The religious majority in this country has placed God into many aspects of this country. The pledge for example. Our country was based off the sacrafice of people, not god. Why should we diminish the value of the lives lost…
When missionaries or whatever ask me about god and joining their church and I say I’m an athiest I see looks of pity, disgust of hatred…
You said you believe in deamons… They could exist I supose. But why worry about the evil that can be commited by something nobody has yet proven when you know the sorts of evil that can be commited by the man or woman passing next to you in the street.
The recent criminal activity discovered by some priests makes me ask… How many went unpunished, who died being hailed as a ‘great man’ a ‘true servent of god’ when nobody knows how many young boys he raped.
Maybe God will punish him for his crimes, but in life he was one of god’s chosen few, the few who preached his works, who interpreted his words… If a god allows activities like that in the temples raised in his glory, what does that say about God?
And you know what? For saying things like that I’ve been screamed at, threatened physically and oh yes, condemned to an eternity of hell.
And still, I’ll fight to protect your right to believe in what you wish.
She’s clearly kind, and arguably respectful. But why should that carry any sort of weight in a debate? If a kind and respectful person wants to start a thread about how women should be submissive to men because that’s the way evolution and nature intended it, should we exempt him from backing up his argument just because he’s polite? If the World’s Nicest Girl decides to blame gays for the downfall of society, are we being pricks if we ask for links to studies demonstrating such a thing?
I don’t think I’m being anti-dreamer, or even anti-Christian. If an atheist were to start a thread saying, “There is absolutely no God,” I’d behave the exact same way. You’ve got to make your case to earn my respect. Simply being nice but close-minded won’t get you far in my book.
I merely expect dreamer to back up what she says. I choose to reject the “It’s true because I know it’s true” argument, so she’s doing a poor job of defending herself, IMO. And it doesn’t help when she nails herself to a cross in every other post.
**
I’ve got to ask–has she been learning? I’ve read a thread (and the last post on the page prior) where she decided to end the evolution controversy once-and-for-all by asking a question that no one’s ever ever thought of, before she did. To wit, “Where are all the transitional fossils?” When tracer answered with a link, she replied that she’d read the link and get back to him. My question is: Did she do either of those things?
In another thread, gobear posted some info from the master himself, Unca Cecil, about how the Gospels were NOT written by eyewitnesses. This time, dreamer evaded by asking him why he’d care, and then she bowed out. Again, did any learning take place?
Look, she’s polite and persistent, which I respect. But this does not give her carte blanche to make shitty arguments and expect us to cut her some slack.
Quix
Look, I don’t mean to be so harsh back at you guys and again I’m sorry if it comes out that way. When I read **clairobscur’s ** cookie story it just pissed me off and I reacted instead of responding. So I’m not a “great debator”. Does that mean I should quit right now and run away? Certainly that’s not what I want to do. I’ve taken a negative tone in my posts latey because of the negative things that were said about me and I took them personally. If your not suppossed to take things personally in a debate, what are you suppossed to do?
In answer to your questions on those other threads ** quixotic78 **, yes, I did read the talkorigins page about the transitional fossils. I believe what I did there was give up and not respond because I just didn’t have the energy at that time to continue. It’s pretty draining when your the only one fighting for your cause and everyone else in the thread is fighting against you and asking for answers to all their questions at the same time. I feel I did the best I could at the time there.
Again I did read Cecil’s comments on how the bible was written, and again if you go back and look through that thread, I did a heck of a lot more research on scripture and the bible than I had in a long time and I responded to as many posts as I could.
I have learned a lot so far, and would like to learn how to debate on the level you say I need too. But telling me because of what I believe that I’m ignorant etc, can’t possibly be an example of a good debate. I am willing to listen and I have been paying attention and I will honestly try not to react in a negative way anymore if you all will do the same.
As an extremely late comer, I’m not going to wade in to deep, but I thought I should comment on this from the OP
I’m not really into defending fundamentalists who go chasing after demons in Hip Hop CDs, but the fact is squish, it was you who asserted a belief as fact to begin with by saying demons don’t exist. You should have said “I don’t believe that demons exist” or something similar. By stating as fact a position that cannot be proven nor disproven, you are doing the same thing you’re bitching about. And you did it first. This may be why she came on so strong - you goaded her by stating the opposite position as if it were unquestionable. It’s kind of hypocritical to call somebody out on doing the same thing as you.
For those of you who think our God is hateful because He “wants to torture people 4ever”, you need to realize that we are all sinners.
God gave us a way to be in Heaven and happy 4ever.
If we keep rejecting it over and over, we send ourselves to Hell, its our own fault.
He doesn’t get some sort of “joy” when we go to hell.
He died so we wouldn’t have to.
Doesn’t sound like a monster to me!
I know dreamer agrees with this. (expected smily-:))
And every chrsitian I’ve ever known thinks premarital sex is wrong.
And I do know quite a lot.
Some christians like to compromise on the truth, so the nonbeleivers won’t dislike them, and others just want to satisfy their sexual needs, who cares what God says.
But I don’t know any christians IRL who think sex outsdie of marriage is okay.
That’s fair, but look at it from my perspective. You ask a question (for example, “Where are the transitional fossils?”). It is answered with an extensive website. You say that you’ll read and reply later. When I see no reply, I assume that (a) you never read it, (b) you read it but didn’t understand it, or (c) you read it but are unconvinced. If (a) were the answer, I’d probably never post a reply to you again, as I’d clearly be wasting my time. If it’s (b) or (c), then that seems like fertile ground for future questions/debate. When these weren’t forthcoming, I went back to my (a) assumption. If you’d care to prove that assumption wrong, I’d love to participate (or at least lurk, if I feel that I can’t contain my vituperativeness).
**
I don’t recall ever saying that you’re ignorant. I do maintain that you’re a poor debater, insofar as I’ve chosen to deny your main technique: “I know that it’s true, so that’s good enough ipso facto.” The reason that I reject that argument is because it can be used for anything, from the divinity of Allah to the racial inferiority of Blacks. If I let you slide, then the next time David Duke decides to post, I’m up a creek without a paddle.
I have called you close-minded, and I stand by that. You can feel free to prove me wrong, but in the meantime, I have no alternative but to stick to my guns. I mean, look at the word: your mind is CLOSED. No entry. If someone (gobear, for example) tries to interject some information that contradicts the current occupants of your mind, then this new information gets rejected, because your mind is not open.
**
I encourage you to stick around. In one thread (which I’d find, if the Boards weren’t being so lethargic), I actually decided to shun my disdain for the Fundie viewpoint, and I asked FriendofGod some questions in (and this is the tricky part for me) a polite and non-condescending manner. To my surprise, he answered, and I learned a lot about his Fundamentalist viewpoint. Granted, everything he said contrasted with what I perceive to be the empirical evidence (the subject matter concerned witchcraft, IIRC), but I still learned something. ::cue “The More You Know” public-service announcement music::
Quix
P.S. vanilla, I’m not a Christian, so I can’t be a sinner… just like you’re not a sinner if you eat pork and are not Jewish/Muslim. I live up to my own moral code 95% (:
: um, okay, maybe 45%) of the time, and when I don’t, I work to better myself. Can any good Christian say that working to adhere more closely to a moral code is a BAD thing?
Board’s behaving now. The thread where FriendofGod and I conversed can be found here.
Quix
OK **quixotic78 **, I will choose (b) and © together. I did read it. I didn’t entirely understand it, and I don’t believe it to be truth. Which brings me to this comment you made
I wasn’t in those debates we had about atheism and evolution just to slide by and only state my opinion. I tried very hard to have an open mind in both those debates and I listened to everything everyone had to say. Just because I did not believe it all means I am close minded? If I am as close minded as you say, then I would have had no desire to ask questions about other beliefs. I want to understand where your coming from and I thought I made that clear a long time ago. I believe my faith is the truth, so any “information” that comes my way about another faith is not going to change that. If you want to call that close minded then I guess it is, but I’ve always been willing to listen and try to understand other views.
(Don’t mind me, jumping in way too late.)
I just wanted to point out something I heard recently. Some people were discussing the different ways that people like to tell people about Christianity. It turns out that most people in that class happened to respond a whole lot more to people who were loving, kind and invited them to church rather than people who could have a logical, analytical debate on Biblical claims. (Yes, I’m aware that it was not a scientific survey.) From what I have observed and read from others, especially musicguy, it seems to me that dreamer is quite likely a loving, kind person IRL.
I’m just wondering, do all Christians need to be able to debate to spread Christianity? Aren’t some people called to inform and debate, and maybe others should focus more on love and kindness and simply try to be able to explain the basics of their faith? (I’m not saying that dreamer should run away or that she should give up learning about debate, rather that maybe showing love and kindness is more her strong point. Also, I should note that I don’t see this as a bad thing in any way. Some people are better at debate, some are better at interpersonal interaction, and some, like myself, are better at other methods of explaining Christianity.)
I find that rather puzzling. You can’t be a sinner? What then are you?
Guinastasia, if I said I don’t believe that you exist, are you going to suddenly disappear? If I sit here and so " no, no Guinastasia is not real, nope, not at all" and then I see your next post, what does that tell me?
Whether I believe in you or not, you still exist.
(And btw I’m glad that you do.)
Satan exists, all right. He exists in the evil that men do.
He existed in the Holocaust, in the terrorists of September 11. He exists in child molestors, in murderers, in people who leave their children in hot cars for five hours, in people who barbecue kittens. He exists in people like Hitler, Stalin, Osama Bin Laden, in Pinochet and Timothy McVeigh.
Likewise, God exists. He exists in firefighters who risk their lives to save others. He exists in the rescue operations of September 11th. He exists in people who help little old ladies cross the street. He exists in people like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Oscar Romero and Francis of Assisi.
God=love, good, compassion, wisdom and understanding
Satan=hate, evil, selfishness, ignorance and greed
Well, yeah, I’d call that close-minded. You’re entering into the debate without ANY possibility of changing your mind. Yeah, you’ll listen to what the rest of us say, but it in no way could ever affect your worldview. How is that anything BUT close-minded? You might be open-eared, but what you know is airtight and unchangable. If it’s impossible to change a person’s mind about something… why, that’s the very definition of close-minded, isn’t it?
I’m an imperfect man. I’m at times immoral, both as defined by my own moral code and a moral code that is ~generally~ accepted by society (don’t murder, stealing’s bad, etc). But I’m not a sinner. As I asked vanilla, do you consider yourself a sinner if you’re not Jewish and yet you eat pork? What if you eat meat on Fridays? That’s a sin according to the Catholics… do you feel that you’ve transgressed against the Lord if you eat a burger today? There are rules for dress for women in many Islamic countries. If you’re walking around in jeans, do you feel like you need to beg for forgiveness?
Yeah, well, I don’t either.
He probably thinks he’s a human being.
Strange, that.
Yes, but I by far am not the only one in these religious debates that feels that strongly about their own beliefs, whatever they might be. I won’t be changing my mind in the fact that God is real and all I’ve experienced in my relationship with him is also real. I am open to hearing other ideas about evolution and certain instances in the bible that aern’t completely clear to me and I am open to possibly changing my ideas on some of those things if they were proven to me to be truth.
dreamer, I think that the point that Squish and others are trying to make (not entirely successfully) is that if they don’t believe in demons, then your belief in demons doesn’t convince them demons are real.
Now, part of the problem is that you are not trying to convince them that the demons are there, as far as I can tell.
Basically you’re stating your belief, not really making any attempt to convince others to believe it, and not being swayed by any of their arguments against your belief. You’re not really debating, which, in general is okay, but not in GD.
Because you are not really addressing their arguments, and instead are just repeating that you already believe, you’re coming off, to them, as close-minded, because everything in GD is subject to debate. You can’t come in and say, “This is my belief, which I offer for your edification, and I’m secure in it, and not interested or able to back it up with facts or logic, and your arguments based on facts and logic are unlikely to change my beliefs.” Or, rather, you can, and this is the kind of reaction you can respect.
And now, in the subsequent brouhaha, you find yourself in the unfortunate position of having to defend your entire faith, all by yourself, which is always a sucky position to be in.
So, more friendly advice. (Sick of it yet? 
) You don’t have to stay out of GD entirely. Just pick your battles. Don’t comment on everything, because every comment is subject to challenge. And especially don’t feel like you have to respond to every subject that pushes your buttons–it’s too easy to get overly emotional, which will be your downfall. (This I have learned the hard way. ) If a topic comes along that interests you (but does not inflame you), then give it a try. Limit your engagement. Think carefully about what you post. Try to address very specific issues–take small bites. Preview three times before you post in anger. If you learn something, than share what you’ve learned. It’s not just admitting that you were wrong, it’s admitting that you can accept new ideas, which is very important around here.
And don’t take anything personally. With rare exceptions, people will be attacking your ideas and your statments. It can seem like they’re after you, personally, especially when you’re an inexperienced debater, but they aren’t.
I know it’s difficult to believe that “I think that the belief that you’ve built your life around is irrational” isn’t an attack against you, but it isn’t. Otherwise rational people (even atheists 
) are capable of believing irrational things. You have to learn to step way from the ideas you are debating, and consider them independently of yourself. That’s hard to do, and many people can’t, but if you’re willing to try, then your ideas can only grow stronger for surviving a challenge from outside–and if they can’t survive the challenge, then you make yourself stronger by setting them aside.
You show respect for your fellow posters, which is a fine quality in a Doper. If you are careful to avoid generalizations, which often include other Dopers, and tune in to the unspoken ground rules in the various forums, then I think you’ll do fine.
Er, and that last line was supposed to be “you’ll sound like a paranoid, parrotting End-Times fundie porn,” but I hope everyone got the gist of it.
“reaction you can expect.”
Preview, Poddy, Preview! Or at least proofread more carefully.
In the sin of pride, I neglected to state up front. I am a sinner. I am sinning now.
I’m a bit puzzled still, I fear. Are we trying to define what does or does not constitute sin (something that you’ve shown that people disagree upon), whether or not sin exists, or what the definition of sin is? Are you saying that you are not a sinner, you do not believe that you are a sinner or that you do not believe that a certain action/thought/word is sinful?