FriendofGod's posting style

[xenophon41]

OK. I can understand hostility if somebody is being pushy. But unyielding adherence to their own dogma? That’s something that some Christians just can’t help. I guess they can tone it down a bit at times, but if they believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God and it’s all true, I don’t expect them to give an inch in debating their beliefs.

(The bolding is mine.) Yes, Twin; that’s it exactly. Posters such as pepperlandgirl, Libertarian, cmkeller and many others who unabashedly share their religious views don’t have a problem here, because they debate and discuss their beliefs. The religious posters who do find trouble find it because they:[ul][li]only argue in the form of scripture (usually mangled) or iron statements of belief, or[]deliberately troll for “humanist” responses so they can tell us we’re going to hell, or[]claim that their beliefs can be proven by science, yet will consider no counterarguments from actual scientists, or[*]constantly and singlemindedly proselytize (there’s that word again) in each and every discussion they join.[/ul][/li]

See, to most Christians, their beliefs aren’t open to debate! However, the only place on this board that they can try to witness to people is on Great Debates. A place that abounds with atheists and skeptics, most of which demand proof (actual material “take a Polaroid of Jesus” proof) that Christians can’t give. It all boils down to faith. I believe most Christians proselytizing in Great Debates aren’t really looking for a debate. They are just trying to present the Gospel and get others saved. Maybe this isn’t the best place to do it, but it’s the only place they can.

Well we both know this is not the only place these guys can preach. The deal in GD is that they are free to witness. The difference between that forum and preaching over a radio or television broadcast is that the witnessing must be identified as such in a similar manner to pepper’s OP in Ask the Mormon Gal
Otherwise, they should expect to be harshly debated when they start a topic with a question like: “Well if you don’t believe in God, what’s stopping you from killing babies?”

This sounds like a Great Debates post more than a BBQ pit post. Let’s see. Shoot! Darn! H-E-double hockey sticks!

Rousseau:

Oh, please. I’ve seen Christians get blasted on this board for nothing more than walking into the wrong side of one of DavidB’s creation/evolution debates.

I’ve seen many people get blasted by DavidB in creation/evolution debates. Invariably, it’s because they’ve presented their religious beliefs as scientific fact in a science debate. Next time you see David’s guns blazing at someone pay attention to where his bullets go. I’ve yet to see him flame anyone simply for saying they believe differently; he flares up where aggessive ignorance is displayed — that’s the purpose of the Straight Dope, anyway, isn’t it?

“Unyielding adherence to their own dogma?” Tell me, just how brutally ignorant ARE you? You can’t accuse people of “unyielding adherence to their own dogma” just because they hold different beliefs than you (and they don’t drop those beliefs once they hear your surely compelling arguments).

Well since I didn’t include any examples of this in my statement, I guess I left myself open to a simpleminded interpretation of what I meant. Listen, dweeb, I’ve never tried to talk anyone out of their religious beliefs, and the only people I’ve seen attempt that kind of shit here have been --you guessed it-- self-proclaimed fundamentalist Christians. “Unyielding adherence” to dogma in the context of a debate on any non-sectarian issue cannot and should not be excused by having strong religious beliefs! There’s simply a huge difference between arguing with a sincere and deeply religious person and arguing with a close-minded zealot who’s only purpose is to either convert you or to condemn you. And even when we see the second type here, most responses are similar to SuaSponte’s responses, and are almost never derisive of a simple declaration of faith. True, there are immature pricks in every group, but there’s no more of that here (and probably much less) than on any other board.

Rousseau, you seem to be defending All Christians on this board, when only the small percentage who constantly pick fights are being attacked!

And as for that little Bible-related story where the poor girl was embarrassed in front of the class: the question “Jesus wrote the Bible?” was not an innocent question. It was meant to make the girl look like a fool. We know this because when someone says “[God] said so in His Bible,” we assume that they mean he was quoted as saying “so” in His Bible.

The point of the story as I understand it was that the “poor girl” was NOT saying “Jesus was quoted”, but that she was actually claiming the Bible WAS WRITTEN BY JESUS. IN ENGLISH!!! And that any “older” Greek texts were simply evil traps set by Satan. The girl did not need any help looking like a fool.

DDG (I’m glad I preview these before I post!) I agree the Meaning of Life should best be discussed outside of this circus we call a BBQ Pit. However, the current little side argument is about whether Christians are persecuted on the SDMB by us pagans, atheists and other tools of the elite intellectual establishment.

If it makes you feel any better, I’ll now go the middle of the room and yell (all sensitive Christians should now cover their ears and eyes):

“FUUUUUUCK YOOOOUUUU, GOOORDOOOOOON!!!”.

(Better now, Duck?)

[Weirddave]

Nilvedman,
Well, If you want to discuss the 6 points you posted above, make another post in GD and you’ll get lots of discussion. Not here, flames are the currency of the pit.
Kiva,

Because that’s what I’ve always been. It’s what my parents and grandparents are. The term “fundamentalist” didn’t start with the wackos. It was just the word that was misunderstood, and picked up by people who used it to classify all the offensive Christians

I am not attacking you personaly, but do you see how stupid this statemant is? I’ll Illustrate:

Because that’s what I’ve always been. It’s what my parents and grandparents are. The KKK didn’t start with the wackos, it was originaly formed to opose Northern carpetbagers. It was just the group that was misunderstood, and taken over by people who used it only to descriminate against blacks

The above statement, while factually ( in a broad sense ) true, is utter bilge. It’s just an excuse not to think. “I don’t care that “X” is identified with negative things that i don’t believe in, I’ve always been an “X”.” By the same logic, If Hitler was running for president on the Republican ticket, since I’m a Republican ( and so were my ancestors ), I’m voting for Hitler! (FWIW, me, weirddave, is politicaly an Independent) If you identify yourself as a fundamentalist, I would imagine your background is in one of the Prodestant branches of Christianity. The Prodestant Reformation was a reaction to the feeling that this thing called the “Church”, to which their parents and grandparents had belonged, was no longer a true representation of God’s will. A new direction was needed, and thus all the Prodestant sects were born. Why not make the same leap of faith? The fact of the matter is, no matter how great a person or Christian you are, the term Fundamentalist has negative connotations to just about anyone who is not one. Start identifying yourself as a “Christian”, literaly meaning a “follower of Christ”. I promise you that people will give more serious consideration to your views if they don’t consider you a nut. FBOW, that’s how most non-fundamentals view someone who identifys themself as a fundamentalist.

[vanilla]

[quote]

“But GOD will SAVE you if you just LET Him! JESUS is the WAY and the TRUTH and the LIGHT! You Klingon BASTARDS!”

[quote]

I think Jack Chick may actually try to steal this quote from you to actually USE in one of his tractts!

[aenea]

Esprix, I always enjoy your pit posts!

Derleth I hope you were joking about Angikins. :rolleyes:

by Slythe: If you want to posit an omnipotent and omnipresent being that created everything, yet is totally undetectable, I do believe that the responsibility is yours to prove his existance, not ours to disprove it.
Simple enough?

Well Slythe, that pretty well sums it up for me too.

by Nilvedman:
Well, it’s too late at night to go too far into theology, but I’ll give it a go. Let’s start with that famous man (and God, I believe), Jesus Christ. I’ll go through the stuff I believe, and tell me where we split paths…

We split paths right there. I do not believe that Jesus Christ was any kind of a god. Nope.

I have many doubts about these supernatural events reported also, and really have to doubt stories that were oral tradition for 50-100 years (your words) and then copied down by some guy, then translated several times by others. A few details muddled? Ok, sure. Now tell me another one.

BTW, please witness somewhere else. We are all entitled to out opinions, and IMHO, witnessing sucks, especially in the pit. Fuck off, please.

Roussou, where does one even begin with you. How about this. I completely disagree with your statements about “that poor girl who got picked on”. My own well-loved little sister is just such a ninny as that, and deserves all the picking on that she gets. I’m not sorry for it either, anyone that willing to not think needs pickin on.
I dare say I have had one of the more interesting religious experiences of the group here, and I for one am tired of smarmy, holier-than-thou religious attitudes some people hold.

You are not any better, you can’t prove that your religion is the right one any more than you can prove that another religion is the wrong one. Fuck off, all of you witnessers, of whatever religions.

[andros]

Kiva:

The term “fundamentalist” didn’t start with the wackos.

No offense meant, but that’s debatable.

I understand what you’re saying. What I want to know, though, is if you know people will react negatively to the term, there’s no need to wear a big sign saying “fundamentalist.” Esprix, to use another example, is highly unlikely to walk into a country bar he’s never been in and say “Hi everybody, I’m queer!”

I’m not saying “don’t be a fundamentalist.” (way to twist my words, there, Rousseau :rolleyes: ) I just think it might be a better idea to live your beliefs, get to know people, and if it ever becomes “necessary” to put a label on your religious beliefs, then do so.

Personally, I find labels of that nature to be silly, defeatist, and extremely limiting, both to the one bearing the label and to the ones reacting to that label. YMMV, but I think Dave’s dead on.

But on the whole, you have to admit that this isn’t the friendliest place on earth towards Christians.

(I’m covering some ground that xeno already hit, but please bear with me.)

No, there are no signs saying “Christians Welcome Here!” And there aren’t signs welcoming Jews, either. Or Mormons, or Hindus, or followers of Her Holiest Pinkness, the IPU. There wasn’t a sign saying “Hi, andros! C’mon in!”

On the contrary, there are many erudite, engaging, and friendly Christians who are not only welcome here, but would leave a void in their absence. Polycarp is a great example of this–he found himself short on free time and had to curtail his posting considerably. And I, along with many others, felt the loss. Tom~ (whose sn is tomndeb), is another poster without whom the board would be much the less.

I pick on those two because they’re long-time board members, I like them both a lot, they’re brilliant, and they’re both devout and dedicated Christians. I could include Libertarian, whose go-round with Gaudere about atheist morality a few months back was one of my all-time favorite threads. And for the Jews, there’s Chaim and Zev, pepperlandgirl and snarkberry for the Saints (and snark had the patience of Job throughout several “ask the Mormon” threads).

Rousseau’s tantrum to the contrary, I have never seen people attacked here for being Christian. I’m sure he can provide examples. Now, I have seen people attacked for poor or nonexistent logic, a dearth of critical thought, willful ignorance, and claiming faith and science to be equal.

And by Kdapt, that’s why I’m here. I’m all for faith. I think faith is beautiful. But I also think that ignorance is a cancer, poisoning critical thinking and must be eliminated to the best of our abilities. When faith is used as a means of deliberately encouraging ignorance, I get snippy.

Duck, good call. Folks, Esprix did NOT boost the thread just to get it back to the top. It’s doing just fine on its own.

Sigh. I guess I need to get back to work now. Then I need to figure out how to tell my brother I’m not going to make it to the dedication of his congregation’s new sanctuary after all. Diplomacy is so much easier online.

[vanilla]

You are not any better, you can’t prove that your religion is the right one any more than you can prove that another religion is the wrong one. Fuck off, all of you witnessers, of whatever religions.

I have to agree with you, aenea.

[vanilla]

except for the last sentence. ANyone can witness, but no one can say one religion is better than the other.
Its just a personal relationship with God that matters, not the religion.

[douglips]

Jesus Haploid Christ on a purple pogo stick - what the fuck are you people doing? Esprix posts a riotously funny, completely appropriate BBQ pit thread, and suddenly it’s been turned into a GD-theology-discussion-cum-complain-about-newbie-bashing thread.

Do you want to invoke the wrath of Alphagene?

Get back to ridiculing FoG, or surely there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth. If you want to talk about missing bodies and miracles and stuff like that, there is a forum for that.

[matt_mcl]

." Esprix, to use another example, is highly unlikely to walk into a country bar he’s never been in and say “Hi everybody, I’m queer!”

I, for one, am unlikely to walk into a country bar. Period.

[vanilla]

Okay: was William Shatner gay?
::::ducking::::
Is FreindofGod?

[vanilla]

Would William Shatner ever go into a country bar?
“It’s music, JIm, but not as we know it.”

[lswote]

Shatner might, but Bones wouldn’t. “I’m a doctor, not a line dancer”.

[matt_mcl]

Vanilla: Shatner’s not gay that I know of, but he IS Jewish. ;j

[vanilla]

So now we’re talkin about gay Jewish country music lovers?
What does FriendofGod have to do with that??

[Kiva]

Weirddave said:

The above statement, while factually ( in a broad sense ) true, is utter bilge. It’s just an excuse not to think. "I don’t care that “X” is identified with negative things that i don’t believe in, I’ve always been an “X”.

Dave, I think you misunderstood me. I was trying to say that my family and I have been fundamentalist for a very long time–I didn’t start calling myself one just to irritate and confuse people. I’m not saying that I’m one just because of tradition. Hell, my parents beliefs and mine are, for the most part, wildly different (and it drives them crazy).

I think what we have here is a complete misunderstanding of the word “fundamentalist”. Y’know what it means? It means believing the bible is the true word of God. That’s it.
It’s not exactly a complex enough idea for people to rally behind. It’s not a denomination, like “baptist” or “catholic”. Just a theological term. It was just chance that the weird Christians aren’t called something completely different, now, like Sola Scriptura-ites, or Transubstantiationists.

Andros said:

What I want to know, though, is if you know people will react negatively to the term, there’s no need to wear a big sign saying “fundamentalist.” Esprix, to use another example, is highly unlikely to walk into a country bar he’s never been in and say "Hi everybody, I’m queer!"

Well, then, I’m proud of Esprix. He must be very tactful.

You must understand, though, that I try to be tactful too. No one I know IRL knows I’m a fundie. I mention it occasionally on these boards, just because it seems to be the subject around here. For the most part, I don’t walk around wearing potentially offensive signs (with the exception of “skeptic”). It wouldn’t be a problem at all to simply stop using the term “fundamentalist”. It’s not a very important word. As I explained above, it doesn’t mean anything particularly shocking or new.

I thought about it a little last night, and I came up with the two reasons why I haven’t, yet.

1. I hate it when words are used incorrectly, or their meanings confused (see my thread, Damn English Language!). I like to clarify things for people labouring under misapprehensions. In other words, I like to fight ignorance. <g> A very irritating trait, I know.
2. Even though it’s no problem for me to drop the term “fundamentalist”, my parents and grandparents, and people like them, certainly won’t. I’m fighting this war for them. I want people to understand that even though they call themselves fundamentalists, they aren’t necessarily scary freaks.

Silly, and young, and idealistic and naive, I know.

Andros said:

No, there are no signs saying “Christians Welcome Here!” And there aren’t signs welcoming Jews, either. Or Mormons, or Hindus, or followers of Her Holiest Pinkness, the IPU. There wasn’t a sign saying "Hi, andros! C’mon in!"

Oh, I wasn’t complaining about that. No, what I mean is that this place doesn’t look, to the average Christian, like a nice place to be. Trust me, my mom would be shocked by most of the stuff here. So they don’t tend to hang around; and most of the Christians we do get are the self-sacrificing missionaries, who come running in, holding their breath to keep from inhaling evil spirits, belt out a few verses, and flee for their lives. So it’s really not a good sample at all.
Me, I’m just weird. I like it here, and you’re stuck with me.

[FreakFreely]

I’d just like to say that Captain Kirk is a rank amateur. I know this, I’ve drag-raced with him. Have you ever seen him trying to do a 180 degree turn at warp speed? Nuff said.

[Kyla]

First, a correction:

Besdies, the ‘absolute’ beliefs of the Mohammaden (Judaism/Christianity/Islam) faiths give rise to interesting logical paradoxes.

You mean Abrahamic religions. Muhammed is a holy figure only to people of the Islamic faith.

I would like to back up what a number of people have already said. This MB is not hostile to Christians. In fact, I would hazard a guess that the large majority of Dopers are either Christians or were raised as such. Dopers don’t dislike Christians - they dislike hypocrites and those unwilling to listen to/respect other points of view. Those of us who are members of other religions (I’m Jewish) long ago learned to respect Christians, because here in Western society, Christians are the large majority, and if we could not accept that other people have other beliefs and only associate with those of our own religion, we would be severely limited our social encounters. So we shrug off these differences and accept that other people have different beliefs. Christians, on the other hand, are not required to deal with this situation nearly as often, especially if you live in certain parts of the US. (Does this all make sense?) As a result, it’s easier to avoid learning that respect for the beliefs of others. Non-Christian Dopers don’t dislike Christians, we would just request that they (‘they’ being a specific group - y’all know who I mean, I think) show us a little more respect for our differences. If you think we’re going to hell, please keep it to yourself. We grew up in a Christian nation, and we know what the tenets of fundamentalist Christianity are - witnessing is nothing new to us. The constant repetitions of threats do not make me want to be close to Jesus, they make me want to be further from you. Your lack of respect for my beliefs is hurtful and does not encourage me to want to become one of you. Does this make sense to you at all?

Of course, this does not apply to the many wonderful Christian people who post on this here message board who are respectful of all beliefs (TomNDeb, pepperlandgirl, Ruffian, and Melin-who-is-not-here come to mind immediately). In my mind, you are much better representatives of your faith than those who would threaten us into joining their religion.

BTW, Esprix, your OP was hysterical!

[SPOOFE]

I think what we have here is a complete misunderstanding of the word “fundamentalist”. Y’know what it means? It means believing the bible is the true word of God. That’s it.

No, that’s NOT it. Have you ever heard of the word “slang”? Thanks to the very people that are being mentioned in this thread, the term “Fundamentalist” has come to mean “loud-mouthed, stubborn, irrational, highly-religious person”. THAT’S it.

[Monty]

{Quote}It’s people like FoG who don’t know what the fuck they are talking about who royally piss me off, and give people like you a bad name.{/Quote}

I can only speak for myself, but I thought that FOG knew very well what he was talking about.

3:04 PM Diego Garcia Time, Sunday, June 25, 2000; Monty almost dies laughing after reading the above response.

[yESTERDAY_mAN]

“intelligent, rational fundamentalists”

Isn’t this an oxymoron?