From My85car at http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=28567
(boldface mine)
Yeah, have a wonderful day too, putz. When I first read this, I almost burst a vein. I’m actually too angry to rant right now. I’ll get back to it later.
V.
FWIW, Islam IS an Abrahamic religion. Jews trace themselves back to Abraham through Jacob, while Muslems do it through Ishmael. Just a FYI.
Yes, much better, thank you. Just one question: who’s Gordon?
**
Well, I was just about to come out to the board as a Fightin’ Fundie, but finding myself caught between an over-simplification and an uncomfortably on-target slang definition, I guess I won’t, after all.
Esprix, sweetie, I’ve done my best. I got 1/3 of the way through page 3 of the “Christianity and Love” thread, and I just had to stop. I alternate between amusement and exasperation at FriendOfGod. FWIW, babe, he’s just posting pure Fundie party line vis-a-vis gays. Spout, spout, spout. It was also hilarious how he didn’t seem to know you were gay, at first. Like you said, you need to be more open about your sexuality on this board.
What he’s getting at, of course, is he wants you and Dr. Boyfriend to just promise never to have sex. That’s all. It’s not too much to ask, is it? He doesn’t care how much you “love” each other, as long as you don’t fuck.
:rolleyes: Sheesh.
He embarrasses me, both as a Christian and as a (closet) Fundie. OH, well.
FriendOfGod, try to see the person behind the pixels.
Wandering back to the OP for a minute, hilarious stuff, Esprix! Laughed myself into hiccups through the latest Shattner dot-com commercial.
With all due respect to all beliefs and non-beliefs represented here, what we have going is a classic failure to communicate. Just to clear the decks, my own personal, deeply held belief is that prying into another person’s soul is as despicable as prying into their bedroom, opening their mail, snooping through their checkbooks and medicine cabinets, etc.
The content of a person’s soul is about as private as anything could be, period, full stop.
And therein lies my problem with some beliefs, including Christian fundamentalism, is the emphasis on proselytizing and conversion of others. I understand the requirements to witness, spread the word, etc. But I also consider it an intrusion. Sorry, but there it is.
I’m not much of a debater over anything, but especially not for issues of faith and belief. Talk about nailing jelly to a tree. So in bluntest terms, I don’t care what anyone’s religious beliefs are; none of my business, just as my beliefs are none of theirs. Any attempts at conversion or suasion will be met with a shield of polite resentment.
This isn’t meant as a line drawn in the sand, just an honest reaction; those who attempt to conversions are intruding into private territory. Fundamentalists hold certain beliefs, and live them; fundies go beyond respectful lines in imposing those beliefs onto others.
Veb
I hope my quotes-in-quotes work.
Weirddave, you didn’t read my post correctly. Someone (I forget who now) asserted that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are Mohammedan religions. This not true, they are Abrahamic religions. That was my point. Muhammed has nothing to do with Judaism and Christianity.
TVeblen said…
And to go along with that, I would imagine that there would be appropriate and innappropriate times to try to convert people. While I have no beef with trying to bring people over to your beliefs, it becomes harassing when you A) continue to do it even after your intended convertee obviously doesn’t want to hear it, and B) when dozens of other people are debating a point that has absolutely nothing to do with “Which religion is true?”
Of course. My mistake. And if you want to gloat about it, fuck off! 
I have not run into FoG very much, but he isn’t that bad. I feel he, and especially Jenkinsfan & Pepper, are very brave, and not TOO annoying. But the ones I hate, are those “fundies” like capacitor, which try to prove Evolution wrong by long, involved, psuedo-scientific arguments, where they can’t even get the science right, or worse, have an argument that goes like:“Some nazi used some shred of darwin’s works to justify his racist beliefs, thus Evolution
is a Nazi plot”. No, really. FoG is just somewhat annoying, but his Faith is faith, not some stupid arguement.
yESTERDAY mAN wrote:
Squick off, you trite gopher felcher. Did you read any of the thread, or did you just scan for fodder for your canned insult?
SPOOFE Bo Diddly wrote:
So a word becoming slang automatically makes the former meaning invalid? HA!
Now that’s an intelligent response.
Here it is, genius, just for you… when the people in this thread say “Fundamentalist”, especially in the context of “those fucking annoying freaks saying if you don’t agree with them you’re evil”, they’re PROBABLY using the slang definition of the word. It doesn’t take a whole lot of brainpower to figure that out.
When YOU say “Fundamentalist”, you’re using a completely different definition. Methinks you should take a class in contemporary communication in order to figure out when someone’s using slang or expressions.
When someone says “Cool!”, do you automatically check the nearest thermometer?
Thank you for paraphrasing so nicely, but I was paying attention the first time around. Perhaps you simply enjoy latching on to the one fact in an argument that you can understand, and have fun stating it vehemently.
Yes, the term fundamentalism has two (2) meanings. How very perceptive of you to have picked up on that aspect. But you see, the slang term doesn’t automatically invalidate the original meaning of the word, and sometimes, when there is confusion as to the meaning of the term, it is helpful to explain what the first meaning was. You seem to have taken inexplicable offense at my doing this.
Kiva:
I’ve no more to add to the thread, but when I see a fine 'Pit post like that, I just gotta show appreciation!
<xeno stands and applauds wildly>
OK, I’m done. <ducks down below the smoke and disappears back into hole>
Ah, one who only squicks gophers who are trite. I do so admire seeing a specialist in action.
Beg pardon, I should have said, “FELCHES gophers who are trite.”
I was distracted by a gopher bite. HE doesn’t think he’s trite. Tough luck, sonny. Bend over.
BTW, DDG, “Fuck you, Gordon!” was a quote from the early '70’s x-rated comedy classic Flesh Gordon. (For some reason I thought a person of your obvious breeding and education would recognize it.)
<squick, squick, squick>
Kiva said:
And what exactly would shock her? Other than Satan explaining in-depth what felching is?
And while I hate to follow myself up, I just had to throw in these words of wisdom.
FriendOfGod said:
Am I the only one who noticed the audacity of this statement in For those SERIOUSLY seeking a personal relationship with God?
In other words- “There is the off chance that Ghandi did more good works in his life than a small number of Christians did.”
Uh-huh.
And supposedly we agnostics are the arrogant ones. Yeesh.
First of all, you all crack me the fuck up. 
Second of all, do not start debating religious dogma here, you bastards - take it to GD. I was just griping humorously about a zealot.
Thirdly, although some might disagree, I think it’s safe to assume that on this particular message board “fundie” (or what I use, “Jeezer”) refers to a Christian fundamentalist to the extreme, i.e., converts all within earshot, won’t accept opposing points of view, and generally makes a royal pain in the ass of him/herself. A “Fundamentalist,” on the other hand, is simply another flavor of Christian. Being Fundamentalist does not automatically make one a Fundie. Is it derogatory? Maybe, but at least it differentiates between believers and bigots. Kiva, really, don’t sweat it - you seem like an ok lot so far. Stick with this kind of intelligent discourse and while people may disagree with your religion, more often than not they’ll respect you as a person and a poster, and in turn respect your opinions. We’re glad we’re stuck with you, you Fundamentalist bastard!
Fourth, no matter how well-reasoned, intelligent and enlightened you may be, there will always be some people who will assume you’re a Fundie and therefore treat you with disrespect and contempt. Dem’s de breaks. You think I like being told my gay Christian friends aren’t “really” Christian? Of course not. Similarly, I’m sure a devout Christian doesn’t appreciate being told they’re “wrong.” There’s ignorance and disrespect on both sides of the quarter.
Is there anti-Christian bias on this board? No doubt some might think so, but I think the majority of our outspoken (and well-spoken) Christian members would, in fact, disagree (Polycarp comes to mind). There is a clear difference between saying, “Here is what I believe,” and saying, “I am right for believing what I believe and you are wrong for not.”
Angkins, as Duck Duck Goose pointed out, Derleth was wrong (at least about this thread). My “test post” was not a thread-bumper, but rather I’ve noticed that when I submit a reply to the thread and my ISP goes all wonky and gives me an error message, the post might actually have posted, but I won’t see it unless I post another post - hence “test post.” Notice after that the post I thought hadn’t been posted did, indeed, appear to my eyes. Thank you, andros, for coming to my defense.
I will also add that I am biting my tongue clear off in order not to provoke someone and open up a long-ago sealed can of worms. But I still felt the need to say it.
andros wrote:
Uh, actually, I do go to country bars - gay ones. Everybody’s queer. And I love to two-step and line dance. So fuck you! 
(Now if only I could convince matt_mcl to go with me… :()
Is William Shatner gay? No, but his hairpiece is. Neither of them like country music. Both of them are Jewish. ;j Is FriendofGod gay? Jesus Christ I hope not!
I do notice that he hasn’t responded here yet. I’ll have to let him know it’s here. He doesn’t seem like the Pit type.
Duck Duck Goose wrote:
Yeah, that amused me, too. Go fig.
Danielinthewolvesden wrote:
Let’s put it this way - FoG responds to everything posed to him by saying, “It’s in the Bible, it’s what I believe, and that’s that.” He cannot seem to argue anything logically or intelligently, and just when you think he can, he wraps it up by saying, “I can’t explain it, I don’t understand it, but that’s just the way it is.” After 4 pages, it makes him sound like a blithering idiot. It’s one thing to say, “This is what I believe,” but it’s another to say it over and over and over and over and over and over, all the while bashing you about the head with his Bible.
Esprix
First, let me thank you, Andros, for the wonderful compliment. And you, Esprix, for linking me to this, uh, intriguing thread.
Okay, Fundamentalist is not, except as a pejorative applied loosely, equivalent to brain-numb crackpot weirdo (though there is a strong overlap in the Venn diagram of the two!). Kiva came closer to the accurate definition, but I think she would accept the minor correction I need to make to hers. The term was coined by a scholarly conservative Christian theologian nearly a century ago as antithetical to “Modernist” – in the jargon of the day, one who assented to (“believed in”) the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. In short, one who believed that Jesus was in fact God’s son in human form, died to atone for our sins, physically rose again, in company with His Father sent the Holy Spirit, etc. The alternative would, of course, be that either none of these statements is true, only one or two of them are, or they are true only in some metaphorical, spiritual sense. “Though WallyM7 is dead, he lives on here on this board” is a statement any of his friends would agree with. But they would mean it in a metaphorical sense. To a modernist, Jesus was a Palestinian rabbi who in some way showed forth what God wanted to teach, got himself killed, and… And nothing. Period. “His spirit lives on” through his writings but Easter is simply beautiful poetry with no factual basis. A fundamentalist would say, Oxpoop! (gotta be careful not to swear!;)) The metaphorical meaning of a statement not factually true is a bunch of garbage.
A Literalist is one who holds the Bible in esteem nearly equal with God. (The most recent round of clashes in the Southern Baptist Convention resulted from a fairly innocuous-sounding resolution that raises the Bible above the traditional Baptist view of personal relationship with God as determining Christian status. Actually, while most Literalists would assert that they believe “every word is true” they do tend to pick and choose. Few if any think Jesus was being literal at the Last Supper about the bread and wine. And most have the common sense to recognize poetic imagery as just that. When “the hills rose up and sang before God” one need not visualize a chorus of basso profundo mountain-wannabes in choir robes.
Most fundamentalists prefer to be called Evangelicals, which thoroughly pisses off the Lutherans who had been using the term for 300 years before the Fundies came along and claimed it.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Are Christians made to feel unwelcome here? Not really. I’ll raise one issue which I have found to be less than agreeable (he understated Polycarpically). In Great Debates, the only acceptable ground for argument is to start from a Materialist perspective. I think it was slythe who first demanded physical evidence for religious claims. But it is the working paradigm for GD arguments.
I agree with the six propositions put forth above by Nilvedman as the best historical evidence available. It does not matter that virtually all of the evidence is presented from a Christian perspective. For the most part, who else is going to be interested in what went on in a backwater province of the Empire? To take the immediately obvious parallel, Joseph Smith supposedly received divine revelation near Palmyra, NY, in 1830 or so, before the telegraph, and nobody investigated his claims with any scientific rigor until long after the fact.
I am not prepared (yet) to produce any terrestrial, observable evidence for God’s existence that would meet a Materialist standard for proof. Rather, I see a world in which material and spiritual intermesh and work together in a seamless flow. And slythe, Gaudere and David B. see things otherwise. This is their prerogative. But this does not constitute disproof of my contention. (To give them credit, none of them so claims; simply that it is not proof to their standards, which I can accept.) But by the standards they require, one cannot prove that slythe is not David B’s sock puppet, or that Andros and Gaudere are not the same person (making the assumption for purposes of this -completely hypothetical!- parallel that moderators are not bound to the one-screen-name rule, and intentionally using a couple of old and laughable canards for examples to avoid stirring any feathers). I could, if I felt trollish, demonstrate how any evidence they might advance to the contrary could be faked. Of course I don’t seriously assert any such thing. But it makes a perfect parallel: what one can prove is delimited by one’s assumptions. And while I agree that demonstrating the existence of God, much less his intervention in human affairs at some given time and place, requires a higher standard of proof, being so extraordinary a claim, I venture to suggest that it also requires that the universe of argument be modified to not automatically disprove what is being asserted. If there is a God who is spirit, then something other than matter/energy exists. If you choose to assume there is nothing else, fine, but don’t disprove my theology on your assumptions.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
To get back to the OP, FriendofGod posts in a style we have all come to know and hate…the person convinced on the authority of the Bible of a theological system out of Jonathan Edwards as illustrated by Hieronymous Bosch. That is probably OK; he has a right to his beliefs, and arguing them with him, if futile, is interesting. And to give him credit, as I did in the Christianity and Love thread, I have to note that he did an excellent job of setting forth the traditionalist Christian doctrine of salvation and the Atonement, using the sin and redemption paradigm. That there is another paradigm focusing on God’s love seems to be completely beyond his grasp, though he gives lip service to it.
The chief problem I have with FoG, other than his insistence on focusing on sin and positing a human need to “be saved” in the Evangelical sense (a matter of taste and style), is judgmentalism. He is drawing lines and saying who is and is not saved, a Christian, etc. based on his own beliefs. I suppose that is in some way acceptable. Certainly Pepperlandgirl, Monty, and Snark would find me redefining “Latter Day Saint” in such a nebulous way as to include Mother Teresa and Billy Graham within it somewhat less than satisfactory. And I am reminded of a Mormon acquaintance some years ago who was so hot for the “restoration of the Church” doctrine that he claimed all non-Mormons were not Christian. (Which in the six months intervening I have come to realize stuck with me subconsciously and was the probable origin of the thread Monty and I had words on back when.) The bottom line is that Jesus Himself quite explicitly condemned judgmentalism and the identification of who is saved and who not. That is reserved for Him at the Last Judgment, according to His teachings. And for that more than anything else, I find FriendofGod to be lacking.
Poor God! “With friends like these…” :wally
Well… MAYBE with Esprix.
Maybe.
But I’d still rather see if I could get Esprix to go to Sky with me.