Heretic:
A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.
Deb2world,
Thanks, yes you got what I meant perfectly. Some people just don’t have a sense of humor I guess.
Wring, yes I will try my best to stop using “algore”. I probably never would have in the first place if so many people didn’t use the term Dubya when referring to Bush (I know it still doesn’t make it right).
Wiredguy,
I’m sorry but that is the lamest argument I ever heard as a reason to make fun of Christians because what some people (claiming to be Christians) have done in the past. How about lets call all the people in the middle east “towel heads” since some of them terrorize. Lets call everybody in Germany Krauts(sp) for slaughtering the Jews. Let’s call all the asian people “rice eater” or “slant eyes” for attacking Pearl Harbor. And so and so on.
What those so-called Christians did was not in our Lord’s name it was in their twisted political causes.
Gee, Bill, if you’re gonna call names, how about:
[li]brother[/li][li]sister[/li][li]human being[/li][li]person[/li]or even
[li]sinner for whom Christ died?[/li]
I think that covers it; anything else for the sake of epithet is simply vicious name-calling. Now, if I wanted to know what a typical gay person felt about, say, child abuse, it helps to know that goboy or Esprix belongs to that subset and can answer knowledgeably. If the question was what the typical conservative Christian thinks about raising hemp as a fiber crop, you’d be the man to ask.
I use the term “fundaloony” to refer to that one small subset of fundamentalists who uses their attitude about Christianity as a club to bash people with. I don’t include you or anybody else I know in person (including online) in that group, but I do class some public figures in it. And, yes, it’s intentionally scurrilous. Their attitude deserves it, IMHO.
A person who stands for what they believe in or consider important doesn’t deserve to be slammed for it. A person who puts others down for doing so does.
I’ve noticed that the terms “fundie” and “jeezer” seem to only be used on this board to refer to the subset of Christians who insist on pushing their faith on others, unasked. As a blanket term for all Christians, I think it’s highly disrespectful, but as a derogatory name for arrogant and irritating behavior, I think it’s just great. I’ve only really seen it used here in the latter capacity.
As for atheist nicknames, I like heretic a lot. Heathen doesn’t do much for me. Infidel is by far my favorite. When someone calls me a “godless infidel” it just makes me all warm and toasty. 
well, it generally seems to me to not do those things that you request others not to do. Isn’t there something about a Golden Rule somewhere??? ( 
) seriously, I found every “shrub” and “dubya” just as offensive as “algore”, and actually did call folks on both sides to tone the rhetoric down. When people care strongly about ideas, often their emotions run higher than normal. For me, I try to be polite, even if some one is driving me nuts. (probably don’t always succeed but I try).
On the OP, yes, I think it’s wrong for either side to refer to the other in nasty terms. Ditto for the abortion threads. Ditto for the political threads. etc. It does nothing to further anyone’s argument, in fact I find it distracting.
*Originally posted by Polycarp *
You lost me a little tired or hungry or something but you could rephrase and why would you ask me about growing hemp man I hate gardening.
Yes, it is your IMHO. But I don’t agree with you on this one. You can not blame a whole group of people for actions of a few. Some fundamentalist are true Christians that actually just do what Christ and the Bible says to do. So in a way you are lumping the good one with the bad ones so to speak. Why don’t you just call’em(the bad ones) what they are a bunch of jerks that claim to be Christians but certainly don’t act like it I think Christ called them hyprocrites.
Yeah, I think heretic signifies someone who (gasp) thinks for themself. Oh horror!
I also believe there are numerous technical definitions of various types of heresy. But not sure they apply to us who don’t play by the rules.
I will have to disagree with you on that one Giraffe, I have seen these terms used on this board by those asking Christians a question.
In regards to some of the other replies to my post, all you have done is rationalize your prejudice against a certain religious group. There is no need for name calling due to a persons personal religious views. You are addressing your views on Christianity and that is not the debate here, what is being debated is whether it is correct to use derogatory labels on a class of people.
Hey goboy… can I use that as a sig
and this vies for the stupidist most lillogical argument I’ve heard from you yet. One, fundie isn’t nearly as offensive or on the same levek as those others (except for Krauts). Two, the difference for Germans, Japanese , etc, is that they can not help being born Japanese, German, etc. You are attacking them for something they have no control over. You on the other hand have chosen to associate yourself with beliefs that in the past caused much suffering. Got it? Oh yeah…
The problem is that Wildest Bill is, in fact, very rude to people who disagree with his beliefs, and I imagine that most people who have responded find something a little hypocritical in his complaints. If WB wants to be respected, then all he has to do is to start treating others with respect.
Have you seen “geezer” or “fundie” widely used as a derogatory term for Christians in general on this MB? If not, I would suggest that you get your information about what is or is not permissible here from a more reliable source than Wildest Bill.
-Ben
Arg- that will teach me not to post before reading the entire thread…
deb2world, could you provide some specific examples of this?
-Ben
Ben
I will admit to not having spent too much time in the GD forum, until recently it sorta scared me, but obviously I am getting over that 
But a couple of example I have seen in the last few days, to go back any further for references I will admit to being too lazy to do.
There is a current thread entitled Why do many Fundies go after homosexuals, but not after people who shave? that in my opinion is using the term fundies rather than fundamentalists.
There is also another current thread called Question for fundamental creationists, a place where also these derogatory labels are being used.
I read your post and have been thinking about a calm reply. What I have been assuming on this thread is that we are having a debate about whether derogatory labels for Christian is ok or not. I did not know we were debating if WB is a good person.
And is also talking about the type of person who is often judgemental, not very “Christian,” and as such has been mentioned in this thread as worthy of a disdainful title.
I haven’t read this thread, but I’ve noticed that both sides have trouble controlling their tempers in C/E debates. So?
In the end, derogatory labels for any group are generally not “ok.” We’ve discussed this one pretty thoroughly, too, particularly in Esprix’ “Love the Christian, Hate Christianity” thread (which I can’t get to come up for some reason, or I’d link to it).
Nonetheless, Ben is entitled to his opinion, as is WB and as are you. However, Ben’s point is valid in that using one person’s complaints (which are repeated, and which are often insulting to those with whom he agrees) is not a valid sample with which to judge the entirety of the boards.
And if you could come up with only two examples, out of all the threads in the last few days, maybe the problem isn’t as bad as it seems. Maybe.
But then what would I know? I’m a heathen, a heretic, a Unitarian Universalist and an outspoken pagan.
Half that post should not be bold, and the comment about Bill being insulting should of course refer to those with whom he disagrees.
Sigh. Hey, Bill, I’m going to go take a class in basic writing. Wanna join me?
I’m so glad that sentence didn’t contain the word out…
Seriously, though, Bill, I’m an agnostic and if someone called me aggie, I’d probably shorten it to ag and hear it as egg… and “somewhere in my tiny, mad chicken mind” it would symbolize a wondrously fertile nucleus of potential.
I was born into a fundamentalist family. I understand that fundamentalist Christians believe they are to go out into the world and preach the gospel. I’m fine with that. But… if I understand the New Testament correctly, Christ spoke and moved on, leaving the choice of what to do with his message up to his hearers. http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv20/B41C004.htm#V9 Isn’t that what is meant by, “If any man has ears to hear, let him hear”?
There is a point where I practise intolerance (and not only with fundamentalists): When I’ve say, “I’ve heard the message many times, please respect my right to choose.” And the next sentence I hear begins, “Yes, but…”
When that happens, using one of the epithets listed in the OP is justified.
dogsbody, like I said I was too lazy to come up with more examples and actually just picked two that I read yesterday and noticed the trend of labeling Christians. I guess I don’t understand why even these way out Christians deserve derogatory labels. Just because I do not agree with a person’s belief does not give me the right to insult or label them.
But I do agree that this has been debated before so I will leave the podium.
Dragon, Invisible Pink Unicorn - is there really a difference? (Sorry, mods - seems like that could be it’s own thread! )
Anywho, I use “Jeezer” to describe what Poly calls “Fundaloonies” (a new word I think I like - just trips off the tongue) - the rabid right without a shred of “Christian goodness” to their name. Is there a subset of Athesists and/or Agnostics that act the same, i.e., so rabidly true to their own beliefs that all others are not only fair game but are vehemently attacked because of their beliefs? Probably, and they deserve names, too - meanness is meanness, no matter how thin you slice it.
But a question - does someone like, say, Fred Phelps really mind being called a “Fundie” or “Jeezer?” Somehow I don’t think he really cares at this point what others think of him. Similarly, if there’s an Atheist out there beating up Christians outside of Sunday School, I seriously doubt he’d mind being called a “non-believing heathen.” These people are so far gone, insults no longer matter.
Call me whatever you want, just don’t call me late for dinner.
Esprix, reminded of the comic Johnson…
Y’know, Bill, if you’d read my post, you’d have gotten quite clearly that I agree with you about tarring all conservative Christians with insulting names, because I out-and-out said as much. I reserve the insult I mentioned for the people who refuse to look at facts, have no Christian compassion for anyone different from them, and so on. You aren’t in that category, neither is Mike or Rob or Navigator or Lauralee or Sonshines or Kirk or anybody else over at the Parlor. And you know this.
When a Gary Bauer type fulminates about “homosexuals raping our children,” liberal Christians like me “that don’t believe in the Word of God or the God who gave it” and all the other hateful stuff he comes up with, with the purpose of stirring up decent conservative Christians like you, Bill, who will believe a religious leader like him and not look into what he says and find out he’s lying through his hypocritical teeth, then he deserves every bit of insult I can throw at him. And should get yours too – that’s your God as well as mine that he’s preaching lies and hate in the name of.
I think you know how I feel Wildest Bill, and it is good to remind everyone now and then so that newbies realize that there are plenty of Christians around who feel no need to subject themselves to abuse as we see it.
You bring up a good point, Polycarp. Guys like Bauer show hatred(I’m going by your description). He utterly distorts my message as well, and it is probably because of people like him that many of us get tarred. But I’m not going to waste much time on him or people like him.
Gotta love that caveat. True Christian… True spirit… I’ve been a Christian before, and while yes, there was the euphoria of the spirit from time to time,
most of the time was spent trying to find ways to interest the parishoners, involve them in the church, do anything possible to keep it fun while spreading the memes. I would say that the amount of fun from church is more then balanced by
the investment it requires to an idea.
And besides, In Pascal’s Wager you do it even though you don’t believe and it is unpleasant, in the hopes of eventually believing. I see no reason to do that,
it is a waste of time, and there are much more rewarding pleasures to expend my
energy in. Both rewarding for myself and others.
Tell ya what. You’ve contributed roughly ten percent of your pre-tax assets over time to the church, right? Now in the Christian fantasy world, this should result in the storehouses of heaven being opened, etc, and you more then making back your investment. In fact, many tithing sermons were on the Widow’s Mite - but rather then using it to expose the hypocrisy of a social safety net from Jesus’ time gone wrong, they used it to show that you should give money even when you barely had any, in the expectation of heaven providing the reward, not the church. Jesus meant to show that it wasn’t the widow that should have been paying - it was the Pharisees, who weren’t even giving a fraction of what they had, and what they had was soaked up from the treasury so they were giving back to themselves anyway.
Jesus’ story struck a chord with his listeners because of what the tithe had been intended for. Originally it supported the church/state (Israel bein a theocracy) and provided a social safety net. By the time of Jesus, that was no longer the case - the widows and orphans were not being helped, the money was lining the pockets of the rich, and the social fabric of Israel had crumbled.
Today, it is even worse (the Mormon thread illustrates the worst of it). We already are taxed for a secular social safety net. Most of the tithe money goes therefore to support the pastors and more proselytization. The poor congregations ekeing out yet another donation in hopes of a return from heaven.
Back to my original point. Given that you have tithed, that means you should be earning, oh, I dunno 30% more then your neighbors. Oddly enough, however, no Christian has ever produced statistics showing tithing has any effect on your good luck. It is as useful as pitching a penny in a wishing well, and while the church still uses some of the money to help those worse off in the local congregation, most of it doesn’t.
Tithing is a waste of your money. Especially if you tithe 20% (double tithe) as some greedy churches actually advocate the “true Christians” do.
Even those who believe in God have a hard time with Bible studies. Why else the guides to try and make it more interesting, to repackage the memes in modern terms? The “Read the Entire Bible in a year!” programs to make reading it palatable…
I have read the Bible three times. Twice as a Christian, once as an atheist. It was far more entertaining the third time, although I have no interest in repeating it. What made it interesting the third time was examining the history surrounding the stories, the mythology of the area, the rationalizations, the struggles for dominance between various cults, and the evolution of the faith itself.
But from a Pascal’s Wager perspective I see no more benefit in Bible study then in door-to-door evangelism. It will be unpleasant try to conform to it, and with a very real possibility of wasting my short time on this planet.
**
Oh! Of course! All I need to do is find the one true sect, and all the other interpretations of God’s will can be therefore dismissed as wrong!
But becoming a Christian definitely does not eliminate worrying about the desires of God. As a Christian my thoughts were often occupied with worries of guilt and sin.
I want my guilt to be for betraying my own moral code and my fellow man, not additional guilt tacked on with infinite penalties and infinite dependance for their removal.
Depending on the branch of Christianity, I’d have to give up on any science which used Evolutionary theory or even working theory on the age and origins of parts of our universe. If I was in a more flexible branch, like Catholicism, I still wouldn’t be able to, say, work in a science which studied human hormone balances in an attempt to find effective, safe and easy birth control or abortificants.
And many sects have quite specific rules about entertainment which is unChristian, which distracts from the focus on the meme. I see no purpose in such rules.
As for activities that harm me, if I choose to do them, I don’t want some additional punishment involved. I don’t need divine spankings. The hangover is quite sufficient thank you. I do enjoy getting drunk sometimes, although I do not do it to excess. I enjoy others company more, am more relaxed, and even from sober accounts of friends, a much better dancer. I drink plenty of water and take multivitamins. I can accept the consequences of my actions without extra sinpoints tacked on.
**
What does the confines of marriage have to do with anything? I am perfectly faithful to my S.O. without a binding contract with God.
I would much rather my mother had left a loveless relationship with my step-father rather then putting up with seven years of emotional and physical abuse in the name of a literal interpretation of the words of Jesus in the book of Matthew.
**
What does the confines of marriage have to do with anything? I am perfectly faithful to my S.O. without a binding contract with God.
I would much rather my mother had left a loveless relationship with my step-father rather then putting up with seven years of emotional and physical abuse in the name of a literal interpretation of the words of Jesus in the book of Matthew.As for sexual practices, again, depending on your branch of Christianity, their
are a lot of strictures on your sexual life. If it is your preference, it is possible you will be forbidden to engage in oral sex, sex during a woman’s period,toys, masturbation, anal sex, BDSM, homosexual sex, or roll-playing. Heck, those whose personalities desire it and would not be happy in a two person relationship should be allowed to form larger groups if they wish. This can be done without significantly increasing the risk of disease. It all comes down to trust and knowing the other person.
Assurance? You have a strange sense of the word. I could never be assured of something with no evidence to support it, or which contradicts the careful study of historians, archaeologists, physical scientists, and observations of how the world works today.
Yes, the groupthink could be cosy, but I don’t see it as making up for the intellectual dishonesty it would require, by which I mean dishonesty to what I know to be fact, or devoting myself to that which I have no clear reason to believe to be fact, as well as shifting a moral basis to one so arbitrary as divine fiat.And since the whole focus of this is Pascal’s Wager, you don’t really have assurance, do you? It’s merely a bet.
Why not bet on the most vicious God? They are the one who you stand to lose the most if you don’t follow.
Although, come to think of it, the most heartless and sadistic God I know is the Christian one. He either dooms you to:
obliteration
or
an enternity of mind-withering torment
for disbelief.
Other Gods tend to stick with penalties like:
- a year or some other finite period of time in purifing Purgatory
- releasing those who confess his name after death from their torment
- another chance at Nirvana by reincarnating on the wheel of life again, although with penalty for your misbehaviour
- simply allowing you in the afterlife, forgiveness for your puny ignorance given, and with desire to sin removed.
- allowing everyone union with the eternal
Therefore, ignoring that maybe no one has the right god, we should probably find the most intolerant and fundie Christian branch, and join up with them. Those liberal Christians tend to allow none-believing but sincere riffraff into the kingdom.