This is the last time I’ll say this because I don’t think you’re going to get it, although I am tempted to put it in the biggest font I can find.
I am not asking for special courtesies or privileges for my religion. What I am asking is that you behave with courtesy and respect. I don’t refer to Kernonos as “Old Horny” (apologies to any Wiccans who might be offended), nor would I refer to Buddha as “Fatso” (same apologies to any Buddhists), nor would I. It’s in that general tone that I’m objecting to your characterization of my Deity. (FTR, as I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, I’m not good at insults, so, while I’m apologizing, I’m sorry if those two are a bit lame.)
I have defended your views and will continue to do so when I believe it necessary and appropriate. This is despite your denigration of my views in this thread. As to ridiculing Christians, it does happen on this board, particularly with some of the more fundamentalist varieties. We’ve got at least one active thread in the Pit decrying the actions of Fundamentalists, and a bunch of Christians in there apologizing for those who use our religion as an excuse to act ignorant.
People were asked politely not to use a term which someone found offensive. You responded by insulting the views of the person who asked people to stop. You have insisted on being offensive causing pain, despite being told you were doing so. That, rather than any beliefs you may or may not hold, has reduced my opinion of you greatly. It is not my place to judge another’s morality, and in this case, it’s just as well.
Bullshit. If someone asks me not to use the term “knocked up” on this forum, I’ll stop doing it. It’s a politeness and respect issue. Just recently there was a big brou-ha-ha over the word “breeders” being used to describe straight people. Same thing as here. We asked some of you to stop because we took it as rude, and some of you wanted to insist that you could say it anyway, even though we asked you not to. Sure, go ahead and call straight people “breeders” (in a derisive way). And expect for the rest of us to judge you as someone who is saying it deliberately, to offend.
HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE THIS REPEATED? It is not being asked to be given a pass on challenges, it’s just a damned phrase that we would appreciate you refrain from using. Just like “breeders” and “knocked up” are phrases that some people would like to not hear. And just like “cunt” or “fuck”. Do you really think that a reasonable debate cannot take place if a certain gratutious phrase is not used? Come on. Give me a freakin’ break.
Just because you keep on rambling about how we all think that Christians should get some sort of pass does not mean that this is what we are asking. We’re not.
Yeah, I get it. You want to be able to use a phrase that we’ve already told you was offensive to us. I guess you want to be able to use it without us thinking that you are a jerk for using it (knowing that it offends us). You want to do this either because you don’t respect us, or because you want it all your way. You want to dish it out, but you don’t want to take it.
Yeah, I get it perfectly.
And by the way, my eyes glazed over at your lengthy essays on why you are an atheist. Why? Because no one asked you about it, it wasn’t what the OP was about. I wasn’t really interested in it, any more than I interested in hearing a meat eater to tell me all about why they eat meat, or why I shouldn’t be a vegetarian. NO ONE ASKED, and frankly, in my case, I DON’T CARE. But, yet, y’all have to ramble on about it anyway. Sez a lot about you.
Look, here’s the dealio. I realize that sometimes you don’t have time to respond to everything that’s coming at you in a thread such as this, so I’m not begrudging your failure to respond to my arguments.
But once your point is responded to, you can either rebut the response, or quit making that point until such time as you are able to rebut. Those are your only choices in honest debate.
If you instead choose to restate your original point in a later post as if the response had never occurred, it no longer buttresses your argument; in fact, it does the opposite.
Since my responses to your arguments neither draw a response nor foreclose you from continuing to make them, I can’t see anything further to be gained by attempting to engage you in “a rough-and-tumble, all-out brain-on-brain debating match,” an activity that clearly doesn’t interest you.
RTFirefly, I have taken the time to carefully review every post you’ve made to this thread. I believe the argument you’re referring to, which I’ve neglected to address directly, can be found in the following quotes:
Right?
Just as you assumed that your point was completely evident, in the context of this massive amount of discussion, I assumed that my position on this question was completely evident. I’ve explained myself, I thought, pretty cogently.
To sum up my position on the question above, I believe that questioning the underlying assumptions of religious faith is valid in the context of a debate that involves principles based on religious faith.
I believe that the insistence that people who have no real respect for certain beliefs behave as if they did respect them is, in the context of said debate, patently unfair.
I believe that a passing mention of a church picnic isn’t the same as an involved debate, in a forum devoted to debate, where a person is using their religious faith as a support or a foundation for their position.
Therefore, passing references to religion will earn nothing more from me than a polite and respectful response. Debates involving religion as an underlying premise for, say, a political position may get no such courtesy.
I trust I’ve made myself sufficiently clear.
Now, I’d very much like to hear an answer to a question I’ve asked several times. Which beliefs deserve to be treated with the respect that you’ve requested?
If the accuracy of a document doesn’t really matter, then let’s apply this to, say, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. “It doesn’t matter if it’s actually true, because it demonstrates how Jews are nasty and trying to take over the world.”
Right?
Of course it matters whether the New Testament is an accurate historical document. It’s disingenuous to imply that it’s not. The entire belief system of the Christian church depends on the NT being an accurate history. Atheists often admit as much when they accuse it of not being accurate. They have a good point. If Luke can’t get straight who was procounsel of Jeruselem (or whatever) at the time, then how do we trust him on things that sound so weird?
I’ll say right out in the open that if it’s not a historical fact that Jesus rose from the dead, I’m out of here. Paul said as much himself. I know that we’ll never satisfy everyone’s curiosity as to whether it is, but we can’t really prove that much about Julius Ceasar either.
We can leave the huge debate about the actual historicity for some other time and place, but let’s admit that the accuracy of the document has a lot of bearing on its value as a guide to life.
Cardinal, the fact that Shakespeare described some historical details correctly in his plays don’t mean that his plays are entirely accurate depictions of history.
The fact that some aspects of the Bible can be verified as fact does not imply that the entirety of the Bible is factual.
And I agree, this would make for an excellent thread topic. I’d be pleased if you’d start one, perhaps in Great Debates?
I think this thread has wandered into enough side arguments as it is.
No thanks. I’d start it and then not keep up, as I’m smart enough to know that I don’t know enough to be a good debater on the subject. My 13th commandment is “Don’t talk about things you don’t know about.” I know that I’m not a qualified historian with a specialty in Jesus-time Palestine.
Not to be snide, I hope, but, um, are you? Is anyone here? Is there any hope that the thread wouldn’t be a bunch of half-baked posts flung around until we all resent each other?
Most of the GD forum strikes me as people just trying to hit the other person between the eyes. I get so tired of looking for people who are willing to admit other people’s points when they’re legitimate that I just despair and leave. I know this may be a very personal reaction, but just yelling facts and theories at each other doesn’t get anyone very far.
No it doesn’t. (See, I admitted your point!) But you said that it had very little bearing. It has quite a bit of bearing. Christians are not saying that the NT is a cute allegory, in the slightest. It’s a historical document that, with minor reporting glitches, actually happened, or we’re all WRONG in capital letters.
Do you mean that if the said Protocol refers to actual existing towns or people, for instance, it’s a good reason to assume that the rest of its content is reliable?
Do you mean that if the said Protocol refers to actual existing towns or people, for instance, it’s a good reason to assume that the rest of its content is reliable?
Do you mean that if the said Protocol refers to actual existing towns or people, for instance, it’s a good reason to assume that the rest of its content is reliable?
[quoe]!) But you said that it had very little bearing. It has quite a bit of bearing. Christians are not saying that the NT is a cute allegory, in the slightest. It’s a historical document that, with minor reporting glitches, actually happened, or we’re all WRONG in capital letters.
[/quote]
And I think you’re WRONG in capital letters. And I too think it has little bearing. Of course, if the New testament is totally wrong about the names of locations, major political figures, etc… (Like a book stating that the President of the USA, Marylon Monroe, was assasinated in the Us town of Mexico in 1963), we could dismiss it immediatly as being written by someone who had no clue concerning what he was writing about.
But the fact that the background is correct has no bearing on the veracity of the events recounted. Most fiction books depict actual places, people and customs (the White House actually exists, but it doesn’t mean that “Mars Attack” is a true story) , same with a lot of mythologies (the greek town of Thebes actually existed…it doesn’t mean that Dyonisos was actually born there). Similarily, the fact that Pontius Pilatus is a real historical figure doesn’t mean he actually tried Jesus, let alone that the said Jesus actually performed miracles.
My point is a lot of what you said. If it got the small things wrong, then we’ll dismiss it immediately.
My point about the PotEoZ is that if being right on the verifiable things doesn’t increase a document’s believability, then being whacko shouldn’t decrease its believability.
There are so many other points to make about the historical accuracy of the NT, but this isn’t the place, I’m not taking the large amounts of time, and the audience is not in the mood.
yosemitebabe claims: *You want to be able to use a phrase that we’ve already told you was offensive to us. *
I do too. Your offense is not sufficient to cause me to give up a phrase in a public forum. (Work situations are different.) Similarly, I don’t believe that the thin-skinned should be able to delineate the bounds of the debate (which would follow from the “I’m offended” standard).
Do you really think that a reasonable debate cannot take place if a certain gratuitous phrase is not used? Come on. Give me a freakin’ break.
Here, I’m with yosemite. Gratuitous offensiveness should be avoided, in contrast to skilled, well considered offensiveness. Of course, any edgy phrase can be used gratuitously.
I would note that Jodi crafted her OP fairly well, IIRC. She didn’t say “never say X or Y”. She said, “Pause a little before you say X or Y”. (Ok, that’s my characterization.)
Apropos nothing, I would in practice avoid the use of “knocked up”.
Another criteria
If the sole function of a phrase is a bit of name calling, then it is probably not especially constructive. With some exceptions, admittedly.
[hijack] Cardinal: Christians are not saying that the NT is a cute allegory, in the slightest. It’s a historical document that, with minor reporting glitches, actually happened, or we’re all WRONG in capital letters.
Suffice it to say that many Christians would disagree with the 2nd sentence. [/hijack]
In light of the number of times this assertion has been addressed, clarfied, and refuted, I’m afraid at this point I can only conclude you are being willfully obtuse. And of course, a person in that position cannot be argued out of it.
Not very long ago, this community ripped a poster a new one for using the word “gay” to mean “lame” in a thread which was totally unrelated to sexuality.
We did not accept from that poster his protestations that his use of the word in a perjorative manner was not intended to cause offence; we did not accept the opinions of some other posters to the subsequent Pit thread that people were being over-sensitive and should not have been offended by such use of the word; we most certainly would not have accepted any declaration by the poster along the lines of “yeah, I know the my using the word that way offends you but I don’t care and I’m going to continue using it that way in this community anyway”.
Yes, this is a public messageboard. Yes, I accept that some Christians themselves might refer to their deity by terms which other Christians would find offensive (I’m sure that some black people find the use of the word “nigger” by other black people equally offensive - it still doesn’t give me the right to use that word).
If people really believe that “I don’t respect your beliefs therefore I can be can be knowlingly offensive when discussing them” doesn’t violate the “don’t be a jerk rule”, then I guess those people won’t be starting any Pit threads in the future about people continuing to use perjorative terms after the offensiveness has been pointed out to them.
I once got called on a GD post in which I called the OP a “fuckdrop” because of his attitudes towards child support. That the OP was later revealed to be a Serlin incarnation doesn’t for a single moment mitigate my personally insulting someone and calling them “fucking stupid” in GD.
It’s easy to defend our own right not to be offended; it’s a heck of a lot harder to defend the right of those with whom we disagree not to be offended, especially when doing so might require us to modify our own behaviour.
This isn’t about whether God or any other deity exists or the historical accuracy of the Bible. This is about where the use of terms known to be offensive to some posters in this community stops being “free speech” and starts being jerkish behaviour.
Strangely, I get the feeling that many people who are defending the right of people to use the right to use MSP would be horrified if someone was to use a term which implies that Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians were stupid idiots because their spiritual beliefs cannot be scientifically validated.
No-one is asking us not to use MSP when talking in my home or with my atheist friends (or even with Christians who are NOT offended by the use of the term). We’ve simply been advised that some people find its use on these boards offensive and asked to consider not using it - something which shouldn’t present any more of a hardship to us than not using any of the other perjorative terms which this community seems to have declared verboten.
No, Jodi. I just think you’re wrong. I’ve read and considered the arguments you’re using to support your position, and have found nothing convincing. I understand your insistence on your position, but I have come to the conclusion that it’s unfounded.
This doesn’t mean I’m obtuse. It may mean that I hold arguments to a high standard. It may mean that I’ve considered the opposite side of the argument carefully, and I’ve found it lacking. But your conclusion that I’m just being stubborn is unfounded. And I’m far from surprised.
You keep saying you’ve refuted my arguments, but a review of this thread has revealed no such thing. Could you please clarify where you’ve addressed the above statement in a conclusive way? If you’ve won the debate, I think it’d be nice of you to point out just where your victory lay, so everybody can marvel at your achievement.
I’d also appreciate a clarification of just which belief systems deserve the same respect as the Christian god. Including, if you’d be so kind, a list of the Christian denominations that qualify for the “no ridicule” policy you propose.