And you know for a fact that I (and Poly, and the rest) are guilty of these things? How?
Why is it that you accuse us of things we’ve most likely neot thought, and do not do? Please copy and paste statements that we’ve made on this board that prove to you that we support some of the things you accuse us of.
Copy and paste, copy and paste. Prove that we have these attitudes. Show us some evidence, please. Just don’t pull assumptions out of your ass.
What does asking for a modicum of personal respect (not respect for our diety) have to do with this?
“Demand”? Please copy and paste where any of us have used the word “demand”. “Request” is more like it. And there is no “demand” or “request” of any kind to respect our beliefs or our diety. Just our feelings. But you keep on ignoring that fact, over and over again.
“Appropriate” times to not give a damn about other people’s feelings, too, I guess.
Please link to a thread where anyone here “demanded” that you respect our beliefs. And please copy and paste the statement that someone has posted, “I DEMAND that you respect my BELIEFS.”
I see these posts as requests to respect people’s feelings. Like what Jodi says, here (bolding mine):
Pointing out “overt disrespect” is NOT the same as a DEMAND (your words) for “respect”. It is just pointing out that you’re being really obvious with your disrespect, and you are ruffling feathers. And Dragonblink says (once again, bolding mine) :
Meaning, respecting that THEY believe it, that THEIR feelings are on the line. Of course, if you want to interpret this as a “demand” for respect, you are free to do so, but I see no obvious demand (or even request) that the belief be respected.
And I think Phouka’s post is self-evident:
Where is there a DEMAND for respect of a diety? It’s merely a request for some consideration for other people’s feelings.
No it’s not. You are free to be a complete asshole. No one has demanded that you stop being an asshole. We’re just telling you that your behavior may be interpreted as assholish. What you choose to do with that information is entirely up to you.
And, even though I don’t think you’ve “demanded” it, you have no control over how people view your behavior. If they think you are being an asshole, no amount of arguing or explanation will change it.
By the way, I’m still waiting for the copy and pasted quotes proving that Poly, Guin, and the rest of us have been guilty of some of the things you have accused us of. Please, copy and paste, copy and paste.
Actually, no. You can’t see what I’m trying to say, and I’m completely okay with that. I’ve come to terms with your inability to understand the particular point I’m making, yosemitebabe.
There are no more goodies left in the horse-shaped piñata.
All right, all right! Next time I’ll hit you over the head with the Jesus stick!:rolleyes: I’m sure it must be around here somewhere, maybe up in the attic? . . .
Look, I’ve known enough obnoxious people who say “Jesus” every other word, especially when dealing with people they disagree with, that I very seldom use it myself. My intent was to parrot Mr. Visible’s words back to him with my twist on them, not to imply that anyone who is not religious or does not share my faith is incapable of being a nice person. If I believed that, I’d miss out on the company of far too many wonderful people. Please replace that business about “love your neighbor as yourself” with something along the lines of “that Jesus fellow might have known what he was talking about” and, while you’re at it, insert a vaguely frustrated and amused Anglo-American accent if it will make you feel better.
Synnove, welcome to the boards. Your apology is quite definitely accepted, and I look forward to reading more from you.
And now, in the spirit of that whoosh/trainwreck of a post, who wants bacon and eggs for breakfast?
And the same might be said about you (and has been said about you) on this thread. In fact, I find it highly ironic that you have made such a statement.
I got that you were painting all Christians with a broad brush. And frankly, I’m sick of it. I’ve gotten it plenty of times before, you see—“As soon as (all you Christians) stop doing this, and that, then maybe I’ll care about your feelings”—well, guess what? A lot of us have ALREADY stopped doing whatever it was that you found offensive, and in fact, never did it in the first place. Why bring up stuff that we DON’T DO?
Is this some form of “Christian guilt” you want us to buy into? Because some of our fellow Christians have been assholes, we are supposed to be held responsible too, and take all the hostility and anger you really intend for them? Because I’ll tell you right now, I’m not buying into it. I don’t deserve to be treated like I’m some hateful uptight fundie, and I am not going to take shit for something I’ve never done.
If you want to deliberately disrespect other people’s feelings, that’s fine. We will judge you as someone who deliberately disrespects other people’s feelings.
I didn’t intend my statement as a “dramatic exit” but simply as accepting what I cannot change, and refusing to push the issue further. However, your statement here, which I do believe I can support as a reasonable moral stance for you to take, does mean that I ought to clarify my position, and I believe Jodi’s as well.
I am not interested in having you “show respect to a belief system which [you] hold in contempt.” I would hope that someday I can demonstrate to you that the belief system to which I adhere is one you would not hold in contempt, but in the interim, what I ask of you is respect for me, and for other posters who share my beliefs, in not insulting us for holding beliefs which you do not share. To me, the difference between that request and expecting you to show some sort of respect which you do not feel for a given theological structure that you find to be lacking in logic, evidential support, and ethical values, is the difference between apples and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
You are, in my book and I believe that of CJHoworth, Jodi, and numerous others, free to reject any assertion of the supernatural or any claim that there is some mysterious entity that has any claim on your allegiance. You are not, as a matter of common courtesy, entitled to refer to our holding of such beliefs as something other than what they are – and you are free to consider me deluded for so believing, so long as you say so in terms that show some modicum of respect for me. (Of course, this dichotomy of acceptable/nonacceptable behavior is on the presumption that you are at all interested in showing respect for me or any others – subject to board rules, I certainly cannot control your behavior.)
One major problem I have with your stance, which may be contributing to the problem between us, is that I suspect we are suffering from what Spider Robinson (borrowing from someone else whom I don’t remember) called “rupture” – the use of terms with quite disparate meanings in circumstances where it is not clear to either of us that we are employing different meanings. This thesis is supported by your further comment:
Well, I suppose I am guilty of #1, but not in the way you probably think. I feel that social justice for all and the respect for the dignity, rights and freedom of every person is at the core of my belief system – and I do advocate for this to be a basis for law. I am not interested in legislating your sex life or ability to express yourself (except to the extent that I personally wish to be treated by you with the same respect I try to render you, and have no desire to see that placed into an overarching rule).
I am fervently in favor of #2. Re #3, I try my utmost to not judge anybody, except that I reserve the right to exercise the Scripturally-based precept to challenge my co-believers’ attitudes when I think they’re standing in left field out to lunch on an issue; since we subscribe to the same standards in this regard and it’s not an attempt to force those standards on those who don’t, I exempt that from the no-judgment rule.
#4 is quite difficult, but I am certainly trying to do so. With regard to #5, I believe that He has big shoulders and a bigger heart, and will gladly forgive any insult made against Him, particularly by people who, apparently like you, have been victimized by those who exteriorize their own prejudices and claim that they are His.
I’m a bit confused by #6, but it appears you mean that a Christian tends to try to identify things offensive to God and ask the planet to do without them. I categorically refuse to do this, because I feel that the world would be much better without the sorts of things that the Incarnate God the Son (in my religious view) identified as “things offensive to God” – such as hypocrisy, prejudice, self-righteousness, the judging of others…
As for whether he’s going to be offended by being called a “Magical Sky Pixie” – I rather suspect He’s having a belly laugh over this thread. It’s me (and Jodi) who, being human, is upset by having our belief system trashed.
Fair. I’m merely asking for it, to the extent that I may have earned it. I have no right to demand anything of you, except perhaps that you leave my personal life alone and not try to regulate it according to how you think the world ought to be run – since you would expect the same of me.
In short, sir, I think you’re seeing Christianity as a monolith which behaves according to the raucous attitudes of the Immoral Minority, and what I and several others have tried to say to you has gone right past you: that an adherence to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth demands a quite different standard of behavior of us – the one I’ve outlined above – and that, being convinced of Who He is (in our view), it is our task to follow Him, and in so doing, to love and respect you, to affirm your dignity and worth, to combat those who claim to be following Him who would, through selective reading of the Bible (which they exalt to the place reserved for God), enforce a set of moral standards on you because they believe them to be God-given.
If you are mad at me because I happen to claim allegiance to the Man whom those Neopharisees have suborned the Name of into their effort to trash you and all who disagree with them, you might also care to throw a few gratuitous insults to John Corrado, who happens to belong to the same political party as Jesse Helms (though his reasons for doing so are quite different from Ol’ Jess’s).
Yeah. What they said.
To the extent that this post may have done anything to help clear up that “inability to understand,” I’m glad I did it. My points in this thread may not have been expressed as clearly as they might have been – I’ve been making some assumptions that people understand what I mean by the language I use, and that may not have been totally valid. (I’m tempted to coin this tendency to make that false assumption as “TheRyan’s Law,” since he’s been a leading exponent of the need to use language clearly, and Pit excursions involving him have made clear the problems involved.)
Mr. V: Given what I’ve defined as “what I mean by ‘Christian behavior’” in this post, does my adherence to it insult or offend you in any way?
And if not, and seeing my distinction between my understanding of it and the clowns who use terms like Christian and Pro-Family when they really mean Anti-Gay and Anti-Liberal and so on, do we have a working understanding of why I might be offended by your seeing my belief structure as something that calls for insulting language from you? If we can get that far, we may have a chance at resolving this issue.
I do reiterate that I am not offended by your stance that belief in God is something for which you see no legitimate grounds. It’s in categorizing those who do find legitimate grounds for doing so as in some way lacking in ability to reason that I become insulted.
I appreciate the effort that you’ve put into restating your position. I do understand, but I still disagree.
The sticking point for this entire debate is the idea that insulting your beilefs, or the object thereof, is insulting your person. That is a distinction on which I am afraid we’re going to continue to disagree, for reasons which I believe both sides of this debate have stated, and restated, sufficiently.
As to my (recently numbered) list, yes I do respect you, and you personally, for holding yourself to these high standards. When a religion holds itself to the same standards, I will adopt a demeanor of respect towards that institution and its beliefs.
Well, I might be misunderstanding this statement, or taking it out of context, so don’t interpret me as being accusatory. But I have to ask something similar to what Gaudere asked on page two-ish re: the Divine Weasel and the implict judgement of Fundies.
Where’s the “modicum of respect” for the Pro-Family groups? Why do you get to call them, and I quote, clowns? This is somewhat different (and worse, IMO) than the topic of this thread, insofar as you’re undeniably insulting the persons, rather than their idea. IOW, you didn’t say “the clownish ideas of the Pro-Family groups” – to me, in Great Debates parlance, that’s attacking their ideas and not their persons. (Similar, IMO, to MSP attacking the idea of God, rather than the persons who hold this idea). Rather, you insulted the people themselves.
So, I ask again: Where’d the “modicum of respect” that’s being sought after in this thread when you refer to Pro-Family groups?
I think you’re missing the point. What Jodi, YosemiteBabe, and Polycarp are saying, if I interpret correctly, is not that their beliefs are exempt from discussion, or that being critical of their beliefs is necessarily being critical of them. Their point (correct me if I’m wrong) is that there are ways of discussing, even criticizing, religion that are not grossly insulting.
Example:
Insulting: “Wow, you believe in that God crap? You and your silly little beliefs are really amusing.”
Polite: “I find no compelling evidence to persuade me that there is any veracity to the accounts of miracles in the Bible.”
Now, I’m as guilty as MrVisible of being insulting. In GD, I said some unkind things about theism being unfit for intelligent grownups that I’d like to retract. While I remain convinced that the concept of God is merely a construct of the human imagination, I want to phrase it in a way that is not directly antagonistic to believers.
I don’t understand that. Are you saying that the Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Methodists, Southern Baptists, American Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Dutch Reformed, Abyssinian Orthodox, Copts, et al., all think and act the same? That none of them deserve respect? Don’t you think that’s uncharitable, to say the least?
I’m certain that belief in deities is mistaken, yet I don’t see that jeering at believers in general, merely for believing in something we think of as mythical, accomplishes anything other than creating ill will.
I totally reject the Roman Catholicism in which I was raised, but I still genuflect before entering a pew if I am dragged to Mass. I think that Jews worship an imaginary being, but I’d still wear a yamulke in a temple to show respect to the people around me–not that I ever go to a synagogue, but the principle is the same.
Me, me! And since yosemitebabe isn’t likely to want her share of the bacon, I’ll be happy to take that too. Crispy please. I’ll even sit quietly while you ask the blessing.
