Reread the whole thread. Substitute “Islam” for “Promise Keepers”. Repeat as necessary.
The Unabomber was an atheist and an environmentalist. He killed more people than this alleged PK member. Ergo, atheists and environmentalists are dangerous whack-jobs. :rolleyes:
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah. What Shodan said.
Que? ‘5th down’ game? Could you elaborate?
If you’re writing about the portion of your post that I used to start off my last one, then no, there was nothing misleading about it. That’s what the ellipsis was for. Finishing the sentence from which the quote came would have read with the same effect; because the syntactical construction was kept, the ellipsis was proper. Moreover, should the readers, I feel, want to read the entire post, they could just as well scroll up (or back). There was nothing undue about my intentions.
So, if I’m reading your post correctly, please don’t find offense where none was meant.
However, if you’re referring to the nobleman’s quote, then, once again, no, there was nothing misleading about that, either.
You lifted the Bible verse out of context in order to make a smarmy slam at God when the verse was in fact not about God but about an earthly king who reigned until the Kingdom of God was to return.
You then quoted me by truncating the part of my sentence that explained the above.
I’m not offended personally, but your tactic is no less dirty and desperate.
Not to speak for beagledave, but you insinuated that Promise Keepers are homosexuals and child molesters; I’d say that deserves a :rolleyes:.
And I disagree with you. Had I wanted to make a disingenious, sneaky slam at any god I would have done so without a need to quote a book. But since I did use quotes, and if I wanted to be “dirty and desperate” as you say, I wouldn’t have given chapter and verse next to the quote so that those who questioned (or were just curious) could have easily looked it up here, here or here.
This isn’t a case of an uncandid “Who, me? What’d I do?”
But regardless, if you continue to disagree with me and want to argue further, I suggest we do so in a thread created for that purpose. I get the feeling that this could turn into a long hijack that, although possibly of interest to some, would detract too much from the OP’s original intent. And if you don’t want to carry this further, that’s fine, too; I do enjoy a lot of your posts, Libertarian, but I won’t feel slighted if we leave it at a disagreement.
Evidence presented that PK members are more likely to off their spouses and kids than members of the population at large: none.
Evidence presented that PK members are more likely to commit acts of domestic violence than members of the population at large: none.
I personally don’t much care for Promise Keepers, but I don’t see where the incident in the OP has anything to say about them. And even in the “let’s take our ‘Christian’ views and shove them down everyone else’s throat” department, they seem to be pretty small potatoes.
Take a gander here.
MU fans weren’t happy that day.
JEFFB,
I thought that “there is something scary about those folks” was what I said, my problem is that in 37 years I have NEVER seen a large group of men crying and telling each other “I love you” and there is something strange (to me) about a man who thinks that he needs this kind of junk to give his life direction, the “insinuations” came from YOUR mind, not mine.
unclviny
I’ll concede that I probably read too much into the first part of your comment. I think it was your choice of the word “unnatural” as opposed to a more neutral word like “unusual” that I reacted to. On the other hand, the only way I can read this:
is that you are implying a danger in having a Promise Keeper as a babysitter. Would you like to clarify that?
Once again I quote myself “there is something scary about these folks”, meaning… I don’t know, how about (off the top of my head here folks) filling my children’s heads full of scary nonsense “for their own good”, repressed feelings or urges boiling over, bad decisions , you name it, I DO NOT want my children subjected to these people for a million possible reasons.
unclviny
Posted by RexDart
Posted by SkipMagic
Physician, heal thyself.
http://www.sos.state.mo.us/elections/pubs/reformmandate/reportpage4.asp
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18006
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/election2k/pee-u.htm
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/articles/11-17-00/carney.html
http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/news_section/2000-11/11072000Missouri.asp
Probably not, because degradation of an organization based upon their beliefs is self-evidently different then degradation of an organization based upon the inherent conditions of its members.
'Cause, ya see, the first is what the group chooses to believe, and the second is what they group is.
Sua
Wasn’t that the same Colorado football coach who won a close game (in a national championship season) because the referees gave his team five downs? And then when some asked him as a gesture of sportsmanship to forfeit the game, he refused?
Which is not unprecendented, by the way. It happened in a game between Dartmouth and Cornell, with Dartmouth later forfeiting (granted, of course, that the stakes in that game were much lower).
Okay, first off- I’m an atheist. Second- the ideology behind Promise Keepers scares me; my wife is my friend and PARTNER, above all else. I’m good at some things (like color sense), she’s good at others (finances, generally). We’re a team. Promise Keepers, at least what I’ve heard of it, stresses that everyone else in the family works for the father. That just seems plain wrong. I also seriously distrust all of the political power they seem to be amassing.
That said…
How much you wanna bet that we’d have heard about that bumper sticker if it had been, say, a Quake or Unreal Tournament sticker?
On the one hand, we’ve got a religious organization which espouses a reorganization of the family unit and which seems to be gaining in political power, and on the other hand we have… a game.
Why is it the game would be the one that the media would blame? It ain’t the killing in the game- the Old Testament certainly appears to have its share of atrocities.
That demonstrates nothing, Shodan. Your example impliedly asserts that all religions and/or religious organizations are morally equal.
Suppose that, instead of substituting “Islam” for “Promise Keepers,” you substituted the “Christian Identity Movement” for “Promise Keepers.” Would you not agree that the result would be different?
I’m not here to bash the Promise Keepers or to praise them. I know little about them, and don’t care to learn. I just have a huge problem with the attitudes presented in this thread, either that ‘religion’ = ‘race, gender, ethnicity’ or that ‘disparagement of a particular religious belief’ = ‘bigotry.’ Neither is true.
Religion is a belief system, simply put. And belief systems can be good or can be bad. Anyone who finds no problem with people criticizing libertarianism or capitalism must, to be consistent, have no problem with people criticizing religious belief.
Sua
My two cents:
I think people are a tad overzealous in their repeated asserting that the OP was way way way off base.
I think a very interesting question was asked many posts ago, which, paraphrased, was something like this:
“Could an organization which teaches that the man should lead the family push some men into committing domestic violence”?
The problem with this question is that it sounds a lot more dangerous than it is. Suppose the answer is yes? Suppose interviews and psychologists and travelling back in time (or whatever) conclusively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the guy was pushed over the edge into violence by the PKs. So what? Does that mean the PKs, as an organization, are evil? Does that mean that many or all members of the PKs are evil? No. Not at all.
(Bear in mind that I’m not saying that I have any evidence of any sort that there is a connection.)
In fact, I think there’s an interesting discussion to be had about the benefits and risks of large movements of this sort. On the one hand, they can give people a feeling of togetherness and fraternity, which can truly change people’s lives fot the better. (ie, TechChick’s family). And they can certainly teach positive messages, do good works, etc. On the other hand, there’s always the risk that their message is a harmful one. And even if their message is a good one, there’s a risk that’s inherent in large, impassioned movements, which is that members of the movement will surrender their own initiative and identity into the movement. And, if this person is filtering the group’s message through their own experiences and beliefs, an unquestioning acceptance of that message can be very dangerous.
One might propose analogies between Promise Keepers and British soccer hooligans. Granted, they would be somewhat crappy analogies. But it’s a discussion that is worth having.
Note: I realize that I’m being a bit of a weasel here by prefacing everything I say with “I’m just proposing this as a conversation topic, I don’t really believe it myself”. But honestly, I know very little about the PKs. I do, however, believe that it’s possible to have a discussion fairly similar to the one proposed in the OP that does not in any way imply that the PKs are just a gang of looney murderers.
Isn’t it is entirely possible that PK actually helped convert some men from a violent, abusive nature to a more loving one more compatible with Christian beliefs? Then again those stories rarely make the news.
SkipMagic wrote:
As you wish, but I respectfully request that when you are pasting quotes from me henceforth, kindly to use at least complete sentences — fair enough? 