As I said before, read the linked thread. I said that Poly and company are intelligent, perceptive people who are all extremely canny car buyers, I’m sure. My point on gullibility is that good, caring Christians are more vulnerable to deceit by those they trust than a more suspicious, less virtuous person would be. It would also be a lot easier to sell them on the existence of a miraculous event than it would be to convince an atheist, who denies the existence of miracles in the first place.
In any event, cut the hysterics and talk like a rational person.
Oh, please. You’ve got a rich history of doing just that. And am I “hysterical”, really? Or just sarcastic and annoyed?
Where did you bring up their car-buying prowess previously? Please copy and paste where you brought that up, because I missed it.
And why, pray tell, would the activity of car-buying be an area where they would not be vulnerable? Are they vulnerable to deceit, or aren’t they? And if they are more vulnerable to deceit, why wouldn’t they be also vulnerable to the potential deceit of a used-car salesman? Please—enlighten us. Please specify which areas a theist is more vulnerable in, and which areas they are not. Because you sure didn’t specify before. You were quite general in your statements.
By the way, what do you consider a “miraculous event”? And are all so-called “miraculous events” the works of con-men? Is it possible that a “miraculous event” might actually have happened?
Yes and yes. Billy Gibbons has a place in Deep Ellum Dallas, and Dusty Hill has a ranch in central Texas near a friend of mine he rides his bike out to every now and then.
A sensible person would see that carbuying falls into the same category, but I guess you need to have it spelled out for you.
I already answered the question in the previous post.
No. Miracles don’t happen. Everytime a so-called miracle has been checked out, it has been shown to be fraud, like the angels at Mons or psychic surgery in the Philippines.
As for the minstry of Jesus, your behavior in this thread is the prime evidence that Christianity does nothing to make a person virtuous. You are an unpleasant, shrill woman and if this is the product of your faith, then your faith is worthless. Every time CJHoworth or Polycarp demonstrate the power and strength of faith, somone like you comes along to demonstrate that faith is only as strong as the person who wields it.
**You’re * a “new creature” in Christ? You? You’re a sad insecure woman who uses religion as a security blanket, lashing out with ferocity at any threat to your religion. All you have managed to accomplish is to confirm my belief that faith in Christ (or Allah, Shiva, Guru Nanak, Mahavira, Buddha, or Cthulu) is merely a product of the human imagination with no supernatural basis whatsoever.
So go ahead and rage at me. Curse me, hate me don’t care. You are not worth caring about.
gobear said: " My point on gullibility is that good, caring Christians are more vulnerable to deceit by those they trust than a more suspicious, less virtuous person would be. "
This is the first time I’ve heard you put it this way…“those they trust” as opposed to …what about good caring atheists and those whom they trust?
Your reaching now, of course someone is more vulnerable to loved ones and friends. :rolleyes:
I don’t hate you, nor am I raging against you.
“Love thine enemy”, not that were enemies either, just a couple of friends attempting to see each other’s point. If you had said the quote from above at first. This could’ve been over long ago.
Even though your POV wasn’t the OP for this thread, I think Tom~ came close to home regarding the OP…nerves, stress, etc.
Gotta go,
Parse this statement: (WARNING - IT IS A PARODY):
**quote:
Defensive much? While there are certainly straight hysterical people, the fact remains that a greater percentage of gays, at least in America, tend to be more hysterical than is the general population.
**
Would you agree that this was a valid statement? Why or why not?
:rolleyes: Please. Cry me a river. You poor misunderstood creature, you.
So you are insulting and condescending and I call you on it. That is all. I am not raging at you and calling you hateful. Believe it or not, when we are not discussing this sort of issue, I find you to be a cool fellow.
If you paid attention, you’ll notice that others have not been enchanted by your attitude, in previous threads, and in this one. But I guess they’re all just big ol’ meanies who want to “rage” at poor little victimized you.
Even though I haven’t actually “raged” at you, or even hinted that I’ve hated you, you trot that tired old scene out, once again. Remember when I alluded before that you had a “rich history” of melodrama?
WELL, HERE IT IS AGAIN. My goodness. You certainly are right on schedule!
You’ve played the “So go ahead and hate poor little me” card before, on threads very similar to this. Why? Not because there’s any validity to the charge, of course. It’s because not all of us are enchanted by your condescension. But since some of us disagree with you, I guess we all are wanting to rage at you and hate you, huh? That’s gotta be it, right? Oh, please. The martyr act does not suit you.
I guess this means that theists, regardless of their intellectual acumen, are more likely to be duped by “people they trust” needing money for crack…then those sharp-as-a-whip-skeptical atheists…ANY atheist.
In other words, gobear can definitively say that if the only thing he knows about Joe Smith is that he is an atheist…he knows that Joe Smith is less likely to be duped/conned by “people he trusts” than the posters I listed.
No other traits about Joe Smith matter for this determination. He could be a delusional psychotic. He could have an IQ of 75. He could really think that the Cubs have a shot at the pennant. The fact that he does not believe in a god is Joe Smith’s ticket to prudent decision making in regards to “people he trusts”.
Well, if gay folks had made a series of badly-written books about religious mythology the biggest sensation in recent publishing history, and moreover, if the gay audience for those books claimed that the books were not mythology but a true account of things to come, I’d have to acknowledge youir point.
If gays gave huge amounts of money to charlatans who promised miracles in return, I’d have to give you that one, too.
If gays pushed for laws to allow employers to deny Christians their jobs and landlords to evict Christians from their homes merely for being Christian, then I’d have to say you were right.
Golly, if the “tone” of my posts indicated “rage” and “hate” to you, then you must think that a rather significant hunk of people hate and want to rage at you.
Membership levels: I misspoke. The Southern Baptists is the largest U.S. Protestant denomination. However the Assemblies of God is the largest worldwide. I’m sorry, I should have confirmed that before working from memory.
Nowhere did I say that all Pentecostals are gullible dummies. As gobear has mentioned before, perhaps you should calm down and address what is actually said rather than knee-jerk react. The fact of the matter is, however, that the Left Behind series are based on Pentecostal eschatology and it is reasonable to assume that they are the folks buying the books enmasse. If you have any doubt about it you should check out the Left Behind message board if it’s still around (or the Pizza Parlor for that matter).
Furthermore, when was the last time you were forwarded that stupid “Save Touched By an Angel” hoax? How many well-meaning naive Christians had to respond to that for the FCC to create a webpage just to fight that stupid rumor from the 70s that won’t die? How much glurge do you get? Or do you not recognize it as such?
From this theist’s standpoint, it’s possible to believe that atheists haven’t had an experience that I have had, without thinking of them in terms that essentially demand that I respect them less for it.
I don’t think atheists are “blinded to reality” or any other such bushwa; I think that, like me, they are doing the best they can to make sense of a world where much is unclear.
Certainly there either is a God or there isn’t; we can’t both be right, and we will both think that the other is the one who is wrong.
But a belief that the other person is wrong doesn’t have to equate to a belief that the other person is blind, gullible, without morals, or whatever, unless one insists that it be so. But that would be that person’s choice, not a logical necessity. And IMHO it would be a wrong choice, in the moral sense.
No, you didn’t say Pentecostals are “gullible dummies”. Gobear used the “gullible” word, and “dummies” was my sarcastic addition. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
I don’t read the Left Behind books, my Pentecostal friend doesn’t (as far as I know) read them. No, I don’t get much glurge, and certainly not the kind you describe. (Actually, the only friend that sends me anything similar to “glurge” is an atheist!) Instead of glurge, I get tons of ads asking me if I want to enlarge my penis. Those spam filters don’t work very well.
Certainly there are some Christians who are gullible. I know some of them at my church. But my contention (and I suspect beagledaves) is, how do you know just by judging their theism (or lack thereof) who is more gullible? You don’t know each individual. We all don’t fit into tidy packages.
::shrug:: Yes, I am irritated that this topic (and gobear’s attitude) is being brought up again. I do weary of it, and yes, I can get sarcastic. But to be honest, the melodrama award belongs to gobear, in my opinion.
It’s gobear that’s trotted out the tired old “go ahead and hate poor little me” line (ONCE AGAIN) and it’s gobear that’s resorted to some rather personal insults about me. I have no interest in doing that back to him, I merely want to point out that one can disagree without being insulting and condescending.
<sarcasm> Oh, but why do you care, dear gobear? Why do you want me to address the issues? I am merely a “sad insecure woman who uses religion as a security blanket, lashing out with ferocity at any threat to your religion”! I am “an unpleasant, shrill woman”! I’m over here, obviously “hating” and “raging” at poor innocent you! But of course, you care not, because I am “not worth caring about”! </sarcasm>
Nah, they just have unprotected sex with strangers in bathhouses*, and pretend that nothing bad’s gonna happen to them. :rolleyes:
Now that we’ve demonstrated that gays are not only gullible, but self-destructive to boot, can we end this little pissing match? Thanks.
*[sub]Cite: “Cruise Control: Bathhouses are reigniting the AIDS crisis. It’s time to shut them down,” Washington Monthly, November 2002. No, it’s not online; sorry. [/sub]
You’re 100 percent right about that, and it’s a worrisome phenomenon. See, I can acknowledge that a large segment of gays are gullible and self-destructive. I don’t pretend it’s not true or say that they are not really gay or attack you for bringing that up. It’s a genuine problem that the younger generation of gay men are gambling with their lives.
Why can’t you be as honest about your co-religionists?
I tend to agree with gobear that many religious Christians aren’t critical thinkers.
I also want to point out that many people have beliefs systems that look suspiciously like religious ones to me: Vegans, socialists, astrologists, Scientologists, ultrafeminists, radical environmentalists, humanists, or whatever…all that’s missing is a diety. I normally don’t find their critical thinking skills to be that far above mine. Maybe it’s human nature to want to adopt someone else’s ideology as your own and rely on others to do the actual thinking…in other words, to “follow”. The more a follower you are, the less critical of a person you’ll be.
Those spam filters don’t work very well.