“Do or do not. There is no try.” – Yoda.
Yoda don’t know shit about nuthin’.
Sure. I also think he knows the difference between exaggeration and insult.
No, I don’t mean that, which is why I didn’t say that. What I said – and all I said – is that if a person is acting unchristian and someone points it out, that person should not try to defend him- or herself as if he or she were not really acting unchristian (“I try to follow the teachings of Christ” – well, not all the time, apparently). I did not say that all Christians must be perfect (which they can’t be) or that Christians cannot drink, lie, swear, get mad, rip someone a new asshole, whatever, just like the best of them. But they (we) shouldn’t delude ourselves that we are being Christian when we do so. That’s all. I thought Phil’s point – the OP didn’t sound too Christian – was valid, and I further thought Pepper was wrong to take issue with Phil’s post, precisely because it was valid.
I never said every Christian must at all times be a beacon of right living, though I do personally think we are called upon to be a good example. But I fail at that so often myself that I would never be so foolish as to argue that it is an appropriate standard for all Christians at all times. I act pretty unchristian myself at times so I certainly respect Pepper’s right to say and do whatever she wants without endangering her right to call herself a “Christian.” I just don’t think she has much room to argue that she was “trying to follow Christ’s teachings” very hard at the time she posted her rant.
Y’know, this kind of bugs me. The Pit is the place for rants and flaming, but it doesn’t change the weight of the words used here. The fact that the Pit is the proper place to post insults does not mean that the insults somehow become less grave or less insulting. Furthermore, I think it is ridiculous to expect people to take razor-sharp, take-no-prisoners insulting posts and mentally reduce them to something more innocuous or less vicious than what was actually said. If the poster wanted to post something less than the extreme insult he or she did post, presumably he or she would have used more moderate language. And there is an clear difference between obvious hyperbole (“I ate a ton of ice cream!” – a ton? no, you didn’t) and opinions that may or may not be truly held (“You don’t deserve to live; I wish you were dead.”).
For the record, I presume that every poster here means exactly what they say, and I assume that if they had meant to say something different – something less extreme or more friendly or whatever – they would have chosen different words. That goes for what’s posted in the Pit as well. If and when someone tells me they wish someone would bash my head in with a rock, I am not going to think “Gosh, I bet they don’t really wish that. Pit hyperbole strikes again!” I am going to assume they typed it and they meant it and react accordingly.
Well, since he didn’t reply to me in the time I’ve been gone, I’ll assume I didn’t piss pldennison off too much 
Seriously, though–I just a rather long debate w/ PLG and Anthracite (please tell me I got your SN right here, I’m going by memory…stupid CPU won’t run two browser windows) in GD about tobacco companies. This was my first real interaction w/ PLG, and even after all that she managed to come off as a really good, nice, intelligent person. So I was a wee bit biased towards her side on this one (Snivel took a shot or two at me too). However, I firmly believe that PLG was employing hyperbole here (it is the place for that), and wouldn’t truly believe what she said. Of course, I interact with so many godless heathens every day (:)) that I rarely hold people to any standard other than the “humanist” one–try to be a good person. Since good people are allowed to be nasty on occaision, I usually don’t hold people to anything but that.
But I will grant you that calling the little twerp just about any fourth word in the OP wouldn’t be “Christian” per se, if one’s really into being one 24/7. Apparently PLG isn’t, which is fine by me (we’re converting you…beware…the philistines are nigh at your door ;))
Well, nuff said…off to see what other drivel said individual is posting to the other thread…
Sneevil is a skilled troll. Not only has he left this thread pretty much alone, he also has all of the participants combatting each other. All in the name of good faith, et cetera.
Pepperlandgirl, you know I love you. But you can’t beat Phil on logic. He’s the king, and he’s got you cornered here.
Phil, you know I love you - well, sort of. I think you’re one of the smartest people we’ve got on board here. But PLG is merely ranting here, she’s not looking to get her believe system discected into pieces because of a few unreligious remarks. Even though technically, you’re right.
Can we just focus all our anger at Sneevil again? That was so much fun!
Err, this wasn’t a response to Jodi, really–I was typing before hers came up…
And I think I’m abusing the emoticons again. Damn, I hate it when I do that. I really ought to be twisting the English language to my demands; beating it down till it obeys my command, not using some bloddy smilie…
Jodi asked:
Prior to answering, I’d like to wonder out loud if there is such a thing as “anti-trolling” by inveterately posting understanding, compassionate, see-the-other-person’s-point-of-view posts in the Pit? Last few of my Pit posts have been in this vein, and I’m wondering if I’ll break Lynn’s unwritten guidelines for flaming or something?
Jodi, that’s a very fair set of questions, and I want to separate the two parts of your part-post directed at me and answer them discretely.
First, in general terms I don’t feel that any person has the right to judge their fellow man. Period. However, there are provisos in this that you will appreciate professionally. First, the obvious one of a person placed in a civilly judicial role (not necessarily a judge per se, but a person charged with evaluation of another’s conduct in some way, such as a probation officer, a teacher evaluating a student’s work, etc.). Second, whenever any two people are working towards the same end and aware of each other’s work, there is a proper role of mutual criticism. I take your question, coming from a person I know from past threads to be a committed Methodist, in that very light: you are not judging me by my post, but critiquing whether I may have given totally the wrong impression by what I said. I suspect there are many more cases where judicially oriented comment is appropriate. And finally, as free individuals, we have a right to form our own informed opinions on views expressed by others, and to “judge” them in this context.
I am not sure in what light you view Jesus (I know you remember the heated exchange Adam and I had on the subject), but I would see the “truly God and truly Man” clause of the Nicene Creed as descriptive of this: Jesus the man was quite as capable of sinning as we, but guided by his “alter ego” as God the Son (and I know of no better way to phrase this, but I don’t imply two entities or schizoid behavior by it) to live a perfect life. (And Gaudere would tear that sentence to small shreds, but I have no time to flesh it out for clarity.) Each of us who have accepted Christ into our lives has the grace of the Holy Spirit guiding us in much the same sense as Jesus allowed his nature as God to do so – we are members of Christ in Paul’s great metaphor. And as such we are entitled to judge the actions of others by God’s standards of human behavior in the context suggested by the previous paragraph. (And I am well aware that without further clarification that sounds paradoxical – I trust that you and fair-minded readers will see the distinction I draw between “judging” and “judicious criticism.”
Some of the statements Pepperlandgirl made in the heat of anger would not, if my opinion were appropriate to make, be appropriate for a Christian person, or any other person of good will, as regards another individual. I tried to imply as much in my post in response to Phil without coming out and criticizing PLG for going too far. As I noted, it was a Pit rant, in which textually there are different standards than, say, a MPSIMS discourse on things which have irritated one. Without knowing your standards, Jodi, I would hazard a guess that the occasional risque joke with a close friend is acceptable practice for you – but you would never use the language or context of such a joke in a professional setting or in the presence of children. (That would be my guess based on what I know of your personality through your online presence, and if I am in any way mistaken, please accept my retroactive apology for it.) In the same context, I would accept saltier language and harsher criticism from a friend or colleague, or for that matter from my wife, in a “venting” situation than I would in a serious discussion of what the next ethical steps ought to be. It was in that context that I “approved of” PLG’s comments to which you took exception, and in a more “serious” context I would not find them appropriate if somebody were to ask my opinion thereof, as you did. (But I would not volunteer that opinion unless the person were someone I regarded as a close friend, a fellow Christian saying something falsely representing Christianity, or the context called for it (such as, in the presence of a child).
That famed Dutch reason comes to the speaks. Really, we are you guys arguing. It seems that people just let their emotions and instinct take over. Come, focus your anger on those who deserve it.
Wow! I left for work this morning and just checked in to find my name at the top of the page. Looks like a huge resentment turned into a cannibal feast followed by an after dinner love fest. WTF?? Don’t you people have anything to do except stay at home, eating free government cheese and watching ‘Sally’?
Really, people, get a grip. All I suggested In the original threadwas maybe, just maybe society is worse off since ‘banning’ God. Please note that I did not preach, proselytize or represent myself as an adherent to, or a member of, any sect, denomination or religion. I did not attempt to force any particular morality on anyone.
Why the ratpack?
POLY – A very thoughtful reply; thanks for taking the time to post it. 
If I put you in an awkward position by leading you to criticize Pepperlandgirl (albeit in your usual gentle way) when you would rather have not, I apologize.
Jodi- Y’know, you are 100% right, and I didn’t really think this through before. Thanks for settin’ me straight.
to the rest of you- Sorry for this gross departure from proper Pit behavior.
My new sig (j/k).
Well, it looks like Sneevil has shown up, so I trust we’ll be back in proper Pit mode shortly.
Hmmmm. That looks awfully familiar.
. . . naaahhh.
It has capitalization and punctuation. Can’t be Bj0rn in disguise.
I think.
Hey Sneevil, glad to see you’re enjoying your 15 minutes of fame. Most people don’t enjoy being famous as the guy on the wrong end of the hand grenade arc, but to each his own, you scrofulous son of a camel defecation.
I’ll tell you what you did in that thread. You posted your drug-addled opinion, which strongly suggested, given the context of the thread, that you didn’t think we could say rape was wrong. Maybe you didn’t mean it that way, and could have retracted. But guess what? You got pissy. I admit that I took a few shots at you, but they were not mean-spirited shots, until you decided to go the low road. Some people might not sink to your level–apparently there are some of them in this thread. They’re better people than I am; I won’t sink to your level, but I sure as hell will drop a depth charge or ten.
I have a honest suggestion for you…
Pop all the letters off your keyboard.
Put them back on, in alphabetical order.
Now post whatever you have to say with your new keyboard, it should look something like this:
Figure out what it means for yourself, though I suppose that it would require some modicum of synapse firings.
It would certainly make your posts a good bit more intelligent, though; at the moment reading your drivel is like searching through the vomit of an inebriated cat for a hidden meaning.
Or you could just take pepperlandgirl’s suggestion and put your computer out of our misery.
Women claim all the time that men have their brains firmly attached to their prick, but until now I thought it was hyperbole. So let me ask you this; does it hurt?
To quote the great Kurt Vonnegut: go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut.
Numbnuts.
Aw shit. I guess I’ll bite.
Sneevil just sed:
Sorry, hon. That’s just plain false. Let me demonstrate.
In that other thread you said, to Pepperlandgirl:
Strike one.
Later, you said:
Knowing, I assume that PLG was LDS. But maybe not. Either way, it was extremely insulting.
Strike two.
Then, just for shits and grins, you came out with this little gem:
I’m so glad you get such a kick out of insulting everyone on the board. Since you didn’t exclude me, fuck you too, pally.
Strike three. You’re out.
But no! No, you refuse to return to the dugout! You’re coming 'round for more!
to Byzantine, after she described her beliefs to you:
How nice! Arrogant much?
To missy, after pointing out that you were acting in a very nonchristian manner, and calling you a jerk:
Damn. I reckon most umpirse would have sent you to the showers by now, tough guy. Not only were you acting like an asshole, you lied as well. You said an awful lot more than “maybe society is worse off since ‘banning’ God.”
Next batter.
If you will actually read the thread, you’ll see where I said “Yes, extracting (extorting) sexual favors is WRONG, along with 100,000 other things that are wrong. Why are they wrong? What is the STANDARD by which right and wrong is judged? Who decides? The majority? At one time the majority decided that (here we go again) slavery was right. If the majority is not governed (does not adhere to) a HIGHER STANDARD, the majority rules only by tyranny and force”
If you interpret this to mean I think you can’t say rape (or anything else) is wrong, you missed the point. I simply asked how you determine right from wrong? What standard/yardstick/unit of measure do you use. My suggestion that the removal of God from society at large was not a good thing triggered an apoplectic knee jerk reaction from those who erroneously assumed I’m some sort of religious radical. Not the case. Read the thread.
But, what if I were some sort of religious extremist? Are your beliefs (or lack of them) so weak, so precarious, that you find it necessary to attack me like a bunch of squickers at a Talking Heads concert? I don’t give a good flying fuck what you rabble believe or don’t believe.
BBBBBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Tell your friends not to start a fight if they can’t stand the heat.
Sneevil said:
[quote]
quote:
Exactly right-and there are a plethora of examples: Jim Bakker, Jim Jones, what’s-his-funny-face with the Crystal Cathedral, the tv station ‘TBN’, cults, such as mormons, jehovah’s witnesses, etc., at yada… There is more evil done in the name of Jesus Christ than you can even begin to track.
andros, self appointed brain trust, replied:
Knowing, I assume that PLG was LDS. But maybe not. Either way, it was extremely insulting.
So, hero, you only stand up for mormons? What about the rest of your fellow hypocrites I listed? Why do they remain undefended and unrepresented by you?
Answer: Because you’re a devoid of any principles or integrity. You’re a phony.
I’ve read the thread, you asinine blowhard; in case your little protozoan mind didn’t notice, I was part of it.
So I was simplifying there a little, get over it. The point was that even after you posted that little choice bit about majority being a tyranny, we * still * didn’t get mean. You cast the first stone, but you sure as hell aren’t sinless.
Wow, squick, I’ve never heard ** that ** word before. Where on earth did you get it?
If you’re going to rehash a dead word, at least use the much more interesting “skullfuck”. As in, I will gouge out your eye and skullfuck you. And I happen to like the Talking Heads, so fuck off.
And this isn’t even going into the other offences you’ve commited there–which have been helpfully written out for you above. I would write them all out again, but it seems fairly clear that the parasite infesting your cranial cavity ins’t capable of processing more than two lines of text at a time. Hell, if I bothered to write it all out, you might still be here reading my post when the Jehovah’s Witnesses show up at your door. And we wouldn’t want you to miss them, now would we?
You frickin stand up for mormons when there’s one here and you–knowing full well that she is (wow, I * have * read the thread…geee) go out of your way to assault her.
How about finding a rusty nail and stepping on it? Sure it wouldn’t shut you up here, but a little lockjaw would certainly improve the attitude of everybody who has to interact with you IRL.
You want some? Come get some. I have a nice big shovel and wheelbarrow here–feel free to dig your own grave and lie in the bottom. I be happy enough to fill it back up, you denatured piece of self-righteous excrement.
Go take a flying fuck at the mooooooooon.
Having had a chance now to read this thread and see that your peers have already taken you to task over your hypocrisy, I won’t bother to rehash most of it.
I note, however, that you are apparently a lesbian. If this is correct, how do you reconcile that lifestyle with your asserted Mormon beliefs?