Since I touched on this a bit, may I respond that My comment in a post above was not intended to label anyone as ‘bad guys’ (even though I did use that term); It is my feeling that responding with agressive talk merely serves to validate the view (validate in the mind and perception of the person holding the view) that you are trying to argue against and could actually be counter-productive to your goals.
Actually, that’s not quite true; I was also (I think) dismayed by the sheer volume of abuse.
Guin… while I agree with you that H4E hasn’t exactly been the most vitriolic poster we’ve had in the history of this board, she has been remarkably stubborn, patronizing, and self-pitying in her behavior. Look at her comments in this thread… has she responded to the plethora of people who calmly and politely brought reasonable critique? Or has she focused solely on the few who chose to become angry?
In my opinion, she’s goading the negative comments and ignoring the positive ones. Whether this is deliberate or not, I don’t know, but I do know that I don’t blame some people for becoming angry with her.
GRENDEL –
Sure, but please refrain from telling me to fuck off. 'Cause it, y’know, pisses me off.
We-ll, I think when you’re nasty to someone in response to their comments you kind of are the “bad guy” to that limited extent. I’m not saying that homophobia and bad manners are at all comparable, but neither makes reasonable people excited to talk to you. In my case, I am aware that I probably line up more with you than with her on the same philosophical side, but I also am aware that she didn’t invite me to fuck off while you did. (Not to harp on that.) And frankly, I’m usually more willing to continue a discussion with someone whom I differ from philosophically, than I am with someone who is rude to me. My point is, you ceded her the high ground by losing your temper. Don’t think I’m judging you too harshly: I recognize that this is what you’ve done because I’m a past-master at doing it myself.
I think you’ve misinterpreted people if you think anyone has ignored her attacks. To the contrary, she has met with very little support for her position – even from those of us “fellow” Christians who might be assume to share her world view. Sometimes the most effective way to show how weak a point is, is to tease it out and then point out that its “defenders” have in fact failed entirely to defend it. This often works much better than calling your opponent a “waste of skin,” which gives her the perfect – and perfectly legitimate – excuse to refuse to discuss the matter any further with you; leaves the weakness of her argument unexposed; and (as you admit) makes you look like the “bad guy” because you’re the one who was nasty.
In fact, I don’t think you’re a bad guy – I recognize a thoroughly lost temper when I see one, and I also recognize that you felt very provoked – though not, I hope, by me. So no harm no foul and apology accepted. But please be advised that one pass on telling me to fuck off is one more than most people get, and there is never, ever a second one. For what that’s worth, and maybe it ain’t worth nothin’, but there it is.
SPOOFE: it’s my suspicion that focusing on the negative isn’t deliberate; I think it’s just a conditioned reflex caused by things like this and this
Incidentally, can anyone spot the problem with this?
What ultimately happens to the innocent little child on page 9?
Well Poly, with regard to the veneration of saints distinct from the worship of Christ, I have no disagreement with Roman Catholics. But that does not invalidate the claim that Protestants make that Catholics worship the saints. Its all about how you choose to define worship. While fully accepting the exact distinction that Roman catholics make, I see no reason to cause division among Christians based on separate interpretatations of the meaning of a word.
With regard to “my defence” of His4ever please do not interpret my participation in this thread here anything other than an “offence” at pit practice to misrepresent what an unpopular poster says, repeat it till everyone believes it and accept the worst possible spin on what a poster intended. In this case, a charge was made that His4ever said that Catholics worship saints. Certainly there is evidence that she probably believes that, but she never said that. I just hate pile-ons with every fibre of my body. The ultimate conclusion of a pile-on of this extent is to silence the object either by banning or by intimidation. There is one major difference between my reaction and most every one elses in this thread in response to His4ever. Everyone else is sympathetic to those who take offence her exclusionary view regarding salvation. Me, I have a great deal of pity for her. Her beliefs seem so firmly entrenched, so rigid, so exclusionary, I can’t possibly see any real joy in her life. It is sad to see a mind locked up. I know that because I’ve been there, more fervantly than her, and but for the grace of God, I would still be in that prison.
Now I don’t know what I’ve said to prompt your curiosity regarding what denomination I belong to, but the fact is I’m not allied anywhere. I’ve had communion with Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Pentacostalists and Baptists. I was sprinkled by Calvinists and dunked by McPhersonists. I’ll have a drink with anyone 
. I always enjoy a one on one sharing of faith in Christ with a Christian (or anyone who wants to listen), but my universalist views seem to generally threaten organized denominations, and I have a hard time keeping my mouth shut.
To SisterCoyote, an atheist? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. As per Andros either I haven’t been quacking enough, or too much.
His4ever I love you. I pray that you take the effort to fully aquaint yourself with the truth regarding the objects of Jack Chick’s venom. For a start, search for Lumen Gentium, the official world wide pope mandated uncontested document regarding tenets of their faith. You will find it says exactly what you do regarding what it takes to achieve salvation. On one other point that I remember, it says you don’t have to be Roman Catholic to be saved. Jack Chick says that is not what they say. You read it. Judge for yourself. Jack Chick is a liar and thus can be judged not of the Holy Spirit. That means everything he says is to be ignored. No?
Wow! What a turnaround from the train wreck!
Monty, got it. And I agree with you. You know what happens when people ‘assume,’ right? Looks like I made an ass out of me, though ‘u’ seem to have dodged the ass bullet (sorry, couldn’t resist) quite handily. 
grienspace, I hate pile-ons too. But they do serve the purpose of showing strong community disapproval of inappropriate behaviors, like making assertions without adequate backup. Especially divisive and hateful assertions. As far as I’ve seen, the SDMB doesn’t do the pile-on thing very often unless that condition is met. Sorry guy, H4E can either learn why the pile-on occured or keep playing martyr. The ball’s in her court.
I wasn’t claiming that Scientology was valid, was simply pointing out that (especially with Kirkland)'s dismissing her using the Mormon book with simply the comment that ‘And Mormons here say it isn’t so’ as being rather hypocritical considering. In other words, it takes more than just a member saying that it isn’t that way to show the cite false, and to imply otherwise is wrong.
I understand what you are saying, you seem to be missing my point. I wouldn’t accept an obviously biased source like the clambake website against Scientology, and if that was the only evidence that they are dangerous I would take a Scientologists word about their beliefs. This is pretty much what happened with His4Evers anti-mormon book.
There is, however, evidence from unbiased sources that Scientology is a dangerous scam. If somehow His4Ever could find such sources to support her claims, I would lend them a lot more credence.
That is not what I’m saying. What I’ve tried to make sure I always say, but might have missed it a few times, because it requires extra typing, which is effort people like H4E aren’t worth, that the dingbat in question has a book written by some old bigot biddy, claiming X, Y and Z. Monty says A, B and C. And the official doctrines of the Mormon Church, which is the ultimate authority on the issue, and the final arbiter, agree with Monty, not Biddy, ergo Monty is right, and H4E is spreading lies.
Now if we were to go to the official teachings of the LDS Church and we find that they say X, Y, Z, then Biddy would be right, and Monty would be wrong, but that is not the situation.
The final authority on what the LDS Church teaches is the LDS Church. Monty’s opinion only has value because it has been shown, over time, that when he says “this is what Mormons believe,” his statements correspond with the documents of the LDS Church. H4E’s biddy’s statements didn’t, ergo, Monty is telling the truth, and H4E is spreading lies.
Kirk
I don’t blame anyone for being angry-however, I think we need to stop screaming at her, per se, because that’s only going to fuel her Martyr Complex.
There’s nothing you can do to stop her playing the martyr; that’s part of the MO of the fundamentalist mindset, which is combative, paranoid, and aggressively ignorant. Fundies think (and I use the word extremely loosely), “Jesus told the truth and was persecuted. I’m persecuted, so I must be telling the truth!” They need to feel that they are besieged by Satan and the ungodly so that they can continue in their delusion that they are Christ’s disciples, sharing His martyrdom.
Further, they base their Martyr Complex on their reading of the scriptures* that say they will be persecuted for their beliefs.
*including Matthew 5:10-12, Luke 21:12, John 15:20
Of course, Polycarp sagely pointed out one of their favorites, Matthew 5:11, can be read with an interesting twist:
This could be taken to mean “blessed are those who are persecuted by those who claim to be acting for my sake.”
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jodi *
**GRENDEL –
We-ll, I think when you’re nasty to someone in response to their comments you kind of are the “bad guy” to that limited extent. I’m not saying that homophobia and bad manners are at all comparable, but neither makes reasonable people excited to talk to you
I have a small thing to say here. Why is it that when someone gives an opinion that something is wrong that they automatically have a phobia, such as homophpobia? My reasons for believing this are legitimate IMHO. Since you don’t like Christian fundamentalists, perhaps I should say that you have fundiephobia? Anyway, people have the right to give their opinion on whether something is right or wrong, espcecially if they’re asked. Good day.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by His4ever *
**
As a matter of fact, your type do scare me. With good reason.
You are trying to take away rights that have beel faught for for a long time, you spread the hate that makes it dangerous for me to hold my boyfriend’s hand in public, you would force your religion on me.
Unlike others, I’m inclined to let you slide, if only because you are not likely to consider any other possible interpretation of the relevant Scriotures.
But what about your refusal to apologize for or amend your views concerning the LDS and Catholics? Your source for your opinions on mormons is one book written from a subjective point of view. Other people, LDS and Gentile, have pointed out that every other book and reference on the LDS contradicts “Granny” Geer. What say you? Will you bother to get the Straight Dope on Mormon doctrine from the Mormons themselves, or will you continue to believe things that are demonstrably not true?
Well, my fear or aversion of your ilk is not irrational, so it’s not quite a phobia.
And I still want to know when His4Ever will stop her devil worship.
HIS4EVER –
This is actually a very good question, and one I would be happy to answer – once you have answered my questions, already posed to you, about why you follow some of the exhortations in the OT and the NT, but don’t follow others.
You see, what I am getting tired of is your habit, as I see it, of posting your two-cents-worth and then utterly refusing to discuss it or defend it. Then you want to move on and talk about something else? No. You are either willing to talk about these issues, or you are are not. If you are, then answer the questions already put to you.
But don’t expect me to answer your questions when you refuse to answer mine.
This is where a little education goes a long ways . . . His4ever, ‘homophobe’ is not a professional psychiatric term indicating a ‘phobia’ of the type you are indicating, which qualifies as a psychiatric disorder. I have a phobia - and unless you have screaming hysterics or catatonic withdrawals when confronted with a homosexual, you are not clinically phobic.
‘Homophobe’ or ‘homophobia’ is casually used to describe someone who dislikes homosexuals, and is more of a ‘social/attitudinal’ disorder akin to racism. It is similar to a phobia in that it is an irrational aversive reaction, but it is based on your social training, not a traumatic childhood experience that imprinted you with an inappropriate fear reaction. You dislike homosexuals because you’ve been taught that their sexual activities are disgusting, even though they have no detrimental affect on you whatsoever (and, quite frankly, are none of your business).
People with your beliefs (homophobes) do, however, have a detrimental impact on the lives of homosexuals - you contribute to the denial of their ability to enjoy the same rights and privileges that heterosexuals enjoy just because you disapprove of them.. Your attitude also contributes to a social atmosphere that encourages more violent people to abuse, attack, and sometimes even murder homosexuals.
Do you feel the same way about blacks, hispanics, or Jews? (just for examples) Can you explain why or why not?
Not too long ago a young gay male in a town near mine was cruelly tortured, beaten, and murdered by two other young men solely because he was a homosexual. How do you feel about contributing to the torture and death of that young man through your support of anti-homosexual beliefs? Do you think he deserved what happened to him?
And just what is it that you and your fellow homophobes want homosexuals to do? Kill themselves so they won’t be around to offend you any longer? Remain lonely and celibate throughout their lives because for some unknown reason they happen to be sexually attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite one? It’s not as if they had a choice, you know. Or do you think that, considering the prejudice, hostility, and outright physical danger homosexuals face on a daily basis, the condemnation to eternity in hell from other Christians (if they happen to be Christian), and the difficulties surrounding having children, that they choose their sexual orientation for some strange and perverted reason?
Since you are a Christian, you might consider the fact that God created homosexuals, that he might have a purpose and a plan for them that you know nothing about, and that perhaps you should leave the judging of homosexuals up to God, because He’s the one who will be deciding who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell, not you, and not Jack Chick, and not any other preacher or pastor or minister or priest. Make sure your own life is perfect in the eyes of God before you start meddling in how others live their lives.