Something I need to get off my chest about the SD Board

The BBQ Pit
81

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by His4ever *
**

You’re probably not a liar (or so I hope) but you’re deceived and are following the lead of liars. Both atheists like me and christians like other posters think the same about it, for different reasons. If I were you, I would hope that atheists are right because oblivion would be way better than the fate promised to you by your religion.
You shouldn’t expect too firmly to enter the Kingdom before the “sodomites”…

  • But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee * (Matthew 11:24)
82

Same here, which is why I’m confused about H4E’s stance.

83

Kirkland1244, DuckDuckGoose and a few others, you are I think guilty in at least one case of being a bit hypocritical when you dismiss H4E’s citing of the book on Mormons as being a P.O.S. written by a disgruntled ex-Mormon due to statements made by Mormons. In other words, you are claiming that the book is false because someone of that faith disputes that. Yet, when a person comes here and claims that Xenu is full of it because they are a $cientologist and know better, I’m sure all of you would be all over that person.

I am simply pointing out a double standard that I see here when you blithely accuse H4E of duplicity, using the only arguement as being ‘A person of that faith says it ain’t so.’ when the same arguement could be used against you.

DDG at least makes up for it a bit mentioning that she hasn’t just taken someone involveds word for it.

[sub]Feel a bit dirty here.[/sub]

84

Exactly.

Although I understand the sentiments of many of the posters saying “liar”, I think they’re missing an old saw about how one should “never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.”

On the other hand, I could be wrong: I’m waiting to hear her(?) response to my earlier post.

Fenris

85

Many of the stories about Scientology can be corroborated by non-biased sources. The post 9-11 telephone scam, for example, was covered by legitimate news sources. If H4E could somehow find legitimate sources that would back up her claims (How likely do you think that is?) I would consider them.

86

Yeah, I’m still waiting for a response as well. I wonder how many of our questions she’ll answer.

Yeah, I’m still waiting for a response as well. I wonder how many of our questions she’ll answer.

Grendel72

That is a good point.

87

**H4E wrote:

Mr. Grendel, the words abomination and unnatural are straight from the word of God as I was quoting Scripture.**

Not only no, but HELL NO!!

What you’re quoting is an interpretation of a translation of a translation of a translation that was written down years, prehaps decades after the original events transpired. All you’re doing is regurgitating what you’ve been spoon-fed over the years.

Now, if you can demonstate fluency in ancient Hebrew and Greek AND show those statements in the context of the cultures from which they derive, then there’s good reason to listen to you and your opinion.

Otherwise, you’re not better than a trained monkey at a circus who can plink out “Mary had a Little Lamb” on a toy piano.

88

Freyr you know he/she is going to reply (if at all) with “but the translations were supervised by the hand of God” don’t you?

89

I just need to say that I’ve found that there are some very rude, hateful people on this board.

Yes, there are. That’s what the ignore button is for. Use it.

90

Step up ladies and gents, and see the patented Fundie PseudoChristian Arrogance Extraordinaire! Whose the final arbiter of what the Bible means? His4Ever! Whose doctrinal positions will others be judged by? His4Ever!

So you come on here and say Catholics worship the saints, and we present you with evidence that that is not so, in the form of the official teachings of the Catholic Church, when all you have on your side are some lame comic books, and you don’t see that your evidence is flawed: ie, biased, bigotted and evil?

My God, you are so incredibly fucking stupid.

Who gives a flying flip? All that matters is if her statements match up to the official doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church. Several Mormons on here have proven that they do not. The official doctrines are all that matter. It doesn’t matter what Monty says, or what your old bitty says, only what the Mormon Church says, when it comes to the belief of the Mormon religion. And the official doctrines and documents of LDS agree with Monty, not your enfeebled old hag.

So in other words, your position is based on bullshit.

His4Ever, you ignorant slut. You don’t get to choose about facts. Either something is a fact or something is not. There can be no opinion when it comes to fact. The only source for fact on the teachings of the LDS is the LDS. The LDS’s documents do not match your “source.” IE, you are spreading lies when you shovel that horseshit.

Do the world a favor. Play in traffic.

Kirk

91

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by His4ever *
**

My friends call me Kirkland. You may call me Mr. McPike. Or Sir. Or don’t call me at all, because I won’t take your call.

And if you don’t want to be called a liar, don’t traffic in the lies of scum like Jack T. Chick. Everyone else on this board, which is everyone with two brain cells to rub together, realizes that Mr. Chick is lying filth, the sort of vermin who deserve to have their flesh ripped off their bones by rabid dogs. Yet you support him? Why?

Even when everything he says can be shown to contradict the actual positions of the groups he hates. A quick trip to www.vatican.va and a search through the documents of Vatican II, or a trip to your local bookstore or library to pick up a hardbound copy of the same, would call him out on the bullshit he spreads about Catholicism. Yet you support him. Why?

The same is true of Mormonism.

Why do you support someone when a simple overview of the actual teachings of either of these bodies refutes his statements?

Oh, bt what do I know? I’m just a stupid hell-bound faggot, according to your Sky Pixie Demon God and your great Profit [sic] Jack T. Chick.

You said Catholics worship the saints. A quick glance at the teachings of the catholic church regarding this issue shows that there is a distinct and explicitly designed difference between what is rendered to the saints and worship. Ergo, you are either a liar or one so stupid that you fall for and parrot lies regularly.

You say that gays can’t be Christians. We have gay Christians right here on this board. I know several others among those who go to my Church every week, and are just as faithful as you. Ergo, you are either a liar or one so stupid that you fall for and parrot lies regularly.

There’s nothing in this world I could learn from a dimwit like you, who has whored her soul out to Jack T. Chick to work in his brothel of lies.

Who am I? Someone who knows the facts, and is a whole hell of a lot smarter than you’ll ever be.

Everyone around here may hate me, but at least, when I wake up each morning, I’m not you.

I call a thing, and a person, what it deserves to be called. Call it namecalling if you want, I call it identification. Give a thing a name of your own choosing and it can’t hurt you.

And what’s so bad about being called by a name you don’t like? I’ve certainly been called a few names in my time (heretic, heathen, Papist, Romanist, faggot), and usually by scum like you. I wear them as badges of honor.

And goody goody, you’ve stepped into my parlor: the Pit, where I can use any word in the world to describe the foulness that you are (stupid Puritanical nonsense about “bad words,” there’s no such thing as a bad word, unless one’s being used incorrectly).

Kirk

92

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by His4ever *
**

My friends call me Kirkland. You may call me Mr. McPike. Or Sir. Or don’t call me at all, because I won’t take your call.

And if you don’t want to be called a liar, don’t traffic in the lies of scum like Jack T. Chick. Everyone else on this board, which is everyone with two brain cells to rub together, realizes that Mr. Chick is lying filth, the sort of vermin who deserve to have their flesh ripped off their bones by rabid dogs. Yet you support him? Why?

Even when everything he says can be shown to contradict the actual positions of the groups he hates. A quick trip to www.vatican.va and a search through the documents of Vatican II, or a trip to your local bookstore or library to pick up a hardbound copy of the same, would call him out on the bullshit he spreads about Catholicism. Yet you support him. Why?

The same is true of Mormonism.

Why do you support someone when a simple overview of the actual teachings of either of these bodies refutes his statements?

Oh, bt what do I know? I’m just a stupid hell-bound faggot, according to your Sky Pixie Demon God and your great Profit [sic] Jack T. Chick.

You said Catholics worship the saints. A quick glance at the teachings of the catholic church regarding this issue shows that there is a distinct and explicitly designed difference between what is rendered to the saints and worship. Ergo, you are either a liar or one so stupid that you fall for and parrot lies regularly.

You say that gays can’t be Christians. We have gay Christians right here on this board. I know several others among those who go to my Church every week, and are just as faithful as you. Ergo, you are either a liar or one so stupid that you fall for and parrot lies regularly.

There’s nothing in this world I could learn from a dimwit like you, who has whored her soul out to Jack T. Chick to work in his brothel of lies.

Who am I? Someone who knows the facts, and is a whole hell of a lot smarter than you’ll ever be.

Everyone around here may hate me, but at least, when I wake up each morning, I’m not you.

I call a thing, and a person, what it deserves to be called. Call it namecalling if you want, I call it identification. Give a thing a name of your own choosing and it can’t hurt you.

And what’s so bad about being called by a name you don’t like? I’ve certainly been called a few names in my time (heretic, heathen, Papist, Romanist, faggot), and usually by scum like you. I wear them as badges of honor.

And goody goody, you’ve stepped into my parlor: the Pit, where I can use any word in the world to describe the foulness that you are (stupid Puritanical nonsense about “bad words,” there’s no such thing as a bad word, unless one’s being used incorrectly).

Kirk

93

I disagree. I see people who understand the Mormon faith well, follow it, and are to an extent apologists for it as much as anyone else on this board is an apologist for whatever religion. Monty, vanilla et al. are people on this board who have shown that they know their stuff. So if they tell me “No, this isn’t what most Mormons believe”, then based on my experiences with them and based on the fact that at least one of them would have a cite handy, I’m willing to believe them.

The issue isn’t beliefs, I think, but ability to defend those beliefs. As much as I may disagree with, say, Polycarp’s belief that one must believe in God to go to Heaven, I respect him immensely for not only his ability to explain BEYOND using the Bible but for his almost unwaivering ability to keep a cool head about him when others have long passed that point. H4e has demonstrated a general lack of ability to explain/defend her beliefs. For this reason, I think, many of us are not giving her a whole lot of credence or credit, though I see of late that she has demonstrated a willingness to learn, slow though that may be coming.

It isn’t that a person of faith has said that isn’t so. It’s that a knowledgeable person of faith who doesn’t bear a grudge toward that same faith and as such isn’t looking to trash is it saying it. It’s like if I were asked to evaluate the place I went to high school. I would not be able to give a fair critique of it because my memory is so skewed from all the abuse I took there. My experiences in that high school were not what usually happens. As such I would be looking to dissuade people from going there while ignoring some of the place’s merits.

As for whether or not H4e is a liar or not … I think it’s willful ignorance. I think she doesn’t want to challenge what she believes because it works for her. And to the extent that it works for her, that’s fine. Great, whatever. The problem arises when her faith is credibly challenged and she responds by putting her fingers in her ears.

Final note to Kirkland: this is the pit, but that doesn’t mean you can toss insults around like rocks. People have been banned in the past in part for taking things to extreme levels in the Pit. See Jack Dean Tyler for a shiningly rotten example of that. As someone who enjoys a good number of your posts I’d hate to see you banned just because you let someone get too far under your skin:(

94

His4ever

Jesus places only light burdens on people’s shoulders. Be like Jesus.

95

His4ever -

You were set up.

Eve’s original introduction of you made sure to associate you in the thread title with Jack Chick, who is considered both the epitome of evil and a ridiculous figure here on the SDMB. This was interpreted by some posters as marking you as beneath contempt, and not someone subject to the normal rules of Great Debates.

Then, when they had thrown their usual arguments at you, and discovered that you were new enough to this kind of a board that you were not aware of the usual counter-arguments, it turned into a pile on - the same sort of thing that happened in grade school where everyone crowds around the unpopular one and pushes them and knocks their books down and tries to get them to cry.

You have to realize that some posters are not simply reacting to you. They are bringing out the responses they thought up back in school that the gay-bashers didn’t give them a chance to get out. So they lie awake nights thinking what they would say if they got the chance, and you gave them a chance.

Not all posters, of course, but some of the usual suspects.

Like it or not, there is somewhat of a double standard around here. For you to state publicly that you don’t intend to change your mind or debate is considered a dreadful transgression; for lissener to say the same thing is OK. Because he is on the “correct” side of the debate, and you are on the un-PC side. And “conservative” opinions, as december said, are far more likely to bring about the instant request of “cite?” than those from the left side of the spectrum.

Anyway, welcome to the SDMB :rolleyes:, and be aware that not everyone around here is going to agree with you. Not everyone will feel called on to act like a jerk for that reason, fortunately.

Pick what you want. If you really want to debate an issue, be aware that the standards in GD are quite high. Those that feel they cannot or will not live up to that standard, and rely on insults or misrepresentation (hi, Kirkland1244!) can safely be ignored.

Regards,
Shodan

96

I think you better recalibrate that conservative/liberal spectrometer of yours, Shodan. Jack Chick - conservative?¿? Off-the-charts-crypto-fundamentalist-Christian-suffering-from-severe-case-of-paranoid-schizophrenia-expressed-in-comic-book-style is not the same as conservative .

You got it all backwards. Conservative opinions do not engender pile ons. Loony fringe opinions engender pile ons. I have yet to see anyone jump on for instance Jodi en masse while december gets a pretty hard run.

Now I know that you probably think that I’m just one of those damned whacky liberal lefties, so it doesn’t matter what I say. Think more like center right – in other words not so far out on the right axis that that I fall off and bump my head on the Hale Bop comet as you seem to think is admirable, but still leaning your way.

I really wish that you and few others would stop making it an embarrassment to embrace conservative opinions by constantly brandishing the ‘oh oh look at all the homo liberal peacenik dumbasses of the SDMB, they just can’t tolerate us because we are conservative.” Learn what the fuck conservative means before you use it as you rise up to defend the loony fringe time and again, you muppet!

Sparc

97

Wow. That’s some pretty thick bullshit. Asking for evidence is a non-partisan practice, dipshit. Rorshack tests. Check em out.

I couldn’t agree more! I was unaware of the true origins of that phrase. I have previously attributed those words to Voltaire. What an intersesting tidbit, and a bit of ignorance cured. Thank you and welcome to the SDMB, ** Tammi Terrell**. It’s a real pleasure.

DaLovin’ Dj

98

That’s a damned lie and you know it. Hell, I pitted Lissener–but the coward didn’t dare respond–exactly because of the abuse he was handing H4E in GD.

99

When is it ever okay to go into a debate in GD saying “I’m not going to change my mind”?

More like people are used to december not having all his facts in a row, and are wondering where he got his rant du jour. Sometimes he’ll take a piece of otherwise horrible news and put an all-too familiar spin on it.

And that’s just going back to June of this year.

100

Could not the same be said of those who quoted scripture to debunk H4E’s opinions?

Really, I’m not trying stir anything up here.:o