Actually Duck Duck Goose posted this Mormon reference site for His4ever and got a reply of
So its not just up to taking someone’s word for it. She later said again
That sounds pretty head in the sand to me. There is also the implication that the belief’s she disagrees with make a particular denomination unchristian-but that’s not explicitly stated.
DDG (and others) brought up repeated cites to show the beliefs that H4E ascribed to Mormonism were not true and that there were some conservative Christian organizations who say these things but are opposed to Mormons. Not an objective source in other words. Several books were also offered as references and H4E has indicated that she is not going make the effort to read them (at least not the ones on Mormonism). So I’m not seeing H4E doing any thinking about this topic or admitting that she might be wrong.
I’m normally a lurker but I’ve learned a lot in Great Debates when two intelligent, informed people go at it. Falling back on the “I’m right because I am” doesn’t seem quite like Great Debates and (IMHO of course) isn’t what these boards are about.
That pretty well is a generic protestant statement. Its one thing to say that Roman Catholicism is in error, but His4ever has never claimed Catholics are not Christians. I chooze to believe that the extent of her agreement with Jack Chick is to take issue with unique Catholic teachings. Once again she has not claimed Catholics are not Christians.
The oft repeated smoking gun I’m looking for is the assertion that His4ever claimed Catholics worship saints and that Catholics are not Christians in her own words. And why is it important to you two ? You two guys, ,grendel72 and Kirkland1244
think religion is full of shit anyway don’t you?
That is to say… if Jack Chick says “Catholics aren’t Christians”, and H4E says, “I agree with him”, she’s agreeing that Catholics aren’t Christians.
You seem as hesitant to accept evidence as H4E, Grieny. Why is that? You wouldn’t be wanting to just be riling people up now, would you? You wouldn’t be looking to being contrary just for the sake of being contrary?
Rather than trolling, try reading the thread you’re spewing in, asshole.
She said ‘I do read the Bible for myself and fyi I do not worship or follow Jack Chick. If I ever see anything in his tracts I disagree with I’ll stop using them.’
I’m waiting for her to say she’ll stop using them, in light of my (and other’s) posts. Or does H4E agree with Chick’s anti-Semitic worldview?
And Lib, she’s following an anti-Semite who uses Nazi-propaganda style illustrations to portray Jews: (another example: look at the doctor who says “He’s got fluid in his lungs” about half-way down the page of Chick’s smear tract. Note the similarities to the Doctor in the Nazi anti-Jew propaganda book The Toadstool. Another page from The Toadstool actually “describes” a Jew from the Nazi (or Jack Chick) perspective: ("“One can most easily tell a Jew by his nose. The Jewish nose is bent at its point. It looks like the number six. We call it the Jewish six. Many non-Jews also have bent noses. But their noses bend upwards, not downwards. Such a nose is a hook nose or an eagle nose. It is not at all like a Jewish nose.”
“Right!” says the teacher. “But the nose is not the only way to recognize a Jew…”
The boy goes on. “One can also recognize a Jew by his lips. His lips are usually puffy. The lower lip often protrudes…”). That’s not God’s Burden on her. If anything, it’s Satan’s.
Or am I completely misreading your post? It sounds like you’re encouraging her.
What I’ve said to her here and elsewhere three times now without any response from her is that Jesus places light burdens on people’s shoulders. It is the devil who places heavy burdens.
To tell a gay man that he is condemned is to place upon him a heavy burden. Using the Bible, citing it as an authority for her views in order to point out what is wrong with other people, is using the Bible as a loadstone.
I am saying to her, “Do not place the burden of your prejudice and ignorance upon the shoulders of others. Do as Jesus did and place only love upon them.”
This business of “God condemns homosexuality” and the like is so pathetic simply because there is not one person on earth, including His4ever, who does not do what God has condemned. If that weren’t true, there’d be no need for Jesus.
Jesus said that by whatever measure we judge, we will be judged ourselves. It therefore behooves us to place light burdens upon the shoulders of our brothers and sisters lest we find ourselves loaded with more weight than we can bear.
“Take my yoke upon you, for my burden is light and easy to bear.” — Jesus
Grienspace, you have managed to confirm every doubt I have had about your level of intelligence. Not that being less intelligent than the norm is a bad thing; some people are unable to make decent jumpshot, others can’t lift more than their body weight, and you are unable to follow a simple argument.
How you you derive this conclusion
from this statement
only shows that you cannot parse a simple declarative sentence.
His4Ever said, “If I ever see anything in his tracts I disagree with, I’ll stop using them.” That sentence begins with a conditional clause–“If I ever see anything in [Jack Chick’s] tracts I disagree with”–the corollary of which is that H4E has not yet seen anything in Chick’s tracts that she disagrees with. Since we know she has read the tracts pertaining to homosexuality, Judaism, the LDS, and Islam, the conclusion we draw is that she agrees with Jack Chick’s deceitful, hate-filled diatribes against gays, Jews, Muslims, and Mormons, not that “perhaps she is writing an article criticizing Chick in the weekly newsletter of her church.”
Now I know you don’t understand this because you have demonstrated that you lack the intelligence to follow the argument, but that’s OK.
FWIW - My use of the term ‘conservative’ was meant, in this thread, as shorthand for ‘any opinion suggesting that homosexual behavior is morally wrong’.
And please don’t infer from my misuse (apparently) of the term that december or any other conservatives agree with His4ever’s views on gay behavior or Jack Chick. I believe many of them have stated for the record that they do not.
But I found it disingenous, for instance, that whatever His4ever posted is instantly dismissed by saying, “That’s just your interpretation”, but counter-arguments that the prohibitions on homosex in Scripture are “really” only aimed at forbidding ritual cult prostitution are taken at face value.
As I have said, the topic seems to be a highly charged one to some posters. Discussions of race, of how much responsibility rape victims hold for being attacked, and of gay rights, all seem to founder when statements like “I disapprove of what you do on moral grounds” are interpreted as “I think you should be killed”.
Now if I could only be certain that no one would interpret this last as a death threat…
Thank you Lib: I’d never heard that phrase before and I didn’t think it possible that you meant it the way I was taking it. I thought you meant something like “Bear the burdens of the ‘abuse’ you’re suffering here as Jesus never puts more on your shoulders than you can bear.”
And that didn’t seem to fit with my knowledge of you and your beliefs at all OR of H4E’s writings, hence my confusion
Holy fucking shit, are you that stupid? Right before that line she says “Sorry, I have to agree with him on catholicism.” He claims that Catholics are not Christian, loudly and proudly, as anyone remotely aware of the Chickster can tell you, and she says, explicitly, that she agrees with him. What dots are you failing to connect?
There is nothing to indicate that she is signing on for only some of his perverted teachings. She doesn’t say “I agree with some of what he says,” she lays claim to the whole enchilada.
She claims, in that same post, that Catholics worship Mary, and Mary is a Saint. And she has laid claim to all of Jack’s repetoire with her own explicit words. You’re the one whose choosing to contort her words to not mean what they clearly say “Sorry, I have to agree with him on catholicism.” She doesn’t say “Sorry, I have to agree with him on catholicism regarding some things,” or “Sorry, I have to agree with him on catholicism regarding the following:” She makes a simple statement. And since we all know a “Christian” like H4E can’t lie, I’ll take her at her word.
Not in the least. I spend a good portion of each week in church. Now, fundamentalist pseudo-Christianity is full of shit, in fact, its substansively evil, and perverts and lays waste to the minds of those stupid enough to follow it. But religion itself? I love religion, religions of all shapes, sizes and colors.
Honestly folks, is there anything left to say?, is there an insulting term somewhere that somebody forgot to use?
For the record, I don’t agree with H4E’s stance on the issues that we discussed (or tried to), but I would like to express my dismay at what I have seen in this thread.
If nothing elsel, consider how closely some of the responses here mimic the behaviours of the ‘bad guys’ in the Chick comics; you’re making him right.
Well, I figure I probably could get everyone to be happy if only I’d just say “Hey, guys, I finally figured out that I’m wrong and you’re right. Your sources are right, mine are wrong, I’m going to change my whole belief system”. I’m afraid it isn’t going to work that way. There is one thing I have learned here, though. Anytime I visit a message board, I should “lurk” as you guys call it before I jump right in sharing my beliefs. I should see what other people are saying and try to decide if I should say anything or not. Or see how they talk to each other when they disagree on something.
Do you have trouble picturing that god wearing his “burning bush” hat? Didn’t he come as a cloud to Mt. Sinai (or so legend would have it)? If he can be a burning bush and a he can be a cloud without being more than one god, how does a human and a spirit differ? Matter of fact, since he is so all powerful (according to him ((supposedly)) ), can’t he just go ahead and say 3=1 and it is so simply because he said it is so?
There have been only two intemperate posters in this thread (hi, Grendel and Kirkland!; other posters, like Homebrew and Jodi have responded with cogent arguments to counter H4E’s assertions. unfortunately, H4E responded only to the insults and completely ignored the sensible counter-arguments, and that is entirely her fault.
And no, rude posters do NOT make Chick right. There is no logical way to conclude that because some responses were off the wall, therefore gays are degenerates, Mormons have many wives, Catholics worship statues, and Islam was a creation of the Vatican.
They do sincerely believe that you are wrong H4E and I have to say that (although I’m not dumb enough to think that I have a truly neutral stance on any subject) there are certain undertakings that are truly futile on a board that is dedicated to critically examining issues; it’s not good enough to enter a debate with unsupported opinions, or even opinions that are only supported by a very limited range of sources and are at variance with observable facts.
It’s not good enough, for example (and it is only an example; I’m not suggesting that you did exactly this) to back out of a debate saying “well, I don’t understand what you are saying but I believe you are wrong” (for good examples of this, check out some of the Creation/Evolution debates where Ben (with his extensive first-hand knowledge of genetics) got involved).
Of course it’s not true that the majority is always right, but when presented in a debate with a wealth of evidence that systematically refutes your assertions, you can’t just dismiss them or refuse to look (well, you can, but I think that would entail losing the argument).
Frankly, I’m surprised that you have stuck around after this much of a grilling; It would be great if you did stay and participate, but lurk and learn what is expected first (and no, it isn’t automatically expected that you modify your views to match the majority, but when you assert something as factual, expect people to test it).
You’re taking Philippians 1:29 a little too personally, don’t ya think?
What would make us happy is for you to admit that you don’t have all the answers, perhaps you’re ill-informed on some matters and that you might benefit from studying a little more. We’d be somewhat pleased if you’d take your fingers out of your ears and listen to some of our responses to you and try to address the issues in a debate. I’d personally be tickled pink if you’d admit that you don’t have a direct line to God and that your interpretation is just that - your interpretation and not The Word of God from On High, infallible, Holy and unquestionable. Several of us would be downright astonished and probably oragasmic if you’d actually admit that you’re wrong on any subject (Mormons, Catholics or homosexuals) and thank us for the enlightenment we’ve given you.
OK, perhaps I should have worded it a little more clearly, but I can’t really believe that you thought I was suggesting that displays of hostility made Chick right about all of his assertions; my meaning was that such behaviour closely resembles that which he attributes to the opposition; so it does make him appear to be right, furthermore, in the eyes of an uncritical reader, it adds weight to his other views (“see, you only have to mention God and the opposition are screaming and cursing at you; they must be posessed or something”)
