I don’t think it’s intentional obstruction, since God has so many characteristics according to so many different people that you never know what any person has in mind. But it’s true that specifying which characteristics are wondered about would be less of a guessing game. For instance “is your God omnibenevolent, Omni–xxxx, etc.?”
I’d call that ‘fighting the topic’ myself. If someone wants to discuss religion and all someone wants to do is deny its existence over and over…that can have its place. However, if the premise of the thread is something specifically religious then doing so can certainly be threadshitting.
Let me draw an analogy.
“What do you think of the Cubs pitching this year?”
“Cubs suck! Cards rule!”
That’s essentially what I see happening when someone fights the topic on threads covering religious questions. I’d prefer not to.
I don’t know where all that diversionary bait-and-switch came from, but(yet again) the thread being discussed wasn’t a simple declaration about whether or not a Biblical figure existed, and the response that is being criticized is nowhere near “It’s all superstitious nonsense!”
Let’s see again the words you so like to ignore:
and
and that’s just from the first post. In the second post a claim of psychic abilities was thrown in.
I really don’t think that dismissing such a post is an attack on Christianity in general…unless, of course, you faith is so weak that it cannot stand for anything but constant reassurance.
And if this were one of those woo boards where anyone can make any claim, no matter how ridiculous, and other posters either support it wholeheartedly, nod silently, or are disappeared you might have a point.
But I don’t think it is, and I don’t think you do.
Do you not claim to be one of those who *“prefer to converse with those that are willing to listen to, and be open to, viewpoints other than their own”? *
There are such things as limits, ridiculous extremes, delusions and the like, which is why I specifically used the phrase “prefer to…”.
And did I not ask the OP if she/he was open to the possibility that there might be a mundane explanation for the occurrences? It is the OP the ran off, not I.
So, what you’re saying is that you are not “willing to listen to, and be open to, viewpoints other than their own” but** others** must be willing to listen to, and be open to, viewpoints other than their own.:rolleyes:
Because of course- *their *viewpoints are ridiculous delusional nonsense, while your viewpoints are models of rational thought?:rolleyes:
Well, I, for one, am about as hard-core an atheist as they come, and I’m still willing to talk theology on its own merits. I may be an exception… (Also, we atheists disagree with all religions; Christianity gets our attention because it’s the most commonly witnessed faith here. If a die-hard Muslim came to the SDMB and began witnessing, you can bet he’ll get the same push-back.)
I see it as even more negative, as if the response was, “Who cares? Football is America’s national game, not baseball” or “Large-scale sports are a total waste of civic resources and should be banned.”
(At least, in your example, the response, rude as it was, actually did answer the question! Also Go Padres…yeh, I know, fat chance…)
The only “wow” I see is your completely inaccurate reinterpretation of what I said. Next time, why don’t you do us both a favor and just react to my quoted words instead of your reimaginings, o.k.?
I leave you folks alone for 24 hours (pesky job!) and this thing is picking up speed like a hurricane in the Gulf Stream. I’ve got nothing substantive to add at this point, but if somehow this ATMB made the hyperspace jump to the Pit it’d be epic. One for the record books.
Whether our “charter” is or is not “Fighting Ignorance,” factual answers really ought to command higher respect, generally, than what you appear to be advocating here.
And when the answer “no, because they don’t exist” IS the factual answer, it really ought to be given its due.
