Liberal,
I like your scenario. It fits in very well with my impression of those, shall we say, misguided Fundamentalist folks who sneak into my church’s temples. They pretend to be what they hate.
Monty: exactly.
Klaatu: whatever Poly did or didn’t do or chose or didn’t choose is irrelavent to the point made. The post wasn’t about what Poly did; it was about what Badchad did — or tried to do. Badchad is a fundamentalist Christian bigot who targets the person he believes is the representative of liberal Christianity.
I saw that earlier. So you really believe chad is a fundamentalist Christian? Dude, come on…
Next you’ll tell me der trihs is a pubbie flunky. 
Oh and Lib, I really wanted to say the pejorative for fundamentalist, but after reading the other thread, I will give you the respect for that. I can be civil. Just don’t call me the C-word.
Not only that, but a bigot as well. Let me provide a TLDNR summary:
-
In his crusade against alleged “hypocrisy”, he attacks nothing besides a liberal Christian. Never a Bush, or a Cheney, or any of a host of politicians. Not even a Jerry Fallwell.
-
As an alleged atheist, he never posts in creationism debates or theological philosophy threads. He never defends atheism beyond pontification and slogans.
-
His attacks are nothing more than pasted lists he has saved. They are always taken from the King James Bible, which no one uses these days except for Fred Phelps types.
-
He is fond of saying how hateful Jesus is. Visit Phelps’s website, and read his FAQ on how hateful God is.
-
He defers to fundamentalist Christians, and has even defended their views.
-
He aims his attacks only at a Christianity that embraces gays and other minorities. He never defends gay rights or the rights of other minorities.
-
He ignores appeals by other atheists to temper his style, boasting instead that his style is intentional. He doesn’t care whether he adds to the hysterical atheist stereotype. In fact, he does it deliberately.
Make of those facts whatever you will.
Simple, BC is a continuing annoyance to many SDMB posters. the *90 lashes * is just the outrage of the day news story that directly affects no one on the board. These horrible things happen without fail and there is only so much outrage to go around. BC directly impacts the board. He is also going after a well liked mod & a well liked poster. To some degree this is also a popularity referendum.
Jim
This almost sounds like you were operating a sock puppet during your time off. I would imagine even you would know better.
Wotan loves you.
Perhaps he is a product of a dysfunctional hardcore fundamentalist upbringing and just hates Christians now. Possibly abused.
Now actually that might lend some credence to your point. Damn, not to sound like Dr Phil.
In point of fact: I used to be extremely hostile in my posts towards fundamentalists and other conservative evangelicals, due to what I perceived as their self-righteous attitude that they and only they were “real” Christians who were, of course, doing God’s will in ostracizing gays, rabbit-punching atheists with their Bibles, etc. (Badchad pointed out the inconsistency in doing this while preaching a Christianity of acceptance and non-judgmentalism, and I’ve now modified my approach to, uh, “hate the sin but love the sinner” ;))
However, in the course of that exchange he made it clear that what had motivated him was the fact that his parents were fundamentalists, and I was in effect attacking them personally.
The other aspect of this, klaatu, is one I’ll explain as soon as you tell me whether you’ve quit beating your wife yet, motherfucker.
That was obviously rhetorical, but my point should be clear: Challenges to what I believe based on content are fine by me; I’ll answer to the extent I’m able. What I find totally unacceptable in Badchad rhetoric is the insistence on ongoing snide remarks and rhetorical questions of the wife-beating sort (is there a name for that trope in rhetoric, by the way?).
But I understand his motivations, and actually care about what they’ve done to him. The thing is that while one should be fearless in standing for what one believes to be the truth, there’s also a bit of wisdom in not walking downcourse at an amateur archery tournament wearing a T-shirt bearing a large Target logo.
I have responded to badchad in exactly the same way that I have responded to any other poster–atheist, Christian, Jewish, Wiccan, or other–with whom I have discussed religion for the nine-and-a-half years I have been participating on SDMB boards. This includes my exchanges with the couple of kids on the AOL boards who were vehemently anti-Catholic and exteremely ignorant with whom I could have wiped the floor without breaking a sweat. I simply do not find this sort of Forum a productive place for me to engage in witnessing in the manner that Poly does. I do not shy from discussions of the general constructs of my faith as I noted earlier in this thread when I responded to a similar claim.
I have made no distinction between badchad and other posters in determining what I will post.
(I have also never, to my memory, made an issue of badchad’s general incivility.)
In contrast, badchad has made more than one attempt to hijack threads in which we were discussing the forms, contexts, media, and related issues of scripture to insist that I do witness to him for his amusement and scorn.
I don’t demand that he go learn something about the ways in which scripture is created as literature and adopted by religious bodies before he be allowed to post his silly nonsense. He does not get to demand that I play his little games.
Lib, so you think badchad is a closeted fundie of the Fred Phelps stripe? Now that’s a big stretch.
One problem I see. How do you explain his contempt for the resurection ?
Poly, I enjoyed your post
tomndebb, This thread should not be included in your pit thread count 
tomndebb, the last statement actually refers to the other thread about you. :smack:
Here’s the thing – participation on these Boards is an optional activity, and no one has to discuss anything that he or she doesn’t feel like discussing, and your thinking that you’d like them to (for whatever reason – their enlightenment, your amusement) is irrelevant.
Excellent points, especially taken altogether. If you’re not onto something, you may as well be, because even if he doesn’t think of himself as a fundamentalist he clearly shares most of their traits.
However, as a very very recently ex-liberal-Christian, I too am starting to believe liberal Christians may be a greater danger than fundamentalist ones. Of course, that doesn’t explain badchad’s insistence on using only fundamentalist “scholarship” and so on, or excuse badchad’s stalkery, but as a general point of the kind I apparently can’t stop myself from making in this thread, I don’t think that part would be suspicious taken by itself.
What comtempt? He could not argue against it more weakly. He insists that if you’re going to believe in a physical resurrection, then you should believe in all the other miracles too. That’s it. The whole of his “argument”. I could attack the resurrection better than he does.
It is called a “complex question” fallacy, or more to your liking probably: “plurium interrogationum”.
Nope, just reading.
In 2003. You answered a grand total of two non-Christain-bashing questions, four years ago.
Prove your hypothetical onlooker exists.
The fact that you didn’t recognize it for what it was doesn’t mean that it failed. It means you’re not as smart as you think you are.
. . . And your talent is baton, your cause is kitten rescue and your gown is by Dior. There is NO evidence you are ANYTHING other than a meanspirited one-trick pony. To claim at this late date and in this context that you have other interests is risible. No one here gives a shit what interests you have IRL, because we don’t know you IRL; we only know you here. And HERE you are the worst example of a one-trick pony to come down the pike since Jack Dean Tyler.
Fair? Sure. But the truth is that only one of us actually cares about the answers. Again, the point isn’t if you have other interests or what those interests are, but that there is absolutely no evidence HERE for them even existing. That pretty much gives a lie to your belated protestations that, hey, that isn’t all there is to you. That IS all there is to you.
And FTR, I don’t think badchad is a troll. I think he’s a jerk. I have no idea why TPTB have not banned him, but those decisions are why they get paid the Big Bucks, right? It’s not really my intention to lobby to have him banned. I’m sure my opinion has been adequately conveyed, so I’ll leave the rest of you to the rest of this thread.
Are you implying that I am missing something here, and because of that my critique of Christianity is unfounded? That Christian belief is more rational and/or less hateful than I say it is? If so, please make the case.
Also are you now willing to admit that there is no rule against suggesting two other posters start a new thread on a given topic?