You make a good point. But I don’t think they are really basic questions. I can tell them that I really don’t know that but I’ll research it and get back to you.
I understand what I believe. I believe Christ took the sins of the world on our(the whole world’s) behalf so we could regain our relationship with God by just trusting in Him as our Saviour.
Great verse. But it speaks of the reason for your hope not how did starlight each the earth from distant stars, if the earth is only 6,000 years old? I bet that would have been tough for Peter.
I’m assuming that Ben’s post must have crossed with Bill’s. I also appreciate what appear to be sincere attempts to answers the questions posed.
Bill, I am going to ask a followup question, though. If evolution should not be taught because few people will actually use it in their day-to-day lives, then why should heliocentrism or calculus be taught? What’s the key difference between these and evolution that makes the difference?
(I had a whole list, but I think you’re right that involuntarily being pulled into a “I’ll answer your questions” thread is something of an imposition on your time. So I’ll just ask the one).
If you mean that it is the Christians’ responsibility to witness to children, I respectfully disagree (you were speaking about children in the first half of your sentence). I was raised Christian by a very very fundamentalist father, and let me ask you what child wouldn’t be very prone to embrace the religious views of a parent who convincingly tells him he will suffer eternal damnation for not having asked Jesus into his heart? I for one am fully intending on teaching my future child/children about as many different religions as I can find in the most unbiased way possible, and then sitting back once they have found a spiritual path that means the most to them. My father will never admit to himself that his early-aged witnessing might have failed.
This is just my 2 cents, and there’s a distinct possibility I’m mis-interpreting your post (if so, sincerest apologies!)
Ben, you are a cockeyed optimist if you think WB will ever stop making statements and then weasling when he’s called on them.
Maybe someday WB will post and say “SURPRIZE! I’m really very intelligent, have a firm grasp of grammar and punctuation, and am fully prepared to defend and debates my views on this board with well-thought-out arguments as well as an open mind to other possibilities.”
In Bill’s defense, I do have to say that he published a retraction of his statement about evolution causing people to be atheists over on the Pizza Parlor, combined with his speculation (which I share) that it’s sometimes used as a rationalization for absence of belief. (Which is not slamming thoughtful atheists – simply saying that for some people, the apparent flaws in Scripture vis-a-vis science make a useful justification for what they intended to do anyway.)
I think he can be a thoughtful and insightful man when he puts forth the effort, and I’ll wager that he does follow through on looking into at least some of the questions brought up, as he said he would.
FTR, I wanted you to know that although one of my fav phrases is ‘goddamm christians’ (one of the neatest puns, IMO), I do try to judge a person individually. And while I don’t care for the less thoughtful of your breed, as with any breed, even mine own (a breed which seems to have only one member, unless you count the crustaceans), I do know thoughtfulness, kindness, compassion, intelligence and humanity when I see it. These transcend any silly categorization such as religion, and you exhibit these.
What I’m trying to say is that some of you seem to be worrying that WB reflects badly on you.
Not to those who think, he doesn’t.
Bill, I do kinda like you. And I swear to God, you’re about the best spectator sport I’ve run across in a liong time.
And I have tracked you a little on the board Poly references. I really don’t think you’re stupid at all- a little thoughtless at times, but not willfully so, in the main. Not much worse than anybody, and better than some.
Just IMHO.
I’m not sure if this is what you are looking for, but here goes:
**Luke 12:48 ** But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
I often disagree with the views of Wildest Bill. So what? I don’t expect people who have strongly religious views to be able to put logic over faith in a way I would find satisying. I could care less if he uses “proper grammar”. Why do you care so damn much? I think that Bill’s “good old boy” persona is genuine and that in its spirit he has unfailingly been polite to many people who have been rude and hypocritical. I think many of Bill’s posts have been pretty interesting – e non ben trovato…
More to the point, Bill’s opinions are, I suspect, fairly widespread outside of this forum. If you disagree with Bill (and I certainly do), you clearly disagree with the religious in America who cannot clearly explain their views on evolution, or believe church should play a role in government. I might find these views more frustrating if I lived in the U.S. – they are far less widespread in Canada; the Reform party was HAMMERED by the media for stating the 6000 year doggerel. You cannot convince Bill with your rational arguments, just as you cannot convince the millions of Americans who do not believe in evolution despite years of education. But Bill is not a suitable target for your frustration; I think he has tried to answer your questions here. If his views are non-typical of Christians on the whole, and I have no idea, so much the power to him. Do you believe in freedom of religion?
My parents taught me nothing about Islam. What have you taught your kids? Bill is being honest here. He was honest with why he wanted to use steroids. He was evasive about being ticketed by cops, sure, but lots of Dopers are evasive when asked the tough questions (some more than others, I guess) and I found the thread very entertaining. If you can’t fight ignorance and win over Bill, it’s going to take even longer than you thought. There’s more to life than fighting ignorance. Bill shows more character than many people on this board – I’d love to go drinking with him sometime. I can’t say that about everyone here, I’m afraid. I wouldn’t eat no motherfucking dog, neither. Personality goes a long way.
I wouldn’t have responded to this thread–I have to be in the right mood to fight about religion–but then Wildest Bill said this:
Bill, to the east of me is the city of Williamsport, Pennsylvania. Williamsport is best known outside the area for being the home of the Little League World Series, but a couple days ago it made the news for a high school shooting. You may have heard of it, because it was unusual in that the shooter was a girl. But the factoid that makes me bring it up here is that the school in question was a Catholicschool. Catholic schools, I suspect, have precisely the bigger role for the Bible that you would like to impose upon public schools…and yet in Williamsport there is a 13-year-old Catholic school girl who was shot in the arm, and a 14-year-old Catholic school girl who is in police custody for it.
Inevitably after this sort of incident there are letters to the editors calling for “bringing God back into the schools,” or some such. This time…maybe the letter-writers should think better of it.
Just wanted to get something straight. By “them” did you mean the public schools or the books of the Bible? 'Cause I’ve read the Bible and I’ve been to public school, and while some of my fellow classmates were unpleasent, when it comes to killing and hatred, I found a lot more in the former rather than the later.
So? I’m not asking him to put logic over faith. I’m asking him to recognize the fact that people have done him a great compliment: they have taken him seriously enough to write well-thought-out replies to his posts. They could simply dismiss him as being an idiot, a kook, a lazy swine, but they don’t. In return, he’s ignored their arguments and flung insults at them.
**
Because people have asked him several times to make an effort to write clearly, and he just ignores them. As has been pointed out several times before, WB preaches Christianity, but is too lazy to show even basic consideration to others. Fortunately, this thread seems to have prompted him to be more careful.
**
I find it fascinating that so many people defend WildestBill as being “unfailingly polite.” Here’s something I wrote in the abstinence thread:
Since then, WB has started a thread to complain about fundamentalist Christians being referred to as “fundies,” only to go on to refer to the ACLU as the “Anti Christ Lovers Union” when people try to discuss constitutional law with him.
Wildest Bill, do you think you were “unfailingly polite” when you referred to the ACLU in that fashion, or do you think you violated your own standards of etiquette, which you set forth in your own thread?
**
Did I say they weren’t interesting?
**
WildestBill, are you going to stand for this kind of insult?
Did I say I was trying to convince WildestBill?
**
Yes, and all we had to do was ask each question three times, and start a Pit Thread.
**
:rolleyes:
Do you believe in freedom of speech?
**
Dr Paprika, do you have any idea of the context of that question? WildestBill very angrily stated that I had a parental responsibility to teach my children about Christianity in enough detail that they could decide whether to convert. When I asked him if he intended to teach his children similar information about Islam, he lied and said that he would. When I asked him a few times what he had taught his children, WB decided to ignore my questions. Now, at long last, he has finally decided to be honest. You seem to want to create a catch-22: since Bill is being honest now, you criticise me for starting the thread which prompted him to drop his dishonesty in the first place.
WildestBill, thank you for taking the time to address my questions. Your comments have been very interesting, and any of them could be the start of a fun conversation. If you’d like to continue talking about any of them, I’d ask you to start a thread in GD so we can move this out of the Pit.
I’m mildly fascinated, Ben, you thought I was criticizing you for starting this thread. I don’t think I said this explicitly, nor implicitly by stating my views.
I do think people have characterized Bill on several occasions as an idiot and a moron. I don’t know about kook. I doubt he has been called lazy.
I’m not sure Bill is capable as writing as clearly as many of the people on this board. I can understand his points when he has enough conviction to make one. I find no offense in his folksy tone or use of grammar. I think he is often evasive but this does not bother me. I don’t think he can come up with good arguments for some of his claims and this also characterizes my views on many zealots. I don’t think he would be persuaded by rational arguments, nor would many religious people. That’s why I read Bill’s debates rather than try to persuade him otherwise.
I have no intention of reading all of the threads Bill has been involved in. From the ones I have read, Bill has been polite under provocation, but I agree his comments from the snippet you provoked were insulting and rude, and he has not been unfailingly polite.
Call me ungrateful if you wish, but I don’t consider ir a “great compliment” when someone answers my threads. I try to give detailled answers to some medical questions and doubt the people I respond to consider it a “great compliment” that I took them seriously either. It’s sort of business as usual at a message board, no?
Bill is evasive. The fact he answered your questions at all is a little surprising despite the effort it took. But I think you have to (and do) accept he did try and answer them at some point, which is more than many posters with similar beliefs. I think I give him the benefit of the doubt he answered them as best he could. And personality counts for something.
I doubt Ben follows the rules he set out for Wildest Bill.