Satan,
Glad to know my first guess was on the money (re the definition of a Chick tract). Could I trouble you for some type of explanation as to how the term developed?
Incidentally, I took my daughter to the IHOP for b’fast today. I went to a bank of paper vending machines to get a copy of the comics, and the available selections included an adult tabloid. Sure enough, somebody had slid a tract behind the door, evidently in an attempt to lure some porno-mongers onto the True Path.
Temujin, Temujin, Temujin…
But it did not portray Christianity negatively. It portrayed THIS GUY negatively, it portrayed THOSE WHO ARE LIKE HIM negatively, and it said that PEOPLE LIKE HIM give evidence to people that all christians are like this.
The VERY NEXT FUCKING PARAGRAPH OF THE OP (I repeat… NEXT PARAGRAPH IN THE OP) states a personal friend who is not like this.
As such, the OP represented BOTH VIEWS QUITE NICELY. The problem is that SHE (and apparently YOU) refuse to acknowledge the OP AS A WHOLE!
And it is IMPOSSIBLE to SQUASH A STEREOTYPE if one buries his or her head in the sand and pretends that it doesn’t exist! Think about that for a moment…
As much as this bothers jodih, it is the only response this question deserves - BECAUSE IT DOES!
I hate it when I see a black person arrested on television. The reason why is because it gives more evidence to racists that ALL BLACKS are bad.
And I can, and will, point this out. I do not think that pointing this out will take the civil rights movement back 20 years. In fact, if more people in the black community would point this out, maybe the stereotype would be easier to dismiss.
The way I see it, you and jodih (and your kind) can react to this a couple of different ways:
(1) “I know that some people will stereotype all Christians based on the words of a few extremists, and I will fight that any way I can.”
(2) “I know that some people will stereotype all Christians based on the words of a few extremists, but I really don’t care to do anything about it.”
(3) “Why on earth would anyone stereotype us because of this guy?”
If you choose option three, which you and her apparently have done, you are deluding yourself and obviously know bubkis about human nature.
But even worse, she (and it seems you) added another choice (methinks to avoid the hard issues brought up by addressing it in the other ways) by saying:
“Anyone who brings up an extremist is stereotyping that all Christians are like this.”
And as a glance at the OP AS A FUCKING WHOLE will attest, that is also a stereotype, and you and she are wrong.
Because I am not stupid enough to think that everyone is as smart as I am. Or as educated. Or has friends (who are mentioned in the OP, did I mention that yet?) who they trust who can and will debunk extremism such as this when they ask.
But I still have yet to figure out why you bury your head in the sand… People ARE turned off by people like him. I AM turned off by people like him. Other CHRISTIANS are turned off by people like him.
But I NEVER said that EVERYONE is like him. I only said that it happens that people hear someone like him and say that everyone in the religion is like him. And people do this. Not I, but people do. Deal with it, or continue buring your head in the sand.
I could care less - it’s not my religion. And if enough people start to believe the nonsense said by the likes of him, it won’t be yours for long either.
kaylasdad99:
They are called Chick tracts because they are published by Chick Publications, owned by one Jack Chick. They have a website, but I refuse to look it up because I am weary of dealing with fundaloonies and those who claim to not be, but act even worse.
Hi Monty and Brian,
I don’t think I was deluding myself.
What I saw in this thread was a person (Jodi) who made an observation that could legitimately be made, namely, that your OP appeared to portray Christianity negatively. Brian, you acknowledged just a few posts ago that this criticism would ‘‘make sense.’’ Jodi’s observation could have led to an intelligent discussion. Instead, it degenerated into name-calling and recriminations. During the arguements that followed, it seems everyone lost track of the original point in Jodi’s second post.
Brian, you must realize that people interpret all of your posts in the context of how you present yourself elsewhere on this board. You use the name ‘‘Satan.’’ You are an avowed non-Christian. You frequently create new threads and write posts that offer up unreasonable examples of Christianity for public ridicule (Chick, shove Bible up butt, etc.).
It would be the same if an avowed Republican started a thread that said: ‘‘John Smith, a prominent Democrat, says he believes in euthanizing people older than 85. There are some Democrats who agree. This is the kind of view that turns people off to the Democratic party and makes ALL Democrats look dumb. I have a friend who is a Democrat, and he doesn’t agree with Smith. Guess he’s a bad Democrat.’’
A person could reasonably interpret this post as a straw-man argument against the Democratic party, if it were written by a Republican. Likewise, a person on this board who is familiar with your other threads could interpret your OP as a straw-man argument against Christianity. That might be an inaccurate interpretation, but it would not be unreasonable.
Your OP lends itself to misinterpretation, because it’s as if you are speaking with two voices. First, you make a blanket statement about absolute ‘‘truths’’ uttered by fanatics, ‘‘truths’’ that turn people off to Christianity as a whole and make ALL Christians look like zealots. Then, in what appears to be an afterthought, you mention that you have a Christian friend whom you respect, and who does not agree with the fanatic. The second statement does not alter the meaning of the first statement.
I am reading your OP as a whole. Taken as a whole, a reasonable person could interpret it as an attempt to perpetuate a negative stereotype. This is not an unreasonable interpretation, especially in light of your other public posts, and the fact that you post as ‘‘Satan.’’
I am not attacking you personally, Brian. I believe you when you say that you respect many Christians, and that you dismiss Glidden as a fanatic. I think you try to be honest. I’m merely saying that if you look past Jodi’s annoying posts, she had the seed of an observation that made some sense.
I realize that by posting this unpopular position, I am opening myself up for personal attacks from Monty and you and others. Unfortunately, that’s that nature of this game. I cannot control how you decide to respond to me. (For example, in your post, you make some assumptions about me and my ‘‘kind’’ that I don’t think you know me well enough to make.)
All I am saying is that a reasonable person could intepret your OP differently than you intended. You and Monty and others will argue that your OP was so crystal clear, no person could misunderstand you unless his or her head was in the sand. I just don’t think that’s true.
sigh
Don’t read much, do you. Now, how about addressing the last two paragraphs of the OP and get back to me at some point? After all, I don’t think I nearly brought that up enough, so it’s no wonder both you and jodih missed it…
Her second post was more crap which refused to acknowledge the complaints lodged against her by the first batch of people who took issue with her interpretation of the OP.
Here is her second post in it’s entirety:
Now, what point is there to get from this mess of defensiveness and “I don’t get it” commentary?
What I got was that she still at that point had not gotten the point that, whether she or I like it or not, people like this Reverend DO make all Christians look bad, the same way a million other analogies that have been brought up can cause people to stereotype.
But including even her LAST post was the fact that I believe that all Christians are like that. Again, I guess we have to get you to do this READING thing…
Oh, and if you will notice, Pickman’s Model made commentary similar to jodih’s at the start of this. Polycarp - not myself - suggested to him that he misunderstood me, and PM simply said, “Okay, sorry.” He took Poly and I at our word that I did not say this after one post… Yet, after a million posts, jodih has yet to have listened to a word said.
I think the way I represent myself on this board is consistant with being open-minded. I also listen. jodih is neither of these things.
Yeah, and why don’t you saunter over to the thread about Promise Keepers where I defend them in a room of people who can’t deal with them. Oh, but you know me so well. Because I go by the name “Satan.” Did someone mention stereotyping around here…?
How can you type this with a straight face? Of course if I read this, I would assume that you were making the exact point I did. I would not take offense at that, and I don’t think any rational human being would who could read.
Now, if you are someone who regularly says things you don’t mean, or if you don’t know how to communicate and you meant to impute all Democrats, well, there are remedial English classes…
Even IF it is not unreasonable, is it reasonable to continue to post that inaccurate interpretation when the original thought has been reposted, hacked to death, and explained by both myself and others through dozens of posts?
Even IF I was unclear in my OP, I think by now, having explained my intentions 100 times, that a reasonable person would just say, “okay.” But jodih does not do this. And now you do not do this.
Thus far, no reasonable person has.
But you know enough about me to know how much I hate Christians, eh. Because I use the name “Satan.” Okay. Whatever.
You are entitled to think whatever you want.
Now then, after explaining to you personally how I meant it, you would figure your NEXT post would actually stop battling semantics and get to the question as posed.
Instead, I am still explaining it, and you have yet to add a single thing of merit to the discussion.
Thus far, every avowed non-believer knew what I meant, and many of the Christians whom I respect. One (Polycarp) has fought for the REAL issues to be heard here, but it has fallen upon deaf ears. Pickman’s Model questioned it at first, and quickly said, “okay” and moved onto other business.
A few people of various faiths might have wondered, but took my subsequent many words as to my intentions.
Meanwhile, instead of protecting your faith from the likes of this Reverend, you and jodih feel the need to protect yourself from me and my supposed feelings.
That’s ironic…
And whomever stated that if Polycarp started this thread the responses from jodih and yourself would have been very different (and Polycarp could VERY WELL have started this thread, and using the same verbiage, I would venture to say) is an insightful person.
It’s funny how so-called “moderate Christians” can be so against the extremists, but in the same breath act like the very people they clam to warp their own spirituality.
You know what? Answer these simple YES / NO questions, jodih and Temujin:
Do you honestly believe that I personally think that all Christians are like the Reverend in the OP?
Don’t you think that some people will think (whether it’s right or not) that all Christians are like the Reverend in the OP?
If the answers are NO and YES, then you have finally got the point.
If not, then I have to wonder what you’ve been reading all this time…
I never said you hate Christians. That’s just one example of you misrepresenting what I wrote.
The issue is not my ability to read, as you suggest. Why do you always resort to attacks on people themselves, rather than attacks on what they say? It seems to me that you are not listening to what I said. Yet I am not going to attack your intelligence or your ability to read.
I said that I BELIEVE you when you say you respect many Christians. Look back. You’ll see.
You also wrote:
I did, in my previous post. Again, it seems you’re not listening.
My points are simple and not directed against your person. They are:
That’s all. That’s everything I really wanted to say. I also tried to explain to you why a reasonable person (such as Jodi) might misinterpret your OP.
Please remember: I posted to this thread within 24 hours after you created it, and I did NOT accuse you of hating Christians. I never have. Instead, I addressed the negative stereotype and suggested an alternative. If you don’t recall my post, feel free to look back.
OK, I accept that you reject all of the reasons I gave to explain why someone might see your OP as an attempt to perpetuate a negative stereotype. You don’t think there’s ANY POSSIBLE WAY a reasonable person could misinterpret your OP, because you believe it was so well written. Fine. Let us agree to disagree.
But in the future, I hope you will thoroughly read my posts before responding to things I never said.
In response to your two questions, my answers are 1. no, and 2. yes. However, I would say that any person who thinks all Christians are like the reverend in the OP must be predisposed toward bigotry, because it’s just not reasonable to think ALL Christians are mind-melded zealots.
Also, please stop lumping my views together with Jodi. It’s not appropriate.
I got the point all along. It’s just that unlike you, I understand why some might view your OP as an attempt to perpetuate negative stereotypes.
Damn, Satan, now it’s looking like YOU’RE off in thin-skinned land. As far as my scorecard shows, the only person who (possibly, and I’ll make that probably, if you insist on it) doesn’t agree with you that you weren’t trying in your OP to portray Christianity in a negative light, is jodih. Well, jodih’s gone to the Pit, and she said she won’t be back to this thread. All that the rest of the people coming to jodih’s aid (I won’t say defense, because in my mind, that’s an entirely different thing), as far as I can tell, are just trying to pour some oil on troubled waters. It occurs to me that pouring some oil on troubled waters is just what their faith and its attendant philosophy call for them to do, and I applaud them for answering the call. I sense that sincerity and consistency are qualities which you also find valuable in a person, so I invite you to join me in that applause. I can’t say that I find their tactics to be too effective, but I can’t really tell if it’s because they are being too insistent that you acknowledge some responsibility for the deterioration in the level of discourse on this thread, or because you are interpreting any suggestion that you do so as a personal attack.
Let me just say this: I feel that my outlook on evangelical Christians is closer to yours than to, say, Polycarp’s. When I read in your OP:
I had no trouble with assuming the unstated qualification that the word “people”, in this context, referred to a stereotypical (ironic, isn’t it? ;)) Joe Six-pack who gets his information about the world from the bubbleheaded bleach-blond who comes on at five, and his wife whose primary source of the printed word is most readily found at the checkout counter of the local grocery store. I’ve become that pessimistic about the critical-thinking abilities of the average adult in our society. Having said that, allow me to add that nobody on this thread has impressed me as a paragon of debating etiquette, and I say that without regard to who has been more culpable of shrillness in these exchanges.
But that’s okay. I have no right to expect ideal behavior from anyone. I haven’t behaved ideally on the SDMB myself. I would like to suggest, however, that you lighten up, recognize that you have achieved victory by virtue of the fact that your most vociferous opponent has withdrawn from the field, and accept that victory gracefully. You may feel that jodih let herself in for slash-and-burn responses by seeming to demand that you retract your OP, and stubbornly refusing to accept your well-argued assertions that no retraction was required, and perhaps she did. But I’d like to point out that every minute she spends on the SDMB is a minute that she’s not playing the part of Mrs. Joe Sixpack. As far as I’m concerned, that puts her fundamentally (sorry for the choice of words; I couldn’t resist :)) on our side.
So, what do you think of the Dodger’s chancs this year?
Maleficent: Touch the spindle . . . TOUCH IT, I SAY!
Princess Aurora: (eyeing the spinning wheel, the first one she’s ever seen) What’s a spindle?
from the screenplay for Walt Disney’s “The Sleeping Beauty”, first draft
Okay, then what does this say:
Seems to me that says that I, while not hating (and I think I can be allowed a moment of glibness from time to time), certainly show no tolerance for Christians. Which is not the case. I don’t see a mention of the Promise Keepers thread reply I gave you - I assume this is the jodih debate method… Ignore points that prove you wrong by pretending they didn’t come up.
If you cannot understand my level of frustration at this point, I’m sorry. I just don’t have a great love of repeating myself over and over, that’s all.
In order…
But you didn’t respond to this question before, so I doubt you will now.
Again, I say that no reasonable person would continue after many clarifications on the matter were offered.
My language and personal attacks grew exponentially as to the frustration level of constantly trying to debate someone who cannot debate worth a shit.
And further more, my language is what I choose, and I do not need your permission to be nice or naughty to anyone on this board. You don’t like the way I talk to someone, stay out of it.
I maintain that the OP as a whole, combined with numerous follow-up posts, cannot be misinterpreted by a reasonable thinking human being.
Fine. And I understand why people look at the Reverend’s actions and words and decide that ALL Christians think like that.
I also say they, and you, are equally wrongwrong for doing so.
No, Satan; it’s evidently not Temujin’s inability to read that’s the problem here. It’s obviously his inability to think.
Temujin–
It’s true that it was possible to misunderstand Satan’s opening post to believe that he believed in the stereotypw. But Jodih had it explaind to her that he didn’t mean to and switched to the “perpetuating the stereotype” defense. She had it explained to her again that Satan’s intentions were not to perpetuate the stereotype.
But she wouldn’t drop it. There are now three threads about this thread, all of which are at least two pages.
Personal opinions: The OP didn’t perpetuate any stereotype. He said that people like * Glidden * perpetuate the stereotype. Then he said that he knew that wasn’t the stereotype, so this bothered him.
If Satan was a Christian, this wouldn’t have made any waves. If he had said, this guys makes ** us ** look bad, no one would take offense. So I’ll do it.
I am what is often called aborn-again Christain, though avoid the term like the plague. I prefer to call it a messianic cult of Judaism, if pressed.
My church believes in healing by faith and speaking in tongues. I accept as literal as
much of the Bible as I can without violating the thruths of science. I think much more of it can be than the average person would think. Those are my qualifications for indignation:
This guy is an ass. He makes me look bad and that pisses me off. I am horribly sure that at some point I’ll be arguing a point with a science teacher and he’ll compare me to this guy.
Jodih, you’ll probably yell at me because I’m not involved, but you should get over it.
If Satan perpetuated a stereotype, it’s obvious by now that he didn’t mean to.
Now ** you’re ** making me look bad.
–John
My neighbor left me some chick tracts from her church by my door this morn.Theres one about Halloween;where some teens go to a haunted house,then one gets killed while driving home. Its mentioned that he went to hell because he didn’t accept Jesus in time. Like,hey,he got what he deserved!
Tnank you, John.
Once again, a reasonable person - and gasp a Christian no less (another one, actually) comes to my aid.
Though I’m sure your words will either be ignored or twisted in some way. In fact, since I feel like I’m an expert at this, having been a victim of it for so long, I would say THIS (in italics) would be the reply of jodih and probably Temujim:
And that’s what jodih said all along.
Notice how they might avoid the rest of the comments you make, thus taking the point far out of context.
Well, is it our fault that Satan cannot clearly make his point?
Hey, I’m GOOD at this debating style. Maybe I should try it sometime. Oh wait - That would make me as bad as them. Scratch that thought…
Well, I don’t think you are a real Christian if you don’t have the guts to say Jesus.
Well, maybe they even wouldn’t go THAT FAR, but I take nothing for granted anymore.
Well, why doesn’t he just admit what he really meant then?
This is where they take it back to square one, negating every other word on the subject posted since. A brilliant tactic for those with ADD.
Why do you feel the need to indict me personally? You have to turn it into a personal insult.
This is where they claim that YOU have the faulty debating skills instead of looking in a mirror.
:::sigh:::
Maype I should just stick to smart-ass remarks.
Hello Ai\ Yue- Ha
,
Thank you for your post. It’s refreshing to find someone here to listens and responds without personal attacks.
You wrote:
So I am not the only one who can understand why Jodi made her initial posts.
I acknowledge that in subsequent posts, Jodi lost track of the issues and began engaging in a fight with Brian instead of in a discussion. I never suggested otherwise.
My whole point was that the OP was provocatively written (nothing wrong with that), and Brian should not have been surprised when someone responded the way Jodi did. I can understand Jodi’s response. That doesn’t mean I agree with it (are you listening, Monty and Brian?).
I tried to explain to Brian WHY someone might initially misunderstand his OP. I don’t think he understood what Jodi was saying. Brian was very quick to launch personal attacks against Jodi and draw her into a fight. (He has tried to do the same thing with me.) If Brian had wanted to, he could have responded to Jodi with a reasoned discussion. He did not do this.
I thought it was clear from my posts that I was referring to the first page of this thread, in which Jodi is relatively nice to Brian, and Brian launches into her with personal attacks.
The OP was provocative, especially this sentence:
Brian could have phrased this in a way that would make it less likely to unintentionally offend Christians. His subsequent reference to his Christian friend does not change the meaning of this quote. If he had said of a prominent black person: ``It is guys like this that make ALL black people look bad,’’ the same thing might have happened.
Jodi was responding in her initial posts mostly to this quote, and to the manner in which Christians were portrayed by the example of Rev. Glidden that Brian offered us. Brian’s lenghty post of Oct. 13 at 5:12 p.m. did not address her concerns as I understood them. His main defense of his quote was ‘‘because it does.’’ Of course that is only going to elicit more questions.
Here is what Brian could have said, if he had wanted to avoid compounding the misunderstanding he provoked with his OP: ``Jodi, some people are uneducated and do not realize there are moderate and left-wing Christians in abundance. These are the people I was referring to. I can understand why you might have misunderstood my post, so let me clarify: The only people who would believe this stereotype of Christians are those who are ignorant or predisposed to bigotry.’’
Eventually, Brian made this point, but not until subsequent pages in the thread, well AFTER he already had began attacking Jodi personally.
But in his 5:12 p.m. Oct. 13 post, Brian did not do this. Instead, he said bluntly: ``because it does,’’ which isn’t completely true, because sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes, absolute ‘‘truths’’ like this do NOT turn people off to Christianity, because they understand Christianity is more complex than what this guy is saying. Sometimes, guys like Glidden do NOT make all Christians look like mind-melded zeolots, for the same reason. Brian did not make these qualifications in his response to Jodi’s second post.
Instead, Brian was even more provocative, listing other unreasonable things that people like Glidden believe, and then saying of Christianity as a whole:
Brian’s OP was provocative and unclear, and his initial responses to Jodi were provocative and unclear. By the end of the first page of this thread, Brian already was verbally assaulting Jodi as a person.
Jodi didn’t help her case by playing along with the fight, but what Brian did was not fair.
Yeah, Temujin; I’m listening to someone who’s obviously self-deluded: you. I still don’t agree with a thing you’ve said. But I sure as hell listened to it.
Brian,
You wrote (in reference to my comments about your screen name):
That’s not what I said. My comments were intended to explain to you why a reasonable person might misunderstand your intentions. I never said you were hateful of or intolerant toward Christians. I said a reasonable person might erroneously infer from your actions that when you post anything about Christianity, it is to belittle the religion. (BTW, I don’t think you always do this.)
You’re right.
I didn’t ignore it. I looked up the thread. But since I was never trying to say you hated Christians or were intolerant, the PK thread did not prove me wrong.
I apologize if I didn’t respond to this adequately. Let me clarify: You are right. Jodi should not have continued the pointless fight that both of you started.
I think you’re right about this. But I was referring to the initial posts in this thread. I thought I had made that clear, and I’m sorry if I didn’t.
You’re right. You can say what you want. But I don’t have to stay out of it, particularly when I see a thread like this one in which people gang up unfairly on one person whose original observation was legitimate (if incorrect).
I hate to see unfair personal attacks, such as the attacks you launched against Jodi. They make me angry. That is my emotional response to injustice, and sometimes I act on it.
With all of those qualifications, you might be correct. However, that does not alter the fact that it is possible (even likely) for someone to misunderstand your OP. All I’m saying is that I don’t think you understood why Jodi initially raised her objection, and you provoked her into a fight by attacking her person.
You think I’m doing what now? Sorry, but I don’t understand what you’re responding to here. If you mean to imply that I think ALL Christians think like Glidden, then you misunderstood me.
Thank you for a post that did not attack me personally.
Monty,
Your post was hilarious. Especially:
Well, here are a few things you disagree with, then:
and
and
In any case, I think you really DO agree with these statements. In response to the issue you raise: Am I delusional? In all seriousness, if I am, then how would I know?
Then again, I can’t take your post seriously. Your comment about my state of mind is, obviously, an attack against my person, not a response to what I said.
I’m sure you can come up with some other real zingers, too. You’re really good at it! 
To one person. No, make that two now…
Probably to more people than that. Pickman initially misunderstood what you meant in your OP. You might think all your early (Page 1) responses to Jodi were crystal clear, but it seems to me you could have avoided an argument if you had been clearer, instead of trying so hard to draw Jodi into a fight.
I can recognize clear writing when I see it. I know what it looks like when a person expresses an idea in simple, straight-forward terms that are unlikely to be misunderstood. I’m sorry, Brian, but your writing does not meet this standard. Your ideas get muddled. For example, early in this thread, Jodi said, ‘‘I’m guess I’m just not getting the point of the post.’’ You responded:
Huh? THAT was the point of your post? The point of your post was that Jodi shouldn’t be outraged with you? Of course, I see where you try to get Jodi to direct her outrage at Glidden, which is what your post intended. But the way you wrote this was not clear. Your ideas are muddled. This post was more likely to put Jodi on the defensive that help her understand what you meant.
Don’t you think it would have been clearer if you had said something like: ‘‘The point of my post is that Glidden does not represent Christians, but unfortunately, some people who don’t know any better will stereotype all Christians based on what this guy says. The point is that this is bad, so I wanted to highlight Glidden’s views and give more reasonable Christians an opportunity to set the record straight.’’
That was the REAL point of your post, right? So why didn’t you come right out and say it clearly? If you had done so, I doubt Jodi would have been drawn into a fight.