A number of Christians have spoken up about the persecution affecting them. A number of non-Christians have attested to this fact.
But I'm sure that doesn't matter. Bloodsage says it's wrong!
quote:
JooJooFlop enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
What does YGBSM mean?
You gotta be shitting me.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Mr. Parcelan had this to say about Knight Rider:
Of course, they would be just "rabid conspiracies" if they weren't supported.A number of Christians have spoken up about the persecution affecting them. A number of non-Christians have attested to this fact.
But I'm sure that doesn't matter. Bloodsage says it's wrong!
I'm sure you wouldn't have problems citing a few examples of this persecution then.
quote:
So quoth Mr. Parcelan:
Of course, they would be just "rabid conspiracies" if they weren't supported.A number of Christians have spoken up about the persecution affecting them. A number of non-Christians have attested to this fact.
But I'm sure that doesn't matter. Bloodsage says it's wrong!
Do you know what a conspiracy is? Unless you can prove collusion between those making the allegedly hurtful comments, I suggest you re-think your accusations.
Nor is there anything even remotely resembling persecution going on. Your inability to find a better example to rant about pretty much proves that conclusively.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Zaza was naked while typing this:
I'm sure you wouldn't have problems citing a few examples of this persecution then.
Read: Anything by Karnaj not having to do with anal sex.
And most of the anti-religion sentiment I've seen on the boards is directed at the weirder side of fundamentalism of various religions.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Read: Anything by Karnaj not having to do with anal sex.
From what I've seen he disrespects all theisms, not just Christianity.
If the moderate Christians would like to defuse the situation, they should speak to those who have hijacked their microphones, such as the Falwells and the Bushes, and ask them to back off the "our way or you're going to Hell" stuff. This only invites a backlash, deservedly, imho.
I don't even mind that so much. What bothers me is when they start drafting legislation and constitutional amendments that would impinge upon the rights of consenting adults in their own homes, because their acts don't coincide with their religous teachings. You can believe anything you want to believe, but who are you to turn your views into my laws?
What happened to the ideals espoused in the First Amendment? I think we should all consider Voltaire's statement, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Lastly, an interesting linguistic sidenote. The term "religion" was coined by the Roman poet Lucretius circa 60 B.C.E. in his work, "De Rerum Natura" or "The Way Things Are." It came from the Latinate prefix "re-" (again, or back) and the base "ligio" (to bind), forming what he meant to describe something as that which "binds Man back from his true potential," to paraphrase. I highly recommend reading the translation of it, it's really fascinating.
I'm not Anti-Christian, but I'm not exactly disposed to react kindly after the treatment I've received. I find it refreshing to hear some of the moderate voices out there, and wish they would be less quiet in their reining-in of those who push things too far.
quote:
This one time, at Mr. Parcelan camp:
Read: Anything by Karnaj not having to do with anal sex.
That's what I thought. The problem isn't any kind of persecution, it's inability to differentiate between lack of respect for a concept and lack of respect for a right.
Allow my to phrase this in my own view. I do not respect your beliefs. To me, they are fiction. Make-believe ghosts formed from wishes of a universe with more meaning. I do not respect christ, I do not respect God, I do not respect Allah, I do not respect Buddha. In a very similar fashion, the majority of true christians would not respect Atheism. Why? Because why should you respect the concept of turning away from the creator's light - a grave sin in your religion?
However, there is a very important distinction to be drawn here.
I do not respect your beliefs, but I respect your right to believe them. I do not want religion banned. If anyone attempted to ban religion, I would fight this. Much like I would fight any religion that tried to creep in on the area of law and religious freedom. I also still respect you as a person, based on your actions. If you're a nice guy and peg it all on the word of christ, cool, I still think you're a nice guy, I just don't bother with thanking christ that you are.
I wouldn't mind seeing religion end, but the only way I'll ever try to accomplish that is share my own mindset with other people and hope they latch on.
You're fighting a mind ghost. Noone actively persecutes any religion here. Noone is telling you "You can't be christian" or "You can't be a buddhist". Noone is forbidding you to believe what you want. People are speaking their disapproval of religions, but in the very same fashion, they are speaking their disapproval for smoking, believing in UFOs, line dancing, small children with ice cream, guns, banning guns, banning people who ban guns, etc al. Your religion, nor my atheism, is not beyond reproach and most certainly not beyond humor.
Elsewise we'd be a much more boring forum. Zaza fucked around with this message on 01-26-2005 at 05:38 PM.
quote:
Big Easy had this to say about Cuba:
stuff
First off, I wouldn't lump Bush in with Falwell. I doubt Bush gives a damn about Tinky-Winky. Secondly, what acts of legislation or constitutional amendments are you talking about? Finally, how is any of this relevant to this conversation? JooJooFlop fucked around with this message on 01-26-2005 at 05:44 PM.
quote:
Aw, geez, I have JooJooFlop all over myself!
From what I've seen he disrespects all theisms, not just Christianity.
And that's persecution! I mean, come on, JooJoo. Duh.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj Model 2000 was programmed to say:
And that's persecution! I mean, come on, JooJoo. Duh.
I'll persecute you.
quote:
First off, I wouldn't lump Bush in with Falwell. I doubt Bush gives a damn about Tinky-Winky.
I agree on the Tinky-Winky part, but the fact remains that Reverend Falwell is revitalizing a lobbying group that aided Pres. Bush 41 to get elected with the intent of influencing the legal future of our country. That he has claimed publicly on CNN.
quote:
Secondly, what acts of legislation or constitutional amendments are you talking about?
I'm referring to the gay marriage amendment proposed in the Federal Congress, and also those passed in 11 states this past November, among other goals declared by the ultra-conservatives, who, in the US at least, tend to be religious fanatics.
quote:
how is any of this relevant to this conversation?
This is relevant as it pertains to the arguments that there is an increasing tide of anti-Christian feeling in the country. As I mentioned before, the historical sidenote may not be perfectly on-topic, but it helped to illustrate an interesting facet of the origins of the term. My biographical part you can disregard as you see fit, as it was only intended to give context to my arguments about the problems with Christians I have encountered.
quote:
Bullshit. Read the fucking post that started this thread. That quotation is a quite accurate paraphrase of this:Unless you'd care to point out how my concise paraphrase fails to represent accurately the above several paragraphs, I suggest you concede the point and quit making shit up.
Bullshit, it doesn't sound anything like that to me. You're exaggerating it, pure and simple. His sounds bad, yes, but you put it much worse. Hey, how about we ask Parce if he meant what you said?
quote:
This thread began with Parcelan making wild accusations and generalization unsupported by his example, which, regardless of whether it offends you, cannot be taken by an intelligent person to represent "people who blindly hate Christians for the mere fact that they're Christians."
Wild accusations? Its the truth. There is a definite anti-Christian sentiment on the board. If you don't can't see that, you're blind. He hit the nail on the head. There's plenty of ignorant people, here and elsewhere, that hate Christians because they're Christian.
quote:
I don't give a shit whether you found the joke funny or if it offended you; going off on a foaming rant about anti-Christian hatred and conspiracies is stupid, unwarranted, and worse than the offense being whining about. In short, anyone who goes from that particular joke in that particular context to that particular rant is a prick. And therefore forfeits any right to an apology.
Good that you don't give a shit. That's your call. Parcelan did give a shit though. Maybe he hit his boiling point. That happens to people. Its not like this board is normally a hotbed of meaniningful, intelligent discussion and this killed the board. Oh, and some of us who didn't make the rant post appreciated the apology FYI.
quote:
The only one generalizing is the original poster, thank you.
Um, you generalized too. Number of people have. *shrugs* If you don't think this, then yay for you?
quote:
As for my comments being baseless, that's simply one more example of your inability to read simple English. "You're a prick!" is a baseless insult. "You're a prick for doing X," is, by definition, not a baseless insult. Now go read my post and figure out whether I based my insult upon specific behaviors. Honestly, how can you even write this stuff?
Bullshit, you called him a hypersensitive prick. A numbef of people have said the joke went over the top, so it doesn't seem like he was very hypersensitive here. That means you were calling him a prick with no basis, making it a baseless insult. Of course, you won't agree with me here.
quote:
Finally, get over the ridiculous notion that all opinions are equal simply because they're opinions. That's stupid. It's not elitest to distinguish between opinions; it's called rational thought. You should try it some time. An opinion is a conclusion based on a chain of reasoning. It is only as good as the reasoning that supports it. Parcelan's rant is in no way reasonable given Pvednes' joke--especially the imputation of motive and implication of conspiracy. My opinion is a rather straightforward assessment of someone who flips out, days later, over a joke not even aimed at him, then spreads insults liberally about the place in misplaced righteous fury at nonexistent conspiracies.
I never said all opinions are equal. I just said that you believe your opinion is instantly above all else on the boards, and that's not always correct. Thanks for trying to put words in people's mouths, again. You know, that's a bad habit of yours I think.
Parcelan's rant is a lot more reasonable than your commentary. While note entirely right, his point is correct. Christian on the board have seen a number of insulting jokes thrown their way, sometimes by ignorant fucks (who don't seem to last long) and sometimes by others, and its gotten worse over time. I see this as more of a boiling over point for him in general.
quote:
Feel free to disagree, but cease with the moronic insistence that all opinions are equal. Unless you're up to an in-depth analysis of deconstruction and the philosophy of meaning. In which case, you'd still be wrong, but you'd at least have an intellectual leg to stand on.
Actually, I'd like to see that sir. Go ahead with your "in-depth analysis of deconstruction and the philosophy of meaning". Hey, lets talk about other things that doesn't have a place in this discussion here too. I noticed it snowed outside today. That must mean something to this dicussion. Really, what point does an "in-depth analysis of deconstruction and the philosophy of meaning" have here?
Edit: I just thought I'd point that out to you all... Manticore fucked around with this message on 01-26-2005 at 07:19 PM.
quote:
Manticore had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
This never was a topic of "religion". It was a flame thread flaming Anti-Christians who seem to hate christians just because of their being christian.Edit: I just thought I'd point that out to you all...
It was more a message of "Hay, cut it out" phrased colorfully.
But it's okay, since there is no persecution. Zaza has finally stumbled upon the Christian ploy that we all agreed to intentionally stand in the line of fire during the anti-Christian sentiment in order so that we could make this thread.
"You Gotta Be Shitting Me.."
This is an issue THREE FULL DAYS after the inital comment?
And I find it even more absurd given the person that started this thread and their standard behaviour on these forums.. The man who flings more shit at people on these boards in a hateful, harmful manner than an entire zoo full of monkeys.
You guys all want to try to take the moral high-ground on this and claim persecution over a comment made in jest (be it in poor taste or not is beside the point)? Then let me give you a few things to think about:
"Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone" - John 8:7
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." - Matthew 7:1-5
quote:
We were all impressed when Mr. Parcelan wrote:
It was more a message of "Hay, cut it out" phrased colorfully.
This has to be the biggest load of bullshit I have ever seen on these boards..
You went out of your way to deliberately start a shitfight over something that is quite plainly a joke (an ill-timed joke perhaps, but a joke nonetheless). You stooped AGAIN to hateful, hurtful personal abuse, and then try to claim the moral high ground..
What a fucking crock..
Mods, I suggest this thread be closed. It serves no purpose beyond being the kind of flame that Drysart has said no longer should happen here.
quote:
Cavalier- had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
This has to be the biggest load of bullshit I have ever seen on these boards..
You went out of your way to deliberately start a shitfight over something that is quite plainly a joke (an ill-timed joke perhaps, but a joke nonetheless). You stooped AGAIN to hateful, hurtful personal abuse, and then try to claim the moral high ground..
What a fucking crock..
You are both incorrect and trying to start a fight where there is none. Nice work.
It's good to see that you're so open-minded as to suggest that no religion or person should ever speak up about anything.
The next time a Jew gets lynched, y'all better keep yer yaps shut if ya know what's best for ya.
And, as further evidence, you are using the phrase "You're doing it again" when I have avoided all attacks and arguments for some time now. Your personal attacks are made out of spite and ignorance and I suggest you try thinking a little more.
Using the big tag no longer makes a compelling argument, I'm afraid Mr. Parcelan fucked around with this message on 01-26-2005 at 09:34 PM.
quote:
Pvednes had this to say about Cuba:
One wonders if you've ever had a joke backfire on you, Parce.
Just to make everything clear, it was a severe misunderstanding. I saw the comment and saw red. It was, in a less than ideal way, I'll admit, a way to say: "Hey, cut it out." Judging by Talonus, Densetsu, Yuri and Gydyon, it was a good thing to say.
I don't think any less of you, Pvednes. It was a poor joke, true, but I handled it in a not-so good way, too. I guess, in an enraged thought, I figured that if I made a huge fuss, the message would get across.
I also know I've said some things about Wiccan in the past. I still think that, but I'm in no position to talk about it now. If I want people to respect my religion, I should respect other peoples'.
So, thank you for the apology Pvednes. I don't think you're a disgusting, evil bigot and I'm glad you were sensitive to our concerns.
Apologies to all who this thread inconvenienced, but I'm just as glad as I am sorry that our message was heard.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
It was a poor joke, true, but I handled it in a not-so good way, too. I guess, in an enraged thought, I figured that if I made a huge fuss, the message would get across.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan thought about the meaning of life:
You are both incorrect and trying to start a fight where there is none.
So... you thought if you started a shitfight the message would get across, but you werent trying to start a shitfight..
In the words of Somo Icewalker, "Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.."
quote:
Mr. Parcelan thought about the meaning of life:
I also know I've said some things about Wiccan in the past. I still think that, but I'm in no position to talk about it now. If I want people to respect my religion, I should respect other peoples'.
DING! And the lightbulb regarding what people were saying to you this entire thread about "hey Dude.. if you wanna get morally indignant about someone 'persecuting' you, don't go mouthing off about other people's religions" finally sees illumination.
Let's all just hope that you remember the lesson in future.
quote:
I also know I've said some things about Wiccan in the past. I still think that, but I'm in no position to talk about it now. If I want people to respect my religion, I should respect other peoples'.
You should also never make fun of furries, liberals, artists, hippies or any other group sharing any kind of common idea ever again.
Since it might offend someone.
This thread got blown out of proportion, and Parce's argument flaws were explained. He acknowledged them, and explained why he cited them. Kicking him while he's trying to put things to rest smacks of that little yapping dog following after the big bruiser in the cartoons, going "yeah! yeah!" except unlike the little dog in the cartoons, you'll never replace Bloodsage. Sorry.
Parce had a good point backed with an invalid example. He was upset by the comment, which he saw as the culmination of a rather obnoxious campaign. He acknowledged the misunderstanding, he made an attempt to make things good. He acknowledged the flaw in his argument...
...but his point still stands. There's no need for you to continue being a prick.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Jens wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
I'm going to go ballistic on your ass and make a big thread where I cry real hard the next time you make a joke about Europeans.
This I would pay to see. ^.^
quote:
Cavalier- was listening to Cher while typing:
DING! And the lightbulb regarding what people were saying to you this entire thread about "hey Dude.. if you wanna get morally indignant about someone 'persecuting' you, don't go mouthing off about other people's religions" finally sees illumination.Let's all just hope that you remember the lesson in future.
Sarcasm is better left for people that have some concept of what the fuck they're talking about.
Once again, I'm afraid I'll have to discount you as another of the bitter masses who has an imaginary grievance with me and seeks to cause trouble at every turn. I'm not sure what you're pretending that I've done to you, but I'm sure it's trivial, as are any of your grievances with me.
Unfortunate, but necessary
quote:
Jens had this to say about Optimus Prime:
I'm going to go ballistic on your ass and make a big thread where I cry real hard the next time you make a joke about Europeans.
But it won't be fun unless you wait at least a week to do it.
{edit: tag} Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 01-27-2005 at 01:21 PM.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
While I have skimmed the arguments at hand, I will say this.
Considering the current societal view of what persecution is (physical harm, direct attacking), then, no, I would disagree that Christianity is being persecuted in that way.
However, it would be incorrect to say that society has its qualms against Christianity, and that cheap shots are quite prevalent.
I believe this in due part to the divison in America today. Conservates are basically seen in a mostly religious view (I argue that the first thing people think of when they hear conservative now a days is God, or God people, or something like that, I mean, see the Jesus land picture that was circling around the internet). And, since there will always be a certain level of banter between one side and the other, it is the effect that Christianity has been in the target sights.
I believe another part of this is due in part to a caricature effect. It's the same problem that stems about racism, sexism, and such: directing scorn toward a group because of a certain picture that is painted of them. I would argue that the current 'picture', as from observations of various sorts (newspapers (epsecially the liberal Daily Northwestern ;p), television, and other sorts), that Christians are seen as ignorant, dumb fools who hate everyone who isn't of Christian, and exist for the sole purpose of making other people's lives miserable.
While that's a bit carried to the extreme, I think everyone would agree that this is the picture painted to some extent. While there are certainly people who do fit this (or at least seem to, as with all caricatures, sadly), I definately agree that there are followers of Christ who follow the teachings of Christ, and do not fit this stereotype. (I would also argue that the commonly held view of the teachings of Christ is incomplete, but, that's another thing in itself, and I don't have time for that.)
Since I'm a bit short on time, haha, I will say this. Another thing that does bug me is how tolerance has been redefined into "A worldwide acceptance and equality of views", or to basically say "Everything is right." A sort of extreme form of relativism. It's come to the point that reasonable opposition has become a bit... faux pas, as they say. I would more say it to be "A respect for all views, and the ability to disagree in a respectful manner."
While it's similar in a sense, it's a lot different. As Karnaj said, there are many valid criticisms to Christianity (and I would argue that there are as many valid, and reasonable answers to go with that, although that's a completely different argument, and I don't have really the time to go into a completely exhaustive discussion of this.). However, it is important that everyone learns to respectfully disagree, and to hold a certain level of civility in arguments that I have really failed to see from almost everyone. (And, yes, I'm going to admit that I have been guilty of this, although I almost never argue ;p).
So, yeah, it is important to respect people, and realize that they hold their view for a certain reason or reasons. If we can do this, then bashing will be almost non-existant (I define bashing as comments that do not serve to build an argument, but just exist to destroy the other person at hand), and people will be able to learn a lot.
Besides... if you start an argument by insulting your opponent, then you've pretty much guarunteed that your opponent won't listen to you.
I'm probably not going to reply to this.
On the other hand, people do have a right to be upset just as it's your right to think the reasons for them being upset are frivolous but just as you don't want them bitching, there's a group of people that don't want to see your bitching either.
Noone's mind is going to be changed and we all know that so express whatever opinion you have as civilly as you can and move on until a response is fitting.
Edit: I'm just reading most of page five now, so I'm a bit late it seems. Vallo fucked around with this message on 01-28-2005 at 10:45 PM.
