Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lying For Jesus Award
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 211 of 279 (382047)
02-02-2007 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Buzsaw
02-02-2007 10:56 PM


Re: Who the Fundies will come after first
I'd have to see the documentation as to what vein Pat made the alleged State Dept suggestion. Not only that but you have no documentation whatsoever that fundie Christians are now persecuting as the nonbiblicalfundies are.
Keep proving Percy's point Buz. You doing great.
You need to know what "vein" the statements of nuke the State Depatrment and that Venezuela's president should be killed?
You have got to be kidding me.
As to iano, I will post a link to the message if I ever come across it again. But I am certainly not going to spend much effort on it for several reasons. First search here sucks and it would mean finding every response to me from iano until I stumbled across it.
Second, when I pointed it out at the time AdminBuz and AdminFaith were so lacking in cajones that they did nothing about it, again proving Percy's point.
Just where is any violence here documented or threat of violence? It's all Pat's assessment of what has happened and his views on how he sees it. Nobody anywhere need fear the man Pat or any of his constituents. So he wants Christians running schools. LOL on that and if it were so, so what? It was that way for over a century in the early days of the Republic and nobody got killed.
Christian Cult of Ignorance Buz.
That is the threat.
Ignorance.
And yet more evidence that you are unable to read. Those were quotes from Jerry Falwell. And tell the Indians that no one got killed when Christians ran the schools. Tell the people that had their heritage stolen from them.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Buzsaw, posted 02-02-2007 10:56 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 279 (382048)
02-02-2007 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by jar
02-02-2007 10:30 PM


Re: You are still misrepresenting what I say, as usual.
I find your use of "Islamofascists" down right funny.
Okay, so what is so funny about it?
It is Fundamentalists I fear, Muslim and Christian.
Since "Fundamentalist" is pretty much an ambiguous term, what makes someone qualify as a Fundamentalist that would therefore make them so dangerous to society?
Again with the misrepresentations. Don't you folk ever get tired of trying to hide the pea in hope of fooling the audience?
I've noticed that you cry foul ball every time a question is difficult for you to answer honestly. My question was very straight up, which deserves a very straight up answer. What did I misrepresent?
I did not say Christians. I said the Christian Cult of Ignorance.
That is NOT all Christians but it certainly is ALL Biblical Literalists, YECs and ID supporters.
So, basically anyone that doesn't completely emasculate Christ's message? I see.... Your vague descriptions of Christianity make it difficult for you to refer to yourself as such and maintain any kind semblance of what every one knows to be Christianity. Forgive me if I forget that you are a Christian. Its just so easy to forget when your version of the gospel is watered down.
What does that have to do with anything? I am not an Atheist. I am a Christian speaking about other Christians.
Don't you most identify with atheists? Didn't you say to Buzsaw that it isn't atheists condemning you, but rather your fellow compatriots? Don't you rush to the aid of atheists on the board but demonize any one that has even a hint of a mainstream belief in Christ? That's what it has to do with it.
You say that the Televangelists are in retreat, and if true that is a GOOD thing.
That seems obvious when compare it the 80's.
I see no assault on the Church though, none what so ever.
Then that should serve as a warning that you have befriended the world and betrayed what the Church was meant to be, because its more than obvious that Judeo-Christian ideals are under attack by a virulent strain of compromisers and cynics.
Hopefully though there will be an ever increasing growth of knowledge among Christians and they will continue to abandon the Christian Cult of Ignorance.
Maybe you should pray about it.
But before you leave folk, did you see him once more palm the pea, right in front of your noses.
No, I must have missed it.
quote:
You have invented a Bogeyman, or allowed your "authorities" to believe in the big, bad Christian out to get you and you've completely neglected the actual threats. Interesting.
Nowhere NJ did I "neglect" any threats. What I did say was that Ignorance is a far greater threat than Terrorism.
You speak as though you have a Messianic complex-- the wise sage who has all the answers. What exactly is the ignorance that pervades fundamentalism that the rest of the world is either immune to or hasn't yet reached their ears?
Don't you ever get tired of trying to con the audience?
I don't tire easily and conning people is not my forte. I leave that up to compromisers who try to blaze their own trail by diverting people who ride the fence in their direction.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by jar, posted 02-02-2007 10:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by jar, posted 02-03-2007 10:22 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 279 (382056)
02-03-2007 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Percy
01-31-2007 10:14 AM


Re: My Two Cents
Falwell evidently believes that if a lie brings someone to the Lord, then that is a good thing.
Not that I am the great defender for Falwell, but what exactly lead to your conclusion?
Pat Robertson isn't far behind in this.
Again, not a big fan, but what leads you to this conclusion?
Evangelists like Benny Hinn and Leroy Jenkins are over the top in this regard, not only emphasizing faith over truth and money over ethics, but actively taking advantage of people's faith in God, ignorance of science and personal anxiety about their health to further their own causes.
I haven't one good thing to say about Benny Hinn. I don't know who Leroy Jenkins is.
Coulter is precisely like Falwell in that she believes lies in the name of the Republican cause are a good thing if they help the Republican party stay in power.
If Coulter or Falwell "believes" in lies, then that doesn't make them liars, that makes them gullible.
As a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, a few years ago at the library I opened one of Coulter's books (I've forgotten which one) to see if it contained any good arguments for or against any political positions I hold. Before the end of the first chapter she'd already outraged me several times with outrageous (sorry to be repetitive) assertions on positions I agreed with her about! I've never read a word by her since. There's a way to make Coulter go away, folks: ignore her.
The mere fact that she riles people up is sufficient to show that she is the great antagonist of the left. And to be such a thorn in the side means that the words sting. Make your own inferences. But I agree that the best way to make her go away is to ignore her. Unfortunately, that seems to be something exceedingly difficult for her critics to do.
Woo Suk Hwang lied for science, using fabricated data in a series of papers on his stem cell research.
Yeah, it seems that Hwang was more interested in his own fame than in perfecting his craft.
Falwell is as powerful as ever.
Coulter's influence has only increased over the past few years.
Hwang is out of science and may possibly never work in his chosen field again.
While there are likely media and other influences at work, the significant point is that the lying scientist is ostracized, while the lying evangelist and the lying political hack are not.
The fundamental difference is that Hwang was empirically and demonstrably shown to have manipulated the evidence, whereas Coulter and Falwell are giving their opinions on their beliefs. What exactly did they "lie" about? If you can't point out a specific lie, then you are only essentially giving us your rhetorical opinion of those you distaste, which makes your indictment unsubstantiated.
So to anyone out there who has been defending Falwell or Hinn or Robertson or any of the other liars for Christ both past and present (Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker, Kent Hovind, how many pages would a full list take?): give it up. Bring credit upon yourself and your religion by forthrightly and unconditionally condemning their behavior. Pray for them that they may find the true spirit of the Lord.
Hinn, Bakker and Swaggert are shown to have lied. Not exactly a big surprise that many people on TBN have fleeced the flock. I should add that something unsettling strikes me about all of the names you mentioned, but what have the others lied about?

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Percy, posted 01-31-2007 10:14 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by anglagard, posted 02-03-2007 12:43 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 214 of 279 (382059)
02-03-2007 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Hyroglyphx
02-03-2007 12:05 AM


Re: My Two Cents
NJ writes:
The fundamental difference is that Hwang was empirically and demonstrably shown to have manipulated the evidence, whereas Coulter and Falwell are giving their opinions on their beliefs. What exactly did they "lie" about? If you can't point out a specific lie, then you are only essentially giving us your rhetorical opinion of those you distaste, which makes your indictment unsubstantiated.
"I think Mohammed was a terrorist. He - I read enough of the history of his life written by both Muslims and - and - non-Muslims, that he was a - a violent man, a man of war. And I do believe that - Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses. And I think that Mohammed set an opposite example."
--Jerry Falwell, 60 Minutes, October 6, 2002
"I have never said in a sermon or a speech that Muhammad is a terrorist."
--Jerry Falwell, interview with Religion News Service
How's that for a start. More to come.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2007 12:05 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2007 12:08 PM anglagard has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 215 of 279 (382064)
02-03-2007 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Buzsaw
02-02-2007 10:56 PM


Fun Facts About Robertson
Wikipedia has something interesting in its article about Pat Robertson:
quote:
Robertson repeatedly supported former President of Liberia Charles Taylor in various episodes of his 700 Club program during the United States' involvement in the Liberian Civil War in June and July of 2003. Robertson accuses the U.S. State Department of giving President Bush bad advice in supporting Taylor's ouster as president, and of trying "as hard as they can to destabilize Liberia."[21]
Robertson was criticized for failing to mention in his broadcasts his $8,000,000 (USD) investment in a Liberian gold mine.[22] Taylor had been indicted by the United Nations for war crimes at the time of Robertson's support.
Prosecutors also said that Taylor had harbored members of Al Qaeda responsible for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. According to Robertson, the Liberian gold mine Freedom Gold was intended to help pay for humanitarian and evangelical efforts in Liberia, when in fact the company was allowed to fail leaving many debts both in Liberia and in the international mining service sector. Regarding this controversy, Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention's public policy said, "I would say that Pat Robertson is way out on his own, in a leaking life raft, on this one."[23]
I remember seeing all those pictures with children carrying machine guns, provided of course they still had hands and arms. Amazing that a Southern Baptist would mildly criticize Robertson for profiting from the misery of others, but that is just another example of that fundie morality in action.
Actually such behavior is no surprise, consider this:
quote:
The Associated Press
12/30/01
WASHINGTON - The Christian Coa1ition has settled a racial discrimination lawsuit filed by black employees. The suit claimed that the workers were denied health benefits and overtime pay, had to enter the organization's Washington headquarters by the back door and were forced to eat in a segregated area.
Guess the line between being treated as sub-human and non-human is somewhat fine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Buzsaw, posted 02-02-2007 10:56 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Quetzal, posted 02-03-2007 11:00 AM anglagard has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 216 of 279 (382090)
02-03-2007 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Hyroglyphx
02-02-2007 11:26 PM


Re: You are still misrepresenting what I say, as usual.
jar writes:
I find your use of "Islamofascists" down right funny.
to which NJ replied:
Okay, so what is so funny about it?
That is so funny because it is proof positive of the Cult of Ignorance. One of the Christian Conservative Right bobble-heads, likely Rush, used the term and so you pick it up and use it even though trying to relate that term to modern Islamic Terrorists simply shows how totally ignorant the speaker is.
Fascism is a method of Government where the Nation is owed supreme loyalty.
Muslims, particularly the terrorists, place God above all and see their identity as being Muslims first, and members of a given State secondary.
Islamo-Fascist is an oxymoron only used by idiots like Rush. They use it because they know their audience is too ignorant to see the humor, and the folk like Rush and Falwell and Robertson and O'Reilly and Coulter sit up there hauling in the shekles laughing at the dullness of the listeners.
The rest of your post is just more of your nonsense but I will try to touch on as many of your inane comments as I can.
Since "Fundamentalist" is pretty much an ambiguous term, what makes someone qualify as a Fundamentalist that would therefore make them so dangerous to society?
Fundamentalists encourage Ignorance. Ignorance is a threat to Democracy, the Republic and the very existence of the US. Fundamentalist encourage acceptance of authority over questioning authority. Accepting authority over questioning authority is a threat to Democracy, the Republic and the very existence of the US.
I've noticed that you cry foul ball every time a question is difficult for you to answer honestly. My question was very straight up, which deserves a very straight up answer. What did I misrepresent?
More misrepresentation. You even copied my response in your reply.
jar points out NJ's misrepresentation.
jar writes:
I did not say Christians.
then NJ goes on to blatther:
So, basically anyone that doesn't completely emasculate Christ's message? I see.... Your vague descriptions of Christianity make it difficult for you to refer to yourself as such and maintain any kind semblance of what every one knows to be Christianity. Forgive me if I forget that you are a Christian. Its just so easy to forget when your version of the gospel is watered down.
Yet more misrepresentation NJ. What I said was :
I said the Christian Cult of Ignorance.
That is NOT all Christians but it certainly is ALL Biblical Literalists, YECs and ID supporters.
There is no mention of the Gospel in there or even Christ's message. It specifically mentioned Biblical Literalists, YECs and ID supporters.
Don't you most identify with atheists? Didn't you say to Buzsaw that it isn't atheists condemning you, but rather your fellow compatriots? Don't you rush to the aid of atheists on the board but demonize any one that has even a hint of a mainstream belief in Christ? That's what it has to do with it.
Another example of your continued misrepresentation. In fact I would say that it is actually an example of the word we are not supposed to use.
It also once again shows your total and absolute willful ignorance. You have been here long enough NJ to know that I have identified myself as a Conservative, Republican, Christian Creationist Evolutionist in Message 1, that I have posted many threads that outline my Christian Beliefs (Message 1, Message 1, Message 1, Message 1, Message 1) and a whole host of others.
I will readily admit that I find most Atheists to have far higher moral standards that any Biblical literalist I have yet met.
Then that should serve as a warning that you have befriended the world and betrayed what the Church was meant to be, because its more than obvious that Judeo-Christian ideals are under attack by a virulent strain of compromisers and cynics.
Where? As I said, I see no signs of it.
I said:
Nowhere NJ did I "neglect" any threats. What I did say was that Ignorance is a far greater threat than Terrorism.
to which you replied in your typical snake oil salesman fashion:
You speak as though you have a Messianic complex-- the wise sage who has all the answers. What exactly is the ignorance that pervades fundamentalism that the rest of the world is either immune to or hasn't yet reached their ears?
Messianic? How droll. You don't even have a clue what Messianic means and you wonder why I consider ignorance a threat?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-02-2007 11:26 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2007 12:37 PM jar has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 217 of 279 (382095)
02-03-2007 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Buzsaw
02-02-2007 8:53 PM


Re: Who the Fundies will come after first
Relax. You're not a Biblical fundie kind of Christian.
Truth, indeed. On the other hand, the history of both fundamentalist theocracies and oppressive fundamentalist governments based on other (usually secular) ideologies in the past leads me to conclude that the first folks up against the wall will be the ones most opposed to the guiding ideology. Only then will they turn inward on persecute their own. Examples include:
1. Saloth Sar (later known as Pol Pot) in Cambodia whose extreme "back to tradition" revolution - designed to foster a "return" to a never-existing pure agrarian society - began by eliminating anyone who he and his thugs felt were tainted by "Western" influences (including teachers, business owners, anyone who wore glasses, etc). Ultimately the cost was some 20% of the pre-revolution population (in the US, the equivalent of 60 million people). The Khmer Rouge purges began with the outsiders, then culminated with the job-lot deaths of the very peasants he had supposedly idolized.
2. Khomeini's theocratic revolution in Iran also began with the elimination of outsiders - also based on attempts to eliminate "Western" (read: "secular") influences. Ultimately, he also purged the universities and oppressed any internal religious dissent. Although substantially less bloody (discounting the Iran-Iraq war), than Pol Pot's revolution, some ~20,000 teachers, 8000 military officers, tens of thousands of Bah'ai (deemed heretical) and scores of thousands of others were dispossessed of jobs, lands and livliehoods based on their "lack" of religious purity. The threat of the sharia crime of takfir, or apostasy - a capital offense - was (supposedly) used widely to intimidate anyone, even other Shi'a, who didn't buy into Khomeini's version of reality.
3. The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 is another classic example. Beginning with the elimination of the bourgoisie and the anti-revolution forces (eg, the disorganized "White Russian" armies of people like Denikan and Kolchak), it ultimately spent the next approx. 50 years murdering its own. I don't suppose I need to go into too much more detail here.
Anyway, you get the picture: the pattern is always the same. Start with the outsiders and when they're no longer around, start slaughtering your own.
Now - before you get silly like Hoot Man - you should be aware that I personally (in spite of my somewhat hyperbolic tongue-in-cheek postings on this thread) don't really believe that the US will become an Iranian-style Christian Theocracy. At least not in my lifetime. The country is too large and too diverse. However, the trends I see occurring could very well lead to a situation where some type of fundamentalist-style ideology does take control leading to a type of society in which I would not wish to live or raise my children. The exact kind of situation that folks like Jefferson, Franklin and others warned about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Buzsaw, posted 02-02-2007 8:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 218 of 279 (382100)
02-03-2007 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Fosdick
02-02-2007 7:55 PM


Re: Who the Fundies will come after first
Children, children, the boogy man doesn't live under your beds any more. You'd think all the Christian ignoramuses have AIDS or somethings, and all they got is one old dead Jesus. If it's the "ravening dogs" of Christian evangelism you fear most, I'd say your priorities are messed up.
Ah, Hoot. You're mistaken. I don't "fear" any of you. I truly dislike what the neo-religious right ideologues are trying to do, and I oppose them on both philosophical and practical grounds. I am truly concerned about the potential end-state and/or implications of the rising tide of ultra-fundamentalistism in the US. I do not personally fear for my safety. I do "fear" for basic democratic institutions and freedoms enjoyed by Americans up to this point. I have no desire to see the US become a third-world country, which is at least one possible outcome of the current situation.
This thread is about one symptom of a much larger disease. The fact that the Liars for God are so pervasive (or at least loud) with limited opposition is a case in point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Fosdick, posted 02-02-2007 7:55 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Fosdick, posted 02-03-2007 12:47 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 219 of 279 (382102)
02-03-2007 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by anglagard
02-03-2007 1:05 AM


Re: Fun Facts About Robertson
I didn't realize Robertson supported Taylor (of all people). Taylor was a real scumbag. I was attached to 22 MEU in 1990 during operation Sharp Edge (on the USS Trashbin - errr, I mean USS Saipan), the evacuation of Monrovia. Sammy Doe had his back against the wall between Taylor's and Taylor's former lieutenant Prince Johnson's forces. We pulled out ~3000 people. The atrocity stories told by refugees fleeing both sides were something to give you nightmares.
Funny that a True Christian would support a murderous thug like Taylor. Any port in a storm, I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by anglagard, posted 02-03-2007 1:05 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 220 of 279 (382106)
02-03-2007 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Buzsaw
02-02-2007 7:34 PM


Re: Falwell Lies For Jesus?
Buzsaw writes:
If you go back I asked that you apprise us as to what lies Falwell was telling. I'm still waiting for the specifics on that.
You somehow missed Jar's quoting right in this thread of Falwell's 9/11 remarks on the Pat Robertson show? I've alluded to it several times, you can Google it, and Jar has provided other supporting quotes as evidence. Just because you're replying to me doesn't mean that evidence provided by others in this thread doesn't exist.
I appreciate that there are at least some shyster evangelists you condemn, but you're missing the point. That you defend Falwell and Hovind while faulting Swaggert and Bakker is indicative of one of the most serious problems of religion. While participating fully in the encouragement of faith and devotion, the primary denominations just leave the devoted out there alone and defenseless to be preyed upon by evangelical shysters for God. Why don't the Catholic church or the Baptist church or the World Evangelical Alliance just come right out and say, "Look, folks, these faith healers are frauds, these donation machine evangelists are frauds." Actually, I can already see why they don't, the ice isn't all that thick under their own feet.
The point is that science is self-correcting and self-administrating. Falsehoods don't survive in science because the final judge is the real world. Fabricating evidence instead of ferreting it out from real world observation and experiment can never hide for long, because it will be discovered by those measuring the results against, to say it again, real world observation and experiment.
In other words, both religion and politics has no policing structure. Just tune to any religious channel or watch almost any political commercial and you can see the evidence of virtually no respect for truth. That's why it's so easy for someone to be a liar for Christ, and because it is so easy that's why there are so many of them. That's why it doesn't matter if you're right about Falwell (and I obviously don't think you are) - there are so many examples of liars for Christ that the fact that some are honest (Billy Graham and Robert Schuler come to mind) is almost beside the point.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Buzsaw, posted 02-02-2007 7:34 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by johnfolton, posted 02-03-2007 12:56 PM Percy has replied
 Message 250 by Buzsaw, posted 02-04-2007 11:14 AM Percy has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 279 (382117)
02-03-2007 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by anglagard
02-03-2007 12:43 AM


Re: My Two Cents
How's that for a start
If those quotes are accurate, then I stand corrected.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by anglagard, posted 02-03-2007 12:43 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 222 of 279 (382119)
02-03-2007 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Buzsaw
02-02-2007 8:49 PM


Fundies out to get us!
Buzsaw wrote:
I don't often agree with you, Hoot Mon, but I gotta love you! Whether or not I agree, I make an effort to read your stuff. As in much of what you post, this one is well put and makes good sense.
Thanks for being open-mind, Buzsaw. My attempts to level this argument between gays and Christian fundamentalists have been more philosophical than practical. The gays are strident about their rights and respectability, and the fundies are strident about their belief that gays offend their beliefs. I am neither, so I don’t have a dog in this fight.
HOWEVER, there is this little matter out here in the Washington state (and elsewhere) that involves gay-hating Christian fundamentalists appearing at military funerals to harass the bereaved who are saying goodbye to their loved ones, gay or otherwise.. State legislators had to pass an emergency law to prevent a bunch of balony-for-brains Baptists from taunting of the funeral goers:
quote:
The legislation is aimed at followers of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas. They have been demonstrating at military funerals around the country, saying the deaths are God's wrath on the United States for tolerating homosexuality.
On THIS score I am with the gays AND the military. The fundies clearly are out of line here; they may as well be carrying around signs that say: “LOOK AT ME EVERYBODY, I’M STUPID!”
This is an odd one for me to consider; it’s a three-way struggle for self-righteousness, and I don’t support any corner of the triangle. I’m not out to defend the gays, the fundies, or the military and its war in Iraq. So, why do I have to put up with this crap?
Buzsaw, I would like to know what you think about this mischief in the name of Jesus?
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Buzsaw, posted 02-02-2007 8:49 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Buzsaw, posted 02-03-2007 10:42 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 279 (382124)
02-03-2007 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by jar
02-03-2007 10:22 AM


Re: You are still misrepresenting what I say, as usual.
That is so funny because it is proof positive of the Cult of Ignorance. One of the Christian Conservative Right bobble-heads, likely Rush, used the term and so you pick it up and use it even though trying to relate that term to modern Islamic Terrorists simply shows how totally ignorant the speaker is.
What's inappropriate or inaccurate about that term? Wahhabists are Islamic fascists. How much more fitting could the name be?
Fascism is a method of Government where the Nation is owed supreme loyalty.
Right, which makes it appropriate. Wahhabist extremists believe in a convert or die mentality, rendering the only source of inspiration to themselves and no other, but more particularly, only cite descendants of Muhammed as the source divine interpretation. That sounds quite familiar to Hitler and Mussolini.
Islamo-Fascist is an oxymoron only used by idiots like Rush.
And idiots like me. Its not an oxymoron. An oxymoron is calling Bush a fascist.
Fundamentalists encourage Ignorance.
That doesn't explain, in the slightest, what a fundamentalist is in your mind. I know what fundamentalism means, but I want to know what you think it is. You still haven't explained it. So far a fundamentalist is anyone ignorant, of presumably anything, and some one who doesn't question authority. Neither of those are qualifiers for fundamentalism.
quote:
I've noticed that you cry foul ball every time a question is difficult for you to answer honestly. My question was very straight up, which deserves a very straight up answer. What did I misrepresent?
More misrepresentation.
I'm not sure why you feel special enough to control the dialogue, and anyone that doesn't agree with your school of philosophy is perpetually misrepresenting the issues.
In fact I would say that it is actually an example of the word we are not supposed to use.
What word is that?
It also once again shows your total and absolute willful ignorance. You have been here long enough NJ to know that I have identified myself as a Conservative, Republican, Christian Creationist Evolutionist in Message 1 (Thread Why I call myself a Conservative, Republican, Christian Creationist Evolutionist), that I have posted many threads that outline my Christian Beliefs (Message 1 (Thread Belief Statement - jar), Message 1 (Thread Jar's belief statement- Part 2), Message 1 (Thread jar - On Christianity), Message 1 (Thread Should Sacred Studies be part of a general public school curricula), Message 1 (Thread Who can be saved? A Christian perspective)) and a whole host of others.
What you call yourself does not supplant reality. Virtually every belief you have runs completely counter to definition. Anyone that reads your posts would be far more likely to identify you as a New Age, liberal, evolutionist. You may have been a Christian, Republican, evolution-creationist, whatever that may be, but nothing about you would make even the slightest insinuation of such based on your personal beliefs. This has been brought to your attention not only by myself, but a number of people on the board who are a bit bewildered at your special definitions. You can call yourself whatever you want, but I don't think you should be surprised when people are vexed by your self-ascribed terminologies.
Messianic? How droll. You don't even have a clue what Messianic means and you wonder why I consider ignorance a threat?
Jar, you are in a bad habit of telling everyone they are wrong about their beliefs and you attempt to control the dialogue and pitch it so that you will always be justified, but your detractors are perpetually OT. That's dishonest debate. In other words, you aren't the boss. But you apparently think that you are. That's why I say its a messianic complex.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by jar, posted 02-03-2007 10:22 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by jar, posted 02-03-2007 12:47 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 224 of 279 (382129)
02-03-2007 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Quetzal
02-03-2007 10:48 AM


Re: Who the Fundies will come after first
Quetzal wrote:
Ah, Hoot. You're mistaken. I don't "fear" any of you. I truly dislike what the neo-religious right ideologues are trying to do, and I oppose them on both philosophical and practical grounds. I am truly concerned about the potential end-state and/or implications of the rising tide of ultra-fundamentalistism in the US. I do not personally fear for my safety. I do "fear" for basic democratic institutions and freedoms enjoyed by Americans up to this point. I have no desire to see the US become a third-world country, which is at least one possible outcome of the current situation.
By degrees, Quetzal, untra-fundamentalism is doing right now what you (and I, truthfully) happen to fear: They're trying to get a good Armageddon going so Jesus will come again. George Bush and his religious right-wingers are successfully maneuvering us into position for The Big One. All that's left to happen now is for Isreal to nuked and WWIII will be off and running. Jesus will get his chance to make good on an old promise (and maybe even kick some serious gay butt when he gets down here!).
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Quetzal, posted 02-03-2007 10:48 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Quetzal, posted 02-03-2007 1:20 PM Fosdick has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 225 of 279 (382130)
02-03-2007 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Hyroglyphx
02-03-2007 12:37 PM


Re: You are still misrepresenting what I say, as usual.
And Nj posts blah, blah blah.
But then NJ says:
Jar, you are in a bad habit of telling everyone they are wrong about their beliefs and you attempt to control the dialogue and pitch it so that you will always be justified, but your detractors are perpetually OT. That's dishonest debate. In other words, you aren't the boss. But you apparently think that you are. That's why I say its a messianic complex.
Yet more misrepresentation. I point out posts being off topic when "guess what????", they are off topic. I'm not a Boss, in fact I am not even an Admin anymore.
NJ posts:
What's inappropriate or inaccurate about that term? Wahhabists are Islamic fascists. How much more fitting could the name be?
Right, which makes it appropriate. Wahhabist extremists believe in a convert or die mentality, rendering the only source of inspiration to themselves and no other, but more particularly, only cite descendants of Muhammed as the source divine interpretation. That sounds quite familiar to Hitler and Mussolini.
Thank you for once again showing your total ignorance and inability to read.
Fascism is a form of "Nationalistic Government". Wahhabi is not a Nation.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2007 12:37 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2007 2:28 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024