Dagonee already mentioned that. I don't think that makes it remotely okay. Added: Presumably some of KoM's stormtroopers would die in his genocide, too. There's also that whole hellfire thing.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, not saying it does. Revelation is pretty equal-opportunity as far as bloodthirstiness goes, and the "survivors" will probably be so shell-shocked from PTSD that it *would* take a miracle for them to recover either way. AJ
P.S. sorry Dagonee for reiterating a point you already made.... I left my posting window open too long.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
there's a blog at something like "slacktivist.com" that rips the left behind series to shreds at pretty much every opportunity. It's kinda funny but got a little too gleeful in insulting the authors (to me) after a while so I quit reading.
One of his major criticisms, Twinky, is exactly what you are talking about-- the almost gleeful, "told ya' so", "you're going to hell (and I'm not!)" arrogance that Christians can sometimes exhibit. I think most Christians find that sort of thing despicable, but how often are we unaware of how we, ourselves, might appear? You can see that the "slacktivist" author actually turned me off for the same basic attitude that angered him in LaHaye and Jenkins.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Dag, as someone who apparently believes in eternal punishment, I really don't think you have any room to look down on someone who merely advocates a quick bullet to the head and that's it. Genocide or none, I'm really quite nice compared to eternal hellfire.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well Dag, as someone who apparently believes in eternal punishment, I really don't think you have any room to look down on someone who merely advocates a quick bullet to the head and that's it. Genocide or none, I'm really quite nice compared to eternal hellfire.
You advocate doing it, KoM. You want to implement a totalitarian regime. Given the power to do so, you would execute me. If you can't see the difference between that and believing that someone else is going to do something, I question your ability to reason at all.
Your clever little rationalizations aside, you have declared your desire to act in a manner far worse than almost anyone who has ever lived. You are kept from achieving this goal by the fact that you are a powerless grad student without the charisma, intelligence, or strength to actually achieve this goal. That doesn't make your intent any less murderous or your constant expression of it any less disgusting, though.
quote:The user agreement contains specific protections for religious beliefs but contains no such protections for atheists or agnostics.
I disagree - although I agree that typical atheism and typical agnosticism is not a religion, I do think both atheists and agnostic beliefs are covered by the phrase "religious beliefs." Certainly OSC, kacard, and PJ's interpretations are far more authoritative, but I've seen nothing to the contrary from them.
quote: If I take the agreement as written, someone writing about wanting to help the End Times along is not in violation, whereas someone advocating genocide against theists is in violation. I think that's an oversight and that the user agreement should be amended; I don't think it's okay to advocate genocide of nonbelievers any more than it's okay to advocate genocide of believers, and I do think that trying to hurry the End Times along or professing a desire for them to arrive soon is advocating genocide. As I've said here before, we have laws about very extreme instances of advocating genocide (and hate speech in general) here in Canada, and I support those laws.
I don't see either side of this as a user agreement issue. I see it as being about modes of discourse. KoM expresses the heartfelt desire to be a new Hitler, Stalin, or Mao fairly often, and the general attitude seems to be, "That's just KoM. Ignore that and discuss the interesting topic he attached to his genocidal delusion."
My intent posting today was to try to get people to hold KoM socially accountable for his mode of expression. If he doesn't mean it, make him say it. If he does, treat him as the lunatic he is and don't dignify him by ignoring his advocacy of genocide and discussing the other aspects of his posts.
quote:You advocating doing it, KoM. You want to implement a totalitarian regime. Given the power to do so, you would execute me. If you can't see the difference between that and believing that someone else is going to do something, I question your ability to reason at all.
But, Dag, you have repeatedly said that you believe your god is doing all things for the best. Does that not mean you approve of hell? If you believed that someone else would start a genocide, and not only did nothing to stop him but actually approved, then I think you are equally morally culpable.
And before you say that you are doing your best to stop it, by witnessing the truth of your religion, I have precisely the same defense. My stormtroopers have extremely strict instructions only to kill those who refuse to recant. There needn't be any killings at all, really.
As an aside, I don't think it's genocide when you're not gunning for an ethnic group. Theocide? Democide?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
funny how someone so self-proclaimedly logical and superior in thought can't see the difference between believing in eternal destinies that we are free to choose and advocating the mass murder of all who disagree...
Not to mention that one can be a theist without believing all current atheists will burn in hell...
I conclude that you are either deliberately misrepresenting things or not as smart as you claim. Either way, you aren't inspiring anything but disdain.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:funny how someone so self-proclaimedly logical and superior in thought can't see the difference between believing in eternal destinies that we are free to choose and advocating the mass murder of all who disagree...
Well, actually both are eternal destinies, whether it be eternal damnation by God or eternal non-existence from a bullet, and in both scenarios, a person can choose his fate.
But really, KoM, there is a significant difference between trying to save people's lives and giving people the option to not be killed by you.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As an aside, I don't think it's genocide when you're not gunning for an ethnic group. Theocide? Democide?
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group [...]"
Although I'd hate to destroy a good flame war in the making, may I remind everyone that it is unlikely that KoM is seriously advocating shooting anybody...
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I personally find great comfort in the unknown.
I know this is delayed but me too.
If someone started interning people for their non-extreme beliefs, I would be first person to start providing them with safe houses and churches where they can practice.
What's with all the crazy repression today?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Although I'd hate to destroy a good flame war in the making, may I remind everyone that it is unlikely that KoM is seriously advocating shooting anybody...
He has had ample opportunity to say otherwise and has chosen not to.
As I said, if this were an isolated incident, I could see it being overlooked. But it's not - he frequently expresses such wishes, and has stated he is serious about it.
If he's not serious, then he should know that the joke is old. We get it - he hates religion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: Well, actually both are eternal destinies, whether it be eternal damnation by God or eternal non-existence from a bullet, and in both scenarios, a person can choose his fate.
One involves a choice inherent in the natural order, the other involves active interference and threats of violence against otherwise peaceful and uninvolved people.
I get that our gracious little dictator is trying to compare his proposal to the choice God gives us... but if that's as far as he can get with Christian thought (not to mention that he's pretty much leaving out a huge mass of other theism) he's, again, either deliberately miscasting things or not very smart.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:As an aside, I don't think it's genocide when you're not gunning for an ethnic group. Theocide? Democide?
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group [...]"
OK, I sit corrected. I still think their etymology is funny, though.
And no, I do not see any meaningful difference between 'worship me or burn eternally' and 'cease worshipping or die', except of course that eternal punishment lasts, like, forever. And please do not accuse me of 'not being that stupid'. I am not exaggerating for effect; I am not being wilfully obtuse; I really and literally do not see any moral difference. I understand that believers cannot very well accept this formulation of what their beliefs are; nonetheless, I think it highly accurate, and sophistries about being able to 'choose one's destiny' are just that - sophistries. A threat is a threat, whether made by my stormtroopers, or an immortal god. That you can choose to submit does not alter the fact of the threat.
I'm aware of the defense that 'turning away from god is your choice'; I call bullshit. An omnipotent god (I'll get to the Mormons in a minute) is certainly capable of making a non-unpleasant afterlife even for unbelievers. I don't say it is obligated to do so; but that takes us back to the bit about the threat. If nothing else, how about oblivion? This bit about hellfire is just gratuitous cruelty. (And even those of you who do not believe in literal hellfire, will hardly assert that hell is a pleasant place, not even as pleasant as this earth.)
As for the Mormon god, which is slightly less than omnipotent, it still operates a hell (if I understand the doctrine correctly) where the main punishment is the absence of its presence. Again, why not put the unbelievers back on earth, since oblivion is apparently beyond its capability? It is clearly quite possible for it to tolerate unbelievers here, where its presence is not withdrawn; I don't see why death should make a difference.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And no, I do not see any meaningful difference between 'worship me or burn eternally' and 'cease worshipping or die',
Good. When someone on this board starts telling you that they would, had they the power, implement a "worship me or die" policy, I'll fully support your complaints about them doing so.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I disagree - although I agree that typical atheism and typical agnosticism is not a religion, I do think both atheists and agnostic beliefs are covered by the phrase "religious beliefs."
I'd like to see it made explicit. Even adding "or lack thereof" would suffice.
I do see the propriety or impropriety of this thread as a user agreement issue. Added: First and foremost, anyway. Not entirely.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Good. When someone on this board starts telling you that they would, had they the power, implement a "worship me or die" policy, I'll fully support your complaints about them doing so.
And do you support your god when it makes this threat?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And no, I do not see any meaningful difference between 'worship me or burn eternally' and 'cease worshipping or die', except of course that eternal punishment lasts, like, forever.
and you really believe that all theism implies (and evidently can be summarized as) 'worship me or burn eternally'?
You evidently really want to be known as that shallow a critic and that dissmissive of other people. As someone else said: "we get it, already."
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And do you support your god when it makes this threat?
I no longer discuss my religious beliefs with you, KoM. If I say something you find to be as bad as expressing a desire to commit genocide, call me on it then.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are certainly at liberty to put your hands over your ears and go 'la-la-la' when someone calls you on approving things rather worse than mere genocide. I would appreciate it if you did it in another thread, though.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:and you really believe that all theism implies (and evidently can be summarized as) 'worship me or burn eternally'?
It is certainly a major selling point, and also it is what this thread has become a discussion about. I trust you would not extrapolate from this thread to saying 'all atheism boils down to violent threats against churchgoers'; but it is certainly legitimate to discuss that particular aspect of atheism, insofar as it exists. If you want to start a discussion about other aspects of religion, the 'New Topic' button can be found above the first post on this page, towards the right of the screen.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I'll indulge you, KoM. I think this might be the first time I've ever talked to you on purpose on this board, and it will probably be the last. That's how I am with people who insist on being rude and mean.
Keep in mind, though, that I find you, and this argument, distasteful. Also keep in mind that this is the LDS point of view.
1. LDS doctrine teaches that there are laws in the universe that not even God can break. One of these is that God cannot do evil and remain God. God also cannot be in the presence of those who are evil and remain God. Therefore, I see the threat of hell not as something God is hanging over people's heads so much as a warning. You know, like parents give their children: Don't touch the stove or you will burn your hand. Don't walk into the street or you could get hit by a car.
God knows the way to happiness, and He has told us about it. If we choose unhappiness instead, He is disappointed for us. I don't believe that we do good works in this life so we can live somewhere pleasant in the next life; I believe that God knows that doing good works will make us happy.
It's not at all a "do this or die" scenario. It's a "If you do that, you will get hurt. I recommend that you stay here with me and have some cookies instead."
2. When you said all atheists should be sent to somewhere like Earth, you weren't far off from LDS doctrine. We believe that Earth as it is is roughly equivalent to the Telestial Kingdom, which is where sinners and evildoers (murderers, rapists, theives, etc.) will end up. Not bad, eh? Good people who weren't "valiant" will end up in the Terrestrial Kingdom, which will be quite a lot nicer than Earth (probably because all the nasty people won't be there). And the "valiant" ones will end up in the Celestial Kingdom with God and their families (providing their families also end up there).
The only ones who actually end up somewhere worse than Earth are those who knew of God's existence and actively went about doing exactly the opposite of His will, including misleading others. I don't imagine there have been many at all who fall into this category. Maybe several dozen?
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brinestone is right, KoM. Your statements about the LDS belief system are utterly wrong because they're founded-as usual, when it comes to religion-on ignorance.
Personally, I think Dagonee is right-it really is very crass of you to keep bringing up 'shooting the believers'-but I've long since chalked it up to your continuous intent to be a jackass on this subject.
Furthermore, your posts to Dagonee and in this thread in general only go to prove something I've been saying for a long time: you don't actually care about changing people's minds. You just want to crow about how smart you and slam the idiots who don't think like you do. It's nothing special, and neither are you, because lots of people do it. Your particular type is simply rarer, though, because there are fewer atheists.
You were actually doing alright, for you, in this thread with the exception of that whole 'murdering the believers' thing until Dagonee had the unmitigated gall to express displeasure with it.
Oh, and as for a track record about Christians? How stupid do you think people are again, exactly? Historically you wouldn't have lasted long spouting your bigotry against Christianity in particular (and as an afterthought, all religious belief at all). But today? The very fact that you go about crowing about how smart you are and what big idiots believers are just goes to show that you know you're lying when you talk about "get them before they get me". You're dead-wrong about that part of your statements in this thread, and it's just about the only thing you're obviously factually wrong about-so own up like a man, and admit it. Or squirm around and dodge and whine and maybe you'll end up praising the Orient as well.
Because believe me, if Christians were in the business of murdering those who offended them or insulted their religion in any systematic way anymore, you'd be dead.
--------
twinky,
You have a point. Sometime in the past, people have expressed a desire to see what comes after the End Times, which many believe involves a lot of blood and horror. However, unless they've said, "I will participate in that blood and horror to help move things along," it's not quite the same as what KoM is saying.
Furthermore, they don't usually go about shouting, "I WANT TO MURDER ALL OF YOU IDIOTS AND I'D DO IT IF I COULD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" so to me your point is pretty academic as far as this particular discussion is concerned.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd like to see it made explicit. Even adding "or lack thereof" would suffice.
I would support that. I suggest reporting your own post to make this a formal request. At minimum, we could get clarification posted here.
Good idea. I'll do that.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I do see the propriety or impropriety of this thread as a user agreement issue.
Do you think this thread violates the user agreement?
The thread itself, no. Some of the posts in it, yes.
--------
Added:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You have a point. Sometime in the past, people have expressed a desire to see what comes after the End Times, which many believe involves a lot of blood and horror.
I've seen the desire to help bring about the End Times, and witness them personally, stated on this forum without reference to what comes next.
quote: However, unless they've said, "I will participate in that blood and horror to help move things along," it's not quite the same as what KoM is saying.
Furthermore, they don't usually go about shouting, "I WANT TO MURDER ALL OF YOU IDIOTS AND I'D DO IT IF I COULD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" so to me your point is pretty academic as far as this particular discussion is concerned.
On that particular issue, I am largely agreement with KoM. I don't see a huge moral gulf between worshipping a god that you believe will perpetrate genocide and wishing you could perpetrate that genocide yourself. I don't think it's academic at all.
quote:The thread itself, no. Some of the posts in it, yes.
Sorry, I should have been more specific: Do you think the opening post, specifically, violates the user agreement?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taken independently, or in conjunction with KoM's posting history? Added: I'm not dodging the question here, I just want to be clear what you're asking.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taken independently, I think it's borderline but doesn't go far enough to violate the "disparagement clause." There isn't quite enough content to be sure of his intent in constructing the hypothetical scenario. Putting it in the context of KoM's posting history, it becomes clearer what his intent is, and I think that pushes it over the line. Of course, it's hard to consider it independently when the opening line contains "I have made reference to..."
Added: To be clear, I do think at least two or three of his subsequent posts in this thread violate the user agreement. Just not the first one on its own.
Also, I just reported my original post about the user agreement with an explanation and a request for an amendment or "ruling." Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ack. I did not intend that another thread should dissolve into acrimony.
quote:But today? The very fact that you go about crowing about how smart you are and what big idiots believers are just goes to show that you know you're lying when you talk about "get them before they get me". You're dead-wrong about that part of your statements in this thread, and it's just about the only thing you're obviously factually wrong about-so own up like a man, and admit it. Or squirm around and dodge and whine and maybe you'll end up praising the Orient as well.
Well, I'll at least try to avoid praising China, or at any rate its current policies. Apart from that, I don't quite understand your point here. Are you saying that if I were sincere about the 'get them before they get me' bit, I would not go around telling people about it? If so, well, Mein Kampf was published in 1923, and it's really quite explicit about Hitler's intentions. He relied on people not believing him; or possibly he didn't quite believe it himself, and only later found himself in a position to follow up his proclaimed policies.
(Incidentally, can one invoke Godwin's Law on someone who compares himself to Hitler? It is admittedly not a comparison I'm quite happy with, but for this thread at least, it seems accurate.)
About Mormon doctrine, I sit corrected. It is probably futile to put this thread back on a polite track, but I apologise to the Mormons reading this. The afterlife Brinestone describes is really quite fair and just, with one possible exception : Can people in the Telestial kingdom rise into the Terrestrial and Celestial ones by reforming? Eternity is a long time.
quote:You haven't called me on anything, because your understanding of my beliefs is nonexistent.
Let me take a deep breath, and try to explain my view of this; it is possible that you remember events differently, of course.
We have had discussions in the past about hell and justice. In these discussions, there has always been a point at which you said "I give up; you are only in this for insult, and you do not understand my beliefs at all." The latter may or may not be true; if so, I would suggest that the fault is not entirely mine. The former is not true. I am not wilfully obtuse, nor do I argue purely for the joy of insulting people; but if a belief appears to me to be either silly, evil, or just plain wrong, then I will say so.
Also, it always seems to me that this point of withdrawal comes at exactly the moment when a really telling point has been made. I assume it feels different for you; but to me, it looks as though you are precisely that stereotype, the theist who refuses to examine his beliefs, and retreats into a refusal to discuss their weaknesses, if he has no defense. If I have copmletely missed some fundamental point, why not point that out? I do not think you have ever done so, in these cases where - you say - I utterly misunderstand your beliefs. If the misunderstanding is indeed so unsubtle, surely it cannot be too hard to explain? We do not speak of subtle internal feelings, here, but of matters of doctrine, explainable in words.
As an aid to my understanding, let me ask you these questions :
Do you believe in a hell, where those who do not believe in your god are sent, after their deaths, for eternal punishment? (Perhaps mere unbelief is not enough, and you also need to be actively evil?)
Do you believe that this is unavoidable, even for an omnipotent god, or that it is the deliberate judgement of that god?
Do you believe that eternal punishment (assuming for a moment that it is indeed eternal) is reasonable for any crime?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, what about "I no longer discuss my religious beliefs with you, KoM" do you find difficult to understand? I have no interest in discussing theology with you. Right now, my sole concern is to get you to stop polluting the board with your trash.
quote:Taken independently, I think it's borderline but doesn't go far enough to violate the "disparagement clause." There isn't quite enough content to be sure of his intent in constructing the hypothetical scenario. Putting it in the context of KoM's posting history, it becomes clearer what his intent is, and I think that pushes it over the line. Of course, it's hard to consider it independently when the opening line contains "I have made reference to..."
Thanks, twinky.
quote:Also, I just reported my original post about the user agreement with an explanation and a request for an amendment or "ruling."
quote: Do you believe in a hell, where those who do not believe in your god are sent, after their deaths, for eternal punishment? (Perhaps mere unbelief is not enough, and you also need to be actively evil?)
Do you believe that this is unavoidable, even for an omnipotent god, or that it is the deliberate judgement of that god?
Do you believe that eternal punishment (assuming for a moment that it is indeed eternal) is reasonable for any crime?
My belief is that "hell" is separation from God and that rather then being "sent" we choose it ourselves by separating ourselves from God through sin.
I think that it is unavoidable in that the only way to avoid it would be for God to take that choice from us. I think that God does everything possible to avoid that separation short of denying us that choice.
I think that the "punishment" would continue as long as one continued to choose it. I don't believe that the choice one is making at the time of death is necessarily final.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If this is where you wanted the discussion to go, you picked a hell of a creative way to get it there. Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:On that particular issue, I am largely agreement with KoM. I don't see a huge moral gulf between worshipping a god that you believe will perpetrate genocide and wishing you could perpetrate that genocide yourself. I don't think it's academic at all.
I think if you examined the beliefs of people regarding what would happen to those who died, you might reconsider, but that's not what I was talking about...
I was talking about your complaint that this particular violation (if it is one) having happened before is pretty academic in my opinion because on the one hand we've got someone shrieking genocide on a regular basis, and on the other hand, some people in the past have expressed a few times they would like to see the End Times happen-and as for that, I'll keep my eyes open, but I certainly don't remember it.
It's as though the same guy is mugging people in broad daylight on a public street day after day...and you're bringing up some muggings that happened weeks ago, that weren't nearly as public or frequent. That's what I meant. I think the complaint on that basis is a bit...artificial, that's all.
If the situation was reversed-if we had a fundamentalist right now advocating hellfire and damnation for the nonbeliever today and expressing his heartfelt desire that heretics be writhing in torment-and someone brought up in defense of that the fact that KoM had a couple of times awhile ago expressed a desire to kill believers, I would think the defense on that basis was equally strained.
--------
KoM,
quote:Ack. I did not intend that another thread should dissolve into acrimony.
Yeah, right.
quote:Apart from that, I don't quite understand your point here. Are you saying that if I were sincere about the 'get them before they get me' bit, I would not go around telling people about it?
I think it's fairly clear what I meant. You're lying about the 'get them before they get me' part because they're not trying to get you. Christians are not gunning for your murder. Past track record aside (and atheists have done so well when they're in control in the modern world), Christians today are not out to get you...and so there is no 'before' they get me me part of your statement.
And you know they're not trying to get you, because you haven't been gotten yet, KoM. As I said, if Christians were in the business of murdering heretics in any systematic way these days, you'd be dead.
As for Dagonee...you're asking him for respectful tolerance. You give him none. Even a cursory look at religious discussions involving Catholicism would reveal to you that Dagonee has frequently answered questions and debated points about Catholicism. The difference between those times and this time isn't that Dagonee is cringing in fear at your awesome rhetorical might. It's that those times, there wasn't an insulting jackass involved.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, now I see. Let me then rephrase to 'before they acquire the political power they need to change the body politic, so that they can get me.' And I would back up my fear of such a happening by pointing to Pat Robertson; who, however much you dislike him, has a huge following. Not to mention Jack Chick. I understand that you do not believe as these people do; but nonetheless, they are powers in the land, and I do not think it unreasonable to fear that they will acquire more. What do you think would happen to atheists in a USA where Robertson, or one of his ilk, was president? I think second-class citizen status would be the absolute best we could hope for.
As for Dag, really, I don't see where I've asked him for tolerance; only for actual replies to my objections. If the reply is of the form 'You don't understand,' then it should be followed by 'because of X, Y, and Z'. Just saying 'you are ignorant of my beliefs' is not an answer.
And I do not believe I have been insulting in this thread; nor, indeed, for a while back. Looks like evasion of difficult points to me. Or how would you answer the questions I asked?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for Dag, really, I don't see where I've asked him for tolerance; only for actual replies to my objections. If the reply is of the form 'You don't understand,' then it should be followed by 'because of X, Y, and Z'. Just saying 'you are ignorant of my beliefs' is not an answer.
That might be the case were we having a discussion about this topic. But we're not. As it is, you are responding to my critique of particular behavior - your advocacy of genocide on Hatrack - with demands that I account for your mistaken understanding of my beliefs. My beliefs are irrelvant here.
You have stated you would like to have me shot in the head (assuming I have the constancy to resist denying my God). I would like you to not do that here. More to the point, I would like others to treat you as we would treat someone who advocated shooting any other group of people.
Your response that somehow my beliefs make such behavior by you acceptable are irrelevant, even if you were characterizing them correctly. You are a master at diverting discussion of the bald facts - your advocacy of genocide - to your pet topics.
I am not playing that game with you any more. You have done something on Hatrack I consider atrocious. You can't - at least, you haven't done so yet - back up a claim that I have done anything equivalent here.
You don't get rewarded for your advocacy of violence with rational discussion about my faith.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, now I see. Let me then rephrase to 'before they acquire the political power they need to change the body politic, so that they can get me.' And I would back up my fear of such a happening by pointing to Pat Robertson; who, however much you dislike him, has a huge following. Not to mention Jack Chick. I understand that you do not believe as these people do; but nonetheless, they are powers in the land, and I do not think it unreasonable to fear that they will acquire more. What do you think would happen to atheists in a USA where Robertson, or one of his ilk, was president? I think second-class citizen status would be the absolute best we could hope for.
Well then, you're pretty damned ignorant. But that comes as no surprise. Anyone with a passing knowledge of American history knows how very, very unlikely it would be for Jack Chick-ites or Pat Roberson-ites to come to power on the basis of their beliefs with those two people.
They're not going to come to power in the way you fear. America isn't going to become a theocracy, any more than your delightful little genocide will come to pass, either. All the fundamentalism running in our government right now, courtesy of Dubya & Co.? Gone, in as little as two years...and very unlikely, as much as ten years. Much less than that, really, when you consider the extreme unlikelihood that the GOP will maintain its hold over Congress.
Yes, fundamentalism is something to watch out for and oppose. Just saying, "It'll never happen," and ignoring it would obviously be a mistake. But that doesn't equal "I gotta get them before they get me", either. And you know it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think if you examined the beliefs of people regarding what would happen to those who died, you might reconsider, but that's not what I was talking about...
I have done so. Given that I think they're all wrong, I'm somewhat uncomfortable about the fact that there are potentially billions of people who might, upon witnessing genocide that fit loosely in the Revelations mold, sanction it.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I was talking about your complaint that this particular violation (if it is one) having happened before is pretty academic in my opinion because on the one hand we've got someone shrieking genocide on a regular basis, and on the other hand, some people in the past have expressed a few times they would like to see the End Times happen-and as for that, I'll keep my eyes open, but I certainly don't remember it.
If you're really interested, I think I can provide a comparatively recent example. I won't do so in public, though, because I don't think that's appropriate in this case.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's as though the same guy is mugging people in broad daylight on a public street day after day...and you're bringing up some muggings that happened weeks ago, that weren't nearly as public or frequent. That's what I meant. I think the complaint on that basis is a bit...artificial, that's all.
I stated explicitly at the outset that I was playing Devil's Advocate.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If the situation was reversed-if we had a fundamentalist right now advocating hellfire and damnation for the nonbeliever today and expressing his heartfelt desire that heretics be writhing in torment-and someone brought up in defense of that the fact that KoM had a couple of times awhile ago expressed a desire to kill believers, I would think the defense on that basis was equally strained.
What you're missing is that I'm not defending KoM. I think if you re-read my posts, you'll see that.
I will say that I agree with some of the points he's raised and that outside of discussion about religion I quite like him. Lest you take that as a defence, however, I'll also note that I think he has violated the forum's user agreement many times with disparaging remarks about religion.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:if a belief appears to me to be either silly, evil, or just plain wrong, then I will say so.
There is a bit of a difference between "I believe you are wrong" and "I wish I could shoot you unless you agreed with me."
Additionally, there is also a difference between "I'm having trouble understanding your beliefs" and "You're beliefs are wrong because I can't understand them."
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Rakeesh, I certainly hope you're right about Robertson. It does seem to me that it is a point on which reasonable men might differ. Although I've already invoked Godwin's Law once in this thread, I do think you might want to consider what the German intelligentsia and upper classes were saying about Hitler, as late as 1932.
Still, I'll admit that my hypothetical scenario doesn't have much to do with opposing that outcome; I started the thread from idle curiosity.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My major point here is that we (or most of us, anyway) wouldn't spend time answering a hypothetical from someone who asked if blacks would agree to stay away from white folk or if homosexuals would agree to stop having sex if either had a gun put to their head by the poster's soldiers. We would condemn the racist or homophobic S.O.B. who proposed doing so, especially if that person made a habit of proposing totalitarian methods of dealing with the particular groups.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I'm somewhat uncomfortable about the fact that there are potentially billions of people who might, upon witnessing genocide that fit loosely in the Revelations mold, sanction it.
Twinky, you've been rather reasonable, but I think this statement does an injustice to Christians. First off, many of them, perhaps even a majority, do not believe Revelations to be a literal prophecy. Secondly, of the ones who do, most view it as an undesireable but unavoidable event: "the tribulation." It's "a disaster of Biblical Proportions." It's possible (and, I'd say, likely) that people who buy into the whole tribulation message look forward to the time after without actually desiring the nasty events themselves.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
