Uselessness of emotional, heated posts

[Michael E.]

Hi, everyone! Don't know who of the old bunch is still around
(although I see Simpleton is still here. Hi, Simpleton!) If I have any
will power, you'll see me here rarely. (A cheer erupts from the
atheist/agnostic camp.)

Just read a review of a Christian apologetic book (written by a
neutral agnostic) that I found very interesting. It wasn't the review
of the book that caught my attention, but author's review and
commentary on atheist critics.

Read it all here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2TT2WR0QO39G9/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
But here are some highlights:

<QUOTE>
I could tell by the tone and stance of the reviews that they
[atheists] were reacting more out of indignation toward the subject
matter than out of any knowledge of the text itself. One reviewer
scorned the book for being written by David Limbaugh, when the man
only wrote the forward. Another person decried the book for being "all
about politics," when, as far as I could tell, there wasn't a word
about politics, just beliefs or the lack of them.

If you are a critic of christianity, that's fine. Trust me, I
understand your point of view. But your clumsily summarized view
points and your indignant rebuttals do little to enlighten people who
may be interested in buying this book....

For someone such as myself, looking for intelligent and candid help
with the question of Larger Purposes (or their absence), your poorly
worded rants and emotional appeals -- especially those of you wearing
your rage on your sleeve -- do nothing to help me. For future
reference, if you really want to help someone like me understand your
points of view, instead of typing out some sloppy summation or more
key-worded dismissals (argument from ignorance! straw men!), perhaps
you could actually RECOMMEND A DIFFERENT BOOK....

And if you DO think you've got it all figured out, and if you DON'T
think this book does, you could at least try to share that knowledge
by pointing someone like me in the right direction, and by doing that
without the same snobbish condecension that you sometimes find in the
religious believers whom you so adamantly decry.
</QUOTE>

Bottom line: Emotional rants, put downs, snobbery, cockiness, etc.,
are not constructive no matter what side of the fence you sit on.
Thank you for your attention.

[Simpleton]

On Dec 19, 11:50 am, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, everyone! Don't know who of the old bunch is still around
> (although I see Simpleton is still here. Hi, Simpleton!) If I have any
> will power, you'll see me here rarely. (A cheer erupts from the
> atheist/agnostic camp.)
>

Yipppppeeee! All that taunting finally paid off!


Good to see you back, Michael. Don't worry, we'll both work on
eroding that will power thingy.

I note that taunting is still fair game though. So, how're the missus
and kids doing? A litle happy to be back from Gulagistan, even you
miss the yellow berry flavored vodka?


Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays (your choice) to you and yours,
Michael. Wish you'd stick around, we could scale new heights in terms
of the volume of posts.

[Drafterman]

On Dec 19, 2:50 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, everyone! Don't know who of the old bunch is still around
> (although I see Simpleton is still here. Hi, Simpleton!) If I have any
> will power, you'll see me here rarely. (A cheer erupts from the
> atheist/agnostic camp.)

If by cheer you mean confused looks and whispers of "Who is that guy?"

I'm confused. Is this quote in support of your view, or an example of
what you're against? Because the quote seems to me to be pretty heated
and emotional, he even types *gasp* in all caps.

[Michael E.]

Ah, good to be taunted by you again, Simpleton. In a masochistic sort
of way, I've missed it.

The missus and kids are doing great. They've adapted back to life in
the States very quickly. I, on the other hand, am still trying to get
on top of all of the demands of Stateside ministry, which means I
don't have as much time as I'd like for the truth-telling I enjoy
doing here. ;-)

> Wish you'd stick around, we could scale new heights in terms
> of the volume of posts.

I've noticed I'm slipping down the list of "all time highest posters."
Alas, my glory days are over. I'm a has-been.

And a very merry Christmas to you too, Simpleton. I wish you to one
day experience the deep-down peace, rest and joy God is offering you
in what is celebrated at Christmas. [Oooh, I've opened the door for
some nice taunting replies on many fronts! You're welcome.]

[Michael E.]

The quote is in support of the style of posts I consider useful and
productive. As for me, I'm a Christian.

[Drafterman]

On Dec 19, 3:07 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The quote is in support of the style of posts I consider useful and
> productive. As for me, I'm a Christian.

But as I said, the quote itself is heated, ergo not useful. Second,
the types of comments the quote is criticizing seems to be more to do
with uninformed and prejudice response than anything. He references
appeals to emotion and wearing rage on one's sleeve (which are
different things), but seems to be more than an afterthought.

I think a better quote would have been one that addresses emotional
posts specifically, showing why they are not useful, without becoming
emotional itself.

[Dev]

Well, Ewart, I can't say I'm sad to find you back but I still look at
you the way a kitty cat looks at a goldfish.

On Dec 19, 12:50 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, everyone! Don't know who of the old bunch is still around
> (although I see Simpleton is still here. Hi, Simpleton!) If I have any
> will power, you'll see me here rarely. (A cheer erupts from the
> atheist/agnostic camp.)

No, I think most of us enjoyed playing with you. You never said
anything intelligent or made anyone but yourself look stupid. It was
fun to stand next to you, verbally. It's like "look at this guy and
look at me--I look so smart now, oh my God (no pun intended)".

> Just read a review of a Christian apologetic book (written by a
> neutral agnostic) that I found very interesting. It wasn't the review
> of the book that caught my attention, but author's review and
> commentary on atheist critics.
>
> Read it all here:http://www.amazon.com/review/R2TT2WR0QO39G9/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
> But here are some highlights:

Not fucking impressive.

> <QUOTE>
> I could tell by the tone and stance of the reviews that they
> [atheists] were reacting more out of indignation toward the subject
> matter than out of any knowledge of the text itself. One reviewer
> scorned the book for being written by David Limbaugh, when the man
> only wrote the forward. Another person decried the book for being "all
> about politics," when, as far as I could tell, there wasn't a word
> about politics, just beliefs or the lack of them.

So an atheist fucked up, I suppose. I don't care--this reviewer has a
bunch of stupid, irrational biases and I don't care. He says he wants
"something to believe" in the tenor of belief as irrational belief. I
believe in lots of things, but not through religious faith. He is
clearly seeking a religious faith. So fuck him. He's tracking
delusion.

> If you are a critic of christianity, that's fine.

Not according to your God, though, right?

> Trust me, I
> understand your point of view.

No you don't. Shut up, Mike--you're stupid.

> But your clumsily summarized view
> points and your indignant rebuttals do little to enlighten people who
> may be interested in buying this book....

There are so many books out there, Ewart. Have you read any by Harris,
Hitchens, Dawkins, Burroughs, Kerouac, Pirsig, Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Brad
Warner? Then quit saying other people just need to read _your_ books.
I've read more of The Bible than you have, remember. I know more about
it--that's for certain.

> For someone such as myself,

i.e. retard

> looking for intelligent and candid help
> with the question of Larger Purposes (or their absence), your poorly
> worded rants and emotional appeals -- especially those of you wearing
> your rage on your sleeve -- do nothing to help me.

If you want I'll send you a knife to slit your wrists with. Why the
fuck are you acting like you're hiring us for a job position? You want
us to suck your cock to gain your approval? Fuck you. I approach you
with the respect that you've earned, which isn't too fucking much.
Nothing's free, shithead. I don't respect everyone--I evaluate their
quality as humans given the information provided to me and approach
them appropriately. There are people here I would take bullets for and
others I kind of want to put bullets into. Nothing of value is free,
Ewart. I look at you as garbage because you haven't earned any more
respect than garbage.

> For future
> reference, if you really want to help someone like me understand your
> points of view, instead of typing out some sloppy summation or more
> key-worded dismissals (argument from ignorance! straw men!), perhaps
> you could actually RECOMMEND A DIFFERENT BOOK....

Recommending books works, from my experience, about 1% of the time
overall. Most people aren't really readers. And I know you aren't one.

> And if you DO think you've got it all figured out, and if you DON'T
> think this book does, you could at least try to share that knowledge
> by pointing someone like me in the right direction, and by doing that
> without the same snobbish condecension that you sometimes find in the
> religious believers whom you so adamantly decry.
> </QUOTE>

What does it say about you that you reject something that could very
easily be true just because you find it condescending? What kind of
grounds is that for rejection? Even if it hurts your little feelings,
shouldn't truth be the main issue?

> Bottom line: Emotional rants, put downs, snobbery, cockiness, etc.,
> are not constructive no matter what side of the fence you sit on.
> Thank you for your attention.

Fuck off, eat shit, etc. You suck, man. Get hit by an elephant or a
really fatassed unicorn or something. Get hit by the reincarnation of
Bambi's mom. The logic of an argument is in no way degraded by the
fact that the person making the argument feels passionately about
being right over being wrong. This is a shit way for you to make a
stupid excuse so cut it the fuck out.

[Michael E.]

LOL. Awesome... and thank you. You couldn't have punctuated the point
of this post any better.

[Drafterman]

Michael E. wrote:
> LOL. Awesome... and thank you. You couldn't have punctuated the point
> of this post any better.

So you're "using" this "heated" post to prove your point? Well, that
only shows that such posts can have a use, making them not useless.

So, by Reductio ad absurdum, your argument is disproven.

[Michael E.]

Gosh, you got me there. His emotional, heated post did indeed prove
the point that emotional, heated posts are not conducive to swaying a
fence-sitter's opinion. (?!)

[Trance Gemini]

Ah, this must be the infamous Michael Ewart that I've heard so much
about!

[Trance Gemini]

Does this mean my Women and the Bible thread is going to liven up with
yet another Christian male who things he's a woman?

Have you made this one you're prison bitch, Dev?

[Michael E.]

Nice to meet you, Trance. Infamous?!

[Trance Gemini]

Actually it proved that you can make a heated post and still make
sense, make a logical point quite effectively.

[Trance Gemini]

No?

[Dave]

On Dec 19, 11:50 am, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, everyone! Don't know who of the old bunch is still around
> (although I see Simpleton is still here. Hi, Simpleton!) If I have any
> will power, you'll see me here rarely. (A cheer erupts from the
> atheist/agnostic camp.)
>
> Just read a review of a Christian apologetic book (written by a
> neutral agnostic) that I found very interesting. It wasn't the review
> of the book that caught my attention, but author's review and
> commentary on atheist critics.

That just sent up a giant red flag. A "neutral agnostic" writing a
book of christian apologetics? I'm not falling for it.

> <QUOTE>
> I could tell by the tone and stance of the reviews that they
> [atheists] were reacting more out of indignation toward the subject

> matter than out of any knowledge of the text itself. ..... </QUOTE>

I don't need to read any more. That explains enough. The author is far
from neutral and just doesn't like Atheists disagreeing with him so he
outright dismisses them as reactionaries without any possibility of
actually knowing about the topic. It seems his knee is jerking faster
than those he is accusing of knee jerk reactions.

> Bottom line: Emotional rants, put downs, snobbery, cockiness, etc.,
> are not constructive no matter what side of the fence you sit on.
> Thank you for your attention.

Actually, that's not what the author was saying at all. He was saying
that anyone that disagrees with him must be emotional and cannot be
rational since they disagree with him.

[Drafterman]

Michael E. wrote:
> Gosh, you got me there. His emotional, heated post did indeed prove
> the point that emotional, heated posts are not conducive to swaying a
> fence-sitter's opinion. (?!)

But that wasn't your point, so let's not suddenly change the rules
here. If you want to retire your argument and post a different one,
then do so, but at least do it honestly rather then making it seem
like this was youe position all along.

[Michael E.]

> > Bottom line: Emotional rants, put downs, snobbery, cockiness, etc.,
> > are not constructive no matter what side of the fence you sit on.
> > Thank you for your attention.
>
> Actually, that's not what the author was saying at all. He was saying
> that anyone that disagrees with him must be emotional and cannot be
> rational since they disagree with him.

I understood him to be saying that anyone who can't present a
reasoned, restrained, calm response is not looking at an issue
rationally, logically and objectively.

This post, by the way, was not intended to be addressed only to
atheists, but to Christians too who make emotional appeals instead of
reasoned, thoughtful posts.

[Michael E.]

On Dec 19, 2:21 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 3:07 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The quote is in support of the style of posts I consider useful and
> > productive. As for me, I'm a Christian.
>
> But as I said, the quote itself is heated, ergo not useful. Second,
> the types of comments the quote is criticizing seems to be more to do
> with uninformed and prejudice response than anything. He references
> appeals to emotion and wearing rage on one's sleeve (which are
> different things), but seems to be more than an afterthought.
>
> I think a better quote would have been one that addresses emotional
> posts specifically, showing why they are not useful, without becoming
> emotional itself.

I see your point. I don't think the forum (Amazon book reviews) really
made that kind of response possible.

[OldMan]

Welcome back to AvC Michael! It's been a long time. Wiseclam just
came back a couple of months ago. It's almost like a reunion tour
here now.

On Dec 19, 11:50 am, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Michael E.]

Hi, OldMan. Good to "see" you again. Somehow I doubt wiseclam will
want to do any touring with me. But, it's good to be back. Doesn't
look like much has changed around here. Have I missed anything
exciting?

[Simpleton]

On Dec 19, 6:18 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, OldMan. Good to "see" you again. Somehow I doubt wiseclam will
> want to do any touring with me. But, it's good to be back. Doesn't
> look like much has changed around here. Have I missed anything
> exciting?
>

Yes OldMan is teaching a Genesis class, and no fist fights have broken
out yet.

Recently he ran a mini-marathon, and got badly beaten by a woman only
two years his junior. I'm sure Yahweh was not pleased.

Rappoccio's wife had a baby, and has got another bun in the oven.

People *other than myself* have been taunting you. Mercilessly.


Oh yeah, we're posting more junk than before...

[OldMan]

On Dec 19, 6:18 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, OldMan. Good to "see" you again. Somehow I doubt wiseclam will
> want to do any touring with me.

Don't bet on it. He has been unable to get anyone to argue with him
in favor of an eternal hell. I think he will be delighted to have you
back.

> But, it's good to be back. Doesn't
> look like much has changed around here. Have I missed anything
> exciting?

Define exciting! We continue to grow in volume of posts. So much so
that I probably read less than 20% of them anymore. Many threads I
never even open, just because the title does not interest me. There
are some discussions that I find interesting, but many more that I do
not. But all in all, I still find this a worth while waste of
time. ;-)

[Dev]

You are just a parasite. No pride. Just fall on your eight widdle legs
and work yourself away.

> > stupid excuse so cut it the fuck out.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dev]

Ewart has been my prison bitch before you showed up. Old friends, I
guess we should say. :)

> Have you made this one you're prison bitch, Dev?- Hide quoted text -

[jeb]

You can make a heated post and still make sense. However the ability
to persuade another to consider your stance is lessened by the raw
emotion. I see Dev's posts as simple attempts to inflate his ego,
cover his insecurities, his lack of original content, and to pander to
those who share his views. Because of his childish use of language as
a club and for belittlement, I seldom bother reading his posts. His
ability to intimidate or persuade me is nil. I do read your posts and
consider your words, even when they are heated, but it takes quite a
bit more effort to consider them in a meaningful way when the wording
or tone is insulting. My posts follow the same rules, when my tone or
words become insulting they are much less persuasive. As such, I
would suspect that Dev, being insulted above will be little persuaded
by this post, but persuasion is not my intent.

> sense, make a logical point quite effectively.- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

A good way of putting it, Drafty. You've made a few points in my
coolbook.

> > > stupid excuse so cut it the fuck out.- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Dec 19, 11:46 pm, jeb <jester...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can make a heated post and still make sense. However the ability
> to persuade another to consider your stance is lessened by the raw
> emotion. I see Dev's posts as simple attempts to inflate his ego,
> cover his insecurities, his lack of original content, and to pander to
> those who share his views. Because of his childish use of language as
> a club and for belittlement, I seldom bother reading his posts. His
> ability to intimidate or persuade me is nil. I do read your posts and
> consider your words, even when they are heated, but it takes quite a
> bit more effort to consider them in a meaningful way when the wording
> or tone is insulting. My posts follow the same rules, when my tone or
> words become insulting they are much less persuasive. As such, I
> would suspect that Dev, being insulted above will be little persuaded
> by this post, but persuasion is not my intent.
>

Jeb. I know you think I have an issue with you and I really don't.

Honestly in a forum like this I don't care enough to have an issue
with anyone.

I do, however, have opinions which I express freely, as you know.

I have a style of expression which if you read my posts (not just the
ones to you) is respectful until I feel insulted or I feel someone is
implying things about me personally or what I've said that are
unwarranted.

I joke a lot and sometimes that can be misunderstood as me making a
statement of some sort. That's rarely the case, I'm usually just
joking.

That's me and the way I work.

We are not all the same. Most people on this site have a distinct
style and way of approaching things.

It's not up to you or I, in my opinion, to judge them. This site would
be quite boring without those different styles.

Dev is extremely tolerant on many things, on the things he values and
respects.

He doesn't suffer fools gladly and says what's on his mind.

When he talks about issues that concern him and that are a problem
from him, he shows his lack of respect.

In my opinion, the worst thing anyone can say about Dev is that he's
Honest.

I personally respect that and don't consider that bad or a crime.

[Trance Gemini]

Drafterman's always been your friend Dev ;).

[Drafterman]

I have my moments.

On Dec 20, 12:52 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

[jeb]

Trance,

"Jeb. I know you think I have an issue with you and I really don't.

"Honestly in a forum like this I don't care enough to have an issue
with anyone. I do, however, have opinions which I express freely, as
you know. "

I accept the above without qualification, it exactly mirrors my
position.

"I have a style of expression which if you read my posts (not just
the
ones to you) is respectful until I feel insulted or I feel someone is
implying things about me personally or what I've said that are
unwarranted."

Yet sometimes it does not take much to insult you, our first exchanged
began to degrade as soon as I Implied you were taking a stance. If I
read the above correctly, you are saying that you become disrespectful
when someone intones that what you have said is unwarranted. Look
back at your courage and cowardice thread. I did just that, I felt
what you had to say was mean spirited and unwarranted. I have a
difficult time agreeing that should result in disrespect. I am sure
that I say many things that are unwarranted, when someone tells me
that, or differs in opinion, I do not take it as an insult, or
personally. What I feel, accurate or not, is that you are more than
willing to insult but feel unjustly attacked when the favor is
returned.

"I joke a lot and sometimes that can be misunderstood as me making a
statement of some sort. That's rarely the case, I'm usually just
joking."

Jokes at someone else's expense are offensive and insulting to them,
that may or may not matter to you but it is accurate. The "I am
laughing with you, not at you" is very seldom true.

"That's me and the way I work."

I understand that. You find my tome insulting and arrogant at times.
This is because I present my opinions in a manner that is meant to be
persuasive, including "we", etc in the wording and implying that what
I have to say is "the gospel". That's the way I work. Life in
general has taught me that it is effective in most non-contentious
forums. It does not serve me well here where the contention is
already built in. In this forum it appears that flattery is a more
effective way of interacting with others here. But that is not my
way, and for me to do so would untruthful.

"We are not all the same. Most people on this site have a distinct
style and way of approaching things."

Very true, we are very diverse, that is what makes life interesting.

"It's not up to you or I, in my opinion, to judge them. This site
would
be quite boring without those different styles."

We all judge one another continually. If you don't believe that, then
you need to pause and consider it. It is human nature. Judgment in
itself is neither good nor bad. Actions stemming out of that judgment
can be either.

"Dev is extremely tolerant on many things, on the things he values
and
respects."

We are all more tolerant of those things to which we value and
respect, The same could be said of a two year old. As one gains
maturity they can grow to a point of tolerance to those things they do
not understand, agree with or respect.

"He doesn't suffer fools gladly and says what's on his mind."

And he is quick to decide that anyone who doesn't agree with him is a
fool.

"When he talks about issues that concern him and that are a problem
from him, he shows his lack of respect."

That is understandable; we all tend to react poorly when we feel our
security or sense of self is threatened. But once agian it takes some
maturity to rise above that insecurity and riegn in our raw emotion.

In my opinion, the worst thing anyone can say about Dev is that he's
Honest.

That is your opinion, mine is far different. Dev may may have had
some life experience that brought him to his current "personality"
here. I have no doubt that Christians or the religious are in a large
part responsible for that "personality" growth into intense dislike of
them. But as I raised my children, I taught them that history can
explain behavior but not excuse it. I can also accept that this forum
provides a venting system for him. A place to vent and rage with
little or no consequence to his actual life in the world. That world
evidentally builds great resentment in him. Stemming from having to
pander to those he detests so as to not negatively impact his family
or status. It appears, he lives a lie on a daily basis because he is
unable to "be himself". I do not say these things in a mean hearted
way. I do have empathy for him, as that is a very difficult way to
live. it is not uncommon for those with a high intelligence to "live
in the world" in such a manner. Some handle it better than others.

"I personally respect that and don't consider that bad or a crime."

That's accurate, if being honest is the worst someone can say of
another, it is certainly not bad or a crime.

It is my hope that the above was not inflamming and was taken
objectively. It was not my intent to insult, or debase.

jeb

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

All of this is your opinion, and you can choose to continue this
harping vendetta of yours if you want because that's all it is.

YOU take things personally, misinterpret (I haven't decided whether
that's deliberate or not) and go on vendettas like the one you have
with me.

It's like you deliberately start a conversation to draw me in so that
you can dump all over me.

I'm through with playing this stupid, childish game of yours.

> "I joke a lot and sometimes that can be misunderstood as me making a
> statement of some sort. That's rarely the case, I'm usually just
> joking."
>
> Jokes at someone else's expense are offensive and insulting to them,
> that may or may not matter to you but it is accurate. The "I am
> laughing with you, not at you" is very seldom true.
>

I am going to stop trying to defend myself against your bullshit, Jeb,
because it's just that lies and bullshit.

> "That's me and the way I work."
>
> I understand that. You find my tome insulting and arrogant at times.
> This is because I present my opinions in a manner that is meant to be
> persuasive, including "we", etc in the wording and implying that what
> I have to say is "the gospel". That's the way I work. Life in
> general has taught me that it is effective in most non-contentious
> forums. It does not serve me well here where the contention is
> already built in. In this forum it appears that flattery is a more
> effective way of interacting with others here. But that is not my
> way, and for me to do so would untruthful.
>
> "We are not all the same. Most people on this site have a distinct
> style and way of approaching things."
>
> Very true, we are very diverse, that is what makes life interesting.
>
> "It's not up to you or I, in my opinion, to judge them. This site
> would
> be quite boring without those different styles."
>
> We all judge one another continually. If you don't believe that, then
> you need to pause and consider it. It is human nature. Judgment in
> itself is neither good nor bad. Actions stemming out of that judgment
> can be either.
>

That is obviously what you do.

> "Dev is extremely tolerant on many things, on the things he values
> and
> respects."
>
> We are all more tolerant of those things to which we value and
> respect, The same could be said of a two year old. As one gains
> maturity they can grow to a point of tolerance to those things they do
> not understand, agree with or respect.
>
> "He doesn't suffer fools gladly and says what's on his mind."
>
> And he is quick to decide that anyone who doesn't agree with him is a
> fool.
>

More bullshit and lies.

> "When he talks about issues that concern him and that are a problem
> from him, he shows his lack of respect."
>
> That is understandable; we all tend to react poorly when we feel our
> security or sense of self is threatened. But once agian it takes some
> maturity to rise above that insecurity and riegn in our raw emotion.
>

Yes, like the maturity you show when you continually drag me into
these bullshit childish petty arguments of yours.

Dev has more maturity in his little finger than you have developed in
your lifetime.

> In my opinion, the worst thing anyone can say about Dev is that he's
> Honest.
>
> That is your opinion, mine is far different. Dev may may have had
> some life experience that brought him to his current "personality"
> here. I have no doubt that Christians or the religious are in a large
> part responsible for that "personality" growth into intense dislike of
> them. But as I raised my children, I taught them that history can
> explain behavior but not excuse it. I can also accept that this forum
> provides a venting system for him. A place to vent and rage with
> little or no consequence to his actual life in the world. That world
> evidentally builds great resentment in him. Stemming from having to
> pander to those he detests so as to not negatively impact his family
> or status. It appears, he lives a lie on a daily basis because he is
> unable to "be himself". I do not say these things in a mean hearted
> way. I do have empathy for him, as that is a very difficult way to
> live. it is not uncommon for those with a high intelligence to "live
> in the world" in such a manner. Some handle it better than others.
>
> "I personally respect that and don't consider that bad or a crime."
>
> That's accurate, if being honest is the worst someone can say of
> another, it is certainly not bad or a crime.
>
> It is my hope that the above was not inflamming and was taken
> objectively. It was not my intent to insult, or debase.

Well that's too bad because it did all of those things that you claim
it wasn't intended to.

Do you like flaming and insulting people, then claiming that wasn't
your intent?

I think you do, and it's just more of your bullshit and lies.

> ...
>
> read more >>

[jeb]

So now I have a vendetta against you? So now I take your postings
personal, all because you say so. LOL

Yes, it's all my opinion, just as yours is yours. What's your point?

> it's just that lies and bullshit.

>More bullshit and lies

>just more of your bullshit and lies.

Constant repetition does not make false statements true, no matter how
many times you repeat them. It's just a subconscious attempt to
convince yourself of their validity.

>Do you like flaming and insulting people, then claiming that wasn't
>your intent?

>I think you do, and it's just more of your bullshit and lies.

No, I was speaking the truth throughout the entire post, it is just
that you evidentially can't handle it and degrade into an almost
religious objection of it.

But yes, I see no gain to continue this discussion, so it is at end.

jeb

> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -

[tarajeandoris7@gmail.com]

I agree...about one thing. rants and raves .

On Dec 19, 1:50 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, everyone! Don't know who of the old bunch is still around
> (although I see Simpleton is still here. Hi, Simpleton!) If I have any
> will power, you'll see me here rarely. (A cheer erupts from the
> atheist/agnostic camp.)
>

> Just read a review of a Christian apologetic book (written by a
> neutral agnostic) that I found very interesting. It wasn't the review
> of the book that caught my attention, but author's review and
> commentary on atheist critics.
>
> Read it all here:http://www.amazon.com/review/R2TT2WR0QO39G9/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
> But here are some highlights:
>

> <QUOTE>
> I could tell by the tone and stance of the reviews that they
> [atheists] were reacting more out of indignation toward the subject
> matter than out of any knowledge of the text itself. One reviewer

> scorned the book for being written by David Limbaugh, when the man
> only wrote the forward. Another person decried the book for being "all
> about politics," when, as far as I could tell, there wasn't a word
> about politics, just beliefs or the lack of them.
>

> If you are a critic of christianity, that's fine. Trust me, I
> understand your point of view. But your clumsily summarized view

> points and your indignant rebuttals do little to enlighten people who
> may be interested in buying this book....
>

> For someone such as myself, looking for intelligent and candid help

> with the question of Larger Purposes (or their absence), your poorly
> worded rants and emotional appeals -- especially those of you wearing

> your rage on your sleeve -- do nothing to help me. For future

> reference, if you really want to help someone like me understand your
> points of view, instead of typing out some sloppy summation or more
> key-worded dismissals (argument from ignorance! straw men!), perhaps
> you could actually RECOMMEND A DIFFERENT BOOK....
>

> And if you DO think you've got it all figured out, and if you DON'T
> think this book does, you could at least try to share that knowledge
> by pointing someone like me in the right direction, and by doing that
> without the same snobbish condecension that you sometimes find in the
> religious believers whom you so adamantly decry.
> </QUOTE>
>

[Dev]

Just because you've shoved a fencepost up your asshole doesn't mean
you're sitting on the fence.

> > > > stupid excuse so cut it the fuck out.- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

Blah blah blah. Experienced posters indeed know how original I can be.
Piss me off enough and you will know too. You can make unsubstantiated
assertions all you want but you will never refute me. I am a better
person than you are. Live with it. Or don't and see if I give a shit.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[jeb]

Dev,

Possibly. Since my arrival here, I have not seen it. Because of the
abusiveness and lack of content of your posts since I have arrived, I
have seen no reason to believe anything else. Point me to one of your
previous posts along those lines and I'll go back and re-evaluate, not
that you give a shit.

And I am glad you feel you are a better person than I.

jeb

[bonfly]

Dev only feels like he's a better person than you because he actually
is. I've never read any abusive posts written by Dev, although if he
ever has written anything unkind it would have been toward some utter
bastard like you and you would have deserved it. All I've seen from
you have been weak attempts to smear Dev's credibility.

[Dev]

Here's a fun game, jeb. You name two posts: one by me and one by you.

[random]

On Dec 19, 9:50 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, everyone! Don't know who of the old bunch is still around
> (although I see Simpleton is still here. Hi, Simpleton!) If I have any
> will power, you'll see me here rarely. (A cheer erupts from the
> atheist/agnostic camp.)
>

> Just read a review of a Christian apologetic book (written by a
> neutral agnostic) that I found very interesting. It wasn't the review
> of the book that caught my attention, but author's review and
> commentary on atheist critics.
>
> Read it all here:http://www.amazon.com/review/R2TT2WR0QO39G9/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
> But here are some highlights:
>

> <QUOTE>
> I could tell by the tone and stance of the reviews that they
> [atheists] were reacting more out of indignation toward the subject
> matter than out of any knowledge of the text itself. One reviewer
> scorned the book for being written by David Limbaugh, when the man
> only wrote the forward. Another person decried the book for being "all
> about politics," when, as far as I could tell, there wasn't a word
> about politics, just beliefs or the lack of them.
>

> If you are a critic of christianity, that's fine. Trust me, I
> understand your point of view. But your clumsily summarized view

> points and your indignant rebuttals do little to enlighten people who
> may be interested in buying this book....
>

> For someone such as myself, looking for intelligent and candid help

> with the question of Larger Purposes (or their absence), your poorly
> worded rants and emotional appeals -- especially those of you wearing

> your rage on your sleeve -- do nothing to help me. For future

> reference, if you really want to help someone like me understand your
> points of view, instead of typing out some sloppy summation or more
> key-worded dismissals (argument from ignorance! straw men!), perhaps
> you could actually RECOMMEND A DIFFERENT BOOK....
>

> And if you DO think you've got it all figured out, and if you DON'T
> think this book does, you could at least try to share that knowledge
> by pointing someone like me in the right direction, and by doing that
> without the same snobbish condecension that you sometimes find in the
> religious believers whom you so adamantly decry.
> </QUOTE>
>

> Bottom line: Emotional rants, put downs, snobbery, cockiness, etc.,
> are not constructive no matter what side of the fence you sit on.
> Thank you for your attention.

I agree with the bottom line, but not so much with the author.
When you write in a group (or publish a book), you are likely to get a
large variety of responses, especially in the internet. Some will be
intelligent, unfortunately for us, most of them won't be.

I've seen this type of behavior with some users here, most of them
don't stay for long.
They get several good responses, with detailed answers, relevant links
and explanations. But they decide to answer the "screw you, drop dead"
posts with insulted posts, and ignore the good ones.
Not only that it's easier and doesn't require thought, it also makes
them feel like good prosecuted martyrs when they leave the discussion
board. The good responses will simply be forgotten, and the only thing
left will be "these evil people insulted me".

Why? Why bother writing something if you intent to reply only to the
poor posts?

[Trance Gemini]

Because they're not serious in the first place.

Someone who's serious in exploring will ignore the "fuck you's" and
deal with the actual content of each post. As I've said, some posts
may be "rude" but they contain a lot of content. To ignore that is
childish and immature.

The same people who make an issue of those posts are the one's that
ignore the intellectual posts and basically refuse to support their
opinions no matter how you approach it.

It makes no difference whether you're polite and respectful to these
people or not.

[student13]

What I heard on TV today:

In one of the South Asian countries, one person; just to test the
reactions of people decided to do an experiment.
You know in small market places, where poor people beg, where there
are too many tea shops, small sundry item vendors etc? In a similar
place, he called one lady, who looked very old, very poor, and was
begging and gave some money - when so many others were watching.

After that, he went to the tea shop and sat there for a cup of tea.
While he was sipping the tea he could hear
so many comments from people around.
one person said: "he has so much money so he can give. if I had I too
would have done so."
second person said, " he can afford to pay more, he is a miser and
that is why he has given only this much"
a third person said " he is doing this to show us that he is a kind
hearted person. else why should he do in public like this?"
a fourth person who was serving the tea told him " sir, you are giving
money to that lady...who is only begging. I am working here, why not
you give me also some money like that? afterall, I am not begging, but
doing a job? dont you think you must encourage people like me? "
a fifth person said...Hello sir, you are kind hearted and good, I can
help you - if you give me the money that you intend giving to poor
like this, I can distribute it to more needy than these who beg here.
So you have no strain of locating poor people.

well...one action and so many many different perceptions.

But the point is the one who wants to act should act if he is
convinced...not to see what others are going to say or react etc. In
other words, insults, arrogance, aggressiveness, appreciation, all
emotional traits are, after all, human nature.. focus need to be on
issues if one wants to discuss. But more often, people go after these
emotional sensibilities and leave the issue - may be because, they do
not have a the "knowledge" to respond to the issue.

I think the approach stated by Trance seems to be quite fine since
that way, you give the other person an opportunity to make a mistake
- if that is a mistake - and you can watch and enjoy.

[Michael E.]

> Someone who's serious in exploring will ignore the "fuck you's" and
> deal with the actual content of each post. As I've said, some posts
> may be "rude" but they contain a lot of content. To ignore that is
> childish and immature.

In my opinion, the person that responds with unrestrained emotion is
one that is blind to the points others are making. I value less the
thoughts and opinions of the person who (because of hate, prejudice,
pride, or whatever) refuses to thoughtfully consider another's
opinion. "You're wrong because all [atheists / Christians] are
assholes" is not an argument that I find influential. I thought that
was the point of the OP, but maybe I didn't state it very clearly.

> The same people who make an issue of those posts are the one's that
> ignore the intellectual posts and basically refuse to support their
> opinions no matter how you approach it.

I disagree. I read the intellectual posts with interest. Posts like
Dev's first response in this thread I dismiss with very little
thought. I suspect many do the same.

> It makes no difference whether you're polite and respectful to these
> people or not.

If by "these people" you're talking about those whose minds are made
up, I agree. If you're talking about people who come to this group
genuinely interested in evaluating both sides, I couldn't disagree
more.

[Trance Gemini]

Michael. I have no experience with you or how you respond to people,
so I can't comment on how you would or wouldn't react. I have to
simply take your word for it.

However, I've made the point many times, that there are a lot of ways
to insult someone, and not all of them are considered "rude" simply
because they don't involve swearing. The posters who do this, can be
far more insulting than the poster who swears.

There are also posters who will write extremely lengthy posts, but
whose content in the end consists of nothing but "god did it".

There are a lot of negatives in the way that people post. Swearing or
"emotionalism" is the least of the problems in my opinion.

I had one poster on my Women and the Bible thread whose entire post
except for the equivalent of approximately one paragraph was biblical
quotes.

I have a bigger problem with that kind of posting than the kind you
seem to be concerned about.

If, in your opinion, the post is rude, insulting and doesn't offer any
content, then don't respond.

I'm here because I'm interested and if others just want to troll or
single people like me out for abuse, for no reason other than I
disagreed with them, I'm not interested in dealing with those people.

My experience with Dev's post is that I always read them because they
always contain interesting content and valid points.

Occasionally he'll do one-liners which are always on point.

Now, how you handle things is really up to you, and how I handle
things is really up to me.

So, frankly, I don't even see the point of starting a thread like
this.

We've all thought about this issue. It's come up repeatedly and I've
only been in this NG since September.

It's almost always brought up by Christians. I think one current
thread is running directed to atheists, but I don't know who the
original source was because Joe (a christian) decided to edit it. For
all I know, the source of that one is a Christian too.

[Trance Gemini]

On Dec 21, 11:17 am, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Someone who's serious in exploring will ignore the "fuck you's" and
> > deal with the actual content of each post. As I've said, some posts
> > may be "rude" but they contain a lot of content. To ignore that is
> > childish and immature.
>
> In my opinion, the person that responds with unrestrained emotion is
> one that is blind to the points others are making. I value less the
> thoughts and opinions of the person who (because of hate, prejudice,
> pride, or whatever) refuses to thoughtfully consider another's
> opinion. "You're wrong because all [atheists / Christians] are
> assholes" is not an argument that I find influential. I thought that
> was the point of the OP, but maybe I didn't state it very clearly.
>

It was clear.

The argument usually goes along the lines of: "You're an asshole.
Can't you read? Prove that your God's exists, or stop making fucking
assertions you can't support." I think that's a more accurate
representation.

> > The same people who make an issue of those posts are the one's that
> > ignore the intellectual posts and basically refuse to support their
> > opinions no matter how you approach it.
>
> I disagree. I read the intellectual posts with interest. Posts like
> Dev's first response in this thread I dismiss with very little
> thought. I suspect many do the same.
>

You don't read Dev's posts, that's your business. I always read them
as do many others on this site.

You may read the intellectual posts, there are others who don't, or if
they do, they don't defend their assertions or support them, and
everything simply deteriorates from that point on.

> > It makes no difference whether you're polite and respectful to these
> > people or not.
>
> If by "these people" you're talking about those whose minds are made
> up, I agree. If you're talking about people who come to this group
> genuinely interested in evaluating both sides, I couldn't disagree
> more.

I'm talking about people who make a federal case out of swearing and
emotionalism, and use that as an excuse not to respond to posts. Those
same people, more often than not, don't respond to the intellectual
ones either. It basically boils down to the fact that they can't
support their views in the first place.

Agreed that there are some who complain about "emotionalism" that are
serious.

However, my experience has been, that it really doesn't matter whether
I'm polite or respectful.

I get insulted, by certain people, just as much as the people who
aren't polite or respectful.

So, tell me, why should I be?

[Drafterman]

On Dec 21, 12:11 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm talking about people who make a federal case out of swearing and
> emotionalism, and use that as an excuse not to respond to posts. Those
> same people, more often than not, don't respond to the intellectual
> ones either. It basically boils down to the fact that they can't
> support their views in the first place.

Needs to be highlighted. The validity of an argument is independent of
emotional considerations, on either side, be it the claimant or the
person making a rebuttal. To think an argument is more valid because a
person is using forceful or flavorful language is just as fallacious
as saying it is less valid.

From the quote in Michael E's OP:

"For someone such as myself, looking for intelligent and candid help
with the question of Larger Purposes (or their absence), your poorly
worded rants and emotional appeals -- especially those of you wearing
your rage on your sleeve -- do nothing to help me."

This is ironic since the source of the quote is actually committing
the fallacy of emotional appeal. He is essentially saying: "Your
arguments are emotionally unappealing to me, therefore are worthless"

[Trance Gemini]

Excellent point and very well said! Thanks.

[Dev]

Well-put, ol' Trance.

> people or not.- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

Sorry, but Trance just nailed it.

> all I know, the source of that one is a Christian too.- Hide quoted text -

[rappoccio]

Sorry, Micheal, outrage at stupidity and bigotry is acceptable,
encouraged, and as well it should be. I will NOT sit by and watch
religion throw us back 500 years in social progress. I will NOT sit by
and watch idiots make a debauchery of science. I will NOT sit by and
watch as religion destroys the earth I love. I will NOT sit by and
watch dogmatic assertion make the world a terrible place for my
children to live.

Pardon us, but some of us are pissed off at stupidity, immorality,
bigotry and hatred. It is justified and I actually am happy that
people recognize this.

[rappoccio]

Pot, meet kettle.

On Dec 19, 2:45 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> LOL. Awesome... and thank you. You couldn't have punctuated the point
> of this post any better.
>

> On Dec 19, 2:38 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Well, Ewart, I can't say I'm sad to find you back but I still look at
> > you the way a kitty cat looks at a goldfish.
>

> > On Dec 19, 12:50 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hi, everyone! Don't know who of the old bunch is still around
> > > (although I see Simpleton is still here. Hi, Simpleton!) If I have any
> > > will power, you'll see me here rarely. (A cheer erupts from the
> > > atheist/agnostic camp.)
>

> > No, I think most of us enjoyed playing with you. You never said
> > anything intelligent or made anyone but yourself look stupid. It was
> > fun to stand next to you, verbally. It's like "look at this guy and
> > look at me--I look so smart now, oh my God (no pun intended)".
>

> > > Just read a review of a Christian apologetic book (written by a
> > > neutral agnostic) that I found very interesting. It wasn't the review
> > > of the book that caught my attention, but author's review and
> > > commentary on atheist critics.
>
> > > Read it all here:http://www.amazon.com/review/R2TT2WR0QO39G9/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
> > > But here are some highlights:
>

> > Not fucking impressive.

>
> > > <QUOTE>
> > > I could tell by the tone and stance of the reviews that they
> > > [atheists] were reacting more out of indignation toward the subject
> > > matter than out of any knowledge of the text itself. One reviewer
> > > scorned the book for being written by David Limbaugh, when the man
> > > only wrote the forward. Another person decried the book for being "all
> > > about politics," when, as far as I could tell, there wasn't a word
> > > about politics, just beliefs or the lack of them.
>

> > So an atheist fucked up, I suppose. I don't care--this reviewer has a
> > bunch of stupid, irrational biases and I don't care. He says he wants
> > "something to believe" in the tenor of belief as irrational belief. I
> > believe in lots of things, but not through religious faith. He is
> > clearly seeking a religious faith. So fuck him. He's tracking
> > delusion.
>

> > > If you are a critic of christianity, that's fine.
>

> > Not according to your God, though, right?
>

> > > Trust me, I
> > > understand your point of view.
>

> > No you don't. Shut up, Mike--you're stupid.
>

> > > But your clumsily summarized view
> > > points and your indignant rebuttals do little to enlighten people who
> > > may be interested in buying this book....
>

> > There are so many books out there, Ewart. Have you read any by Harris,
> > Hitchens, Dawkins, Burroughs, Kerouac, Pirsig, Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Brad
> > Warner? Then quit saying other people just need to read _your_ books.
> > I've read more of The Bible than you have, remember. I know more about
> > it--that's for certain.
>

> > > For someone such as myself,
>

> > i.e. retard

>
> > > looking for intelligent and candid help
> > > with the question of Larger Purposes (or their absence), your poorly
> > > worded rants and emotional appeals -- especially those of you wearing
> > > your rage on your sleeve -- do nothing to help me.
>

> > If you want I'll send you a knife to slit your wrists with. Why the
> > fuck are you acting like you're hiring us for a job position? You want
> > us to suck your cock to gain your approval? Fuck you. I approach you
> > with the respect that you've earned, which isn't too fucking much.
> > Nothing's free, shithead. I don't respect everyone--I evaluate their
> > quality as humans given the information provided to me and approach
> > them appropriately. There are people here I would take bullets for and
> > others I kind of want to put bullets into. Nothing of value is free,
> > Ewart. I look at you as garbage because you haven't earned any more
> > respect than garbage.
>

> > > For future
> > > reference, if you really want to help someone like me understand your
> > > points of view, instead of typing out some sloppy summation or more
> > > key-worded dismissals (argument from ignorance! straw men!), perhaps
> > > you could actually RECOMMEND A DIFFERENT BOOK....
>

> > Recommending books works, from my experience, about 1% of the time
> > overall. Most people aren't really readers. And I know you aren't one.
>

> > > And if you DO think you've got it all figured out, and if you DON'T
> > > think this book does, you could at least try to share that knowledge
> > > by pointing someone like me in the right direction, and by doing that
> > > without the same snobbish condecension that you sometimes find in the
> > > religious believers whom you so adamantly decry.
> > > </QUOTE>
>

> > What does it say about you that you reject something that could very
> > easily be true just because you find it condescending? What kind of
> > grounds is that for rejection? Even if it hurts your little feelings,
> > shouldn't truth be the main issue?
>

> > > Bottom line: Emotional rants, put downs, snobbery, cockiness, etc.,
> > > are not constructive no matter what side of the fence you sit on.
> > > Thank you for your attention.
>

[rappoccio]

On Dec 19, 3:47 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Does this mean my Women and the Bible thread is going to liven up with
> yet another Christian male who things he's a woman?

No, this one is a Christian male who thinks women are secondary
citizens.

>
> Have you made this one you're prison bitch, Dev?

[rappoccio]

Why one earth would you tolerate what you didn't respect?

I don't tolerate bigotry. It pisses me off and I'll be sure to tell
the bigots that they're stupid morons.

I don't tolerate deliberate stupidity. It pisses me off and I'll be
sure to tell the deliberately stupid that they are, in fact, stupid.

I don't tolerate the infringement of rights of individuals by
religion. It pisses me off and I'll be sure to tell off the
religionist who wants to force their opinions on others in society.

I don't tolerate what I don't respect. Neither do you. You would feel
very strongly against someone who claims that Jesus wants us to kill
red-headed people. Rightly, you should. This sanctimonious crap about
respecting those who you don't respect is just nonsense. You are
intolerant of certain things (at least I HOPE you are), like sexism,
racism, hate crimes, oppression, murder, theft, rape, and corruption.
If you're not intolerant of evil, you ARE evil, in and of yourself.

> ...
>
> read more »

[bob600]

On 19 Dec, 20:07, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The quote is in support of the style of posts I consider useful and
> productive. As for me, I'm a Christian.
>
Bob600 replies:- WHY?

[rappoccio]

Exactly. I'd rather hear some content with "fuck" chosen as every
other word, than platitudes and placations based on nothing but
unsubstantiated assertions.

[rappoccio]

On Dec 21, 10:17 am, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Someone who's serious in exploring will ignore the "fuck you's" and
> > deal with the actual content of each post. As I've said, some posts
> > may be "rude" but they contain a lot of content. To ignore that is
> > childish and immature.
>
> In my opinion, the person that responds with unrestrained emotion is
> one that is blind to the points others are making.

This of course assumes that the other person has a point worth
considering in the first place.

> I value less the
> thoughts and opinions of the person who (because of hate, prejudice,
> pride, or whatever) refuses to thoughtfully consider another's
> opinion.

Prejudice and hate like "Women should obey their husbands"?

> "You're wrong because all [atheists / Christians] are
> assholes" is not an argument that I find influential. I thought that
> was the point of the OP, but maybe I didn't state it very clearly.
>
> > The same people who make an issue of those posts are the one's that
> > ignore the intellectual posts and basically refuse to support their
> > opinions no matter how you approach it.
>
> I disagree. I read the intellectual posts with interest. Posts like
> Dev's first response in this thread I dismiss with very little
> thought. I suspect many do the same.

Indeed. It's easy to dismiss what makes you uncomfortable.

[Michael E.]

The hell I do, rap. Slander is not becoming.

[Michael E.]

On Dec 21, 3:25 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I disagree. I read the intellectual posts with interest. Posts like
> > Dev's first response in this thread I dismiss with very little
> > thought. I suspect many do the same.
>
> Indeed. It's easy to dismiss what makes you uncomfortable.

It's easy to dismiss someone seething with hatred.

[Michael E.]

Okay, now the question at hand: there is a "neutral agnostic" (for
lack of a better term) who is unaware of the stupidity, immorality,
bigotry and hatred of the fundamentalist Christians you so despise.
(Am I correct in assuming they are the target of your rant?) He pops
into our group for the first time and sees one of Dev's tirades...
will he take the time to pick through the hatred and language to find
the gems carefully hidden in the crap? It is THIS person about which
I'm talking in this post. If you would like to argue that such a
person will equally be swayed by (1) a Dev back-ally mugging, or (2) a
Simpleton, rap, or Trance calculated argument, please do so. You
haven't convinced me.

[Simpleton]

For some reason I feel compelled to respond, but given that I have
done other but welcomed you home, and filled you in on the important
details in this thread, it would be remiss if I did not jump in.

The question is not which is a more compelling or persuasive style,
but whether use of swear words and insults have any bearing on the
validity of the accompanying argument itself.

[bonfly]

I read your post. You're come across as a God waving, self
righteousness dumb schmuck. Thank you for your attention..

[Michael E.]

My discussion point here is just that: what makes for a compelling and
persuasive style. I suppose I didn't make that as clear as I could
have. The neutral seeker is often coming to listen to the other side's
persuasive arguments. Swearing and insults will be less persuasive for
that person because he misses the point of the argument because of the
shabby clothes its dressed up in. I agree that swear words and insults
have no bearing on the validity of the argument itself. But it does
make one work harder at finding it.

[Simpleton]

And very easy to ignore the whole shebang for most. Just because life
gives you lemons, does not mean that you *have to* make lemonade.

A trait that is common with arguments that are simply repetitious
assertions without any semblance of rationale, perhaps leading to the
insults and swear words.

Not everyone's a vulture, Mike.

[Dev]

Homework, ladies and gents.

> > > Have you made this one you're prison bitch, Dev?- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

There's only like thousands of my posts, jeb, but keep on sucking.

On Dec 20, 1:10 pm, jeb <jester...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dev,
>
> Possibly.  Since my arrival here, I have not seen it.  Because of the
> abusiveness and lack of content of your posts since I have arrived, I
> have seen no reason to believe anything else.  Point me to one of your
> previous posts along those lines and I'll go back and re-evaluate, not
> that you give a shit.
>
> And I am glad you feel you are a better person than I.
>
> jeb
>
> On Dec 20, 1:51 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Blah blah blah. Experienced posters indeed know how original I can be.
> > Piss me off enough and you will know too. You can make unsubstantiated
> > assertions all you want but you will never refute me. I am a better
> > person than you are. Live with it. Or don't and see if I give a shit.

>
> > On Dec 19, 9:46 pm, jeb <jester...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You can make a heated post and still make sense.  However the ability
> > > to persuade another to consider your stance is lessened by the raw
> > > emotion.  I see Dev's posts as simple attempts to inflate his ego,
> > > cover his insecurities, his lack of original content, and to pander to
> > > those who share his views.  Because of his childish use of language as
> > > a club and for belittlement, I seldom bother reading his posts.  His
> > > ability to intimidate or persuade me is nil.  I do read your posts and
> > > consider your words, even when they are heated, but it takes quite a
> > > bit more effort to consider them in a meaningful way when the wording
> > > or tone is insulting.  My posts follow the same rules, when my tone or
> > > words become insulting they are much less persuasive.  As such, I
> > > would suspect that Dev, being insulted above will be little persuaded
> > > by this post, but persuasion is not my intent.
>

> > > On Dec 19, 3:50 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 19, 4:37 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Gosh, you got me there. His emotional, heated post did indeed prove
> > > > > the point that emotional, heated posts are not conducive to swaying a
> > > > > fence-sitter's opinion.  (?!)
>
> > > > > On Dec 19, 3:22 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Michael E. wrote:
> > > > > > > LOL. Awesome... and thank you. You couldn't have punctuated the point
> > > > > > > of this post any better.
>
> > > > > > So you're "using" this "heated" post to prove your point? Well, that
> > > > > > only shows that such posts can have a use, making them not useless.
>
> > > > > > So, by Reductio ad absurdum, your argument is disproven.
>

> > > > Actually it proved that you can make a heated post and still make
> > > > sense, make a logical point quite effectively.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[rappoccio]

"Likewise, male headship does not mean men are better in any way. It's
just the 'order.'"

Sound familiar?

Do I have to keep digging out your nonsensical bigotry-but-in-denial
crap that you love to spew about the women you seek to rule over?

[rappoccio]

On Dec 21, 8:32 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 3:25 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I disagree. I read the intellectual posts with interest. Posts like
> > > Dev's first response in this thread I dismiss with very little
> > > thought. I suspect many do the same.
>
> > Indeed. It's easy to dismiss what makes you uncomfortable.
>
> It's easy to dismiss someone seething with hatred.

Especially when you can't dismiss their arguments, so you just dismiss
the person.

[Simpleton]

On Dec 21, 9:19 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Likewise, male headship does not mean men are better in any way. It's
> just the 'order.'"
>
> Sound familiar?
>
> Do I have to keep digging out your nonsensical bigotry-but-in-denial
> crap that you love to spew about the women you seek to rule over?
>

"tis at times like these that I miss cathyb the most.

[rappoccio]

I don't know what a hypothetical person would hypothetically do. If
they were smart they'd read arguments, and figure out just exactly why
people are so angry about this situation, and it ISN'T because "those
atheists are meanies".

> It is THIS person about which
> I'm talking in this post. If you would like to argue that such a
> person will equally be swayed by (1) a Dev back-ally mugging, or (2) a
> Simpleton, rap, or Trance calculated argument, please do so. You
> haven't convinced me.

Dev makes arguments that are as good or better than almost everyone
here. He uses invective because he is genuinely angry about
immorality.

[jeb]

Nah, I think he uses invective cause it's fun and he knows the shock
value. But as for me, it's not lack of interest that causes me to
discount any point the writer may be trying to make. It is an
unneeded distraction. If you have a point, make it, inflammatory
language can help one make a point but overuse detracts from the
same. Just as some of my long ramblings detract from any point I
think I might be making.

jeb

> immorality.- Hide quoted text -

[bonfly]

If you don't like the language, maybe go post at the Disney channel.

[Dev]

Yeah, me fuckin' too. We still got Trance.

[Michael E.]

You said that I believe women are second class citizens. Rap, you
could talk with every woman on the planet that knows me face-to-face
and you will not find one that would say that I believe women are
second class citizens. Not one, believer or otherwise.

I firmly believe, confess, teach and behave according to
Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male
nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Now, answer this: Does being a manager necessarily mean you are
smarter and superior to your employees? Is the current president
smarter and superior to you? Might a person pass up a management
position he is qualified for to continue in a current role he enjoys
more? If he does, is it because he considers himself a second class
citizen and has a self-esteem problem?

You equate management / authority with inherent superiority and higher
value. Why?

[Trance Gemini]

On Dec 22, 2:48 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You said that I believe women are second class citizens. Rap, you
> could talk with every woman on the planet that knows me face-to-face
> and you will not find one that would say that I believe women are
> second class citizens. Not one, believer or otherwise.
>
> I firmly believe, confess, teach and behave according to
> Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male
> nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
>
> Now, answer this: Does being a manager necessarily mean you are
> smarter and superior to your employees? Is the current president
> smarter and superior to you? Might a person pass up a management
> position he is qualified for to continue in a current role he enjoys
> more? If he does, is it because he considers himself a second class
> citizen and has a self-esteem problem?
>
> You equate management / authority with inherent superiority and higher
> value. Why?
>

This is why, Michael.

Collosians 3
18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

But then I'm sure you know that.

[Michael E.]

On Dec 22, 1:58 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2:48 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You said that I believe women are second class citizens. Rap, you
> > could talk with every woman on the planet that knows me face-to-face
> > and you will not find one that would say that I believe women are
> > second class citizens. Not one, believer or otherwise.
>
> > I firmly believe, confess, teach and behave according to
> > Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male
> > nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
>
> > Now, answer this: Does being a manager necessarily mean you are
> > smarter and superior to your employees? Is the current president
> > smarter and superior to you? Might a person pass up a management
> > position he is qualified for to continue in a current role he enjoys
> > more? If he does, is it because he considers himself a second class
> > citizen and has a self-esteem problem?
>
> > You equate management / authority with inherent superiority and higher
> > value. Why?
>
> This is why, Michael.
>
> Collosians 3
> 18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
>
> But then I'm sure you know that.

Trance, submit to your boss. Submit to the president. Submit to the
traffic light and obey its directions. Submit to the 87 year old
grandma who's serving as a crossing guard at the school. Submit to the
overweight, high school drop out bouncer at the dance club. What do
any of these have to do with being a second class citizen?

[Trance Gemini]

1. I'm not involved in an intimate relationship with any of them
2. I Am submitting to them and I've agreed that it's acceptable for
various reasons, and I'm submitting to them within the confines,
limits and protections afforded to me under the law. For example, I'll
submit to my boss unless he tells me to do something illegal.
3. I don't agree that it's acceptable for any reason that I should
have to submit to a man that I'm involved with.

[Trance Gemini]

In addition. The requirement that I have to submit to my husband, in
and of itself, defines me as second to him, and therefore second class
in the world.

This reflects the reality of the ancient times in which the Bible was
written.

[Simpleton]

On Dec 21, 10:32 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Yeah, me fuckin' too. We still got Trance.
>

The last this was discussed:

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thread/30ce5190e5087142/594e2af07d7b882b?#594e2af07d7b882b

[Trance Gemini]

On Dec 22, 3:29 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 10:32 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, me fuckin' too. We still got Trance.
>
> The last this was discussed:
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thr...

Thanks :) Very helpful.

[Michael E.]

On Dec 22, 2:19 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Collosians 3
> > > 18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
>
> > > But then I'm sure you know that.
>
> > Trance, submit to your boss. Submit to the president. Submit to the
> > traffic light and obey its directions. Submit to the 87 year old
> > grandma who's serving as a crossing guard at the school. Submit to the
> > overweight, high school drop out bouncer at the dance club. What do
> > any of these have to do with being a second class citizen?
>
> 1. I'm not involved in an intimate relationship with any of them
> 2. I Am submitting to them and I've agreed that it's acceptable for
> various reasons, and I'm submitting to them within the confines,
> limits and protections afforded to me under the law. For example, I'll
> submit to my boss unless he tells me to do something illegal.
> 3. I don't agree that it's acceptable for any reason that I should
> have to submit to a man that I'm involved with.

So you agree the instances of submission I describe are not demeaning,
belittling or in any way making you a second class citizen. They
represent instances of willing acquiescence of authority on your part
in which both parties understand the yielding of said authority says
nothing of either party's worth and value as human beings. Neither
does it make a statement about the intelligence and capabilities of
either party. It is quite easy to imagine the authority holder not
feeling superior, and in fact can wield authority within the given
limits in a loving, polite and giving manner. We can even imagine the
President yielding authority to the 87 year old crossing guard.

Can we agree on that much before we continue?

[Trance Gemini]

On Dec 22, 3:36 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2:19 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Collosians 3
> > > > 18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
>
> > > > But then I'm sure you know that.
>
> > > Trance, submit to your boss. Submit to the president. Submit to the
> > > traffic light and obey its directions. Submit to the 87 year old
> > > grandma who's serving as a crossing guard at the school. Submit to the
> > > overweight, high school drop out bouncer at the dance club. What do
> > > any of these have to do with being a second class citizen?
>
> > 1. I'm not involved in an intimate relationship with any of them
> > 2. I Am submitting to them and I've agreed that it's acceptable for
> > various reasons, and I'm submitting to them within the confines,
> > limits and protections afforded to me under the law. For example, I'll
> > submit to my boss unless he tells me to do something illegal.
> > 3. I don't agree that it's acceptable for any reason that I should
> > have to submit to a man that I'm involved with.
>
> So you agree the instances of submission I describe are not demeaning,
> belittling or in any way making you a second class citizen.

They don't, simply because there are laws that protect my rights as a
women, and govern their behavior towards me.

If those laws didn't exist, those relationships could become (and have
in the past been) demeaning and resulting in women being second class
citizens.

They
> represent instances of willing acquiescence of authority on your part
> in which both parties understand the yielding of said authority says
> nothing of either party's worth and value as human beings.

Same comment as above.

>Neither
> does it make a statement about the intelligence and capabilities of
> either party. It is quite easy to imagine the authority holder not
> feeling superior, and in fact can wield authority within the given
> limits in a loving, polite and giving manner. We can even imagine the
> President yielding authority to the 87 year old crossing guard.
>
> Can we agree on that much before we continue?

With the limitations that I have noted:
My rights as a woman, employment and otherwise are protected under the
law.
That is, any relationship I am engaged in, where I voluntarily submit
to an authority, that authority is governed by those laws.

[Michael E.]

So your objection to Colossians 3:18 is not that in and of itself the
passage degrades women, but that the authority granted is not
regulated or governed by laws and therefore opens the door wide for
possible abuse of the authority and a loss of your rights. Is that
correct?

[Trance Gemini]

On Dec 22, 4:32 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So your objection to Colossians 3:18 is not that in and of itself the
> passage degrades women, but that the authority granted is not
> regulated or governed by laws and therefore opens the door wide for
> possible abuse of the authority and a loss of your rights. Is that
> correct?
>

No. My objection to that passage is that it is, in and of itself,
demeaning, in that it sets the stage for how Christians treat women in
all aspects of life.

Once it's established that a wife is subservient to her husband, it
accepts the position by default that women are subservient to men, and
that it's acceptable to treat them as second class citizens.

[Trance Gemini]

On Dec 22, 4:52 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 4:32 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So your objection to Colossians 3:18 is not that in and of itself the
> > passage degrades women, but that the authority granted is not
> > regulated or governed by laws and therefore opens the door wide for
> > possible abuse of the authority and a loss of your rights. Is that
> > correct?
>
> No. My objection to that passage is that it is, in and of itself,
> demeaning, in that it sets the stage for how Christians treat women in
> all aspects of life.
>
> Once it's established that a wife is subservient to her husband, it
> accepts the position by default that women are subservient to men, and
> that it's acceptable to treat them as second class citizens.
>

Now, you've been asking me a lot of questions in order to elicit my
position and that's fine.

How about answering my question now.

Do you believe that women are subservient to men?

If so, how do you support that claim?

If not, how do you justify your support of the Bible and Christianity
when it clearly infers that women are.

[random]

On Dec 21, 2:10 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 4:47 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 9:50 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hi, everyone! Don't know who of the old bunch is still around
> > > (although I see Simpleton is still here. Hi, Simpleton!) If I have any
> > > will power, you'll see me here rarely. (A cheer erupts from the
> > > atheist/agnostic camp.)
>

> > > Just read a review of a Christian apologetic book (written by a
> > > neutral agnostic) that I found very interesting. It wasn't the review
> > > of the book that caught my attention, but author's review and
> > > commentary on atheist critics.
>
> > > Read it all here:http://www.amazon.com/review/R2TT2WR0QO39G9/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
> > > But here are some highlights:
>

> > > <QUOTE>
> > > I could tell by the tone and stance of the reviews that they
> > > [atheists] were reacting more out of indignation toward the subject
> > > matter than out of any knowledge of the text itself. One reviewer
> > > scorned the book for being written by David Limbaugh, when the man
> > > only wrote the forward. Another person decried the book for being "all
> > > about politics," when, as far as I could tell, there wasn't a word
> > > about politics, just beliefs or the lack of them.
>

> > > If you are a critic of christianity, that's fine. Trust me, I
> > > understand your point of view. But your clumsily summarized view

> > > points and your indignant rebuttals do little to enlighten people who
> > > may be interested in buying this book....
>

> > > For someone such as myself, looking for intelligent and candid help

> > > with the question of Larger Purposes (or their absence), your poorly
> > > worded rants and emotional appeals -- especially those of you wearing

> > > your rage on your sleeve -- do nothing to help me. For future

> > > reference, if you really want to help someone like me understand your
> > > points of view, instead of typing out some sloppy summation or more
> > > key-worded dismissals (argument from ignorance! straw men!), perhaps
> > > you could actually RECOMMEND A DIFFERENT BOOK....
>

> > > And if you DO think you've got it all figured out, and if you DON'T
> > > think this book does, you could at least try to share that knowledge
> > > by pointing someone like me in the right direction, and by doing that
> > > without the same snobbish condecension that you sometimes find in the
> > > religious believers whom you so adamantly decry.
> > > </QUOTE>
>

> > > Bottom line: Emotional rants, put downs, snobbery, cockiness, etc.,
> > > are not constructive no matter what side of the fence you sit on.
> > > Thank you for your attention.
>

> > I agree with the bottom line, but not so much with the author.
> > When you write in a group (or publish a book), you are likely to get a
> > large variety of responses, especially in the internet. Some will be
> > intelligent, unfortunately for us, most of them won't be.
>
> > I've seen this type of behavior with some users here, most of them
> > don't stay for long.
> > They get several good responses, with detailed answers, relevant links
> > and explanations. But they decide to answer the "screw you, drop dead"
> > posts with insulted posts, and ignore the good ones.
> > Not only that it's easier and doesn't require thought, it also makes
> > them feel like good prosecuted martyrs when they leave the discussion
> > board. The good responses will simply be forgotten, and the only thing
> > left will be "these evil people insulted me".
>
> > Why? Why bother writing something if you intent to reply only to the
> > poor posts?
>
> Because they're not serious in the first place.
>
> Someone who's serious in exploring will ignore the "fuck you's" and
> deal with the actual content of each post. As I've said, some posts
> may be "rude" but they contain a lot of content. To ignore that is
> childish and immature.
>
> The same people who make an issue of those posts are the one's that
> ignore the intellectual posts and basically refuse to support their
> opinions no matter how you approach it.

>
> It makes no difference whether you're polite and respectful to these
> people or not.

Well, yes and no.

I understand people who don't want to respond to insulting posts.
They came here to talk about their opinions, not to be insulted. And
their tendency to reply to insulting (but good) posts will most likely
depend on their sensitivity and their mood.

However, not responding is not the same as completely ignoring. The
author that was quoted here, completely ignored the good posts and the
good parts of posts, and said he didn't get *any* good reply.
The posters I was talking about were even worse, since they did the
same AND replied to the insulting posts directly.

[OldMan]

On Dec 22, 1:55 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 4:52 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 4:32 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So your objection to Colossians 3:18 is not that in and of itself the
> > > passage degrades women, but that the authority granted is not
> > > regulated or governed by laws and therefore opens the door wide for
> > > possible abuse of the authority and a loss of your rights. Is that
> > > correct?
>
> > No. My objection to that passage is that it is, in and of itself,
> > demeaning, in that it sets the stage for how Christians treat women in
> > all aspects of life.
>
> > Once it's established that a wife is subservient to her husband, it
> > accepts the position by default that women are subservient to men, and
> > that it's acceptable to treat them as second class citizens.
>
> Now, you've been asking me a lot of questions in order to elicit my
> position and that's fine.
>
> How about answering my question now.
>
> Do you believe that women are subservient to men?
>
> If so, how do you support that claim?
>
> If not, how do you justify your support of the Bible and Christianity
> when it clearly infers that women are.

At the risk of getting embroiled in a controversy I don't really want
to be a part of, let me interject a brief comment here.

The NT was indeed written at a time when women and slaves were
considered as property and under the dominion of their husbands/
fathers and masters. The NT writers make no attempt to change the
society that they were a part of, seeming to accept it for what it
was. Instead, they give directions to slaves/master and wives/
husbands on how they each should treat the other within those
relationships. And I do believe that it was, in general, an
improvement over what was the norm in the society then.

My wife has choosen to be submissive to me, not because I demand it,
or even especially want it. But because she wants to. I think that
is something that is often overlooked in the NT teaching about a
wife's submission to her husband. It is something she chooses to do;
not something that he is to demand or expect from her. It is
something that she does voluntarily. And there is nothing in the NT
that would even hint that if she does not submit, her husband is to
demand it from her.

[Eris]

You are submitting to real flesh and blood people that you can
converse with directly and have meaningful discussion with.
You folks have discussions with questionable individuals who claim to
converse with an invisible being in the sky. What this invisible being
wants and demands varies from whack job to whack job. I don't wish to
submit to Pat Robertson ( see article "Pat Robertson lifts 2,000 lbs
with legs." ) or Jerry Falwell or the other nut cases who claim to
speak to the divine one. You can reason with another human to one
extent or another, you cannot reason with God's chosen messenger.

Allah Akbar MF

So much done "In his name"

Ask the Cathars why they don't enjoy the company of Christians!

[Michael E.]

On Dec 22, 3:52 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 4:32 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So your objection to Colossians 3:18 is not that in and of itself the
> > passage degrades women, but that the authority granted is not
> > regulated or governed by laws and therefore opens the door wide for
> > possible abuse of the authority and a loss of your rights. Is that
> > correct?
>
> No. My objection to that passage is that it is, in and of itself,
> demeaning, in that it sets the stage for how Christians treat women in
> all aspects of life.

I don't get it. Do you view the limited scale submission to a crossing
guard as a demeaning act? Are you suggesting it IS demeaning, but
you're willing to endure it in a limited scope and because it is
legally regulated?

I don't want to proceed until I can establish the fact that while
submitting does have a very negative connotation in the English
language, and while authority is sometimes abused, submission IN
ESSENCE is not necessarily demeaning and does not necessarily indicate
differing intrinsic value between the one in authority and the one
under authority. I feel to have a productive discussion, we must first
get beyond the inherent English negative baggage the word "submission"
carries.

> Once it's established that a wife is subservient to her husband, it
> accepts the position by default that women are subservient to men, and
> that it's acceptable to treat them as second class citizens.

But your argument doesn't follow. Allow me to use your argument but
substituting a different example. "Once it's established that drivers
are subservient to crossing guards, it follows that it's acceptable
for crossing guards to treat drivers as second class citizens."

No, it doesn't follow.

[Trance Gemini]

OM. If that's your wife's free choice, then it's one that she has
every right to make.

And I even support her right to make that free choice.

It's only a problem when it's imposed on someone because of religious
belief.

Or when those who don't wish to submit and don't hold those religious
beliefs are forced to.

The Bible states it as a given, it doesn't open the door to other
options and that's a fact.

So I don't think one can argue that the Bible doesn't demand it, or
that there are other options. If there were they would be stated.

[OldMan]

> that there are other options. If there were they would be stated.-

I am open to you sharing a passage from the NT that says her husband
should demand, or even expect, that submission from his wife. It is
possible that I have missed it over the years.

Let me add that I do understand many husbands over the years have used
these passages to demand submission from their wives. But I belive
they do that simply as an excuse for dominating their wife.

[Simpleton]

On Dec 22, 2:23 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
>

'twas good of you to jump in from the peanut gallery, but before you
return may I ask a question on this:

> And there is nothing in the NT
> that would even hint that if she does not submit, her husband is to
> demand it from her.

C3:18: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit
in the Lord."

seems like a directive to married women.

This is not unlike many other directive in the bible. Leaving aside
the ones that concern Yahweh or Jesus (special plead those ones out),
I would say that there is likewise nothing that would even hint that
if the directed party does not comply, the supposed beneficiary has
not right to demand it.

Does this seem reasonable?

[Trance Gemini]

On Dec 22, 5:29 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 3:52 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 22, 4:32 pm, "Michael E." <ewar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So your objection to Colossians 3:18 is not that in and of itself the
> > > passage degrades women, but that the authority granted is not
> > > regulated or governed by laws and therefore opens the door wide for
> > > possible abuse of the authority and a loss of your rights. Is that
> > > correct?
>
> > No. My objection to that passage is that it is, in and of itself,
> > demeaning, in that it sets the stage for how Christians treat women in
> > all aspects of life.
>
> I don't get it. Do you view the limited scale submission to a crossing
> guard as a demeaning act? Are you suggesting it IS demeaning, but
> you're willing to endure it in a limited scope and because it is
> legally regulated?
>

I said (in regard to all of your examples) that if the scenarios are
1. voluntary and 2. the rights are protected then those scenarios are
not demeaning.

If it was enforced and/or rights were protected, it could become (and
has in the past been) demeaning.

And just to forewarn you, I find it rude and insulting in the extreme,
when people can't be bothered to read my posts before responding to
them and I'm force to repeat what I said over and over again.

I'm not saying that you didn't read my post. I'm going to assume that
you misunderstood, but I think I was quite clear on that.

> I don't want to proceed until I can establish the fact that while
> submitting does have a very negative connotation in the English
> language, and while authority is sometimes abused, submission IN
> ESSENCE is not necessarily demeaning and does not necessarily indicate
> differing intrinsic value between the one in authority and the one
> under authority. I feel to have a productive discussion, we must first
> get beyond the inherent English negative baggage the word "submission"
> carries.
>

See above. I stated my position quite clearly and no amount of
repetition on your part will change it.

So, you should either decide now that we can't proceed because there's
not enough agreement, or get past it.

> > Once it's established that a wife is subservient to her husband, it
> > accepts the position by default that women are subservient to men, and
> > that it's acceptable to treat them as second class citizens.
>
> But your argument doesn't follow. Allow me to use your argument but
> substituting a different example. "Once it's established that drivers
> are subservient to crossing guards, it follows that it's acceptable
> for crossing guards to treat drivers as second class citizens."
>
> No, it doesn't follow.
>

If the conditions I stated above are not included it does follow. In
the case of women it has been the reality.

[Trance Gemini]

That's a red herring and I think you know that.

The Bible states that women must submit to their husbands.

[OldMan]

Before I answer, please confirm for me that the last 'not' is what you
meant to include instead of 'the'. I think it makes a big difference
in what you are asking.

[OldMan]

It is honestly not intended to be.

>
> The Bible states that women must submit to their husbands.-

Which is a directive to wives, not to husbands.

[Simpleton]

Oopd. I'll restate:

This is not unlike many other directives in the bible. Leaving aside

the ones that concern Yahweh or Jesus (special plead those ones out),
I would say that there is likewise nothing that would even hint that
if the directed party does not comply, the supposed beneficiary has

any right to demand it.

Does this seem reasonable?

[Simpleton]

Yes, just like "Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against
them." was directed to husbands, not to wives.

[Trance Gemini]

OM. It doesn't matter who it's directed to.

Wives are required to submit to their husbands.

That's the point. Everything else is just red herrings.

[OldMan]

Yes. It is at least in part what I have been trying to express to
Trance.

[OldMan]

Correct. I find it interesting that in the husband/wife passage in
Ephesians, the one so often used in this argument, the wife is
directed to submit to and respect her husband, but not directed to
love him. The husband is directed to love his wife and take care of
her, treating her as a part of himself. What I find interesting is
how often we husbands focus on the first directive and conveniently
forget about the one directed at us.