Dialogue about Jesus Christ

resea...@lorenzocrescini.it

unread,

May 29, 2006, 8:09:20 AM5/29/06

to

Jesus defeated death not for him but for all of us. In order to open to
all us the door towards a happy eternity. He defeated death to let us
win that "useless passion" that is the short life on earth, opening
prospectives of infinite when every way seemed closed by the black wall
of a final and inevitable end. Here we will talk about His
Resurrection, trying to answer some questions as the ones which follow
for example:

- Why can we understand the sense of our life only thinking of eternity
?
- What are the reasons of our Faith?
- And what about people who do not have Faith?
- Why death?
- Can reason and common sense help us in our Faith?
- What is the mistake in the hypothesis which deny Jesus Christ?

Sito Web: www.lorenzocrescini.it/dialogue

E-Mail: ricer...@lorenzocrescini.it

To all the readers a loving greeting
Lorenzo Crescini

Rust

unread,

May 29, 2006, 10:11:04 AM5/29/06

to

Actually I'm almost entirely certain that was intended as monologue, but Mr.
Spamcini inadvertently brings up an interesting point. The trouble with a
big piece of the modern Christian pie is that it completely misses the point
and focusses almost exclusively on the oogy-boogy bits about death and
ressurection at the end of the story. I think Christ would be mortified, if
he ever actually came back, to discover the willful ignorance and dismissal
of his actual teachings in the firm belief that it's okay to kick those
values around because you're 'forgiven'.

-Rust

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Anvil*

unread,

May 30, 2006, 4:17:28 PM5/30/06

to

What listening to the 28th revision spin-off on the latest
true belief of Christ Inc. of the blinking neon "Jesus Saves"?
All those that waggle a bible at others but work hard at
hate and intolerance, so fluid they mouth partial select quotes
to skew and twist meaning because they were told by an
evangelical con man they had a free ride to Heaven (tm).

It's easy to picture the tables holding their coin turned over
but seeing more the tears of so many billions of souls wasted.
Mislead by their unwillingness to think and question.
--
Anvil*

Patrick Elliott

unread,

May 30, 2006, 7:47:30 PM5/30/06

to

In article <1149020248.1...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
r...@spacebbs.com says...

Sad thing is, even something as "simple" as what profanity means they get
wrong. The original word, in the Hebrew version, merely referred to a
seperation, not unlike church and state, between those things "profane"
and those things done within the temple to worship God. Everything we
call secular is "profane" by that definition. Then some idiot translated
it into Latin, where the word had two meanings, only one of which was
close to the original, and finally the Prodestant Reclaimation threw out
the 'almost' right definition and embraced the glorious wrong definition,
that makes everything from sex, to plain nudity, to wearing the wrong
clothes, to just merely questioning the sanity of the people that believe
in it, as being evil acts that deny God. Its damn funny when you realize
that "true" Christians, who where more Jewish than fanatical nuts back
then, would not only have considered seperation of church and state as
"normal", but demanded by God's own words. lol

The founders where right. Organized religions are dangerous. And the
*reason* they are dangerous is that, by definition, telling someone "you
and only you, as the representive of the church know the truth", is
automatically telling people, "About this and other issues, not only do I
not want you to think, if you do, you will lose everything I (or rather
God) has promised you." Chruch = Training in how to *not* think about
some things.

Oh, and here is the fun BS that you get from that. People keep
*insisting* to me that evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians are
"not" the same as Radical Islam. Explain this:

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/29/195855/959

"Imagine: you are a foot soldier in a paramilitary group whose purpose is
to remake America as a Christian theocracy, and establish its worldly
vision of the dominion of Christ over all aspects of life. You are issued
high-tech military weaponry, and instructed to engage the infidel on the
streets of New York City. You are on a mission - both a religious mission
and a military mission -- to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims,
Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and
state - especially moderate, mainstream Christians."

--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive
call functional_code()
else
call crash_windows();
}

Rust

unread,

May 31, 2006, 7:49:47 PM5/31/06

to

Patrick Elliott <shado...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1ee6875a...@news.critter.net:

> Oh, and here is the fun BS that you get from that. People keep
> *insisting* to me that evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians are
> "not" the same as Radical Islam. Explain this:
>
> http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/29/195855/959

Egads. I'm revolted and possibly a little awed by such a brazen and direct
declaration of this transparently vile agenda (how -do- you do such a thing
and remain intellectually shielded from the abyss of your own black soul?),
but I can't say I'm entirely surprised.

In any case, those people you refer to are right. Fundamentalism and
evangelism are ugly, but they're not in and of themselves radical. There -
are- radical elements within Christian evangelism and fundamentalism - as
you've just proven - but it's no more accurate to call the entire group
radicals than to call all Muslims terrorists.

Patrick Elliott

unread,

May 31, 2006, 9:38:03 PM5/31/06

to

In article <Xns97D4CAD646F1...@216.183.128.12>,
othr...@bmts.com.netspam says...

> Patrick Elliott <shado...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1ee6875a...@news.critter.net:
>
> > Oh, and here is the fun BS that you get from that. People keep
> > *insisting* to me that evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians are
> > "not" the same as Radical Islam. Explain this:
> >
> > http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/29/195855/959
>
> Egads. I'm revolted and possibly a little awed by such a brazen and direct
> declaration of this transparently vile agenda (how -do- you do such a thing
> and remain intellectually shielded from the abyss of your own black soul?),
> but I can't say I'm entirely surprised.
>
> In any case, those people you refer to are right. Fundamentalism and
> evangelism are ugly, but they're not in and of themselves radical. There -
> are- radical elements within Christian evangelism and fundamentalism - as
> you've just proven - but it's no more accurate to call the entire group
> radicals than to call all Muslims terrorists.
>
> -Rust
>

True. I would, as would many people, class most of them as slightly nuts.
Heck, some of the people I know even have a name for some of the ones we
don't have a problem with. They call them pre-atheists. People that on a
whole will defend religion if pushed, but really actually think the vast
majority of it is made up stuff and obsessive ideas that make no sense.
They are not willing to give up the "idea" or the "salvation", but
otherwise agree with 90% of everything the unbelievers do. No, its not
reasonable to call the entire group radicals.

However, I haven't met a fundamentalist yet that doesn't twist passages
of their own Bible to make it say what they want, instead of reading it
as printed. By definition, Fundamentalist really means, "This is how we
'want' it to be, so we will ignore, misinterpret or make up stuff to make
that the truth." Dishonesty, both to themselves and to the world are
hallmarks of Fundamentalism. As is ignoring real history, in favor of
what they image it "should have been". Please, prove me wrong about that.
The only thing "not" radical about it is that these types have been at
the core of some of the strictest, role your own Christ, versions of
Christianity since it was first founded.

As for Evangelicals... Sorry, but where they cross the same lines, they
are the same thing. And even those that don't agree with the same view,
quite happily ignore parts of their own Bible that pretty clearly has
Christ condemning people for standing on street corners and telling
people they are all going to hell if they don't find God, "through their
church". I have yet to meet and Evangelical that says, "Just go to some
church. They are all the same. What is important is just believing." I
have also never found one that is still an Evangelical, never mind
religious at all, that has even read 1/10th what I have about their own
religion or 1/1000th what I have about *other* religions. That should
tell you something right there.

The non-Evangelicals, non-Fundimentalist, etc. that simply want to
believe and leave everyone else alone have my sympathy. The rest of them
imho can just get around to converting, shooting or jailing each other
already and leave the rest of us alone to figure out how to fix the mess
that is all too often "caused" by their misdirected attempts to "fix"
every damn thing they dislike, disagree with or feel uncomfortable about.

But that is just my opinion.

Rust

unread,

Jun 1, 2006, 12:12:01 AM6/1/06

to

Patrick Elliott <shado...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:MPG.1ee7f2e39...@news.critter.net:

> By definition, Fundamentalist really means, "This is how we
> 'want' it to be, so we will ignore, misinterpret or make up stuff to
> make that the truth."

Don't get me wrong here, but I want to nitpick this. That is not the
definition of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is, by definition, "a
Protestant religious movement emphasizing the literal infallibility of the
Scriptures." That probably seems pedantic of me, but I try to stand by the
ideal that a truly solid argument must be made from a position of brutal
self-honesty. If the other guy is screaming that you eat kittens while
you're sticking to the facts and/or emphasizing your own expression of
opinion, only one of you is going to walk away looking reasonable.

Anvil*

unread,

Jun 1, 2006, 10:28:46 PM6/1/06

to

The current US derivatives of fundamentalist/evangelical are
very different from their origins. The warp in reality seems
centered somewhere between the Smokey Mountains and
the Ozarks. Most pronounced identifier is their current push
with the "intelligent design" nonsense. Living in the US is
much less to be proud of with the current political/religious
fools running about. Canada looks more inviting every day.

Yes, all organized religions have had their go with petty
dictators at the lead, their blind sheep following. I would add
Science to my list of organized religions. Having at times as
much trouble with change as the Vatican when enshrined
knowledge is brought to question with facts.

For myself and the political bits I vote and write to influence
votes and representatives to help stem this tide of fools. On
a more direct religious track I am somewhat active within
the Catholic church inclusive of sponsoring someone through
the RCIA program. I very much underline the learning/thinking
part. On a side note do not allow crosses that have a human
effigy nailed to them to be displayed in my home. Also, I
don't cite religious passages as a proof of my opinions and
would never waggle a bible at someone over reading it for
myself.

Yep, there are those that would hope I burn. Just have to
feel sorry for them and try to prevent them from harming
others.

Rust

unread,

Jun 2, 2006, 1:05:14 AM6/2/06

to

"Anvil*" <r...@spacebbs.com> wrote in news:1149215326.210832.82960
@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Living in the US is
> much less to be proud of with the current political/religious
> fools running about. Canada looks more inviting every day.

Think twice. Steven Harper is doing his damndest to turn this
conservangelist garbage into a pincers manouvre on North America.

> Yes, all organized religions have had their go with petty
> dictators at the lead, their blind sheep following. I would add
> Science to my list of organized religions. Having at times as
> much trouble with change as the Vatican when enshrined
> knowledge is brought to question with facts.

That's a point often overlooked. Many scientists are stubbornly dogmatic.
It's still common in the scientific community, for example, to regard the
human race as being alone in certain intellectual capacities such as
imagination. I can disprove that notion with an hour's observation of a
particularly bright house cat.

> Yep, there are those that would hope I burn. Just have to
> feel sorry for them and try to prevent them from harming
> others.

And that, I think, it the dreadful irony of it all - the outcast are the
peacemakers and wardens, left to do their best with undeservedly limited
respect. But I don't suppose it goes unnoticed where it counts.

Anvil*

unread,

Jun 2, 2006, 1:13:34 PM6/2/06

to

Rust:
> "Anvil*

>
> > Living in the US is
> > much less to be proud of with the current political/religious
> > fools running about. Canada looks more inviting every day.
>
> Think twice. Steven Harper is doing his damndest to turn this
> conservangelist garbage into a pincers manouvre on North America.
>

Well unless some Republicans can regain control of he Republican
party and the Democrats agree on a platform less like a scatter
diagram the KKK and a number of southern religious groups will
be running this country (even over our military-industrial complex).

As for moving to Canada I think I need maybe one more point to
qualify without a sponsor. My daughter is married, due this month
with her second child, and living in Alberta. I've still my parents to
take care of here, so an estimate would be ten years from now. They
do have the option of moving to the US but by then the conflict with
California may be in full swing.

Patrick Elliott

unread,

Jun 2, 2006, 11:07:45 PM6/2/06

to

In article <Xns97D53282DDE2...@216.183.128.12>,
othr...@bmts.com.netspam says...

> Patrick Elliott <shado...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1ee7f2e39...@news.critter.net:
>
> > By definition, Fundamentalist really means, "This is how we
> > 'want' it to be, so we will ignore, misinterpret or make up stuff to
> > make that the truth."
>
> Don't get me wrong here, but I want to nitpick this. That is not the
> definition of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is, by definition, "a
> Protestant religious movement emphasizing the literal infallibility of the
> Scriptures." That probably seems pedantic of me, but I try to stand by the
> ideal that a truly solid argument must be made from a position of brutal
> self-honesty. If the other guy is screaming that you eat kittens while
> you're sticking to the facts and/or emphasizing your own expression of
> opinion, only one of you is going to walk away looking reasonable.
>

See. Dictionary definitions only work if the people describing themselves
as such **act** like the definition. The truth is, I have yet to find
*any* of them that don't reinterpret their Bibles to mean *exactly* what
they want, ignore the historical or even linguistic history, in favor of
their interpretation, etc.

The dictionary definition is **only** accurate if you change it to say,

"a Protestant religious movement emphasizing the literal infallibility of

the Scriptures, as described by their own interpretation of what literal,
infallible or even "is" means (to quote someone who is ironically not a
fundamentalist." Telling everyone that "green" is "blue", therefor all
the books in the world describing the sky really say that the sky is
"green", is I suspect *not* what even the original Protestants, as
screwed up as their KJV Bible was to start with, meant. And among "real"
scholars, the KJV, which they insist is the best translation, is in fact
the single most inaccurate, mistranslated and intentionally altered
version ever created. Its like describing Quantum Leap as "An accurate
representation of the history of the 1950-1980s." Well, maybe not quite
that bad, but if there was ever an infallible version, the KJV they all
follow isn't it. And the fact that they refuse to look back further than
that, considering the rewrite done in that period as the most accurate
version *ever* (their own words), should be enough to cause some
uncertainty about both the validity of the claim and the accuracy of
their own self-definition.

Put simply, I can claim I am Mary Queen of Scots, but even wearing a
dress can't convince someone that its true. Having a picture of me in the
dictionary wouldn't change that. Having my name and address listed
wouldn't either, any more than "their" claim to follow an accurate and
infallible version of a Bible, which can't even agree on what order
things got made in Genesis, can be considered anything but wishful
thinking (and for some a dangerous belief that may actually threaten the
survival of everyone that doesn't believe the same thing.)

True, the correct definition implies something different than what I
described. But the evidence doesn't support the implied assumptions in
the definition. What it does imply is a stubborn, and perhaps dangerous,
need to reject reality, history or evidence, in favor of *believing* that
everything that definition implies is also an infallible truth.

Muke Tever

unread,

Jun 3, 2006, 10:27:10 AM6/3/06

to

Patrick Elliott <shado...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <Xns97D53282DDE2...@216.183.128.12>,
> othr...@bmts.com.netspam says...
>> Patrick Elliott <shado...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1ee7f2e39...@news.critter.net:
>>
>> > By definition, Fundamentalist really means, "This is how we
>> > 'want' it to be, so we will ignore, misinterpret or make up stuff to
>> > make that the truth."
>>
>> Don't get me wrong here, but I want to nitpick this. That is not the
>> definition of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is, by definition, "a
>> Protestant religious movement emphasizing the literal infallibility of
>> the Scriptures."

> See. Dictionary definitions only work if the people describing themselves
> as such **act** like the definition.

No, it doesn't. Very few human beings carry only _one_ label. What one
gets from the label "fundamentalist" is telling that one is a member of the
religious movement described; ignoring, misinterpreting, and making up
stuff
to make their beliefs align with the truth comes from other labels, such as
"stubborn" or "unethical" or "closed-minded" which may be associated
(especially in the popular imagination) but don't necessarily follow on
from
the "fundamentalist" label. To put it another way, just because something
is "red" doesn't mean it can't be "bright"... it also doesn't mean it has
to be "bright" either.

> And among "real" scholars, the KJV, which they insist is thebest

> translation, [...] but if there was ever an infallible version,the KJV
> they all follow

Who's this "they" btw? It doesn't seem you're talking about the class
"fundamentalists". (I've known a lot of other fundamentalists, but
none that believe that, though I have heard about such people and
seen their webpages).

> True, the correct definition implies something different than what I
> described. But the evidence doesn't support the implied assumptions in
> the definition. What it does imply is a stubborn, and perhaps dangerous,
> need to reject reality, history or evidence, in favor of *believing* that
> everything that definition implies is also an infallible truth.

Lots of people are like that for what they believe in, whether the
belief is religious, political, sociological, whatever. Fundamentalists
are hardly unique in being susceptible to that, and certainly aren't
defined by it.

*Muke!
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Rust

unread,

Jun 3, 2006, 8:56:12 PM6/3/06

to

Patrick Elliott <shado...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:MPG.1eeaaaf19...@news.critter.net:

> In article <Xns97D53282DDE2...@216.183.128.12>,
> othr...@bmts.com.netspam says...
>> Patrick Elliott <shado...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1ee7f2e39...@news.critter.net:

>> Fundamentalism is, by definition, "a

>> Protestant religious movement emphasizing the literal infallibility of
>> the Scriptures."

> See. Dictionary definitions only work if the people describing

> themselves as such **act** like the definition. The truth is, I have
> yet to find *any* of them that don't reinterpret their Bibles to mean
> *exactly* what they want, ignore the historical or even linguistic
> history, in favor of their interpretation, etc.

I have. Some of them, if not many, really do put their money where their
mouth is. $30K twice over to live in harsh conditions for a few months in
order to help build community buildings in South Africa, in the specific
case I'm thinking of.

> The dictionary definition is **only** accurate if you change it to say,
> "a Protestant religious movement emphasizing the literal infallibility
> of the Scriptures, as described by their own interpretation of what
> literal, infallible or even "is" means (to quote someone who is
> ironically not a fundamentalist."

In some - maybe most - cases that may be... arguably true. It does,
however, lend a kind of legitimacy to those actions when we accept them as a
valid definition of that group. It's unfair to the ones who don't fall into
your definition, and denies the hope for a different future. And frankly, I
remember a time when we - ALF and 'furry lifestylers' - were regarded by a
certain organization in a similar manner. It's not something most of us
remember fondly.

Patrick Elliott

unread,

Jun 4, 2006, 10:05:17 PM6/4/06

to

In article <Xns97D7D61FBE76...@216.183.128.12>,

othr...@bmts.com.netspam says...
> Patrick Elliott <shado...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1eeaaaf19...@news.critter.net:
>
> > In article <Xns97D53282DDE2...@216.183.128.12>,
> > othr...@bmts.com.netspam says...
> >> Patrick Elliott <shado...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:MPG.1ee7f2e39...@news.critter.net:
>
> >> Fundamentalism is, by definition, "a
> >> Protestant religious movement emphasizing the literal infallibility of
> >> the Scriptures."
>
> > See. Dictionary definitions only work if the people describing
> > themselves as such **act** like the definition. The truth is, I have
> > yet to find *any* of them that don't reinterpret their Bibles to mean
> > *exactly* what they want, ignore the historical or even linguistic
> > history, in favor of their interpretation, etc.
>
> I have. Some of them, if not many, really do put their money where their
> mouth is. $30K twice over to live in harsh conditions for a few months in
> order to help build community buildings in South Africa, in the specific
> case I'm thinking of.
>

And sadly, there tend to be way too many that place building such things
contingent upon conversions. Africa is the new heathen landscape to be
converted and the only people making bigger inroads over there than
Christian evangelicals are, unfortunately, Muslim extremists. Such help
should "never" be about conversion, it cheapens the achievement and just
proves that they wouldn't have done it without having some ulterior
motive.

> > The dictionary definition is **only** accurate if you change it to say,
> > "a Protestant religious movement emphasizing the literal infallibility
> > of the Scriptures, as described by their own interpretation of what
> > literal, infallible or even "is" means (to quote someone who is
> > ironically not a fundamentalist."
>
> In some - maybe most - cases that may be... arguably true. It does,
> however, lend a kind of legitimacy to those actions when we accept them as a
> valid definition of that group. It's unfair to the ones who don't fall into
> your definition, and denies the hope for a different future. And frankly, I
> remember a time when we - ALF and 'furry lifestylers' - were regarded by a
> certain organization in a similar manner. It's not something most of us
> remember fondly.
>

Ok, fair enough. But lets say some huge movement in the furry community
started a movement to make people wear furry costumes. Well, you get what
I mean, forcing a view on others that is contrary to both the majority of
the furry community and especially those that are *not* furries. Then
lets say "we" just shrugged our shoulders, made occasional vague
protests, but 95% of us said *nothing* about what that group was doing.
Words are defined by how they are used, not by what people "want" them to
mean. Fundamentalist can be far more readilly described in the terms "I"
have given, than the terms the half way rational fundamentalists (if that
isn't an oxymoron) "want" it to mean.

Why? Because to far too many of them, anything that achieves the goal of
making this world (or just the US) more Christian surmounts the negative
consequences of allowing some other people to make grandiose ridiculous
and dangerous statements. Its not enough to tell someone that stands face
to face with you, "Well... Not all of us believe that.", you have to be
willing to stand up and say, "There is an entire subgroup among us that
**isn't** reasonable or possible even sane." There is no incentive for
them to out each other for their foolishness or self imposed ignorance,
unlike say scientists, who could be made famous by disproving each others
theories. In religion, defense of the foundation means you overlook,
ignore, or make excuses for "minor" mistakes. Only, minor could be
anything from, "I once saw him steal a french fry from someone else's
plate in a restaurant.", to, "He has never actuallt **said** that he
wants everyone that isn't religious to be killed, just that the world
wouldn't miss them if they all died."

No critical thought goes into the distinctions for too high a percentage,
and even the ones that *do* recognize the distinctions are more worried
that someone might remove the Ten Commandments from a court house than
the lunatic ramblings of some nut that has 10 million followers. What
have any of them done to suggest that my definition is less accurate than
the one they want me to use for them? And no, finding a half dozen that
actively appose the nuts does not count when there are 5,000 nuts and
close to 3 billion people who are more willing to listen to them talk
about wars on religion, than someone telling them that the politician and
priests babbling that are ignoring constitutional law, and making up
things they want us to believe the founders said.

An article I read recently on the subject quotes Thomas Jefferson - "it
does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.
It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Jefferson was both naive
and short sighted. People act on those beliefs, not merely sit around
thinking about them in their heads. Get the right circumstances and even
the most supposedly pious person will find justification in their belief
for not just picking you pocket, after breaking your leg, and the only
real justification most are able to give is, "I didn't *techinically*
break your leg, just limit where you can walk. Nor did I *truely* pick
you pocket, I just encouraged you to be charitable." Gosh!! I feel so
much better....

But still, this conversation isn't likely to go much farther. I think we
can both agree that "soft" fundamentalism isn't worth much, since it
doesn't try to force people to their side, nor, sadly, does it speak out
any where near enough against those that do. Its like complaining that
the term Nerd doesn't *always* refer to members of the AV club who have
never had dates. Maybe not, but its what people "think" it means from
long observation that counts, not what it "should" mean. And what do you
see today, in "all" parts of the world, when the term "fundimentalist" is
used?

Dan Skunk

unread,

Jun 5, 2006, 7:50:18 AM6/5/06

to

I think people need to speak out more against bad ideas and not let people
hide them behind religion as a way to get respect for them and immunity from
criticism. A bad idea is still a bad idea and if no one says anything, no
one will ever learn.

Rust

unread,

Jun 5, 2006, 10:08:57 AM6/5/06

to

Patrick Elliott <shado...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:MPG.1eed3f2e5...@news.critter.net:

>> Some of them, if not many, really do put their money where
>> their mouth is. $30K twice over to live in harsh conditions for a few
>> months in order to help build community buildings in South Africa, in
>> the specific case I'm thinking of.
>>
> And sadly, there tend to be way too many that place building such
> things contingent upon conversions.

And you can prove this? Or do you just assume it? You're massaging the
available information to fit your view rather than adjusting your view to
fit the information.

>> I remember a time when we - ALF and 'furry
>> lifestylers' - were regarded by a certain organization in a similar
>> manner. It's not something most of us remember fondly.
>>
> Ok, fair enough. But lets say some huge movement in the furry community
> started a movement to make people wear furry costumes. Well, you get
> what I mean, forcing a view on others that is contrary to both the
> majority of the furry community and especially those that are *not*
> furries. Then lets say "we" just shrugged our shoulders, made
> occasional vague protests, but 95% of us said *nothing* about what that
> group was doing. Words are defined by how they are used, not by what
> people "want" them to mean. Fundamentalist can be far more readilly
> described in the terms "I" have given, than the terms the half way
> rational fundamentalists (if that isn't an oxymoron) "want" it to mean.

Screaming half-truths and inaccurate cliches isn't going to help matters
much. It is its own brand of proselytization, when you sally forth to SAVE
the world from the EVIL of fundamentalism. Say that to yourself with a
corny southern accent and you'll get my drift. In any case, when's the last
time you saw a stable individual turn fundie because of a Chick Tract? I
think you should be less worried about fundamentalist idiosyncrasies (save
for personal nuisance) and more worried about their increasingly
irresponsible political influence.

> Why? Because to far too many of them, anything that achieves the goal
> of making this world (or just the US) more Christian surmounts the
> negative consequences of allowing some other people to make grandiose
> ridiculous and dangerous statements.

Mm... I disagree. Christian fundamentalists live half over the brink of
logical collapse of their belief system. They keep it strung together
primarily with a psychological binder twine called "thought stopping
techniques". Whenever you feel doubt, that's the lies of the Devil tempting
you - pray! They tend to revolve around a patriarchial model which simply -
aches- for a king. In America they've got one, and the king is the right
hand of God. You do not question the will of the king, because the king's
will is the will of God. Yes, there are those who fancy themselves to be
crusaders, but I suspect that they are in the minority and the rest are
indeed a flock of sheep. Now again, these are generalities and do not
necessarily apply in all cases.

> What have any of them done to suggest that my definition is
> less accurate than the one they want me to use for them?

Screaming reactionism and mud-slinging doesn't help the Left. Ever. In any
case, it's my opinion that real definitions must not under any circumstances
contain anything but the strict and neutral facts. Leave the snide stuff
for 'the Devil's Dictionary'. I also believe that when we allow people to
redefine words we end up with "freedom" that consists of compromised
liberties and civil rights, nations governed by "terrorists", and other
cases of abusive thought reform.

> An article I read recently on the subject quotes Thomas Jefferson - "it
> does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no
> God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Jefferson was both
> naive and short sighted. People act on those beliefs, not merely sit
> around thinking about them in their heads.

I think that his point in -saying- those words must have been to make people
think and, hopefully, to take a position of deliberate tolerance and
discretion. It was an intellectual solution to a reactionary problem. If
you think that's naive then you'd may as well quit now, because there is no
other way. It is an admission that the base beast within us wins out over
the mind, and if that is so then what is there to fight for?

> the only real justification most are able to give is, "I didn't
> *techinically* break your leg, just limit where you can walk. Nor did I
> *truely* pick you pocket, I just encouraged you to be charitable."
> Gosh!! I feel so much better....

Um... okay, that was just lame. Shame on you for abandoning both honesty
and logic in favour of a nasty jibe.

Rust

unread,

Jun 5, 2006, 10:21:10 AM6/5/06

to

"Dan Skunk" <dans...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:e615qf$28ni$1...@urocyon.critter.net:

That I can agree with in its entirety. But... who will bell the cat? And
how? Putting fundamentalists down is unfair, ineffective and to a large
degree preaching to the choir, as it were. It's not an easy thing to get
rolling, but maybe the solution is in mutual respect - you don't have to
agree in order to respect. It wouldn't start out being mutual, but with
enough perseverance and civil discussion surely we could hash out a mutually
acceptable solution. There's no instant gratification here, but the rewards
would be great and it's something we can all work at.

Dan Skunk

unread,

Jun 5, 2006, 5:44:21 PM6/5/06

to

"Rust" <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote in message
news:Xns97D96A78DC8A...@216.183.128.12...

> "Dan Skunk" <dans...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:e615qf$28ni$1...@urocyon.critter.net:
>
> > I think people need to speak out more against bad ideas and not let
> > people hide them behind religion as a way to get respect for them and
> > immunity from criticism. A bad idea is still a bad idea and if no one
> > says anything, no one will ever learn.
>
> That I can agree with in its entirety. But... who will bell the cat? And
> how? Putting fundamentalists down is unfair, ineffective and to a large
> degree preaching to the choir, as it were. It's not an easy thing to get
> rolling, but maybe the solution is in mutual respect - you don't have to
> agree in order to respect. It wouldn't start out being mutual, but with
> enough perseverance and civil discussion surely we could hash out a
mutually
> acceptable solution. There's no instant gratification here, but the
rewards
> would be great and it's something we can all work at.
>
> -Rust

Well, respecting bad ideas, I think, is part of the problem. Respecting
people is fine, is important, but you have to criticize their ideas without
insulting their intelligence; lest they won't listen, and will just
retaliate.

Is kinda difficult problem.

Maybe just being more open and talking about it is the solution. Don't let
religion be a taboo subject; something you can't debate. I don't think
people should be sitting around thinking each other is being stupid without
saying anything--that doesn't sound like being a good friend.

Rust

unread,

Jun 5, 2006, 7:49:12 PM6/5/06

to

"Dan Skunk" <dans...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:e628t6$2ub8$1...@urocyon.critter.net:

> Well, respecting bad ideas, I think, is part of the problem. Respecting
> people is fine, is important, but you have to criticize their ideas
> without insulting their intelligence; lest they won't listen, and will
> just retaliate.

Absolutely. But I think it's important to prioritize what is urgent to
criticize, what is important, and what is inconsequential. Urgent covers
things that stand to cause harm now or in the immediate future. Important
issues would include those beliefs or attitudes which influence important
decisions. Inconsequential stuff would be beliefs which we consider silly
(ie: the Rapture), but which do not generally pose a threat or otherwise
hurt anyone. These should, in the interests of free thought and mutual
respect, be left strictly alone unless they work their way up the chain of
priority.

> Maybe just being more open and talking about it is the solution.

I really think so. The toughest part will be convincing eachother to
listen.

Patrick Elliott

unread,

Jun 6, 2006, 3:42:04 PM6/6/06

to

In article <Xns97D96A78DC8A...@216.183.128.12>,
othr...@bmts.com.netspam says...

> "Dan Skunk" <dans...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:e615qf$28ni$1...@urocyon.critter.net:
>
> > I think people need to speak out more against bad ideas and not let
> > people hide them behind religion as a way to get respect for them and
> > immunity from criticism. A bad idea is still a bad idea and if no one
> > says anything, no one will ever learn.
>
> That I can agree with in its entirety. But... who will bell the cat? And
> how? Putting fundamentalists down is unfair, ineffective and to a large
> degree preaching to the choir, as it were. It's not an easy thing to get
> rolling, but maybe the solution is in mutual respect - you don't have to
> agree in order to respect.

Actually. I don't agree. Respect implies acceptance of the idea that the
other side "could" be right. I can tolerate stupid ideas, I cannot
respect them without basically denegrating my own ideals, especially the
ones that are so diametrically apposed to those of others that they
can't really coexist in a stable, healthy and free world. Just ask for
instance the nuts running the current Abstinance Only nonsense why a)
88% of those that take oaths to not have sex having it anyway and b) why
those same people are **more** likely to not use a condom when they do
have it... Such stupidity isn't just so completely opposite of my world
view, anyone with a brain can figure out that if the above statistics
are true, combining them with the statistics for disease means that
instead of "stopping" disease and teen pregnancy, such a program will
instead cause both *more* teen pregnancies and a epidemic of
unimaginable proportions. I cannot, will not and won't be forced to
respect this kind of stupidity, just because doing so might win me an
ally against some other dangerously insane idea. What can't hurt me I
can tolerate. What there is "some" chance science doesn't know enough
about I can respect reasoned arguments about. What does hurt people,
doesn't work, causes strife and exclusionism by nature and destroys our
ability to progress, I can't tolerate and I would have to be insane to
respect. It is as simple as that.

Any fundimentalist that isn't seperating the world into "us" and "them",
and declaring "them" to be beneath respect in some basic way, isn't a
fundimentalist. Such belief *must* be exclusionary, it cannot truely
respect differences, and its tolerance exists "only" so long as the real
world doesn't infringe on their own back yards. The moment that it does,
tolerance disappears too.

Patrick Elliott

unread,

Jun 6, 2006, 4:11:43 PM6/6/06

to

In article <Xns97D9CAC688AF...@216.183.128.12>,
othr...@bmts.com.netspam says...

> "Dan Skunk" <dans...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:e628t6$2ub8$1...@urocyon.critter.net:
>
> > Well, respecting bad ideas, I think, is part of the problem. Respecting
> > people is fine, is important, but you have to criticize their ideas
> > without insulting their intelligence; lest they won't listen, and will
> > just retaliate.
>
> Absolutely. But I think it's important to prioritize what is urgent to
> criticize, what is important, and what is inconsequential. Urgent covers
> things that stand to cause harm now or in the immediate future. Important
> issues would include those beliefs or attitudes which influence important
> decisions. Inconsequential stuff would be beliefs which we consider silly
> (ie: the Rapture), but which do not generally pose a threat or otherwise
> hurt anyone. These should, in the interests of free thought and mutual
> respect, be left strictly alone unless they work their way up the chain of
> priority.
>

Already gave and example of why this won't work. Some ideas held by each
side in the argument they are "certain" are much higher "dangers" than
anything else and its critical to solve them. The problem is, the two
sides have drastically different ways of concluding both a) if such
things are a danger at all, and b) what the proper solution should be.
You can't have a reasonable discussion with someone who, despite using
the same words to describe things, do not, on a basic level, speak the
same language. Their language is one defined by faith, and to them
"everything" is faith. Gravity is faith, water boiling is faith, etc. If
they disagree with it, its automatically a case of whose "faith" is
superior, not whose facts fit reality. And all too often, this means
they don't know, don't want to know and will even ignore facts and
evidence, if it contradicts what they take on "faith".

To them, it doesn't matter if you can "observe" something, your still
applying "faith" to your belief that it is real. One example some clown
came up with was love. Now, love is a "human" definition of certain
behaviours. Anyone capable of understanding the definition can
"observe" behaviour that reflects the definition. The problem here is
that there seems to be some crazy disconnect in the religious, that a
word that "describes behaviour", is some strange seperate, intangible
"thing", and you have to take on faith that you are actually seeing it.
Huh??? Try that again... But its literally the sort of argument such
people come up with for "everything" when they are either attacking
science or trying to make up some excuse for why they insist non-
religion is the same as religion. Yeah, some can encapsulate the stuff
they simply decide is "true", from the stuff they take "on faith", but
you will never find two people that agree on the line seperating those.
And who do you think are going to be more prone to this inability to
seperate them, someone that is told there is a literally true version of
their holy book and all contradictions need to be explained away, or
someone from a group that things most of it is just stories and that a
lot of the stuff it claims where the simplistic and inaccurate views of
people that didn't and couldn't know better? It should be an real easy
thing to answer.

Again, you can't compromise (which really doesn't solve anything anyway
some times), never mind argue the merits of your view, with someone that
doesn't use the same basic definitions for things, hold at least
"similar" assumptions and can't agree on the same basic objective facts
(let alone how you determine if they "are" objective or factual). You
might as well be speaking to a chatbot, for all some ideas can
transition to those with such drastically different interpretations of
how the world actually works.

Dan Skunk

unread,

Jun 6, 2006, 6:26:45 PM6/6/06

to

"Rust" <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote in message

news:Xns97D9CAC688AF...@216.183.128.12...

> "Dan Skunk" <dans...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:e628t6$2ub8$1...@urocyon.critter.net:
>
> > Well, respecting bad ideas, I think, is part of the problem. Respecting
> > people is fine, is important, but you have to criticize their ideas
> > without insulting their intelligence; lest they won't listen, and will
> > just retaliate.
>
> Absolutely. But I think it's important to prioritize what is urgent to
> criticize, what is important, and what is inconsequential. Urgent covers
> things that stand to cause harm now or in the immediate future. Important
> issues would include those beliefs or attitudes which influence important
> decisions. Inconsequential stuff would be beliefs which we consider silly
> (ie: the Rapture), but which do not generally pose a threat or otherwise
> hurt anyone. These should, in the interests of free thought and mutual
> respect, be left strictly alone unless they work their way up the chain of
> priority.
>

I think ideas like the rapture are also dangerous in that if someone
believes the world will end, they loose any concern for protecting it. Why
work to make the world a better place if it will all be for nothing?

Dan Skunk

unread,

Jun 6, 2006, 6:40:27 PM6/6/06

to

"Patrick Elliott" <sel...@rraz.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1eef8f564...@news.critter.net...

I think you can still work from common ground to talk to people. I have
before. Even if they have different beliefs about the how the world works,
there's still your common senses, your common emotions. You can both observe
the world around you and discuss what it means.

Also, both of your goals are the same. You both want to understand the world
around you and your place in it and be good people. Essentially, you both
just have different theories that explain the world. You can discuss which
is a better representation of the world you see.

One stumbling block I see with convincing a theist of an atheistic point of
view is that of morality. They believe without God, there is no reason to
behave morally and ethically to one another. It doesn't matter if you're a
bad person because there's no consequences to it. I've found it difficult to
be convincing that there are still reasons to be a good person without there
being any ultimate reward or punishment after you die.

orangeseater

unread,

Jun 7, 2006, 6:48:54 AM6/7/06

to

<resea...@lorenzocrescini.it> wrote in message
news:1148904560.4...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Jesus defeated death not for him but for all of us. In order to open to
> all us the door towards a happy eternity. He defeated death to let us
> win that "useless passion" that is the short life on earth, opening
> prospectives of infinite when every way seemed closed by the black wall
> of a final and inevitable end.

While I am pretty sure your motives
are genuine, here in America (USA)
Christianity has morphed into a quasi-
political & morality campaign in which
mostly white bigots and obnoxous extroverted
people want to force their beliefs onto others.
This is why the USA version of Christianity
turns myself and many others off. The worst
is the American phenomena of TV Preachers who
are by far the most fake and loathsome people on
this planet. They need to be eliminated at all costs.
They give Christ a bad name.

Snuhwolf

unread,

Jun 7, 2006, 9:59:56 AM6/7/06

to

Dan Skunk wrote:
>

>>
> I think ideas like the rapture are also dangerous in that if someone
> believes the world will end, they loose any concern for protecting it.
> Why
> work to make the world a better place if it will all be for nothing?

Now you understand Bush's worldveiw.
Hes an evangelical who *does* believe in that rapture nonsense and
therefore careing about the enviroment is not necessary since the world
will be consumed in fire during the apocalypse and all the "sinners"
like jews, muslims and anyone smarter than him like us atheists will be
magically transported to hell.
The batshit crazy fucks are running the country.
Yay.

--
www.smirkingchimp.com

Dan Skunk

unread,

Jun 7, 2006, 10:29:42 AM6/7/06

to

"Snuhwolf" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PM000415A...@tilly.centurytel.net...

It's very sad. If they will destroy the only world there is for nothing.

Patrick Elliott

unread,

Jun 7, 2006, 2:07:18 PM6/7/06

to

In article <Xns97D96864E471...@216.183.128.12>,
othr...@bmts.com.netspam says...

> Patrick Elliott <shado...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1eed3f2e5...@news.critter.net:
>
> >> Some of them, if not many, really do put their money where
> >> their mouth is. $30K twice over to live in harsh conditions for a few
> >> months in order to help build community buildings in South Africa, in
> >> the specific case I'm thinking of.
> >>
> > And sadly, there tend to be way too many that place building such
> > things contingent upon conversions.
>
> And you can prove this? Or do you just assume it? You're massaging the
> available information to fit your view rather than adjusting your view to
> fit the information.
>

First off, its well known how these sort of groups have worked in the
past and they tend to be of the mind that if it sort of worked before,
it should work again. Just take a look at any of a dozen goofy ideas
that they keep pushing in other areas. Second, where there is one, there
are many. And there was one very clear example of this in the news
during the tsunami. That group was caught "on tape" fleeing from a
village that had injured and hungry people, because, it turned out, the
village refused to, "accept Jesus as their savior", before accepting the
help. No, not "all" of them do this. But its right back to the same
bullshit. Because they "help" people and it "serves" their religion, all
the groups that don't do it look the other way, while those that do get
by with it. But since you don't seem inclined to look, here is at least
one example:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2002/05/stealth.html

I don't for a moment believe it is the "only" case of it.

> >> I remember a time when we - ALF and 'furry
> >> lifestylers' - were regarded by a certain organization in a similar
> >> manner. It's not something most of us remember fondly.
> >>
> > Ok, fair enough. But lets say some huge movement in the furry community
> > started a movement to make people wear furry costumes. Well, you get
> > what I mean, forcing a view on others that is contrary to both the
> > majority of the furry community and especially those that are *not*
> > furries. Then lets say "we" just shrugged our shoulders, made
> > occasional vague protests, but 95% of us said *nothing* about what that
> > group was doing. Words are defined by how they are used, not by what
> > people "want" them to mean. Fundamentalist can be far more readilly
> > described in the terms "I" have given, than the terms the half way
> > rational fundamentalists (if that isn't an oxymoron) "want" it to mean.
>
> Screaming half-truths and inaccurate cliches isn't going to help matters
> much. It is its own brand of proselytization, when you sally forth to SAVE
> the world from the EVIL of fundamentalism. Say that to yourself with a
> corny southern accent and you'll get my drift. In any case, when's the last
> time you saw a stable individual turn fundie because of a Chick Tract? I
> think you should be less worried about fundamentalist idiosyncrasies (save
> for personal nuisance) and more worried about their increasingly
> irresponsible political influence.
>

The path to facism is taken one step at a time. I doubt Coulter wins a
lot of converts to the insanity either, but she is only one brick in a
"huge" wall. And one of the reasons that they have, and continue to
gain, such political influence is that some of them are very good at
screaming their own half truths and inaccurate cliches, which play on
the fears (as well as the invented fears spread by the Religious Right)
of those people that know almost as little about their own religion as
they do about history and science. Ignorance is the first step on the
path. The second step is falling for carefully crafted BS from those
that have an agenda, because you are too ignorant to realize you are
being duped. Your asking me to attack the problem ass end first, instead
of apposing the real problem, which is the replacement of reason and
knowledge with religious dogma and revelations. You can't fight a dragon
by trying to grab its tail and ignoring the front end of it.

> > Why? Because to far too many of them, anything that achieves the goal
> > of making this world (or just the US) more Christian surmounts the
> > negative consequences of allowing some other people to make grandiose
> > ridiculous and dangerous statements.
>
> Mm... I disagree. Christian fundamentalists live half over the brink of
> logical collapse of their belief system. They keep it strung together
> primarily with a psychological binder twine called "thought stopping
> techniques". Whenever you feel doubt, that's the lies of the Devil tempting
> you - pray! They tend to revolve around a patriarchial model which simply -
> aches- for a king. In America they've got one, and the king is the right

Umm. You just described exactly what I said. When confronted with
contradiction they use, "thought stopping techniques", among which is
coming up with convoluted, irrational, and often incomprehensibly
factually wrong excuses for doing what they think is right. One of the
things they think is right is "saving" the rest of us from the lies of
the Devil, by making us conform to their world view. Or do you actually
think constitutional ammendments on marriage, abstinence only programs
or claiming that Plan-B and the cure for Cervical Cancer promote teen
sex are a) factually sound, b) effective at doing anything be hurting
more people or c) rational? Note, a lot people people might think
Abstinence "is" all three, but the actual facts about what it produces
so completely contradict that assumption as to make the argument roughly
equivalent to the equally nuts argument by some of the same people that
promote it, that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

Patrick Elliott

unread,

Jun 7, 2006, 2:46:08 PM6/7/06

to

In article <e650if$i8n$1...@urocyon.critter.net>, dans...@gmail.com
says...

>
> One stumbling block I see with convincing a theist of an atheistic point of
> view is that of morality. They believe without God, there is no reason to
> behave morally and ethically to one another. It doesn't matter if you're a
> bad person because there's no consequences to it. I've found it difficult to
> be convincing that there are still reasons to be a good person without there
> being any ultimate reward or punishment after you die.

There is one very good reason. Societies and other people don't like it
and that caused you a whole hell of a lot more problems that acting
civil. You can't get any simpler than that for defining morals. In fact,
this is how we learn them. We don't take some child, sit them in a
corner and tell them, "God won't give you a present after you die if you
don't behave." That BS doesn't come along until later. The foundation of
morals is set by example and experience. Some people, including
religious people, are never given the experiences necessary to develop
morals, thus they quite happilly lie, cheat, steal, etc., all with the
certainty that its OK to do so, especially if they also have a get out
of jail free card, like confession. And the other problem with this is
that morals are not exclusive to humans. There is clear evidence of
behaviour and social rules being taught *by* some other animals **to**
their offspring, values and rules that result in rejection of members of
the same species if they are never learned, and last I checked, none of
them have made the stupid mistake of inventing religion.

See, your talking about shared perceptions, but even those things are
not universal. Some people's perceptions are clouded in either rose
colors, hellfire or self obsessed delusions. Some groups "teach" a
comination of those things to their kids, producing people that not only
don't share everyone else's emotional reactions and perceptions, but may
flat out deny their validity or existence. One persons porn is anothers
art, some people think the word porn is nothing but bullshit, and that
is only the most obvious example. I think posting commandments on public
spaces is ugly, pointless and a kick in the teeth for those that don't
follow the religions that use them. I would also argue that the damn
constitition, starting with the establishment clause, ignores or
diregards more than half of them, making the insistence that they post
them an insult to our country as well. Others truely beleive that its
the corner stone and foundation of the whole shebang. I frankly can't
comprehend how the heck they fail to see the contradiction, but I know
it would be useless for me to try to discuss with them the nature of how
the two relate.

unread,

Jun 8, 2006, 6:21:19 PM6/8/06

to

In article <Xns97DCA543812B...@216.183.128.12>,
othr...@bmts.com.netspam says...

> Patrick Elliott <sel...@rraz.net> wrote in
> news:MPG.1eef887a9...@news.critter.net:
>
>
> > Actually. I don't agree. Respect implies acceptance of the idea that
> > the other side "could" be right. I can tolerate stupid ideas, I cannot
> > respect them without basically denegrating my own ideals
>
> You don't have to respect the idea. You only have to respect the person and
> their right to have their own ideas. "My right to swing my fist ends at the
> tip of your nose."
>

But.. This only works if they don't try to hit you. People don't just
have beleifs and opinions, they act on them. If they didn't, those
things would be completely meaningless. The problem is, you are asking
me to respect people that can't *not* act on those ideas, to our mutual
detriment, without undermining the very beliefs we both agree are
dangerous.

Its not so cut and dry. I can respect someone for being a good
architect, but not for their building nothing but churches for
dominionists that want to kill all heathens. Do I therefore ignore the
fact that they only build things for nuts, just because the skill is
worthy of respect? No, respect must be earned, not assumed. You lose
your right to expect it when you decide that my nose isn't off limits.
And anyone that has a "fundimental" belief that they know the truth
about everything and that its not open to interpretation or error, isn't
going to recognize your right to not get a broken nose. Its as simple as
that.

Now, I have no problem with talking about solving problems with people
that are no where close to that far gone. My objection is to your
presumption that Fundimentalist can or does mean, "We won't try to force
the world to conform, in even the slightest way, to what we *think* our
religion says it should be." I would argue that you simply haven't
stepped on the right toes to believe this. So would **many** people who
have spent far more time that you have trying to compromise with these
people and getting nothing but disdain back.

Rust

unread,

Jun 8, 2006, 11:18:24 PM6/8/06

to

Patrick Elliott <sel...@rraz.net> wrote in

news:MPG.1ef24c8a8...@news.critter.net:

> Sometimes compromise means
> abandoning "any" valid solution, in favor of some wishy washy middle
> ground that solves nothing.

Uhhh... no, that isn't compromise at all, really. Compromise is win-win,
and you're talking lose-lose; that's called scorched earth. Hey, I never
said it was easy, but it's worth working for valid negotiation. It's worth
trying to be approachable.

> I am sorry you don't understand that such distinctions "must"
> be made and that some belief systems are so diametrically apposed to
> reality that to find a middle ground with them would require the
> abandonment of reason.

Oh, don't be sorry about that. You're rapidly providing me with an advanced
education in the nature of vehement dogma.

> You don't compromise with people that refuse to accept, by the very
> nature of their beliefs, that they "must" be right. The only person
> that ends up giving up their ideals to find a solution is **you** in
> those stituations,

And who now is the evangelist? You're talking about converting people to
your cause. You do see the irony here, don't you? The point has absolutely
nothing to do with being right. It's about letting everyone else be wrong
in peace.

> Some of us have tried, over
> and over and over, only to get the same result, a complete refusal to,
> in some cases, even "look at" evidence or facts that contradict their
> views.

I can't say I blame them if I've seen any indication of your negotiating
skills. The process can be glacially slow, and all it takes to undo every
bit of progress is one lame-wit yahoo charging in and 'proving' that god
doesn't exist by juxtaposing "Thou shalt not kill" over "Suffer no witch to
live." Negotiation is not about butting heads and seeing who's stronger.
Negotiation is about walking with someone and gradually altering their
course so that they barely even notice. Yes, that is a little ironic
perhaps.

> Don't
> tell those of us that have seen this that its some how just us refusing
> to find a solution.

Well then, I'll strip all the euphamism away for you. You're doing no good
and at least some harm. We need solutions, not rants and snide sidebars
designed to insult and further alienate a potential enemy which may be in a
position to stomp alternative religions and lifestyles flat in North
America. Put up or shut up.

Rust

unread,

Jun 8, 2006, 11:26:02 PM6/8/06

to

You cite ridiculous stereotype and general butt-pulling to support your not
infrequently offensive views. You are out of your depth in terms of
honesty, humility and compassion, your wisdom lacks substance, depth or
experience, and so far as I'm concerned this conversation is ended.

Patrick Elliott

unread,

Jun 9, 2006, 3:34:03 PM6/9/06

to

In article <Xns97DCEE451720...@216.183.128.12>,
othr...@bmts.com.netspam says...

Sigh.. First, I somehow doubt we are going to cure all the worlds ills
on a furry forum. Second, you are doing exactly the same thing people do
on several sites I go to. Post something praising a pastor, priest, etc.
for not falling for the BS of the extremists and that's great, come back
later and talk about how those same extremists can't be reasoned with
and suddenly your being dogmatic, instead of truthful. I don't give a
shit if I next door neighbor wants to hang pictures of Jesus on their
wall and claim that his face can be seen in their bathroom door. I do
care if they then turn around and try to have me arrested because I
didn't wear a bathing suit in the hot tub, they think nudity is evil and
they happened to be out at 9PM at night and saw me. We used to have a
middle ground in this country. There where just too problems with it.
First, it involved ignoring both the nuetral, but disapproved of,
things, as well as the egregious and vile, like child molestation and
wife beating. You just didn't talk about "any" of it. Now, we are in a
culture war, between those that want to find a compromise and those that
are so certain of their own truths and paranoid about all the evils they
think they see that "everything" is open, not for discussion, but
demonization, attack, mischaracterization and disparagement. You seem to
want everyone to ignore this reality, in favor of some sort of utopia
where every just agrees to go back to pretending bad things don't
happen, since that is the only way to prevent you being accused of doing
bad things, in some neighborhood where "bad" might be defined as being
well muscled and not wearing a shirt while gardening where someone
else's teen daughter can see it.

Do you understand what I am saying at all? There are some ideals I can't
not appose, some extremes that can't be waved off as someone else's mere
opinion, some things that only a fool turns away from and pretends they
don't see, because the other guy "won't" be doing so. All you have to do
is read some of the dominionist literature to see that. I would love to
find middle ground with these people. But ***they*** refuse to even
acknowledge the validity of different opinions. You might as well try to
show photos of gas chambers to holocaust deniers, for all the good
telling some people, "Lets sit down and talk", is going to do. That is
"all" I am saying, not that the other 90+% are equally impossible to
deal with. Most of them are a) being misled by the minority, b) ignorant
of the facts or c) fully aware of the same duplicity I am describing and
more than willing to find a solution, as long as you don't, as you point
out, run into the room and scream, "God doesn't exist!" I am not sure
where the @#$#$@$ you got the idea that I advocated that. They think I
am delusional, I think they are, who cares, as long as the result isn't
yet another unworkable solution that tries to pander to the worst common
denominator, instead of being based on sound reason.

Patrick Elliott

unread,

Jun 9, 2006, 3:47:10 PM6/9/06

to

In article <Xns97DCEF91731F...@216.183.128.12>,
othr...@bmts.com.netspam says...

> You cite ridiculous stereotype and general butt-pulling to support your not
> infrequently offensive views. You are out of your depth in terms of
> honesty, humility and compassion, your wisdom lacks substance, depth or
> experience, and so far as I'm concerned this conversation is ended.
>

Fine with me. You are blowing what I intended to mean way out of
proportion, implying that I am painting everyone of faith with the same
brush and worse, refusing to accept that the types of people it does
apply to might, from my experience, which you don't know a damn thing
about, be exactly how I describe. Kind of hard to get your point across
in such circumstances... I did say, some place in this damn mess, that
its only "specific" things that they can't and won't compromise on. I
can for example trust the one lady I have been working for to compromise
of something like education, just not the constitutional validity of
keeping religious concepts separate from that education in a public
school. Nothing would likely shake here from the certainty that their is
a real war on her religion, based solely on the fact that some of us
don't want it being shoved down our throats 24-7, including in schools,
where I own kids would be most vulnerable to it. They want a national
day of prayer.. fine, just leave the rest of us out of it, don't come
back a week later and call everyone that didn't light a candle and sing
some Christian Rock nonsense "Un-American". Is that really such a
burden? To some the answer is, "yes". You want me to react to them how?

Bah... No point in continuing. You have already decided you know what my
opinion really is, based on my attempts to explain why I think "some"
groups can't be dealt with. The fact that you are pissed off by my
general hostility toward organized religion, an opinion shared by most
of the founding fathers, and can't see past that is your problem. Don't
worry, I won't take this as a reason to not lend support to anything you
*actually* do that can benefit both of us. Just don't ask me to show you
"respect" for failing to understand what I intended.

Patrick Elliott

unread,

Jun 9, 2006, 3:55:50 PM6/9/06

to

Maybe PZ can describe my real view better. I don't always agree with him
and he sometimes can be a bit more extreme than is reasonable, If you
check, you will find comment from me on some of his posts that tell him
flat out that his stance isn't constructive, even if in principle I
agree with it, which is "exactly" the same thing you are accusing me of
failing to recognize. But what I do agree with him on, is that "some"
groups are not worth trying to talk to, because you can't talk to them
and that "everyone" needs to appose that kind of stupidity, not just the
agnostics and atheists.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/words_mean_nothing_so_ive_dec
i.php

Rust

unread,

Jun 9, 2006, 9:26:20 PM6/9/06

to

Patrick Elliott <sel...@rraz.net> wrote in

news:MPG.1ef37adf1...@news.critter.net:

> Do you understand what I am saying at all? There are some ideals I
> can't not appose, some extremes that can't be waved off as someone

> else's mere opinion...

But you're ascribing the whole to the malady and the malady to the whole,
and so strengthen the 'dig in your heels' instinct that's an effective
thought-stopper in itself - and in yourself. Do I understand what you are
saying? I understand it well enough to see that your thinking is fatally
incomplete.

Rust

unread,

Jun 9, 2006, 9:29:19 PM6/9/06

to

Patrick Elliott <sel...@rraz.net> wrote in

news:MPG.1ef37fd8b...@news.critter.net:

> But what I do agree with him on, is that "some"
> groups are not worth trying to talk to, because you can't talk to them

"Some" is a distinction which you have been chronically failing to make.

Patrick Elliott

unread,

Jun 10, 2006, 4:00:36 PM6/10/06

to

In article <Xns97DDDB48D6A9...@216.183.128.12>,
othr...@bmts.com.netspam says...

> Patrick Elliott <sel...@rraz.net> wrote in
> news:MPG.1ef37adf1...@news.critter.net:
>
> > Do you understand what I am saying at all? There are some ideals I
> > can't not appose, some extremes that can't be waved off as someone
> > else's mere opinion...
>
> But you're ascribing the whole to the malady and the malady to the whole,
> and so strengthen the 'dig in your heels' instinct that's an effective
> thought-stopper in itself - and in yourself. Do I understand what you are
> saying? I understand it well enough to see that your thinking is fatally
> incomplete.
>

Umm. The malady is only possible in the environment of the whole,
assuming I understand your meaning. However, you are the one claiming
that I am applying it the malady to the whole, unless you mean merely
claiming that fundamentalists act like they know how the world works and
ignore other opinions, in which case, guilty as charged. I am waiting
for some evidence that my perceptions are in error and its somehow
possible for someone claiming one world order to "accept" or "tolerate"
people that reject that order. I don't just don't see any evidence that
this is either happening or likely, and I can't help but draw a line in
the sand when nearly everything I believe, based on evidence and fact,
is threatened by at least a "large" portion of those that you seem to
want me to sit down and have a chat with. Again. I have tried, when they
don't run rough shod over you to stop you saying anything, they rig the
discussion by only inviting their supporters or stacking the panel with
10 of them and only one of you. In the worst cases, they do both. You
can't have a discussion on equal footing with people that first grease
your part of the floor and then throw banana peels at you. The fact that
you think otherwise only shows that you have never "had" to debate
anything with them on anything more demanding than maybe who should buy
the hotdogs for a BBQ.

unread,

Jun 12, 2006, 11:17:49 PM6/12/06

to

In article <e6jm0r$2vqi$1...@urocyon.critter.net>, dans...@gmail.com
says...

> Even with thinking morals come from completely different places, we still
> all agree that they are needed.
>
> The commandments may very well be the basis for our laws. Just because
> someone religious thinks of something doesn't necessarly mean it's a bad
> idea. And that idea came from somewhere else anyway, religion just thought
> it was a good idea and adopted it.
>

Sort of.. But you will find, if you look, that many of them contradict,
ignore or abuse the commandments, including ones that ironically the
literalists "think" are important, starting with Amendment #1 of the
constitution, which denies the idea that there should only be one God,
by allowing different belief systems. The faithful bend their perception
to fit what they think created our laws and then try to bend the law
back the other way when they find themselves slapped in the face with
something so obviously not in line with their belief that they can't
ignore it any more.

Now, our laws are like our morals, a mish mash of sensible ideas,
wishful thinking, begging for favors and dogma, a lot of it in direct
conflict with itself. This of course leaves us with a society that has
unrest and uncertainty rise like tides, depending on the number and
aggression of which ever overly obsessed group is most active at the
time. Occasionally one of these high tides has the misfortune of
coinciding with some major disaster or upheaval and you get the
equivalent of a social tsunami. I think we have gotten lucky this time,
the social quake from 9/11 is being offset by blind stupidity in early
Iraq and a constant tendency of only bad news getting out about it
since, as well as the complete screw up in New Orleans. No one is going
to care that a) it wouldn't have happened if the problem had been fixed
50 or even 100 years earlier, when they already know there was a
problem, that most of the chaos talk about was exaggerated and the dead
where a mix of white and black older people, not the poor, or that
continued incompetence on "all" levels means that no matter who is in
charge, the problem will get patched but not actually fixed. Two waves
cancel each other out, with some help from those that are more
interested in how bad they can make things look, than reporting the
truth.

Ironically, this probably works better than any other system ever
invented, since you lose even if you win. lol

> There's a disagreement based on whether we need religion to be moral and
> what morals are needed, but there's complete agreement that we need to be
> moral, that we need rules to protect ourselves from each other.
>
> There's still a common ground at a very basic fundamental level.
>

Sadly, there is the rub. You can also agree that everyone needs to drink
water, but not if it should be bottled, tap or infused with Pepsi or
Coca Cola. And you "will" get fights over which one is better. lol

Snuhwolf

unread,

Jun 13, 2006, 10:11:11 AM6/13/06

to

It has less to do with "sensibility" than with peoples inability to
comprehend their own hypocracy.
Bill Bennett is a good example. He's a compulsive gambler. ANd *yet* he
has the audacity to write a book on morals.

Thats human nature in a nutshell. Logic isn't valued enough.
Its not taught in grade or middle school and is usually an elective in
college.

--
www.truthout.org

Dan Skunk

unread,

Jun 19, 2006, 7:06:02 PM6/19/06

to

"Rust" <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote in message
news:Xns97E07FF58AC3...@216.183.128.12...

> "Dan Skunk" <dans...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:e6jm0r$2vqi$1...@urocyon.critter.net:
>
>
> > There's a disagreement based on whether we need religion to be moral
> > and what morals are needed, but there's complete agreement that we need
> > to be moral, that we need rules to protect ourselves from each other.
>
> People are silly animals who generally prefer to studiously ignore their
own
> capacity for error or bias than give an inch. Finding that center of
> morality which balances personal freedom against greater good without the
> influence of petty hatreds or distaste (laws against sodomy, spitting on a
> particular bridge or overweight women walking their dogs on Sunday? Oh
> please.) should be a simple matter in a sensible society, but there's the
> rub. We're not sensible. I think that sensibility and tolerance are two
> new morals (dear god I hate that word) which need to be spread before we
> have a clear run at just... ethics dammit, ethics!
>
> -Rust

Well, there is some percieved danger that sodomy is something that is
harmful and needs to be discouraged. It's mostly from a religious point of
view, but it's still there.

I think it's kinda a newer idea to want to make laws that don't restrict
people unnecessarily.

I think in this case, we need to show that the behaviour is not that
dangerous, or at least, not dangerous to those not participating in it. Then
it's more likely to be accepted as something of personal choice.

Patrick Elliott

unread,

Jun 21, 2006, 4:55:19 PM6/21/06

to

Oh, and to be completely clear on my stance>

The "some" we don't have a problem with:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/the_episcopalians_do_somethin
g.php

The "some" or maybe "most" we think really are unbelievably dangerous,
not to mention either unbelievably ignorant, abject liers or so stupid
it is amazing they can even walk:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_believes_every_de
m.php

He posted a request to the various "defenders" of Coulter. He got a mess
of email about how good she looked (WTH does that have to do with
anything) and how he was a close minded fool. He then clarified what he
wanted, "Pick one paragraph, just one, from her book. Then provide me
with a clear and comprehensible explanation of why you think its
right." Or in other words, don't just keep telling him he doesn't have a
clue and is close minded, but **explain** why he is wrong and Coulter is
right. They stopped sending him emails.

This is the dangerous lunacy that has taken Christianity and raised it
up as a banner for ***themselves*** at the complete exclusion of
everyone that doesn't 100% agree with them. They don't learn, can't
think, plagiarize each other and everyone else to promote their views,
cry and whine about how the world is going to hell because of science
and then are "Shocked" when 90% of the people in the country ask them,
"What the hell are you people smoking?!?", when ever it because obvious
that they are saying something completely nuts. The real problem though
is that more than half of the 90% that realize they "are" nuts, side
with them if its an issue on gay rights or some other hot button issue,
refuse to even suggest that such lunatics exist unless slapped in the
face by one or take the Christian view that they shouldn't say bad
things about their fellow man. That is why, despite the fact that the
source of the problem is among "some" groups, the nature of the problem
extends to "most" believers. You can sit in a burning building and
pretend that the fire department will get there in time to keep it from
reaching your floor, or you can get out of the damn building and grab a
bucket. Right now, the fire department on this issue is sitting on its
ass arguing whether or not a few burned "good" people isn't worth
letting the fire kill all the people that didn't dress right, sing the
right music, use the right language, approve of the right wars,
disapprove of the right sciences, pray often enough in public places to
look religious or simply "act" sufficiently "normal" to be accounted
among the "good" group.

I am sorry if this makes me tend to see the majority of people that
"should" be just as concerned as I am about this BS as a possible enemy,
instead of an ally, but I am not the one placing them in that position,
they are, by spending most of there time defending many of the very
people that are part of the real problem, because they can't imagine
such a nice person being a total nut and won't verify anything such
people say on the news or in the rest of the press themselves. And you
can be damn sure the press, to be "fair and balanced" isn't bothering to
check facts either, but may, at best, find some nut from the other
perspective, but with no more credibility, to babble of few things as
well.

This isn't about Jesus or Christianity, it is about basic truth. Those
that tell the truth are under attack by those that lie about
"everything" and because the lairs cloak themselves in religious robes
and claims of divine inspiration, far too many people are willing to
listen to the easily understood, but completely made up gibberish, than
spend the effort needed to find out who is telling the truth. End
result, the power hungry get defended, while the innocent get burned at
the stake, just like in "every" single other time that those classes of
people gained power and decided to crusade against those that refused to
conform. Those of use on the outside of the whole structure, by choice,
see something "very" different from the blaise, "Its not that bad. I
never had a problem with them.", view of those that are on the inside
and have never had a reason to be despised or attacked by those
elements.

But I have gone way past what I intended to say on the subject and
repeated quite a bit as well from prior posts. It just frustrates me
when someone protected by the cloak of assumed respectability that comes
from being on the inside tells me, "The problem isn't that bad!" It is,
you are simply not in a position to need to see it, nor have you
bothered, from your position of relative comfort, bothered to look.

Message has been deleted