Attempts to clear up my beliefs on Christianity (1 Viewer)

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Where all of the users complaining about matuski's behavior religious?  

Were they at odds with him because they are religious?

Was this the first time matuski has been called out for abrasive behavior in a religion thread?

I don't know what any of those questions has to do with the comment of mine that you quoted.

 

[Politician Spock]

He didn't criticize it because of the structure, or because it was an establishment.  He criticized it because of the hypocrisy.

Pretty much my point.

 

[shader]

Pretty much my point.

I'm with you, there's plenty of hypocrisy.  

 

[tonydead]

For someone claiming no one cares about that thread, you sure post about it a lot.  Had you made all your posts about that thread in the actual thread, how many more posts would it have?  How about if we add replies to that post?

You seriously don't see what's wrong with your logic here?   

 

[Despyzer]

I feel a lot more sympathetic towards a Christian-only thread here than I would in many other forums. Atheism is plenty alive and well here. This community's acknowledged intellectual heavyweights are mostly openly atheist. And there a lot of Christians here that would probably enjoy some non-confrontational faith-based discussion.

While this isn't exactly descriptive of the situation at hand, I can see the merits of a "private" thread in which Christians don't feel compelled to engage in a battle of wits with the likes of Maurile, Scooby & co.

I see the merits of what you are saying, but there are also myriads of internet forums where a person with such interests could post. 

 

[Despyzer]

Liberalism isn't a problem that needs answered. Neither is conservatism.

Nor are either minded people sinful people. People who sin are sinful people. 

You missed the point, but I'm pretty sure that was intentional.

 

[Despyzer]

Not a stretch. Nobody has posted in that thread since. 

You keep making this point, but I don't think it has the weight that you think it does. The merits of a thread are not dependant upon how recently anyone has posted in it.

 

[tonydead]

You keep making this point, but I don't think it has the weight that you think it does. The merits of a thread are not dependant upon how recently anyone has posted in it.

I've only made the point once (in this thread) and have since just been responding to it's critics.  Recently, maybe not, but at all?  I think that does say something and it's ironic that everyone just moved over here to continue the debate too.

 

[Despyzer]

I've only made the point once (in this thread) and have since just been responding to it's critics.  Recently, maybe not, but at all?  I think that does say something and it's ironic that everyone just moved over here to continue the debate too.

You're right. It does say something. It says that this is the more appropriate thread to do so.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

You seriously don't see what's wrong with your logic here?   

I asked a couple of questions that didn't have right or wrong answers, just asking you to guess a couple numbers. What else were you inferring?  

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

I don't know what any of those questions has to do with the comment of mine that you quoted.

You're pushing this narrative that the Christians here were requesting special treatment and can't handle criticism so they need a "safe space".  What actually happened was the community declaring they wanted a break from matuski's bull####.  I was hoping you would see the flaw in your narrative when you realized there were many non-believers objecting to matuski's behavior, and that sometimes people react differently to the 100th incident than the 1st.  

ETA: of course you already knew all of this but chose to feign ignorance rather than admit to a mistake, which from observing the behavior of the atheists here is the worst thing you can do.

 

[matuski]

You're pushing this narrative that the Christians here were requesting special treatment and can't handle criticism so they need a "safe space".  What actually happened was the community declaring they wanted a break from matuski's bull####.  I was hoping you would see the flaw in your narrative when you realized there were many non-believers objecting to matuski's behavior, and that sometimes people react differently to the 100th incident than the 1st.  

If you want a break take a break.

Some people aren't cut out for these threads.. like the sensitive, holding on to hurt feelings over posts on a fantasy football message board for days type.

 

[tonydead]

You're right. It does say something. It says that this is the more appropriate thread to do so.

That speaks to my other point; that the OP was written in such a way that it was appropriate to start a debate.

 

[Despyzer]

That speaks to my other point; that the OP was written in such a way that it was appropriate to start a debate.

I could be wrong, but it seems like there has been way more discussion about the appropriateness of being rude in that thread than there has been about that topic.

 

[ProstheticRGK]

That speaks to my other point; that the OP was written in such a way that it was appropriate to start a debate.

Really? what was so inflammatory in the OP that raised your ire so badly? 

Genuinely curious. 

 

[matuski]

Really? what was so inflammatory in the OP that raised your ire so badly? 

Genuinely curious. 

I don't think it I would describe it as inflammatory.  Neither is challenging the timing of the effort to promote religion while tying it to recent tragedies, nor is noting that requiring a god to back up your message only weakens the message.

These both happen all the time... people are apparently uncomfortable when it is called out.  I note it in passing, some get very upset that I would note it at all.

 

[matuski]

The outrage that I would use obvious attributes of a god to describe a god is quite odd as well.

 

[CrossEyed2]

Is it true Christians living here care more about Israel than USA?

Late to this party, but most Christians are clueless as to the true nature of the modern nation/state of Israel. It has almost nothing to do with biblical Israel. 

Dispensationalism has blinded many to the truth, including myself for many years. 

 

[Donkey Derp]

The outrage that I would use obvious attributes of a god to describe a god is quite odd as well.

It's not surprising you have to vent your anti-religion views somewhere since you aren't even man enough to forbid your own kids from going to Sunday school.  

 

[matuski]

It's not surprising you have to vent your anti-religion views somewhere since you aren't even man enough to forbid your own kids from going to Sunday school.  

My stalking friend.. 'sup?

 

[cstu]

Translation: I'm afraid to put "atheist"

 

[flapgreen]

I don't think it I would describe it as inflammatory.  Neither is challenging the timing of the effort to promote religion while tying it to recent tragedies, nor is noting that requiring a god to back up your message only weakens the message.

These both happen all the time... people are apparently uncomfortable when it is called out.  I note it in passing, some get very upset that I would note it at all.

You are a really sad individual 

 

[shader]

Geez guys I've had my issues with matsuki before but you guys are beating a dead horse.  Can we move on?

 

[igbomb]

The outrage that I would use obvious attributes of a god to describe a god is quite odd as well.

The most annoying part of that thread to me was your string of paintings denoting God as a man in the clouds. That's where you turned into obvious troll and lose any credibility as just wanting to discuss or debate.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Modern Vipers would be a cool Christian band name.

I kind of like "Strip Club Jesus"

 

[Cliff Clavin]

The most annoying part of that thread to me was your string of paintings denoting God as a man in the clouds. That's where you turned into obvious troll and lose any credibility as just wanting to discuss or debate.

That went out the window when he said he could take Pacquiao.

 

[dgreen]

Translation: I'm afraid to put "atheist"

Maybe for some. But, I've been hearing the "I'm spiritual but not religious" line for at least 20 years and it seems to be mostly people who believe God exists but, probably for a variety of reasons, don't want to worship at a congregation. The reasons likely range from "I won't be associated with corrupt organizations and I believe I can have a meaningful relationship with God with being part of a congregation" to "I like to sleep in on Sundays".

 

[dgreen]

Geez guys I've had my issues with matsuki before but you guys are beating a dead horse.  Can we move on?

Agree. He's been told by 100 different posters 1000 different times that the words he uses are offensive to some. He disagrees every time he's told that. So I'm not sure why those who are offended continue to discuss this with him every time as if he's going to apologize and change his approach. Let it go.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Maybe for some. But, I've been hearing the "I'm spiritual but not religious" line for at least 20 years and it seems to be mostly people who believe God exists but, probably for a variety of reasons, don't want to worship at a congregation. The reasons likely range from "I won't be associated with corrupt organizations and I believe I can have a meaningful relationship with God with being part of a congregation" to "I like to sleep in on Sundays".

"Spiritual but not religious" is huge in my part of the country I think, and in my experience it roughly translates to: "I was raised Christian, but when I grew up I kinda realized that all those stories are obviously fictions.  But I believe in *something* because that's more comforting than believing in nothing.  It's also vastly more socially acceptable.  But I honestly haven't put a ton of thought into it.  I like candles." 

 

[Van Dyman]

"Spiritual but not religious" is huge in my part of the country I think, and in my experience it roughly translates to: "I was raised Christian, but when I grew up I kinda realized that all those stories are obviously fictions.  But I believe in *something* because that's more comforting than believing in nothing.  It's also vastly more socially acceptable.  But I honestly haven't put a ton of thought into it.  I like candles." 

The correct answer is probably because it's "more socially acceptable", but that's changing quickly.

 

[tonydead]

Really? what was so inflammatory in the OP that raised your ire so badly? 

Genuinely curious. 

What in my post you quoted makes you think I was angry?

 

[ProstheticRGK]

Your eyebrows. They were all squinty and hard. Like Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino.

 

[matuski]

You are a really sad individual 

Of course I'm not.  But I can understand how believing that makes it easier for you to attempt personal shots so often.

 

[matuski]

The most annoying part of that thread to me was your string of paintings denoting God as a man in the clouds. That's where you turned into obvious troll and lose any credibility as just wanting to discuss or debate.

I didn't make those 1000's of google image search results.

An invisible being in the sky isn't my depiction of the Christian God.. it is their own.  Thus the irony at all the personal offense being taken.

eta - and thus the effort to bury the denial of such depictions through links to the endless depictions of such.