[[Well so much for the civility.]]
CowboyDoc,
The "civility" was in my not-using personal names, as you are at-least-the-second to have done.
When highly-controversial topics are discussed, there is ALWAYS the danger that personal offense will be taken. This is because IF the topic revolves around a particular kind of thinking, and disapproval of that thinking is voiced, you are NECESSARILY saying that (you think) the other-thinkers are WRONG.
Few people respond well to being told this. This is where political-correctness has its birth. -- "Say only things which will offend no one." (in other-words avoid the real issues, just enjoy the smiles-all-around).
My approach to gloves-off, tell-it-like-you-think-it-is "discussion" is to leave out the personalization, but NOT leave out the strongly held opinion. Otherwise you might as well just say" Yes, ..Uh-huh, ...that's right, ... of course, ...me-too!, ..etc. Which is "polite" but shallow, and less than honest as to REAL opinion.
When names are NOT used, and fingers NOT pointed specifically-at-individuals, you are at least leaving it up to the reader whether-or-not to put on any shoes that may "fit".
Here is an example of a "shoe" that does-not-fit: you have suggested the words "mindless idiots" as having been MY words. Not so! they are yours! (or please point-out where I used them!?) I have used plenty of them for you to target as you have chosen to do, ...no need to put others in-my-mouth.
[[[Your "messages" are nothing more than your opinion.]]]
C'mon Doc, ...OF COURSE!! whose opinion are YOUR "messages"? I never claimed them to be anything else.
[[[In Larry's last "speech" he called most of us that do have Faith and believed, and were inspired by Scruff's comments, about every name he could on a public forum.]]]
"Speech"? I knew, and fore-warned readers, that my post was "long" (apparently some , including yourself CHOSE to read it anyway).
Please tell me at what word-count a post becomes a "speech", ...and while you're at-it, how complex-a-sentence is too-complex?( not that YOU have objected to this, but some have, in other threads) I know that my writing style requires careful reading. This is not intended to be "See spot run."-stuff. This is a COMPLIMENT to potential readers, not an insult.
The comments I was "critiquing" were NOT "Scruffy's" (Scruffy, I send my best wishes for your successfully meeting your challenge, and trust your faith will serve you well, ...as do all TBN'ers, I am sure, whatever their beliefs!), ... the comments were written by (the conveniently) "Anonymous". And I evaluated them in response to a specific question as to how I could have "misconstrued" their meaning. ( Is that all right with you?)
[[[Let's see we're {MINDLESS, IDIOTS} who unlike him don't use our gift of intelligence, twisted, paranoid, un-american, fanatics, hyprocrites, propagandists, and sheep.
paranoid sinners afraid of the triumphant coming-of-the-Lord!)]]]
Easy, Cowboy,... the "paranoid sinners" weren't "you guys", it was a reference to what you might think of people LIKE ME!
(although now you've got me wondering about the "paranoid" part
(it's a smiley-face, man! it's a smiley-face!)
The intelligence that we were created with, the "gift" that we like to think differentiates humans from the rest of animal-kind, ...
was "given" to be NOT-used?
Yes, you CAN "apply" it, ...and some of us do!]]]
Do you realize I was replying to someone who had just said you COULDN'T(!) ? Which must mean he believes that ALL-OF-US "DON'T"? ( I really don't see what your problem is with this one.)
[[[Give me a break!.. and people swallow this stuff? Twisted, Dude! {BACK TO THIS IN A MOMENT!}
I consider blind-obedience (and thoughtless "swallowing") un-American
Dear God, please save the country from fanatics, hypocrites, propagandists (transparent or otherwise,) and "sheep".
I would say Larry that I am not the above. I am educated, and {LIKE YOU SAY} none of us have, even studied history in great detail, minor in college, as well as science.]]]
Dag-nab it CowBOy, ...MORE words-in-my-mouth! I never said "none of " you had studied, history-or-otherwise. My "History books, anyone?" was intended simply as a reminder that they were full of examples of what I was discussing.
When you think I may be talking ABOUT you, instead of TO you, don't try-so-hard to FORCE the "shoe" on, ...it should be a natural-fit
[[[There is more evidence to support the Bible than there is not to discredit it.
(Doc, I'm assuming the "not" was unintentional.)
There is just as much evidence to also support creation theory as evolutionary theory. While I am not one of the Bible preachers and I do believe as do others and we are not any of what you have said. Nor do I have my belief because I want to cover my a##. I have my belief because it is what I truly believe. Noone has said that you are such and such because you don't believe but you call all of us that do believe the things mentioned. Your "messages" are nothing more than your opinion. You have given no scientific fact to back up anything that you say. I'm not saying to do that as I certainly don't want to take the time to do it here either. What I'm saying is when you are giving your opinion it doesn't make everyone else a spineless idiot because you don't believe the way they do. I think you could present your opinion without insulting those of us that believe differently than you do. You certainly have your right to your opinion but so do the rest of us without your ridicule.]]]
Doc, I know you are offended/upset. But you also say you are educated (and I'm not saying you're not),...so note this: you have discussed my choice of words, and the fact that I used them, but HAVE SAID NOTHING(!!) about the points that were made by their use.
You have "used your intelligence" to find potentially-offensive phrases, but have NOT used it to deal with/discuss the issues I was raising.
I call this "avoiding the issue".
My (stated) intent was to show the implications of what "Anonymous" was saying. I did so, using statement after statement of his. You have voiced no opinion on what was, in fact, the subject of my post. You have mentioned my "message", but completely ignored its intent, while concentrating your "attack" on the messenger and the method.
So. Now that we are on the "personal" level I attempted to avoid, and you are feeling "ridiculed", for being considered "spineless'" (another of YOUR words, NOT mine) let me put forth a simple challenge to YOU, ..COWBOYDOC, ..BY-NAME!
Tell me what your opinion is about the IDEA of "praying" for the enemy you "love", with the understanding that what you are really going to get for him is a heap of "burning coals" upon his head.
You know, .. the "Anonymous" line that resulted in my use of the phrase "Twisted, ..Dude!", to which you object.
DO you or DON't you think it is a "twisted" way of "loving"? DO you "swallow" it? DO you need a "break" to think about this a little?
Step forward! Address the point that was being made!
That would be "discussing-the-ISSUE", ...instead of each-other.
Your thoughts on any of the other "points", rather than an out-of-context examination of the words used in-their-making, would be welcome also.
Now, again for-the-record, ...I am not happy that contentiousness is replacing reasoned-thought about IDEAS, in this admittedly "thin-ice" subject area. I can reason while-unhappy, and think the idea-exchange in a "kitchen" is worth the heat. But, I know that many do not deal with frankly-stated opposing-thought well, and are made extremely uncomfortable by it. So-much-so that the disruption in the local climate is a "negative' for many participants, both vocal and silent.
Believing that to be the current situation with this thread, and feeling that plenty "food-for-thought" has been placed on the 'family" table(by all of the posters), should anyone care to chew, ...I am dropping out of this discussion.
...with 2 exceptions: I will watch to see if you, CowboyDoc, have any response to my little (but "telling") challenge, above,
...and I will post a response (publicly) to the questions Bird has (publicly) asked of me, as I said-I-would.
Hot-and-heavy, man-to-man talk should end with a handshake, ...so I extend mine to all participants.
Larry (PS: To the poster who provided the "proselytize" definitions ...yes, one can ''proselytize" on any subject, and smatterings of p. can be found throughout most heartfelt discussions of any length. I used the term because the post to which I was referring had abandoned all pretext of attention to the previous subject-matter (Bush, ..the mixing of religion and politics, etc.) and made a bald-faced "pitch" for "Christianity" and "Jesus". I don't think I did a disservice To either Jesus OR Christianity, by simply pointing this "divergence" out. Nor did I suggest that the topic was unworthy, ...just that I did not choose to "go-there" with the poster. (You can imagine what THAT could have developed into, if you consider the growing emotion in recent posts)
I suppose that more "offended" voices may be raised regarding my posts, ...I expect that. I will not respond, having essentially done-so with this post. Anyone wishing "the last word" can have it.
To those who have sent private e-mails of agreement/support, Thanks! again. All sincere e-mails, DIS-agreeing or otherwise, are welcome from TBN members.)
