Lying For Jesus Award

In the face of mounds of evidence to the contrary, can I ask how in the world you could surmise this? What exactly makes the "Christian Cult of Ignorance" more of a threat than Islamofascists? I guess I'd also have to ask what constitutes a "threat" in your mind as well.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

You find a group of people that want to kill you for no real reason humorous? In what way do Christians "not think for themselves" for any one can turn on the television and be absolutely imbued by the nonsense in front of their wide eyes and stony faces? This fraudulent charge has always bewildered me about those of a secular persuasion, alleging that Christians are sheep when they seem to glibly overlook their own indoctrination like lemmings toppling over themselves in complete delusion.I think an honest analysis of the common atheist would reveal that they view themselves as being among the upper crust of society. In contrast, they view a theist as somewhat of a scathing lunatic, bent on world domination through proselytizing. If you ask me, I think they constantly stroke each other’s ego in an attempt to show the world just how much more intelligent they are. They often go to great lengths to prove just how pragmatic they are, not easily being swayed anything in their unflinching resolve. Seriously, how many people, even among Christians, actually cite televangelists as a source of inspiration? TBN and CBN are losing a fan base at an exponential rate. There is no movement so large that its launching some assault against you. Consequently, I do see that in reverse as the Church is being assaulted more by the day. You have invented a Bogeyman, or allowed your "authorities" to believe in the big, bad Christian out to get you and you've completely neglected the actual threats. Interesting.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Okay, so what is so funny about it? Since "Fundamentalist" is pretty much an ambiguous term, what makes someone qualify as a Fundamentalist that would therefore make them so dangerous to society? I've noticed that you cry foul ball every time a question is difficult for you to answer honestly. My question was very straight up, which deserves a very straight up answer. What did I misrepresent? So, basically anyone that doesn't completely emasculate Christ's message? I see.... Your vague descriptions of Christianity make it difficult for you to refer to yourself as such and maintain any kind semblance of what every one knows to be Christianity. Forgive me if I forget that you are a Christian. Its just so easy to forget when your version of the gospel is watered down. Don't you most identify with atheists? Didn't you say to Buzsaw that it isn't atheists condemning you, but rather your fellow compatriots? Don't you rush to the aid of atheists on the board but demonize any one that has even a hint of a mainstream belief in Christ? That's what it has to do with it. That seems obvious when compare it the 80's. Then that should serve as a warning that you have befriended the world and betrayed what the Church was meant to be, because its more than obvious that Judeo-Christian ideals are under attack by a virulent strain of compromisers and cynics. Maybe you should pray about it. No, I must have missed it.

quote:

---

You have invented a Bogeyman, or allowed your "authorities" to believe in the big, bad Christian out to get you and you've completely neglected the actual threats. Interesting.

---

You speak as though you have a Messianic complex-- the wise sage who has all the answers. What exactly is the ignorance that pervades fundamentalism that the rest of the world is either immune to or hasn't yet reached their ears? I don't tire easily and conning people is not my forte. I leave that up to compromisers who try to blaze their own trail by diverting people who ride the fence in their direction.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Not that I am the great defender for Falwell, but what exactly lead to your conclusion? Again, not a big fan, but what leads you to this conclusion? I haven't one good thing to say about Benny Hinn. I don't know who Leroy Jenkins is. If Coulter or Falwell "believes" in lies, then that doesn't make them liars, that makes them gullible. The mere fact that she riles people up is sufficient to show that she is the great antagonist of the left. And to be such a thorn in the side means that the words sting. Make your own inferences. But I agree that the best way to make her go away is to ignore her. Unfortunately, that seems to be something exceedingly difficult for her critics to do. Yeah, it seems that Hwang was more interested in his own fame than in perfecting his craft. The fundamental difference is that Hwang was empirically and demonstrably shown to have manipulated the evidence, whereas Coulter and Falwell are giving their opinions on their beliefs. What exactly did they "lie" about? If you can't point out a specific lie, then you are only essentially giving us your rhetorical opinion of those you distaste, which makes your indictment unsubstantiated. Hinn, Bakker and Swaggert are shown to have lied. Not exactly a big surprise that many people on TBN have fleeced the flock. I should add that something unsettling strikes me about all of the names you mentioned, but what have the others lied about?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

If those quotes are accurate, then I stand corrected.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

What's inappropriate or inaccurate about that term? Wahhabists are Islamic fascists. How much more fitting could the name be? Right, which makes it appropriate. Wahhabist extremists believe in a convert or die mentality, rendering the only source of inspiration to themselves and no other, but more particularly, only cite descendants of Muhammed as the source divine interpretation. That sounds quite familiar to Hitler and Mussolini. And idiots like me. Its not an oxymoron. An oxymoron is calling Bush a fascist. That doesn't explain, in the slightest, what a fundamentalist is in your mind. I know what fundamentalism means, but I want to know what you think it is. You still haven't explained it. So far a fundamentalist is anyone ignorant, of presumably anything, and some one who doesn't question authority. Neither of those are qualifiers for fundamentalism.

quote:

---

I've noticed that you cry foul ball every time a question is difficult for you to answer honestly. My question was very straight up, which deserves a very straight up answer. What did I misrepresent?

---

I'm not sure why you feel special enough to control the dialogue, and anyone that doesn't agree with your school of philosophy is perpetually misrepresenting the issues. What word is that? What you call yourself does not supplant reality. Virtually every belief you have runs completely counter to definition. Anyone that reads your posts would be far more likely to identify you as a New Age, liberal, evolutionist. You may have been a Christian, Republican, evolution-creationist, whatever that may be, but nothing about you would make even the slightest insinuation of such based on your personal beliefs. This has been brought to your attention not only by myself, but a number of people on the board who are a bit bewildered at your special definitions. You can call yourself whatever you want, but I don't think you should be surprised when people are vexed by your self-ascribed terminologies. Jar, you are in a bad habit of telling everyone they are wrong about their beliefs and you attempt to control the dialogue and pitch it so that you will always be justified, but your detractors are perpetually OT. That's dishonest debate. In other words, you aren't the boss. But you apparently think that you are. That's why I say its a messianic complex.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Then stop trying to control the dialogue. Everytime, without fail, somebody disagrees with you, you pull the ever-so-convenient "Off Topic" or "misrepresentation" card. And then you derisively say, "blah, blah, blah" whenever you don't want to answer simple questions, like, "What is your definition of a Fundamentalism?". But they want it to be!!! Nazi's weren't initially a form a government. It started as an ideology, just like Wahhabists, who want total and complete domination of the people. Therefore, my point still stands that Wahhabists can aptly be referred to as Islamofascists.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

That is not even close to what a fundamentalist is. A Fundamentalist (upper case) is a sect of Christians who believe in the literal translation of the Bible, hence the emphasis on the "fundamentals" of Christianity. A "fundamentalist" (lower case) is anyone who has specific beliefs concerning a principle or principles. For instance, some evolutionists could be considered fundamental evolutionists because they ascribe to Darwinian paradigm, whereas another group of evolutionists that ascribe to Gould and Eldridges' model of punctuated equilibrium might not be considered fundamentalists.But if we are to go by your definition that "fundamentalism" inherently inculcates ignorance into its definition, the mere fact that you don't even know what it actually means grants you access to your own definition. Do I get to refer to you as a fundie now? No spin necessary, its common sense.The Dictionary is, again, in my favor."Islamofascism is a controversial neologism suggesting an association of the ideological or operational characteristics of certain modern Islamist movements with European fascist movements of the early 20th century, neofascist movements, or totalitarianism. Organizations that have been labeled "Islamofascist" include Al-Qaeda" Of course not, otherwise Communists might be included in that. That's just one characteristic of fascism. Right, a Theocracy, something that sends many Americans in to a tizzy. At the head is Allah, the next rung includes the Caliphate, which IS governmental in all respects, and under that is Shari'a law to enforce the Caliphate which represents Allah's will. Perhaps you misrepresent yourself and we are clearly pointing out the inconsistencies of your own arguments. What I do is examine what you or someone else says and forces them to either commit or abandon their assertion. No redirection is required. If I won't allow someone to escape their own words, that's me holding them accountable to the careless words they say, not misrepresenting the issue or redirecting anything.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

How is that not the same? The Caliphate is identical to fascism in more ways than one. Not that it matters because this is arguing over the semantics. But the caliphate is establishing for themselves a total rule in where fascist ideals are being espoused. And if its not fascist, then you can in no wise refer to Bush as being a fascist while asserting that he wants to set up a theocracy at the same time. Besides, even if someone used it as a pejorative, the premise of what it is and what it stands for still stands. I don't care if you call it Islamofascism, Muslim theocracy, or pumpkin pie. The premise still stands that Islamic extremism has already proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it poses a far greater threat on a global scale than any invented, wholly imagined bogeyman that Jar has drummed up about televangelists. There are people out there will dismember you for existing, blow up the eastern seaboard with nuclear device if it could get a hold of one, force you to adopt their way of thinking, and Jar is concerned about sweaty men in cheap suits and bad comb-over talking about Jesus.Yeah, I'm just not seeing the two as analogous.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

quote:

---

A Fundamentalist (upper case) is a sect of Christians who believe in the literal translation of the Bible, hence the emphasis on the "fundamentals" of Christianity.

---

Supporting a literal translation of the Bible automatically means that they embrace ignorance? Even in the event that they are ignorant, how can ignorance be as nearly pernicious a thing as people who want to detonate a nuclear explosive so as to incur maximum casualties? Secondly, a literal interpretation doesn't make necessarily any one ignorant, it means they share a different view than you do. And what do you propose to mitigate this global threat you have concocted? And you would know this how? Why do you think people who believe in a literal translation of the Bible, which I myself maintain, invoke some sort of "con?" What are they conning for? And how deeply do you think this pervades society and how many literalists can you indict in this sweeping allegation?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Then if that's true, what is Jar so worried about concerning the Religious Right? If there is no difference between Muslim or Christian fundamentalists, as he's stated, then there should be no worries. Let me supply you with a very reasonable scenario. Iran, whose government maintains some very serious ideologically extreme views, is hard at work to get a hold of their very first nuke. Iran supplies and smuggles in weapons for the resistance in Iraq to tie up coalition troops. Meanwhile, agents of Iran smuggle in a small, portable nuclear device in the hands of suicide bomber. Since the objective is to incur maximum damage and casualties, there is no moral dilemma in the mind of the terrorist. Innocent men, women, children-- even people who agree with and protect their ideology in the US is fair game. This device is planted in a major city like NYC, LA, Boston, Miami, San Fransisco, etc and detonated. The blast decimates a radius of 100 square miles, killing every one in that immediate area. The electromagnetic pulse from the blast disables a much larger area, 1,000 square miles which render anything electric utterly useless. Since, like suckling babies, the United States is completely reliant on the age of technology, and contemporary cars, computers, televisions, radios, planes, ATM's, etc, rely heavily on such technology, the bomb blast will wreak utter chaos and totally cripple a large portion of the United States.Aid to the victims is hampered and bodies will rot in the streets, people will begin to loot for food because now that refrigerators don't work all the food will spoil at a rapid rate. Lawlessness will ensue and no one in the affected area will be working, thus sending the entire country in to a deep recession which directly effects the world economy.While some people are more concerned with the endangered North American lousewort, and Jar concerned about people in cheap suits with bad comb overs professing the name of Jesus, rational people are most concerned with more realistic and expedient concerns-- namely, Islamic extremism. You guys? Fringe lunatics who hypocritically murder in the name of murder is not inclusive to me or any one that I know, anymore than Muslim extremists can encapsulate all of Islam.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis