Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pat Robertson on natural disasters
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 2 of 302 (250690)
10-11-2005 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Thor
10-11-2005 7:46 AM


So, let me get this straight, Christians. The return of your god is heralded by natural disasters and loss of life on an enormous scale.
How is it that you expect any of us to believe that the god you worship is not the god of death?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Thor, posted 10-11-2005 7:46 AM Thor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Jazzns, posted 10-11-2005 9:39 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 249 by Phat, posted 10-31-2005 7:09 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 302 (250905)
10-11-2005 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jazzns
10-11-2005 9:39 AM


Re: Waaaaait a minute
So don't put us Christians all in one box please.
Oh, my bad. I was under the apparently mistaken impression that the founder and former leader of the largest Christian political action group in the nation, a religious leader who is regularly consulted by the President of the United States in regards to Christian matters, a man whose writings and broadcasts are found prominently in a majority of Christian churches across the nation might, just might, be qualified to speak with authority on Christian matters. But, hey what the fuck do I know?
I'll thank you not to Bawdlerize my posts, please.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-21-2005 07:48 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jazzns, posted 10-11-2005 9:39 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Jazzns, posted 10-12-2005 10:20 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 21 of 302 (251217)
10-12-2005 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jazzns
10-12-2005 10:20 AM


Re: Waaaaait a minute
For all the times on this board you attack YECs for over generalizing thigns
I don't recall ever attacking a YEC for overgeneralizing. I've attacked them for many other things, of course, but I can't recall an instance where the attack was a charge of overgeneralizing.
You know (damned) well that there are a number of Christians on this board and all over the place who feel that Pat Robertson is the antithesis of Christian values.
And, yet, Pat Robertson is chosen by Christians to speak publically on their behalf. You are not.
How does that add up for you? Why would you expect a reasonable person to take your word over his when it comes to Christian thought on a subject?
No church I have EVER been to supported Pat Robertson, sold his crap, or even made a passing mention of his sadistic ideas.
Of course, I could just as easily reply that I've never been to a church that didn't have his literature on hand; on the other hand, I doubt you would take my anecdotal evidence very seriously. How do you suppose I'm going to react to yours?
But I invite you to investigate your claim further. Go to any of the churches you're referring to. See if they subscribe to a one-page fax newsletter called "The Pastor's Weekly Briefing." My church hands out copies every sunday.
If they do, then they're promulgating Pat Robertson and his ideas. This newsletter regularly features his responses, reactions, and opinions on current events. It's put out by the Focus on the Family organization. I've found a copy in just about every Protestant church I've ever looked in.
What the (fuck) do you know about Christians in general? Really?
As Christians repeatedly tell me, I know nothing, because I lack the Holy Spirit, or the God-sense, or whatever the fuck it's called. So I really have no way of knowing what Christians believe except for what they tell me. And in this regard, I currently have two conflicting sources:
1) You. Some guy who posts semi-anonymously on a forum on the internet.
2) Pat Robertson. Founder and former president of the nation's largest Christian political action group; founder of the leading Christian-based broadcast television network; internationally-recognized broadcaster appearing daily on ABC Family; regular advisor to the President.
No offense, but Pat Robertson is way, way more credible a source on the consensus Christian view than you are. I'm sure that's gotta burn you up, but if Pat Robertson really doesn't represent the consensus view of Christianity then you Christians need to clean house and stop appointing this guy to speak on your behalf.
And you know what? I'm going to come right out and say that I agree with people like Faith - I don't understand how you can oppose the views of Pat Robertson, which, to my reading, come straight out of the Bible as it is literally interpreted, and still call yourselves Christians. I don't get it.
What do you mean when you say that you're a Christian? That you follow the teachings of Christ? But if you reject the literal Bible as the source of those teachings; if you reject the historicity of the Biblical account, exactly what are you following? A fictional character? What's the point in that?
If you reject the Bible as the ultimate source of Christian thought, what else is there? There aren't any other records of the deeds and teachings of Christ, so what exactly are you following?
I don't think anyone committed to reason as a source of knowledge about the universe can possibly accept the literal historicity of the Bible. But absent that historicity I don't see what anybody who calls themselves a Christian is basing their belief on. If the Bible is not to be taken literally then from what knowledge of Christ are you basing your life on?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jazzns, posted 10-12-2005 10:20 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Jazzns, posted 10-12-2005 5:36 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 43 by nator, posted 10-20-2005 9:57 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 82 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-21-2005 9:10 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 24 of 302 (251285)
10-12-2005 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Jazzns
10-12-2005 5:36 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
I must have missed the vote. Can you tell me when the elections were?
1988. Or in 1985 when he was honored by the National Association of United Methodist Evangelists. Or in 1979 by the National Conference of Christians and Jews. Or by Newsweek in 1992. Moreover, its a vote of confidence in Robertson every time Christians refuse to censor him, or request that his program be taken off the air.
I mean, let's not joke around, ok? Christians get what they want in this country. If they made it clear that Robertson offended their faith, that he was an embarrasment, ABC would pull him off the air.
But they don't, so ABC doesn't. Christians like you deliver a vote of confidence every time you refuse to take him on. Every time you let him speak for you.
Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger. It's Robertson that you oppose. So why people like you continue to allow him to speak in your name is beyond me.
There aren't that many religions out there that operate with one voice.
No, and I'm not saying that Christianity doesn't encompass a range of beliefs.
But the name itself has meaning. "Little Christ" is what it means. There's an implicit claim there of following the teachings of Christ as found in the Bible. If words have meanings, its inappropriate for you to call yourself that if you don't at least follow the teachings of Christ. And the only source of those is the Bible.
It would be as incoherent as if I were to deny the reincarnation of the soul, the enlightnement of the Buddhas, and the neccessity of the perfection of the self, and yet refer to myself as "Buddhist". Words have meanings, and the words used to describe religion imply at least a very minimal set of required doctrines.
Yet you would like to bundle us all together.
Do you employ the term "Christian" to define yourself? Does he? Looks like you're bundling yourself, if you ask me. Look, there's over 30 world religions, with hundreds of sects each. Asking an outsider like myself to keep track of your insiginficant little disputes in doctrine is ridiculous. If you don't like that referring to yourself as "Christian" puts you in a certain company, then either change how you refer to yourself, or convince Robertson to change. It's really not my problem.
We all don't think like Pat Robertson.
And I can appreciate that. But yet, the Christian community as a whole is still allowing Robertson to speak for them. Robertson, and Falwell, and Dobson, and The Pontif Formerly Known as John "Hide the Molestors" Ratzenburger. I don't see your community doing much to reign these guys in. And let's not kid ourselves; the power of Christians in America is enormous. The President is appointing Harriet Meyers to SCOTUS, after all - a woman whose sole qualification is that she's a Christian.
I can appreciate that there are moderate or even liberal voices within the church. And year after year I hear about how you're going to "take back Jesus" from the religious right.
But nothing ever happens. At this point we have to conclude that its because you don't have the numbers within your churches. And you don't have the numbers because the vast majority of Christians find Robertson much more appealing than they do your side.
Robertson's prominence isn't an accident, Jazz. I know he doesn't speak for people like you. So why do you people let him?
If there was anything like that with regards to literature at any of the churches I have ever attended it was not publicly made available to the congregation.
Look more closely. "Pastor's Weekly Briefing." It looks totally innocuous, and is, most of the time. And it appears in literally millions of churches.
Your understanding of Christianity based on Pat Robertson is not even close to the Christianity that I and many others follow. My beliefs are not defined by Pat Robertson and most certainly not by you.
I'm not trying to define your belief. But if words have meanings then your adoption of the term "Christian" means certain things. You need to sort out if you want those things to apply to you. But that's your issue to deal with, not mine.
Until then, you are no better proclaiming some kind of Christian consensus lead by Pat Robertson then CanadianSteve is proclaiming that all of Islam is under consensus by some of his quotes from the wacko imams out there.
At least in the Muslim community there's a very vocal majority loudly proclaiming to the world that the jihadist terror groups don't represent them. But when Robertson clamors for the assassination of elected leaders, Christian groups are mum. His comments are described, at best, as "regrettable" or "inappropriate."
Christians fall all over themselves to avoid taking this guy on. Is it any wonder that he appears to speak for you all? Instead of getting all pissed at me, you need to look at your own situation and see what you can be doing to clean house. Curse the darkness all you like. You have to be the one to light your own candle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Jazzns, posted 10-12-2005 5:36 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Jazzns, posted 10-12-2005 8:13 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 302 (251317)
10-12-2005 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Jazzns
10-12-2005 8:13 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Well so far I have only ever met one person in the entire world that has not been able to realize that Pat Robertson does not speak for all Christians and that the lable of "Christian" is not a catch-all.
Uh-huh. And is it your insular Christian community to which you're referring? Why don't you ask, say, a British Muslim if Robertson speaks for American Christians? Or a Chinese Buddhist? Or an Liberian under dictator Charles Taylor?
Have you spoken to any of those people? Because a lot of those people are talking about Robertson like he speaks for people like you.
I am no viewer or sponsor of the 700 club on purpose rather than by apathy for it.
If you use services or buy products that advertise on ABC, then yes, you're a sponsor of the 700 Club. Does your church do any charitable giving or volunteering with organizations? If they do, are you certain that your church isn't involved with one of Robertson's many different charities?
This is a guy with fingers in a lot of different pies. I'm certain that you don't think that you support him, but I'm not confident that you've really bothered to make sure.
I don't want to call myself something else just so that I can distinguish myself from some crazy asshole who has his own tv show and zombie following.
Like I've said, this guy isn't just some "crazy asshole." He's not some fringe fanatic. His popularity and position are not accidents. He wouldn't enjoy the success that he does absent a considerable base of support among your Christian community.
The fact that you're so ready to dismiss him as a crank suggests to me that you're not ready or willing to face the fact that Robertson isn't just an exception; he's proof of a silent majority of busybody moralists and fatalists within the Christian community.
You can't just write this guy off, Jazz. Folks like you just writing him off is the reason that he enjoys the prominence that he does.
So now everyone is completely defined by what they call themselves?
How else would we define them? If a person claims to be part of a group, who am I to tell them different? If you say you're a Christian, and Robertson says he's a Christian, why should I believe that you aren't both Christians?
I just want to make sure that my objections to such a narrow and fruitless position are made clear.
Yeah. Great. You've made them absolutely clear.
To me. To the three people who are still reading this. Who gives a good goddamn? The people you need to be making it clear to are the people who pick up newspapers in England and China and Liberia and see Pat Robertson speaking, once again, for the community of Christians in America. And I don't see any overtures - absolutely none whatsoever - in the moderate/liberal Christian community to do any of that. For as much as you all whine - and you do whine - whenever someone points out that you and Robertson check the same box under "Religion", none of you seem interested in advancing the least amount of effort to make apparent to outsiders the schism of doctrine that you so adamantly assert exists between your side and his.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Jazzns, posted 10-12-2005 8:13 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Jazzns, posted 10-13-2005 10:38 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 30 by MangyTiger, posted 10-18-2005 12:14 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 28 of 302 (251516)
10-13-2005 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Jazzns
10-13-2005 10:38 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
I NEVER said that there were no Christians who follow or support Pat.
And I never said that you did. The only one who appears to have a problem reading and understanding these posts is you.
I am not talking to the British, Chinese, or Liberians. I am talking to you about your stereotyping and generalization.
It's not clear to me that it's a generalization, yet. You follow Christ, right? Therefore we know that you follow the Bible, because there exists no other source of Jesus's teachings.
If you view the Bible as information about God, then my question still stands. How is the God of Christianity not a god of death?
And if you don't hold those views, what right do you have to call yourself Christian, if words have meanings?
Well I never said that I dismiss him
You just did dismiss him. You've been dismissing him in every post in this thread. Just now you called him a "crazy asshole."
How is that not dismissive?
I can see why you might predisposed to assuming my lethargy. Just because I don't have my own multi-million dollar TV show does not mean I do nothing crash.
I've heard of Pat Robertson. I've never heard of you.
Whatever you're doing, it isn't working.
If a prominent Democrat says something stupid does that mean he speaks for all Democrats?
If Democrats don't make a public effort to repudiate his statements, yes. He does speak for all of them. He speaks for everyone who tacitly allows him to do so.
Just like Pat Robertson speaks for every Christian who tacitly allows him to. Like you.
It is good to know that everyone can be bundled together by what "box" they check.
Yeah, buddy. That's what it means to be part of a group. You get grouped with the other people in the group. Don't whine at me - I didn't force you to call yourself a "Christian." You could have picked a different label that suggests something similar - Christer, Christist, Christique - that doesn't identify you as part of a group you don't want to belong to.
If you don't like being associated with other Christians, then you need to stop calling yourself a Christian. You chose that group identity. Don't come after me with such a big hard-on about the consequences of your own choice.
Well I have no idea what you think I have just been doing. I sure am no ambassador to Liberia but we exist and we do speak up.
Where? When?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Jazzns, posted 10-13-2005 10:38 AM Jazzns has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 36 of 302 (252841)
10-18-2005 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Jazzns
10-18-2005 10:17 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
I just don't feel that it is either intellectually honest, or polite for that matter, to group people by absolutes for the reason of condemnation.
The point you keep ignoring, Jazz, is that we're not grouping you. You're grouping you. Knowing full well that Robertson calls himself a Christian, you've chosen to adopt that moniker as well - and refuse to explain why, or how any of the rest of us are supposed to automatically know that you and Robertson mean two different things by the term.
It would be like, if I called myself a "Nazi", and you started to castigate me for my hatred of Jews and black people, and my aims of eugenics and Aryan supremacy, and I said "wait, hold on buddy, I'm not one of those Nazis. Hitler? Couldn't stand him. What an asshole. He certainly doesn't speak for me."
I mean, how ridiculous would that be? If I don't want to be grouped in with, and associated with, the henious crims of Nazis, why on Earth would I call myself one? Why on Earth would you call yourself a Christian except to associate yourself with all the ideas, good and bad, that surround Christianity in our culture?
Just to indicate that you follow Jesus Christ? I've already given you three words that would indicate that without associating you with Robertson, but you've apparently dismissed them.
The only reason I even posted that first post here and continued with crash was to make sure that anyone else reading this had the counter argument available especially with regards to what I consider biggotry toward my religion.
Oh, I'm sorry, my bad. Christans can badmouth other Christians all they like, but they're off-limits to the atheists. You want to experience bigotry? Start telling people you're an atheist.
I don't want to hear a Christian living in America, of all people and societies, whine about "bigotry" directed at their faith. In a country that bends over backwards and tramples its own constitution to magnify your particular faith at the expense of all others, and of those of no faith, it's absolutely ridiculous for a Christian to make any claim of bigotry or persecution.
No matter what I do or how much I disagree with Pat Robertson I would disagree even more with limiting his right to say what he wants.
He has no constitutional right to demand to be on TV, or to demand concessions from state and federal governments that no others enjoy, or to be lofted as a leading figure in Christianity. The fact that you're so ready to grant your tacit approval for those situations proves how hollow your weak protestations of unaffiliation truly are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Jazzns, posted 10-18-2005 10:17 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 10-20-2005 6:34 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 45 by Jazzns, posted 10-20-2005 10:41 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 41 of 302 (253278)
10-20-2005 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Silent H
10-20-2005 6:34 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Instead you would say that these usurpers have stolen such titles and are inaccurately casting a shadow over their otherwise good name.
Well, I don't have a choice about referring to myself as a US citizen. That's a factual statement about my legal citizenship.
Titles like "pro-democracy" and "Christian" are entirely voluntary, however, and it's because of the exact influence to which you refer that I would think long and hard about applying them to myself; I would realize that to do so means that, in some minds at least, I'm associating myself with the likes of Bush or Pat Robertson.
When confronting someone's position start by finding the similarities.
You have your style, I have mine. When I rebut positions based on principles - for instance, a principle that you can adopt a group idenity without implying association with that group - I reach for the most compelling, most accessable, and most obviously contradictory example of that principle. It's called "reducto ad absurdum."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 10-20-2005 6:34 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 10-20-2005 9:20 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 302 (253522)
10-20-2005 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Silent H
10-20-2005 9:20 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
It is usually choosing the same thing and extending it to a conclusion which is not necessarily desired by the opponent.
And if you don't understand that that's exactly what I did, then you shouldn't be throwing around accusations about who doesn't understand logic.
That citizenship is voluntary.
No, it's really not. I don't have the financial wherewithal to move to Canada or Mexico; nor can I legally gain employment in either of those two countries.
Without me doing anything at all, my citizenship remains American. On the other hand, Jazz takes the action of identifying as Christian.
Apples and oranges, Holmes. Or, if you can understand this, "fallacy of the false analogy."
Do you feel american and would you say to others you are an american?
I'd probably say that I was Canadian, in fact.
Whether one should realize associations may be made errantly, due to generalizations, does not implicate the person who goes on to use the label, nor let the errant generalizer off the hook.
The question at hand is whether or not my association was errant. I believe that I have supported an argument that it is not errant. Pat Robertson is widely recognized as a leading figure and a spokesman for a large number of Protestant Christians. Irrefutable.
Jazz knows this. Yet, he takes the active step of identifying with the same label Pat Robertson chooses, when other equivalent lables would suffice. Actions that belie his claim that he's not associated with Pat Robertson.
You were saying that people could be confused regarding what Xians might be like based on leaders like Robertson, while Jazzns was suggesting that Xian (like prodemocratic) is very broad and so such generalizations were errant and unfair.
For what reason should I believe that Christianity represents such a broad category, when its very vocal, appointed figureheads are typefied by a narrow range of views?
Jazzn, and you, seem to imply that it's my responsibility to interview every Christian to determine their views, when much of the Christian community itself has already appointed Pat Robertson as its spokesman.
Bush? The streets are filled with Americans demonstrating to the people of other nations that he doesn't speak for everyone. Where are the Christians opposing Robertson? Uselessly posting on internet forums, apparently, instead of revoking their tacit mandate for Robertson to represent him.
As much as I agree mistakes could be made, and Robertson is a jerk, Jazzns is correct about overgeneralizing.
I'm not generalizing all Christians based on Pat Robertson. I'm not an idiot; I know that there's a wide range of opinion on Christianity.
What I'm asking is why, after outrage after outrage, Christians continue to remain silent about this guy, when they're so vocal about taking down other figures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 10-20-2005 9:20 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2005 6:43 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 64 of 302 (253523)
10-20-2005 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by nator
10-20-2005 9:57 AM


Re: Waaaaait a minute
I elieve that Roman Catholics are the single largest Christian denomination in the US, and you know thay don't pay no nevermind to Pat.
Yeah. They have their own guy, who's even worse. Maybe you've heard of him? He's called "the Pope." And that guy, they actually did elect to represent their whole church.
Just as many members of the NRA do not support it's minority radical leadership and crazy Charlton Heston, many Protestant Christians do not support Robertson.
I don't recall claiming that every Christian did. But a majority of Christians, either by contracting the services of, or donating to, or by being members of churches that do these things, have considerably more ties to Robertson than they seem prepared to admit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by nator, posted 10-20-2005 9:57 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Heathen, posted 10-20-2005 8:04 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 67 of 302 (253526)
10-20-2005 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Jazzns
10-20-2005 10:41 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Hmm I thought I remember someone saying:
You're invoking Godwin's law because I called myself a Nazi? That's original.
That is becaues I have good reason to dismiss them.
And what are those reasons?
Why should I have to change just because he and others are ruining things?
Change what? You changed to begin with. You made the choice to start calling yourself a "Christian", with all that entailed.
What's the problem, then? You're not changing anything about yourself. You're simply changing a term you use to group yourself, because it means something slightly different than what you thought it did.
People do that all the time, when the associations of a group identity change. It's not a big deal. Why are you so special, all of a sudden, that the rules don't apply to you?
He does not have the constitutional right to have his demands met
So stop meeting them. Stop allowing those you have influence over to meet them. Try to convince others not to meet those demands, either.
Or, do nothing, and give him your tacit permission do keep on doing like he's been doing. But I guess that's the choice you've already made, isn't it?
I have not once granted approval for those situations only for this right to say it.
Every minute you do nothing, you grant your approval. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Jazzns, posted 10-20-2005 10:41 AM Jazzns has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 302 (253529)
10-20-2005 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Heathen
10-20-2005 8:04 PM


Re: Waaaaait a minute
Your common or garden catholic does not elect the pope. he is elected by the cardinals.
Who are appointed from the bishops. Who are appointed from the priests. Who became priests because they entered seminary from the laity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Heathen, posted 10-20-2005 8:04 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Heathen, posted 10-20-2005 8:13 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 70 of 302 (253532)
10-20-2005 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Jazzns
10-20-2005 7:28 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
The position I was trying to fight here is that such lumping is in anyway valid intellectually.
You mean, you believe that you have every right to join a group, identify as part of that group, and yet not have people consider you part of that group?
And that's supposed to make sense to us? You really find that reasonable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Jazzns, posted 10-20-2005 7:28 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Jazzns, posted 10-21-2005 9:45 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 72 of 302 (253536)
10-20-2005 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Heathen
10-20-2005 8:13 PM


Re: Waaaaait a minute
You implied that "catholics" as a whole elect the pope. This is not true.
Well, no, I didn't. I said that they elected the Pope. Naturally, I was referring to those who elect Popes, which are cardinals. Who are Catholic.
Thus, the Pope was elected by Catholics. All Catholics? No, of course not. But that's not what I said. Surely it's not your contention that the papal function is not to lead the Catholic Church and set its position, which is to be adopted by the laity, on doctrinal issues? No? Then my point stands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Heathen, posted 10-20-2005 8:13 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by MangyTiger, posted 10-20-2005 11:16 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 77 by Heathen, posted 10-21-2005 12:09 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 80 of 302 (253620)
10-21-2005 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Silent H
10-21-2005 6:43 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
And all of this as an ad hoc defense for not admitting I suggested a better way of analyzing something?
It's only better in your opinion. As I said, you have your style, I have mine. I'm under no obligation to parrot your debating technique, and despite your objections, my technique accurately and concisely comunicated my point in a logically valid way.
There are people that can do logic, and there are people that like to pretend. If you stopped pretending so hard, trying to prove you can actually do it, maybe you'd learn something and actually be able to. Using terms does not mean you know how to use them properly. That is to say even if you find a correct label for an error, it does not mean you have made any leverage against an argument, nor advanced your own.
An enormous ad hominem. Is there any reason I should respond to this? Suffice to say that I have collegiate-level training in formal symbolic logic, pragmatic linguistics, and rhetoric. No pretension necessary.
Practical issues of nationality are not relevant here
They are relevant as a rebuttal to your point. You made an analogy between voluntary identification of religious affiliation and accurate reporting of one's legal citizenship.
But the analogy is false for the reasons that I've given. Citizenship is a legal condition that is not changed on a whim, but as part of a bureaucratic process with the agreement of one or several governments. Citizenship remains the same until it is changed because its a recorded legal status.
Religious affiliation is both arbitrary and subject to no independant verification; knowledge of one's religious status requires active reporting on the part of that person. Fundamentally different. I share citizenship with George Bush by accident of birth. Jazzn shares a relgion with Robertson as a result of an active choice on his part to do so.
Apples and oranges - the false analogy.
That is laughable. Maybe I am remembering someone else, but I believe you have posts here at EvC suggesting that it is not anti american or anti freedom to be anti Bush.
Oh, so I'm a liar, now? I didn't answer your little loaded questions the "right" way, so I must be lying? Dispicable.
At any rate, in the face of your well-documented inability to understand my position on just about anything, you really have no basis to offer what you rememeber as evidence that I would not do - have not done, in fact - exactly what I just said I would do.
No, it doesn't make you pro-Bush to be pro-American. But here's the thing. Just as it's unreasonable for Jazzn to make an a priori expectation that outsiders to his religion have detailed knowledge about every little doctrinal split between himself and Robertson, I wouldn't expect a foreign citizen to understand the political split between Bush and myself. Thus, since I do not want to associate myself with the policies of Bush, I would not identify as an American.
This is true. He leads an evangelist ministry within a protestant denomination of Xianity. You should note that he is also widely recognized as a leading american with direct ties to the white house and policy.
If you had bothered to aquaint yourself with the discussion before nosing in, you would have seen that I had repeatedly noted these things already.
What equivalent label?
Labels suggested in post 28 - alternative words lingusitically interchangable with "Christian", defined identically, but not connotted with fundamentalism.
If Jazzns is, as he says, only using the accurate label to describe his religious committment to follow the teachings of Christ, there's a dozen words to describe that. He's rejected all of them while giving no reason. I can only conclude that he refuses to adopt an alternate, equivalent moniker to "Christian" because he's too stubborn or proud; or else he does want to be associated with the movement that encompasses Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, and the Pope.
I consider myself and American, yet two American leaders... Bush and Robertson... do not speak for me and it would be errant for anyone to infer something about me from them.
And, yet, knowing that people are going to infer things about you anyway, you have a choice. Stubbornly associate yourself in the minds of others with philosophies or actions you oppose, or take steps to distance yourself by changing your arbitrary group affiliations. I've offered Jazzns a way to do it that doesn't require anything on his part but simply a change in the way he answers a question ("what religion are you?"). That he stubbornly refuses to accept is one more instance of him perversely choosing to associate with Robertson.
It's his choice, Holmes. Group identifiers associate you with the group. That's their purpose. Jazzns chooses to put himself in the same broad group as Robertson when alternatives exist. What else am I supposed to draw from that except a conclusion that Jazzns offers his tacit support of Robertson?
The problem (notice your own apples and oranges coming back to roost)
There really ought to be a "fallacy of the mixed metaphor." For that matter, a mixed metaphor that bad should be against the law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2005 6:43 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Jazzns, posted 10-21-2005 9:57 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 86 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2005 11:02 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 88 by nwr, posted 10-21-2005 11:18 AM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024