Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,579 Year: 2,836/9,624 Month: 681/1,588 Week: 87/229 Day: 59/28 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pat Robertson on natural disasters
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1273 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 91 of 302 (253674)
10-21-2005 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Heathen
10-21-2005 12:15 AM


Awww Crap.... Sorry Thor.. that reply was meant for Crashfrog...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Heathen, posted 10-21-2005 12:15 AM Heathen has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 92 of 302 (253677)
10-21-2005 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Jazzns
10-20-2005 5:33 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Jazzns writes:
What caused you to assume they were the same to begin with? That is the problem. Are all Democrats the same? Are all Republicans the same? They believe similar things right?
But when members of these groups feel they are being incorrectly characterized...THEY SPEAK UP!
Jazzns writes:
Yes I do get it but I still think you have it backwards.
So what...it's still the perception I have (actually, that is not true...remember, I'm only trying to show you why others may feel this way). That's the point.
Jazzns writes:
Only because you are grouping them as such by default based on ignorance. I am sorry but ignorance is not a very good defense for bigotry because you could just as easily be ignorant and not bigoted.
Sigh...so what! I agree, it's a piss poor defense...but people in the real World do it all the time.
If you really don't care that people lump all Christians together, then why are we in this debate? If you do care...all I have been trying to do is show you WHY others may have that opinion.
I somewhat get the impression that you may believe that I hold that opinion. Remember, I do not. I'm smart enough to know that there probably are many Christians out there that disagree with Pat Robertson. At the same time I am a bit surprised by the fact that none of them are speaking up. It's not like this is the first time that Pat Robertson has said something very unchristian-like, and Christians have remained completely silent.
Think for a second on what you are asking us to do. Pat Robertson has made repeated statements that I assume you (and many other Christians) disagree with. But when does that end? That is to say...what is the magic number that would justify the assumption that...well...that he must be speaking for certainly a majority, if not the entirety, of Christians?
Jazzns writes:
In this case we are talking about a lack of evidence to the contrary. The stereotype is being held with the only positive evidence being Pat Robertson and his statements.
Not quite true...but I understand and somewhat agree with your point. However, the lack of any response from other Christian leaders cannot be ignored...based on his many statements and not just the one about Chavez...you must take into consideration his history of making outlandish statements. That is the point as I see it.
Jazzns writes:
Why do you start from a position of a stereotype? Before you apply all the adjectives that Pat brings to that stereotype, what caused you to create that stereotype to begin with? That is what I am talking about.
I was a blank slate in regards to Christianity. Pat Robertson and his TV program opened my eyes to the Christian World. If you don't like the "stereotype", voice you opposition, but don't get pissed off at me.
Jazzns writes:
Why are you assigning me his position by default? Pat's beliefs are Pat's beliefs? Why because we both call ourselves Christian is it the default to make us the same? There are few better examples of stereotyping.
Hey, I just landed on this Planet and only receive the 700 club . I am not sure what you are talking about.
In truth, maybe it's because he is my only basis of comparison. No one else has stepped up to the plate and said "Wait...not all Christians agree with Pat Robertson. We do not endorse his views. We do not condone his actions. We are not members of his Christian group."
Let me see if repeating this one more time will finally get you to see my point.
You and Holmes can certainly hold the view that for me to lump all Christians together is a classic example of a stereotype. So what?
Wouldn't it be more prudent for you to ask: "Hey FliesOnly, why do you hold this view"? Instead though, you get upset when I lump you all together. My response (in case you curious) would be something like..."Well Pat Robertson claims to be a Christian. You claim to be a Christian. Many thousands of others in this Country claim to be Christians and I'll bet a great many of them in some way or another or at some point in time have agreed with and endorsed Pat Robertson. What evidence do I have to help me conclude that this particular example is any different. How am I to know if they agree or disagree with his position unless they tell me otherwise?"
You’re saying that it’s unfair and incorrect of me to assume that all Christians agree with Pat Robertson. Don't you think it would be just as ridiculous for me to assume that no other Christian agrees with him? Isn't that still a stereotype? Isn't that still incorrect? I think you and I both assume that certainly some Christians agree with Pat Robertson. So what am I left with. Do I arbitrarily say that I will now assume that every other Christian I meet agrees with Pat Robertson? Maybe I'll just assume that only white Christians agree with Pat Roberson. How am I suppose to know which Christians agree and which Christians disagree with Pat Robertson unless someone tells me? Now, you personally have told me that you do not agree with Pat Robertson, so great...good for you. One down and millions to go I guess.
You know something though (and maybe this will surprise you), when I get together with other people and the topic of religion comes up . I ask then their views on Pat Robertson.
See, I’m making the attempt to see how other Christians feel because they sure as hell aren’t putting any effort to find me and explain their position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Jazzns, posted 10-20-2005 5:33 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2005 3:08 PM FliesOnly has replied
 Message 102 by Jazzns, posted 10-21-2005 4:45 PM FliesOnly has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6407
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 93 of 302 (253700)
10-21-2005 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by nator
10-21-2005 11:26 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
But if Robertson began claiming that he represented the views of all Satanist cult members, and that there were millions of Satanist cult members all across the country, comprising many different sub-groups, and many of them did not agree with the way Robertson promoted Satanism, yet those people did nothing to oppose his misrepresentations, then it would be reasonable for people to assume that all or many of the Satanic cult members were OK with what Robertson was saying about the views of all Satanic cults.
That's not so obvious.
Let's take it back to the situation that Jazzns is in.
If Jazzns believes that Robertson discredits all christians, then he should be speaking out.
If, however, Jazzns thinks that Robertson is a flake, that Robertson is widely recognized as a flake, and that Robertson discredits only himself, then Jazzns doesn't have to do anything.
It seems to me that the second of those better describes what Jazzns faces. In any case, it is up to Jazzns to judge that. I don't know why people are second guessing him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by nator, posted 10-21-2005 11:26 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by nator, posted 10-22-2005 10:38 AM nwr has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 94 of 302 (253717)
10-21-2005 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by FliesOnly
10-21-2005 11:38 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
But when members of these groups feel they are being incorrectly characterized...THEY SPEAK UP!
I don't think anyone has argued that when someone is being mischaracterized they do not need to speak up. Indeed Jazzns did speak up, and look where it got him.
That is to say...what is the magic number that would justify the assumption that...well...that he must be speaking for certainly a majority, if not the entirety, of Christians?
The answer is not so magical, absolutely NO number would justify the assumption he is speaking for a majority of people beyond the characteristic of those he actually represents. If YOU do not understand who he represents, and can't spend a couple minutes to disabuse yourself of a mistaken notion, then that is your problem and not anyone else's.
I still don't get why you and Crash are defending ignorance. Yes I, and I assume Jazzns, understand how people come to incorrect conclusions, but that does not exonerate the ignorant for their ignorance. It is an explanation and not an excuse.
We have both discussed what error is being commited and how to avoid it and yet you both return to a position that the mistake happens all the time and so it is reasonable. Common and able to be understood is not equal to reasonable.
In truth, maybe it's because he is my only basis of comparison.
Actually that's not true. You don't seem to to even get him correctly. He has been in fights with other ministers and if you actually listened to him you would know this. It appears that what you know is based only on excerpts played in the media regarding some of his more colorful commentary, which is unlikely to include reactions from others in the Xian community as it will often be less colorful.
Wouldn't it be more prudent for you to ask: "Hey FliesOnly, why do you hold this view"? Instead though, you get upset when I lump you all together.
Why would it be prudent to ask why you hold the view you do, when it is obvious. You are mistaken.
The prudent thing to do is to first correct your ignorance regarding the facts (Robertson is not just a Xian but leader of a specific subset antagonistic with other factions and so patently does not speak for all Xians), as well as with your logic so you are unlikely to make this mistake again.
Isn't the prudent thing for you to do is not use an argument from incredulity and instead recognize that if you are about to take a position on a topic you should do a little bit of research first?
This message has been edited by holmes, 10-21-2005 03:08 PM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by FliesOnly, posted 10-21-2005 11:38 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Chiroptera, posted 10-21-2005 3:24 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 97 by FliesOnly, posted 10-21-2005 4:09 PM Silent H has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 302 (253730)
10-21-2005 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Silent H
10-21-2005 3:08 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
quote:
Indeed Jazzns did speak up....
And other Christians do speak up, for god's sakes. Hell, read the friggin' left wing press -- there are plenty of articles by Christian leaders denouncing Roberts and his ilk. Read the letters to the editor of the local paper -- I have a hard time believer that there aren't letters from local Christians disavowing Roberts.
It's not the fault of the general Christian that the usual mainstream media fails to report what most Christians actually feel and what they are saying.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2005 3:08 PM Silent H has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 96 of 302 (253737)
10-21-2005 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Silent H
10-21-2005 11:28 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Holmes writes:
They would not know... either way... that is the point. To label you as pro Bush because you are an American is to commit a logical fallacy. Those that do so cannot plead that there ignorance is rational. They are ignorant and they made an error.
You're missing my point. I don't fucking care if it's alogcal fallacy! George Bush is our leader and he does speak for our nation. So if George Bush speaks for my Country, and someone else assumes he is therefore speaking for me...I simply correct them...logical fallacy or not.
You seem to think in unrealistic terms Holmes. It's pretty cut and dry to me. There are three possible assumptions to make when Pat Robertson . a self proclaimed Christian . shoots off his mouth.
One: All Christians agree with Pat Robertson.
Two: All Christians disagree with Pat Robertson.
Three: Some Christians agree while others disagree with Pat Robertson.
Question: Which one has supportive evidence?
Answer: None of them because no Christian leaders have spoken up, one way or the other.
I think we can agree that the second option is just as ridiculous as the first, leaving option three as the most valid choice. Ok...how do I know which groups agree with him and which groups disagree?
I guess there’s a forth option, which would be to make no assumptions . to remain vacuous and form no opinion...but seeing as how we’re trying to debate real issues about real people in the real World . let’s not bring that one up for serious consideration.?
Holmes writes:
When a person is caught using a stereotype should it not be that person who admits his mistake and apologizes and learns to be more careful in the future, and not insist that others dispel his mistakes before they happen in the future?
This seems a bit like circular reasoning to me. I won't know of my error until someone points it out. Have you seen any well known Christians (those with a platform similar to Pat Roberts) get up and denounce him? I sure haven't, so how am I to know I am in error?
Holmes writes:
My question to you is why is the fact that stereotypes can occur and argument that they are not fallacious and acceptable?
And the friggen point I have been trying to make is who gives a fuck if they're fallacious? Stereotypes exist. If you don't want to be stereotyped it seems to me that you have a couple options. First, you can attempt educate the individual that is stereotyping you, or second, you could blow them off (in the figurative sense of course ) and not give a shit what they think of you.
Ok...so how could the Christians out there educate us poor ole dumbies? Gee, maybe they could speak up and show us why we are mistaken in our assumption(s). Yet they do not. Nor do they go for the second option. Instead they get pissed off when I lump them together.
FliesOnly writes:
I've always hated how people pull out the word "stereotype" whenever they feel they or others are being criticized.
Holmes writes:
You are now putting words in my mouth, many many many words in my mouth. That little rant had nothing to do with my post. You will note that my definition was quite neutral and could be positive or negative. They are both erroneous.
Sorry Holmes...I did not intend for you to take this as you did. It was a general comment about certain other unrelated issues in my home town where the term "stereotype" is being tossed about rather loosely. My mistake and sorry for the misunderstanding..
Holmes writes:
Neither did I call you a bigot, though now that you mention it you sure seem to be. But that's okay, I do not like Xianity, probably even the type that Jazzns practices.
Well apparently you do not read my posts. Otherwise you would know that I am not in disagreement with Jazzns. I am simply playing devils advocate to help him see why people might lump all Christians together (and to point out a rather simply remedy). But hey, thanks for assuming I'm a bigot...I guess it shows I'm making my point.
Not everyone on the planet is as brilliant as you Holmes. Many people do not have access to computers and probably wouldn't know how to work one if they did. Television, on the other hand is a huge medium for dispensing information. It's unfortunate...but for many people it may very be the ONLY way they get their news.
But you know what...who fucking cares right. If they think Pat Robertson speaks for all Christians, they're just stupid stereotypical bigots right? Never mind that if other Christians leaders would actually speak up and denounce Pat Robertson this wouldn't be an issue. No, it's much, much simpler to ...wait...it's much more simple to simply stereotype these people? That seems rather odd.
Holmes writes:
That was the same (ie as odious) as the comments I have heard from Canadian Steve regarding Islam. I do not expect Muslims to have to protest and announce they are not terrorists, and in fact change their name away from Islam, in order to understand many are against the militant Islamic factions and not terrorists.
Fine . you do not think that Muslims have to protest and announce they’re not terrorists. Guess what . neither do I (and if you read my posts you would know that). But yet many do! They see themselves being portrayed incorrectly and offensively and they don’t just sit there and cry about now do they. No . instead they speak up and denounce terrorism and militant extremists claiming to be Muslims. So I guess I'm not sure how you can make the comparison to what I said and what Canadian Steve says . what ever that might be because honestly...I have no idea what you're talking about in regards to Canadian Steve's opinion of Islam.
Holmes writes:
No, but if you are going to be a reasonable person then it is your duty to practice logic and become informed based on evidence. You shouldn't have to ask each and every person to disconfirm your errant presumption about them.
Where is the evidence and how do I become informed. Maybe by reading/seeing/hearing other prominent Christians leaders denounce Pat Robertson. Now, assume for a moment Holmes that I have no access to the internet or a computer. Instead, TV serves as my primary (overwhelmingly so) source of news. I'm pretty much fucked...aren't I. Guess I'll just have to remain a dumb, ill-informed, uneducated bigot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2005 11:28 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2005 4:36 PM FliesOnly has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 97 of 302 (253747)
10-21-2005 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Silent H
10-21-2005 3:08 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Holmes writes:
If YOU do not understand who he represents, and can't spend a couple minutes to disabuse yourself of a mistaken notion, then that is your problem and not anyone else's.
Arrrg! Let me try this AGAIN. Fine Holmes...it's my fucking problem. Great. The point I have been trying to make is that there really are people like this in the real World Holmes. Maybe they don't exist in whatever fantasy land you live in...but in my World, people make assumptions like this all the time.
The question, then, is "what do we do about it?" Apparently your answer is to call them ignorant bigots. Mine, however, is to tell them why they are mistaken. And to do that, those that feel stereotyped should speak out. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
I'm not saying that people that lump all Christians together are correct, or justified for doing so. I simply saying that it happens all the time, and the "cure" is simple. SPEAK OUT!
If you are stereotyped and don't speak out, then shut the fuck up about it.
Jazzns has done so repeatedly and unless I'm mistaken here, he understands that I do not associate him with Pat Robertson (and I never did).
Holmes writes:
I still don't get why you and Crash are defending ignorance.
I am doing no such thing, Try reading all of my posts in regards to this topic.
Holmes writes:
Why would it be prudent to ask why you hold the view you do, when it is obvious. You are mistaken.
I fucking give up.
Holmes writes:
The prudent thing to do is to first correct your ignorance regarding the facts (Robertson is not just a Xian but leader of a specific subset antagonistic with other factions and so patently does not speak for all Xians),
Again...I fucking give up.
Holmes writes:
Isn't the prudent thing for you to do is not use an argument from incredulity and instead recognize that if you are about to take a position on a topic you should do a little bit of research first?
And again...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2005 3:08 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2005 4:44 PM FliesOnly has not replied

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


Message 98 of 302 (253755)
10-21-2005 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Lizard Breath
10-21-2005 9:10 AM


Re: Waaaaait a minute
These views of Robertson's are his own interpretations of what he is reading and believing. I find it failed logic to subscribe that if anyone disagrees with Robertson's views that they are not a Christian.
I'm glad you posted because it gives me an opportunity to clairfy my remarks.
I don't believe that Robertson's stance that the return of Christ will be heralded by cataclysm and suffering is simply his "interpretation"; that's the literal position of the Bible. The Bible literally says that before Christ returns, natural disasters are going to occur on a larger-than-normal scale. That really can't be argued. The Bible literally says that.
Now, to my mind, I don't understand how anyone can be a Christian who rejects the Bible. After all, "Christian" means "little Christ" or "follower of Christ's teachings," and there's no other source of those teachings but the Bible. If the Bible didn't exist, you wouldn't even have the name of the guy you were following, much less any of his teachings to follow.
So, is lock-step agreement with every one of Robertson's beliefs a requirement to be a Christian? No, of course not. But in this case, in regards to the specific belief that the second coming of Christ will be heralded by disasters and cataclysm, yes, that's a required doctrinal point for being a Christian, because it's in the Bible.
Where am I going wrong? Like I've said I'm no Christian, so maybe I don't have it quite right. After all I lack the "God-sense" or whatever its called. So maybe Bibles rewrite their text when I pick them up or something. God knows what you people believe. Where am I wrong? No one's addressed this point.
Instead they've been attacking a strawman: "How dare you suggest that because Robertson believes that, I must, too." No. It's not because Robertson says it that you must believe; it's because its written in the Bible that you must believe.
Which prompted my question in the first place - if the God of Christianity's return is heralded by loss of life and suffering, how is that god not a god of death? And what kind of person chooses to worship the god of death?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-21-2005 9:10 AM Lizard Breath has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Jazzns, posted 10-21-2005 4:49 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 105 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2005 4:56 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 99 of 302 (253758)
10-21-2005 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Jazzns
10-21-2005 9:45 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Repeatidly I have stated my case for the non-existance of a Christian "group", "club", "community", whatever you want to call it.
To suggest that Christianity is not a group is ludicrous. Of course there's a Christian group - it's comprised of everyone who calls themselves a Christian. That's how groups are formed - people choose to join them.
You have not once in any of your replies addressed this part of my argument at all simply stating that there is a group and that I am automatically assigned by you.
You're not assigned to it by me. You're assigned to it by yourself.
And I didn't address that point in my posts because it didn't make sense to me. I didn't understand what you were trying to say - much less that you were basing your argument on it - because that's such a stupid thing to assert. Of course there's a Christian group. Everyone who refers to themselves as a Christian is part of that group.
Obviously. Like I said if you want to follow Christ but not be a part of the Christian group, there's a dozen other ways you could describe yourself.
But you fail when it comes to the default stereotype you set up by clumping all Christians together just by name.
They're clumping themselves. Not a single one of them has to call themselves a Christian if they don't want to. Membership in that group is entirely voluntary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Jazzns, posted 10-21-2005 9:45 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Jazzns, posted 10-21-2005 5:03 PM crashfrog has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 100 of 302 (253759)
10-21-2005 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by FliesOnly
10-21-2005 3:51 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
You seem to think in unrealistic terms Holmes.
That one shouldn't make overgeneralized statements on topics one is admittedly not knowledgable regarding? Whoa, sorry for being so wild and crazy!
I guess there’s a forth option, which would be to make no assumptions . to remain vacuous and form no opinion...
The third is the most realistic assumption but a form of the fourth is the only practical solution. Why must it involve being vacuous and have no opinion, to come to the conclusion you don't know and so should not make generalized statements, confining commentary to Robertson himself or specifying "anyone that actually does believe in him"?
Have you seen any well known Christians (those with a platform similar to Pat Roberts) get up and denounce him? I sure haven't, so how am I to know I am in error?
Yes. Other ministries fight him publicly and even other evangelicals. My guess is if you actually watched him and his show instead of simply claiming that you know anything about him, you might know this. Interestingly enough he sometimes gets challenged on his own show by his own people.
I watched one show where he suggested the US should kill the relatives of terrorists, and two separate cohosts began arguing with him on air. It was hilarious. He kept saying how effective that would be and they kept reminding him the US in general and evangelicals in specific are supposed to be better than that.
It should be pretty easy for you to figure out if you have ANY knowledge on a subject, and SUFFICIENT knowledge to make generalized claims.
Do you feel pretty certain you can make comments on brain surgery, specifically what they feel is the best method for reaching tumors that are not topical, or do you realize you should keep your mouth shut until you know a bit more?
Gee, maybe they could speak up and show us why we are mistaken in our assumption(s). Yet they do not.
I'm sorry but one just did, and the both of you have turned on him. Crash has even claimed that Jazzns should not call himself a Xian because that confuses crash.
I have also shown you why you are mistaken in your assumptions and how not to make the same mistake in the future. That you keep deriding this as unreasonable is beyond me.
But hey, thanks for assuming I'm a bigot...I guess it shows I'm making my point.
I didn't assume. You appeared to be saying that I was calling you one. I said that I had not said that, but if you want to know you are looking that way. That was based on your comments, not on what someone else said and I linked to you through a dubious generalization. And as should be obvious I didn't even say that I thought you were. I had thus far followed my own advice. I kept my mouth shut to assess with more info, and at best suggested what your personal comments seemed to suggest.
Television, on the other hand is a huge medium for dispensing information. It's unfortunate...but for many people it may very be the ONLY way they get their news.
Then watch his show or when he is on talk shows. He can often be seen paired against other ministers, or clips of opposition ministries are played. This is still not an excuse for ignorance.
I watched the guy for quite a while, from one show you should be able to figure out he is not actually speaking for all Xians.
No . instead they speak up and denounce terrorism and militant extremists claiming to be Muslims.
"They" do? Really? All of them get up and do this? And so the ones that do not we should feel safe to assume it is because they are terrorists?
Canadian Steve said about the same thing as you did but it was solely against Islam. Sorry that the ref was meaningless.
Instead, TV serves as my primary (overwhelmingly so) source of news. I'm pretty much fucked...aren't I. Guess I'll just have to remain a dumb, ill-informed, uneducated bigot.
Given that you are making comments on an internet forum, then if we are discussing reality (which is what you wanted to stick to) there is no reason to bring up this hypothesis to cover you or crash. Both have sufficient means to correct this.
But lets say there is someone without the internet, and only TV. Then if they can get the 700 club, or talk shows in which PR is involved they should be able to figure out he is not speaking for all Xians. But lets get even simpler. Why not walk to a church and ask someone about Pat Robertson?
Yes, to wallow in ignorance is willful ignorance. It doesn't get any more justification due to lack of funds.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by FliesOnly, posted 10-21-2005 3:51 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Jazzns, posted 10-21-2005 4:52 PM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 101 of 302 (253765)
10-21-2005 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by FliesOnly
10-21-2005 4:09 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
in my World, people make assumptions like this all the time.
They do in mine as well.
Apparently your answer is to call them ignorant bigots.
You just put words in my mouth again.
Mine, however, is to tell them why they are mistaken. And to do that, those that feel stereotyped should speak out.
I agreed with this, and this...
the "cure" is simple. SPEAK OUT!
Why is it hard for you to grasp this?
The only difference between you and me is that I have said that speaking out includes an additional plank, which is to explain how to avoid the error they commited.
I also do not coddle the person that made the mistake and speak to those who are speaking out as if to rationalize that the others might not be ignorant and indeed made an honest mistake by stereotyping.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by FliesOnly, posted 10-21-2005 4:09 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3901 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 102 of 302 (253767)
10-21-2005 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by FliesOnly
10-21-2005 11:38 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
First off, I want to let you know that I was not trying to call you a bigot Flies. I hope you accept my appology if you took it that way.
Sigh...so what! I agree, it's a piss poor defense...but people in the real World do it all the time. If you really don't care that people lump all Christians together, then why are we in this debate? If you do care...all I have been trying to do is show you WHY others may have that opinion.
No offense intended but I am unsure why you thought this was important. I already know why people might hold this opinion. What I am here to talk about is the validity of those reasons.
I somewhat get the impression that you may believe that I hold that opinion. Remember, I do not. I'm smart enough to know that there probably are many Christians out there that disagree with Pat Robertson.
No and if I came across to the contrary then I appologize. I assumed a certain rapport that must not have truly been there.
At the same time I am a bit surprised by the fact that none of them are speaking up. It's not like this is the first time that Pat Robertson has said something very unchristian-like, and Christians have remained completely silent.
Truly I don't even know that they are not speaking out. As some are bringing to this thread it may just be that they don't get the air that Pat gets because they are not making outrageous comments. But even if they are not my points still stand. I would not be suprised if the voice of opposition to Pat from the supposed Christian Community was small. If you find it suprising that they do not then that is okay. That is not what we are talking about. The issue is jumping to a conclusion based on that percieved or actual silence that are invalid.
Think for a second on what you are asking us to do. Pat Robertson has made repeated statements that I assume you (and many other Christians) disagree with. But when does that end? That is to say...what is the magic number that would justify the assumption that...well...that he must be speaking for certainly a majority, if not the entirety, of Christians?
That conclusion never has to be reached by someone with the appropriate attitude toward their peers. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. In this way I avoid stereotyping.
Not quite true...but I understand and somewhat agree with your point. However, the lack of any response from other Christian leaders cannot be ignored...based on his many statements and not just the one about Chavez...you must take into consideration his history of making outlandish statements. That is the point as I see it.
One comment versus many comments dosen't change the argument. Creating an invalid stereotype based on reinforcement is exactly the same as reaching one by fiat.
Jazzns previously writes:
Why do you start from a position of a stereotype? Before you apply all the adjectives that Pat brings to that stereotype, what caused you to create that stereotype to begin with?
I was a blank slate in regards to Christianity. Pat Robertson and his TV program opened my eyes to the Christian World. If you don't like the "stereotype", voice you opposition, but don't get pissed off at me.
I am not getting pissed off at you. Please forgive me if you think that I was. That being said you did not answer my question. Why is the stereotype the default?
Jazzns previously writes:
Why are you assigning me his position by default? Pat's beliefs are Pat's beliefs? Why because we both call ourselves Christian is it the default to make us the same? There are few better examples of stereotyping.
Hey, I just landed on this Planet and only receive the 700 club...I am not sure what you are talking about. In truth, maybe it's because he is my only basis of comparison. No one else has stepped up to the plate and said "Wait...not all Christians agree with Pat Robertson. We do not endorse his views. We do not condone his actions. We are not members of his Christian group."
Again you did not answer my question. I didn't ask the question to guide the conversation. I was hoping for a direct answer. What you considered an answer only talks about your first impression. It does not answer, again, why do you default to the arbitrary grouping?
Wouldn't it be more prudent for you to ask: "Hey FliesOnly, why do you hold this view"? Instead though, you get upset when I lump you all together.
I am not upset at you. I am asking you why you hold this view. My previous two questions were specific with regards to that. They stand unanswered.
My response (in case you curious) would be something like..."Well Pat Robertson claims to be a Christian. You claim to be a Christian. Many thousands of others in this Country claim to be Christians and I'll bet a great many of them in some way or another or at some point in time have agreed with and endorsed Pat Robertson. What evidence do I have to help me conclude that this particular example is any different. How am I to know if they agree or disagree with his position unless they tell me otherwise?"
Which is merely repetition of your position. I have raised a specific question against your position of why that necessarily has to be the default. You do have a reason don't you?
You're saying that it's unfair and incorrect of me to assume that all Christians agree with Pat Robertson. Don't you think it would be just as ridiculous for me to assume that no other Christian agrees with him?
Yes it is just as ridiculous for you to assume that. But it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I am not asking you to disregard those who DO agree with Pat. I even specifically said as much in one of my previous posts.
Isn't that still a stereotype? Isn't that still incorrect?
Yes it is a stereotype and it is incorrect but it is also irrelevant.
I think you and I both assume that certainly some Christians agree with Pat Robertson. So what am I left with. Do I arbitrarily say that I will now assume that every other Christian I meet agrees with Pat Robertson? Maybe I'll just assume that only white Christians agree with Pat Roberson.
Why do you have to assume anything? Please answer directly.
How am I suppose to know which Christians agree and which Christians disagree with Pat Robertson unless someone tells me? Now, you personally have told me that you do not agree with Pat Robertson, so great...good for you. One down and millions to go I guess.
Why wouldn't you give those millions the benefit of the doubt instead of arbitrarily assigning them equivalently to Pat? Please answer directly.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by FliesOnly, posted 10-21-2005 11:38 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by FliesOnly, posted 10-24-2005 8:32 AM Jazzns has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3901 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 103 of 302 (253770)
10-21-2005 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by crashfrog
10-21-2005 4:31 PM


Re: Waaaaait a minute
If you are asking a question about the validity of a belief that is different from Pat's literalist interpretation then maybe you should start a thread.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2005 4:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2005 5:02 PM Jazzns has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3901 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 104 of 302 (253774)
10-21-2005 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Silent H
10-21-2005 4:36 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
I'm sorry but one just did, and the both of you have turned on him. Crash has even claimed that Jazzns should not call himself a Xian because that confuses crash.
That is the best way I can think of to distill his argument to this point. Gotta love simplicity.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2005 4:36 PM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 105 of 302 (253778)
10-21-2005 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by crashfrog
10-21-2005 4:31 PM


Re: Waaaaait a minute
I don't understand how anyone can be a Christian who rejects the Bible.
This is a mistake. There were Xians long before there was a Bible. The Bible is a collection of writings, a subset of all writings, within the Xian community.
At the time of the collecting and canonization there were disputes on pieces selected and non selected for entry into the final Bible. Even once the first edition was set, it has not remain unchanged. There are differences between current versions of the Bible, beyond mere cosmetic word choices.
Part of the disputes between denominations mirror the disputes during the original collecting of the Bible. Some sections are not considered pertinent and/or to be taken literally.
It is true that revelations, if considered a factual prediction, literally does say exactly what you just said. However there is no reason any Xian must view it that way. It would not be antiXian to in fact wholly reject that portion of the Bible, or any other portion.
The Protestant movement in specific opened up ways of interpretation, and some were to take it much more literally than it had been taken before. There is some evidence that much of the Bible was not considered factual, and rather allegorical at the time of its writing and later collection.
Some have even suggested that Revelations was more or less practical code to other Xians about their ascent over the Roman empire and not at all a theological discussion.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2005 4:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2005 6:02 PM Silent H has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024