I am American, and I respect Christianity.

[daveman]

That's not an answer.

Yes, it is. It's just not the one you want.

The answer to a simple yes or no question isn't "Doesn't matter..."

Oh, well. You'll just have to deal with the disappointment.

And this part...

Some criticizes Muslim extremists, and some drooling idiot leftist HAS to say, "Yeah, that's kinda bad, I guess, although I can see why they'd do that -- but CHRISTIANS, now, they're REALLY bad!!"

...is more of the same strawman horseshit. Who's saying that?

You're kidding, right? It started on the second post.

 

[bobcollum]

You'll have to remind me -- why should I care what O'Reilly says?

You don't have to care, just acknowledge that he represents those that begrudgingly accept the secularity of the nation.

Perhaps I missed the proof of this assertion.

Nevertheless, Bill doesn't speak for me. Bill doesn't speak for Christians.

But you keep insisting he does. Chicks dig that.

Bill actually speaks for a lot of people, the support he receives kinda proves it.

Maybe not you, that's fine, I can agree on that.

 

[daveman]

They've been lacking in that department for the duration of this thread.

If you want an echo chamber, then perhaps USMB is not the place for you.

I hate to break it to you, but you don't get to dictate others' behavior.

Aw shucks, that breaks my heart.

You guys can be as intellectually dishonest as you choose, it isn't hurting me any.

Last I checked, "disagreeing with leftists" is not the definition of "intellectual dishonesty".

Repeat: If you want an echo chamber, then perhaps USMB is not the place for you.

 

[daveman]

It ain't just O 'Reilly either. But hey, let's just take those 2 words out. What does the davester think then?

It's still horseshit.

Bob assumes that Christians are nostalgic about the Crusades, the Inquisition, and that we all want a Christian theocracy.

Of course, if all I read were leftist blogs and message boards, I'd probably believe the same thing.

However, reality simply doesn't support that assumption.

You keep focusing on two words that have no real bearing on my overall point...which of course can't be rebutted, or it would've already happened.

When your argument is not based on reality, your overall point is meaningless.

 

[daveman]

They try to make the conversation about something unrelated, then when you don't want to do that, pretend you have lost a so-called *argument*.

It's just the same old same old, meant to distract from the fact that while they support the right of Islamists to commit acts of terror upon us, they want to punish Christians for the acts of terror that the Islamists commit.

I can't decide if they have a blind spot for Islamic terrorism, if they hate Christians more than they hate Muslims, if they're cowards for refusing to criticize Islamic terrorism, or if they support Islamic terrorism because they and the terrorists share common enemies -- the US and Israel.

If you could understand my post, you'd see that I don't support the Islamic nutjobs.

I do understand that it destroys KG's narrative, but those are the breaks I guess.

Then it's one of the first three then, huh?

 

[bobcollum]

It's still horseshit.

Bob assumes that Christians are nostalgic about the Crusades, the Inquisition, and that we all want a Christian theocracy.

Of course, if all I read were leftist blogs and message boards, I'd probably believe the same thing.

However, reality simply doesn't support that assumption.

You keep focusing on two words that have no real bearing on my overall point...which of course can't be rebutted, or it would've already happened.

When your argument is not based on reality, your overall point is meaningless.

I know Dave, you've got nothing.

Thanks for trying at least, you put forth a better effort than the person that actually started the thread.

 

[daveman]

If Christian nations throughout history had taken the same stance, I'd give it to you.

It's not the case though.

And you just can't accept that Christianity has matured the way Islam has not.

Even though the evidence proves it.

Why do you ignore the evidence?

Dave, that was my main point in the sentence you read, but those two words fucked with you too much to realize it.

No, I got that. You got at least part of it right.

But your characterization of Christians was incorrect. You're ascribing to us motives and views we simply don't have.

 

[bobcollum]

If you want an echo chamber, then perhaps USMB is not the place for you.

I hate to break it to you, but you don't get to dictate others' behavior.

Aw shucks, that breaks my heart.

You guys can be as intellectually dishonest as you choose, it isn't hurting me any.

Last I checked, "disagreeing with leftists" is not the definition of "intellectual dishonesty".

Repeat: If you want an echo chamber, then perhaps USMB is not the place for you.

All I'm asking for is a reasoned rebuttal to my post.

Nobody can do it though.

Really, if it's that wrong, it should be easy to put me in my place.

 

[daveman]

You don't have to care, just acknowledge that he represents those that begrudgingly accept the secularity of the nation.

Perhaps I missed the proof of this assertion.

Nevertheless, Bill doesn't speak for me. Bill doesn't speak for Christians.

But you keep insisting he does. Chicks dig that.

Bill actually speaks for a lot of people, the support he receives kinda proves it.

Maybe not you, that's fine, I can agree on that.

Bill speaks TO a lot of people. Doesn't mean he speaks FOR them.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You've been dave'd.

 

[bobcollum]

And you just can't accept that Christianity has matured the way Islam has not.

Even though the evidence proves it.

Why do you ignore the evidence?

Dave, that was my main point in the sentence you read, but those two words fucked with you too much to realize it.

No, I got that. You got at least part of it right.

But your characterization of Christians was incorrect. You're ascribing to us motives and views we simply don't have.

Great, as the red said, remove those two words and then respond, I hate to see you constantly getting hung up on it.

 

[bobcollum]

Perhaps I missed the proof of this assertion.

Nevertheless, Bill doesn't speak for me. Bill doesn't speak for Christians.

But you keep insisting he does. Chicks dig that.

Bill actually speaks for a lot of people, the support he receives kinda proves it.

Maybe not you, that's fine, I can agree on that.

Bill speaks TO a lot of people. Doesn't mean he speaks FOR them.

 

[daveman]

You keep focusing on two words that have no real bearing on my overall point...which of course can't be rebutted, or it would've already happened.

When your argument is not based on reality, your overall point is meaningless.

I know Dave, you've got nothing.

Thanks for trying at least, you put forth a better effort than the person that actually started the thread.

Then you've just proven my original point:

It doesn't matter what we say. Your mind is made up.

Thanks.

 

[bobcollum]

When your argument is not based on reality, your overall point is meaningless.

I know Dave, you've got nothing.

Thanks for trying at least, you put forth a better effort than the person that actually started the thread.

Then you've just proven my original point:

It doesn't matter what we say. Your mind is made up.

Thanks.

It does matter what you say.

You're just not saying anything relevant, and that's telling.

 

[daveman]

Aw shucks, that breaks my heart.

You guys can be as intellectually dishonest as you choose, it isn't hurting me any.

Last I checked, "disagreeing with leftists" is not the definition of "intellectual dishonesty".

Repeat: If you want an echo chamber, then perhaps USMB is not the place for you.

All I'm asking for is a reasoned rebuttal to my post.

Nobody can do it though.

Really, if it's that wrong, it should be easy to put me in my place.

I gave you a reasoned rebuttal. I told you your argument was based on false characterizations.

But you don't want that. You want instant and unthinking acceptance and endorsement.

You can get that at DU. What's your username over there?

 

[daveman]

Dave, that was my main point in the sentence you read, but those two words fucked with you too much to realize it.

No, I got that. You got at least part of it right.

But your characterization of Christians was incorrect. You're ascribing to us motives and views we simply don't have.

Great, as the red said, remove those two words and then respond, I hate to see you constantly getting hung up on it.

I did respond. But as I said, all you want is agreement. You don't want debate, because you're not willing to accept the possibility that you may be wrong.

 

[bobcollum]

I give credit to Christians for being able to accept living in a society with secular laws. That's probably the biggest difference between most religions and Islam over the last 500 years, and it truly makes quite a difference in the civility of a nation or region, imo.

Unfortunately, old habits are hard to kick.

We're still going back and forth about who should have how much of Jerusalem/Israel, a place that without it's significance in Abrahamic religions is nothing more than a barren desert with a nice coastline. If those involved could get out of the illogical fog of religion, they'd see a more prudent solution would be to ditch the shithole and move onto greener pastures where Islamic fundamentalism isn't threatening them from a stones throw away...a distance that's currently highly feasible to a backwards monotheistic culture that lacks the modern technology and organization to launch an offensive without it being directly next to them.

Unless you'd all like to support a modern day crusades, on your own dime of course. I'm sick of having to share responsibility for the actions of antiquated mindsets I don't share.

The two words you can't get over have been omitted.

Have at it.

 

[daveman]

Bill actually speaks for a lot of people, the support he receives kinda proves it.

Maybe not you, that's fine, I can agree on that.

Bill speaks TO a lot of people. Doesn't mean he speaks FOR them.

Oh, then you must agree with Whoopie Goldberg and her comments about rape-rape.

 

[bobcollum]

No, I got that. You got at least part of it right.

But your characterization of Christians was incorrect. You're ascribing to us motives and views we simply don't have.

Great, as the red said, remove those two words and then respond, I hate to see you constantly getting hung up on it.

I did respond. But as I said, all you want is agreement. You don't want debate, because you're not willing to accept the possibility that you may be wrong.

Tell me where and why I'm wrong.

You can't seem to do it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which, incidentally, doesn't encourage psychotic murderers.

There is a difference between traditional "Middle Eastern" Christianity and what passes for Christianity in the US today.

You will never see ME Christians shouting "let him die" and "applauding executions". You will never hear them saying, "Feed the poor and they will breed".

The religion as split. Their beliefs aren't fundagelical or Republican beliefs, not for the most part. Today's Christian Republicans worship the "Golden Calf".

True:

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Mahatma Gandhi
Read more at Mahatma Gandhi Quotes - BrainyQuote

Does the fact that Gandhi never said that make the quote more, or less, effective?