Really? There's a difference?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What a sissy copout... And you might want to check your dictionary. I think it's broken. Free exchange of ideas is not extremism. Inviting scrutiny and criticism of ideas is not extremism. It's precisely the opposite. The "extremist" is someone like you who refuses to discuss ideas and rejects all new information out of hand.

It would seem I know the definition of extremism and all it's levels as well as you. But it would also seem that I made a mistake in where I thought I was responding to Czernobog, the Westboroan of Humanism and not you. In that you have my apologies.

That's adorable. Ya know, I don't think I have called for Christians to be stones, imprisoned, or decreed that they are "going to Hell". If you think that speaking out is synonymous with extremism, then you are wrong. You don't know the definition of extremism.

No but you have for all intent and purposes called for them to be de facto silenced in the "public square". You've made humanist "gone to hell" claims for Christians espousing their beliefs. Stand up, be a man, accept that you are an extremist of sorts and wear the badge proudly!!

I have not. never once have I said they should be silenced. I have only maintained, and continue to maintain that Christianity should not be allowed to use government resources to proselytise, and should not be allowed to codify their r3eligious code of conduct in our secular laws. As to your "gone to hell" bullshit; that's just that. Bullshit. I have never made any such claims. Making such a claim would be absurd as I don't believe in Hell. Why would I condemn Christians to somewhere I don't believe exists. I might just as well condemn them to Neverland. That place is just about as real.

Correct, you have not directly said it but for all intent and purposes you've made it plain that's what you mean in your constant, strident (and ignorant) railing against Christians. You generalize and stereotype. As for my "gone to Hell" quip obviously you're too uneducated to recognize an allegory when you see one. Which laws currently in force are religious codifications built in to the secular? Are you being forced to go to church every Sunday? Are you required to pray towards Mecca so many times a day?
I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.

Are you being forced to abandon your beliefs? No? Then maybe you should take your own advice

 

[Czernobog]

Roy Moore...moderate or extremist?:

Roy Moore in 2005: 'Homosexual conduct should be illegal' - CNNPolitics

"Moderate!"

Signed,

Every "Moderate" Christian on the planet 200 years ago.
....................

Point being, not only is "moderate" relative, it's meaning in any context CAN be influenced by introduction of newer, better ideas. In this case, western Christians were indfluenced by the secular ideas of classical liberalism and scientific enlightenment. Such an effort should not be disparaged or cast as something other than what it is.

You're being too generous. That man is set to win the Alabama Congressional race for his district!!! So, unless we are prepared to say that his entire congressional district is populated by extremists, then it must be acknowledged that his views are not "too extreme" to be acceptable by "moderate" Christians.

 

[Ringel05]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!

Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

Was it Christian "moderates" who ran the Klan and lynched/bombed black people? No, it was the extremists. Was it the Christian "moderate" Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics and a gay bar? No, it was the extremist Eric Rudolph. Was it Irish Christian "moderates" who conducted bombings as the IRA? No, it was the extremists. Etc etc etc.

Pretty basic stuff here. You get the idea.

By the way it was the Father's of Al Gore and Bill Clinton who were Clansmen keeping black people from going to white schools and drinking water from the same fountain. Why don't you libs ever tell the whole story?

We already know how extremists arise..... Thanks for being a perfect example.

What a sissy copout... And you might want to check your dictionary. I think it's broken. Free exchange of ideas is not extremism. Inviting scrutiny and criticism of ideas is not extremism. It's precisely the opposite. The "extremist" is someone like you who refuses to discuss ideas and rejects all new information out of hand.

It would seem I know the definition of extremism and all it's levels as well as you. But it would also seem that I made a mistake in where I thought I was responding to Czernobog, the Westboroan of Humanism and not you. In that you have my apologies.

If you do know the definition of extremism, then you are a liar to apply it to free exchange of ideas.

So, dishonesty or ignorance...pick your poison

You really shouldn't self describe like that on an open board. What would people think.


Oh and apology rescinded, obviously your a Czernobog acolyte.........

More intellectual sissiness by you. The things I am saying are true regardless of either or not I agree with him, and I would say the same thing of a religious person that was throwing their ideas and beliefs on the table to be scrutinized.

Face it, you're just an intellectual lightweight and coward...one of the terrified, unwashed masses who picks up a stone and throws it the moment an idea makes him feel uncomfortable. You and the Berkely snowflakes are birds of a feather.

Nice try knumb knut but if you go back you'll see where I thought I was replying to someone else and somehow ended up replying to you and apologized for it. If you aren't astute enough to figure that out then you'r the one with the intellectual issues and worthy of only scorn.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.

I replied directly to the above comment. No, you did not modify it or say it was meant for anyone else. Yes, you need to take your own advice, crybaby.

 

[Ringel05]

It would seem I know the definition of extremism and all it's levels as well as you. But it would also seem that I made a mistake in where I thought I was responding to Czernobog, the Westboroan of Humanism and not you. In that you have my apologies.

That's adorable. Ya know, I don't think I have called for Christians to be stones, imprisoned, or decreed that they are "going to Hell". If you think that speaking out is synonymous with extremism, then you are wrong. You don't know the definition of extremism.

No but you have for all intent and purposes called for them to be de facto silenced in the "public square". You've made humanist "gone to hell" claims for Christians espousing their beliefs. Stand up, be a man, accept that you are an extremist of sorts and wear the badge proudly!!

I have not. never once have I said they should be silenced. I have only maintained, and continue to maintain that Christianity should not be allowed to use government resources to proselytise, and should not be allowed to codify their r3eligious code of conduct in our secular laws. As to your "gone to hell" bullshit; that's just that. Bullshit. I have never made any such claims. Making such a claim would be absurd as I don't believe in Hell. Why would I condemn Christians to somewhere I don't believe exists. I might just as well condemn them to Neverland. That place is just about as real.

Correct, you have not directly said it but for all intent and purposes you've made it plain that's what you mean in your constant, strident (and ignorant) railing against Christians. You generalize and stereotype. As for my "gone to Hell" quip obviously you're too uneducated to recognize an allegory when you see one. Which laws currently in force are religious codifications built in to the secular? Are you being forced to go to church every Sunday? Are you required to pray towards Mecca so many times a day?
I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.

Are you being forced to abandon your beliefs? No? Then maybe you should take your own advice

What the fuck are you rambling on about? Czernobog is similar to the Westboroans in that he's hateful are demeaning, always has been. I just give him what he gives to everyone who disagrees with him. Wake up and smell the horseshit you're shoveling.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's adorable. Ya know, I don't think I have called for Christians to be stones, imprisoned, or decreed that they are "going to Hell". If you think that speaking out is synonymous with extremism, then you are wrong. You don't know the definition of extremism.

No but you have for all intent and purposes called for them to be de facto silenced in the "public square". You've made humanist "gone to hell" claims for Christians espousing their beliefs. Stand up, be a man, accept that you are an extremist of sorts and wear the badge proudly!!

I have not. never once have I said they should be silenced. I have only maintained, and continue to maintain that Christianity should not be allowed to use government resources to proselytise, and should not be allowed to codify their r3eligious code of conduct in our secular laws. As to your "gone to hell" bullshit; that's just that. Bullshit. I have never made any such claims. Making such a claim would be absurd as I don't believe in Hell. Why would I condemn Christians to somewhere I don't believe exists. I might just as well condemn them to Neverland. That place is just about as real.

Correct, you have not directly said it but for all intent and purposes you've made it plain that's what you mean in your constant, strident (and ignorant) railing against Christians. You generalize and stereotype. As for my "gone to Hell" quip obviously you're too uneducated to recognize an allegory when you see one. Which laws currently in force are religious codifications built in to the secular? Are you being forced to go to church every Sunday? Are you required to pray towards Mecca so many times a day?
I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.

Are you being forced to abandon your beliefs? No? Then maybe you should take your own advice

What the fuck are you rambling on about? Czernobog is similar to the Westboroans in that he's hateful are demeaning, always has been. I just give him what he gives to everyone who disagrees with him. Wake up and smell the horseshit you're shoveling.

He is not like them at all, and you sound like a goddamn idiot to say so. The Westboro freaks would never throw their ideas on the table and invite any and all scrutiny of them. They would never ask anyone else for insight or opinion, and take new information into account.

 

[Ringel05]

I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.

I replied directly to the above comment. No, you did not modify it or say it was meant for anyone else. Yes, you need to take your own advice, crybaby.

Here's the link to my initial quip to Czernobog. How you got involved is beyond me as you don't even show up in the post.

Really? There's a difference?

 

[Ringel05]

I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.

I replied directly to the above comment. No, you did not modify it or say it was meant for anyone else. Yes, you need to take your own advice, crybaby.

Here's the link to my initial quip to Czernobog. How you got involved is beyond me as you don't even show up in the post.

Really? There's a difference?

And here's my apology to you that somehow you missed. Accident or intentional?

Really? There's a difference?

Now be a good boy and shovel your shit at someone else.

 

[Flopper]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!


Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

Hogwash. Having a moderate view is not a step toward becoming an extremist. The vast majority of people with moderate views remain so throughout their lives.

Some people have an extreme personality; that is, they are either all in or all out. When such a person become involve with an extremist group, there is a high probably that they will develop extremist views and some will go on to turn those views in actions.

A world without moderates would leave no one in the middle to moderate the views of the two extremes. The end result would be a world of chaos and destruction.

All fine points, but the word "moderate" is very relative. See: moderate Muslims in Pakistan. Sure, they shy away from some of the more vile, fundamental behaviors. But their lack of true, strong opposition to these behaviors actually helps the extremists maintain a foothold.

I agree with that but I see the need for moderates on both sides. If there were no moderates on either side, there would be total war and destruction. You need moderates on both sides as they are only ones that can moderate the views of those that are more extreme.

 

[Ringel05]

No but you have for all intent and purposes called for them to be de facto silenced in the "public square". You've made humanist "gone to hell" claims for Christians espousing their beliefs. Stand up, be a man, accept that you are an extremist of sorts and wear the badge proudly!!

I have not. never once have I said they should be silenced. I have only maintained, and continue to maintain that Christianity should not be allowed to use government resources to proselytise, and should not be allowed to codify their r3eligious code of conduct in our secular laws. As to your "gone to hell" bullshit; that's just that. Bullshit. I have never made any such claims. Making such a claim would be absurd as I don't believe in Hell. Why would I condemn Christians to somewhere I don't believe exists. I might just as well condemn them to Neverland. That place is just about as real.

Correct, you have not directly said it but for all intent and purposes you've made it plain that's what you mean in your constant, strident (and ignorant) railing against Christians. You generalize and stereotype. As for my "gone to Hell" quip obviously you're too uneducated to recognize an allegory when you see one. Which laws currently in force are religious codifications built in to the secular? Are you being forced to go to church every Sunday? Are you required to pray towards Mecca so many times a day?
I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.

Are you being forced to abandon your beliefs? No? Then maybe you should take your own advice

What the fuck are you rambling on about? Czernobog is similar to the Westboroans in that he's hateful are demeaning, always has been. I just give him what he gives to everyone who disagrees with him. Wake up and smell the horseshit you're shoveling.

He is not like them at all, and you sound like a goddamn idiot to say so. The Westboro freaks would never throw their ideas on the table and invite any and all scrutiny of them. They would never ask anyone else for insight or opinion, and take new information into account.

Don't worry acolyte but please worship him on your own time.

 

[Ringel05]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!


Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

Hogwash. Having a moderate view is not a step toward becoming an extremist. The vast majority of people with moderate views remain so throughout their lives.

Some people have an extreme personality; that is, they are either all in or all out. When such a person become involve with an extremist group, there is a high probably that they will develop extremist views and some will go on to turn those views in actions.

A world without moderates would leave no one in the middle to moderate the views of the two extremes. The end result would be a world of chaos and destruction.

All fine points, but the word "moderate" is very relative. See: moderate Muslims in Pakistan. Sure, they shy away from some of the more vile, fundamental behaviors. But their lack of true, strong opposition to these behaviors actually helps the extremists maintain a foothold.

I agree with that but I see the need for moderates on both sides. If there were no moderates on either side, there would be total war and destruction. You need moderates on both sides as they are only ones that can moderate the views of those that are more extreme.

Wow? You actually wrote that? I'm impressed.

Obviously it's not 5 oclock somewhere for you yet.

 

[Pogo]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!

Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

Was it Christian "moderates" who ran the Klan and lynched/bombed black people? No, it was the extremists. Was it the Christian "moderate" Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics and a gay bar? No, it was the extremist Eric Rudolph. Was it Irish Christian "moderates" who conducted bombings as the IRA? No, it was the extremists. Etc etc etc.

Pretty basic stuff here. You get the idea.

By the way it was the Father's [sic] of Al Gore and Bill Clinton who were Clansmen keeping black people from going to white schools and drinking water from the same fountain. Why don't you libs ever tell the whole story?

There's no evidence that their fathers (there's no apostrophe in a plural) had any involvement with the Klan. I didn't "tell that story" because none exists. Go ahead and prove me wrong though.

The fact remains that the Klan was a extremist Christian terrorist org, and not a "moderate" one. That seems to be the canard the OP is floating here.

Or are you here to suggest the Klan were "moderates"?

To call the Klan a "Christian" organization is a bit of a stretch, Pogo...let alone a Christian terrorist organization!

It's a racist organization...and has few Christian values.

It's both. They're not mutually exclusive.

Fascists too for that matter....

Religion is founded on "faith". Founding something on "faith" rather than "reason" means you can interpret "Christian" (or "Muslim" or "Jewish" or "Buddhist" or anything) any way you want, including "100% Americanism", another Klan motto.

The Klan especially the main big one re-founded in 1915 was absolutely Christian-centered and specifically Protestant Christian centered. It took decades before it eventually eased up on Catholics in fact.

>> Especially fascinating was the naturalization ritual in which a mass of white-robed men swore loyalty to their nation and to Christianity. The Herald noted both the presence of an altar containing the fiery cross and the American flag at this central ritual. (2) Although Simmons cloaked the new order in the familiar white robes of its predecessor, he explicitly developed the Christian nature of the order and its ties to religious faith and patriotism. Under his dramaturgical leadership, the order moved beyond the bounds of the South and into the rest of the continental United States. << -- Religion and the Rise of the Second Klan​

Indeed when Simmons founded that group his three symbolic artifacts were an unsheathed sword, the American flag, and the bible.

​

But again--- wrapping oneself in the Cross (or the flag or any other totem) doesn't automatically mean the fetish used for its totem power "condones" or even "inspires" that fetishist. It just means they're latching onto a symbol, however falsely, to sell what they do. It's no reflection on the symbol itself, or the religion, or the nation. Those are just pawns.

This is the distinction of which the OP appears to be clueless, pervertedly implying that Christianism needs to explain the Klan or Nazi Germany -- or that Islam needs to explain DAESH, or that Buddhism needs to explain Rohingya refugees. They don't.

These are simply cases of extremists who hijack the sacred symbols they know will give them power, to hide behind. But only a Composition Fallacist who can't think his way out of a rhetorical paper bag (looking at the OP) looks at a Klan or a DAESH and concludes "that goes for all Christians/Muslims".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.

I replied directly to the above comment. No, you did not modify it or say it was meant for anyone else. Yes, you need to take your own advice, crybaby.

Here's the link to my initial quip to Czernobog. How you got involved is beyond me as you don't even show up in the post.

Really? There's a difference?

And here's my apology to you that somehow you missed. Accident or intentional?

Really? There's a difference?

Now be a good boy and shovel your shit at someone else.

And here is your comment to him to which I replied: "I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget."


Great, thanks for the walk down memory lane.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I agree with that but I see the need for moderates on both sides. If there were no moderates on either side, there would be total war and destruction. You need moderates on both sides as they are only ones that can moderate the views of those that are more extreme.

No doubt. But it does not run contrary to maintaining the existence of moderates to ask them to more vehemently oppose the extremists, or to "move the needle" of what constitutes a moderate.

 

[Ringel05]

It would seem I know the definition of extremism and all it's levels as well as you. But it would also seem that I made a mistake in where I thought I was responding to Czernobog, the Westboroan of Humanism and not you. In that you have my apologies.

That's adorable. Ya know, I don't think I have called for Christians to be stones, imprisoned, or decreed that they are "going to Hell". If you think that speaking out is synonymous with extremism, then you are wrong. You don't know the definition of extremism.

No but you have for all intent and purposes called for them to be de facto silenced in the "public square". You've made humanist "gone to hell" claims for Christians espousing their beliefs. Stand up, be a man, accept that you are an extremist of sorts and wear the badge proudly!!

I have not. never once have I said they should be silenced. I have only maintained, and continue to maintain that Christianity should not be allowed to use government resources to proselytise, and should not be allowed to codify their r3eligious code of conduct in our secular laws. As to your "gone to hell" bullshit; that's just that. Bullshit. I have never made any such claims. Making such a claim would be absurd as I don't believe in Hell. Why would I condemn Christians to somewhere I don't believe exists. I might just as well condemn them to Neverland. That place is just about as real.

Correct, you have not directly said it but for all intent and purposes you've made it plain that's what you mean in your constant, strident (and ignorant) railing against Christians. You generalize and stereotype. As for my "gone to Hell" quip obviously you're too uneducated to recognize an allegory when you see one. Which laws currently in force are religious codifications built in to the secular? Are you being forced to go to church every Sunday? Are you required to pray towards Mecca so many times a day?
I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.

Are you being forced to abandon your beliefs? No? Then maybe you should take your own advice

Every time in the past I questioned Czernobog's intent the response was pretty much always the accusation that I'm a Christian radical, that's the response of a fanatic not an open minded person that wants open discussion. And how the hell do you propose to assume you know what my beliefs are? Is that the typical Humanist response?

 

[Ringel05]

I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.

I replied directly to the above comment. No, you did not modify it or say it was meant for anyone else. Yes, you need to take your own advice, crybaby.

Here's the link to my initial quip to Czernobog. How you got involved is beyond me as you don't even show up in the post.

Really? There's a difference?

And here's my apology to you that somehow you missed. Accident or intentional?

Really? There's a difference?

Now be a good boy and shovel your shit at someone else.

And here is your comment to him to which I replied: "I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget."


Great, thanks for the walk down memory lane.

Wasn't directed at you Sparky but if it applies then hell, wear it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Every time in the past I questioned Czernobog's intent the response was pretty much always the accusation that I'm a Christian radical, that's the response of a fanatic not an open minded person that wants open discussion.

Well, seeing that you questioned his intent instead of meeting his arguments with arguments of your own, i would say his comments about you were spot on, at the time.

 

[Ringel05]

Every time in the past I questioned Czernobog's intent the response was pretty much always the accusation that I'm a Christian radical, that's the response of a fanatic not an open minded person that wants open discussion.

Well, seeing that you questioned his intent instead of meeting his arguments with arguments of your own, i would say his comments about you were spot on, at the time.

Of course you would, that much you've made quite plain....... And that's not a compliment.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Every time in the past I questioned Czernobog's intent the response was pretty much always the accusation that I'm a Christian radical, that's the response of a fanatic not an open minded person that wants open discussion.

Well, seeing that you questioned his intent instead of meeting his arguments with arguments of your own, i would say his comments about you were spot on, at the time.

Of course you would, that much you've made quite plain....... And that's not a compliment.

Well that was whiny and meaningless... again, you, in your intellectual laziness and cowardice, speak to the source, instead of the ideas. Good for you, son.

 

[Ringel05]

Every time in the past I questioned Czernobog's intent the response was pretty much always the accusation that I'm a Christian radical, that's the response of a fanatic not an open minded person that wants open discussion.

Well, seeing that you questioned his intent instead of meeting his arguments with arguments of your own, i would say his comments about you were spot on, at the time.

Of course you would, that much you've made quite plain....... And that's not a compliment.

Well that was whiny and meaningless... again, you, in your intellectual laziness and cowardice, speak to the source, instead of the ideas. Good for you, son.

Nice attempt to pat yourself on the back and hoist yourself up on your own pedestal even though you remain clueless to the history between Cnut and myself.
For your information I tried the discussion route to no avail and realized all he wanted to do was disparage and demean. Maybe if you'd been around back then you wouldn't be stuffing your feet in your mouth so eagerly.
Now, again, mind your own business and shovel your shit at someone else. Have a nice life.