The issue or the method? What is the issue, then?
I've never heard of "Quite Hater's Review," but now you've got me curious!
Don't worry about it. You're too much a literalist for the explanation to make any sense.
I've never heard of these abbreviations
Fair enough. Most people who had cause to use the abbreviations were of the mind to write the word out, anyway. The point, though, is to save you some letters.
Furthermore, nobody likes seeing ill-wishers reducing their identity to shorthand. It's like the debate about "
Xmas". Maybe that one rings a bell.
They are provoked even when spelling it out!
Obviously not by the same issue, since said issue doesn't exist when the word is spelled out.
Yes, even I think it's petty, but it's all a matter of what your priorities are. We'll get to that in a moment.
I choose to abbreviate because I don't believe in it.
I'll take your word for it, as I don't see what the one has to do with the other.
If they choose to be provoked, that's THEIR problem!
That philosophy has served humanity so well. The Irish, for instance, amid a potato blight in the nineteenth century, were left to die and rot because their lamentations were characterized as "ingratitude".
It's the same principle. Apparently the Irish ingrates chose to be provoked where none was warranted.
If they really believed that Jesus died for them, I find it hard to believe they would be provoked by anything a non-believer said!
They're still human beings. Their feathers still ruffle when someone sets out to f@ck with them. Tolerance only works so far; if one intends malice, there's not much good in toleration, is there?
That tells me they must have a subconscious doubt about their salvation.
It comes with the territory. First off, they're
human beings,
Medicine Woman. Secondly, as I understood the teachings of my Christian elders during that period of my life, being cocksure about one's salvation is more than slightly problematic. In fact, I'm sure you can appreciate the significance of such an idea when we put it into the context of the Inquisition as a sublimation of doubts about one's salvation in order to feel more confident about what cannot be known. A proactive identification--one cannot leave the pagan to burn at risk of one's own immortal soul, for whatsoever thou do not do for the least of God's brethren . . . . And so the Inquisitors went forth with the presumption that they were saved and that their wisdom would reflect that salvation, thus allowing torture, rape, and murder to be sanctified as god's work. A similar device can be found in an examination of Spaniard
encomienda in the Americas.
My point exactly. The myth HAS been revealed, but they ignore it like it isn't there (like the Emperor's new clothes).
And?
Somebody has to keep reminding them about the myth they believe.
So rattling sabers is the best approach?
It's religion that gets in the way of spirituality.
I agree, but that is
theirs to figure out insofar as we
might be wrong on that count. Spirituality is largely illusory, anyway, so . . . I guess it's left to them to decide whether or not it's important.
These people have lost their souls
A sufficient dramatization that I accept and agree with.
It's my mission to help them find it.
Cha!
If it offends you, I'm sorry.
Don't be. Unless it's important enough to you. I won't be offended if not.
I was not put in this world to keep quiet.
Neither was Sarah Brightman. But I'm sure that during their heyday Andrew Lloyd preferred to hear her singing instead of riding his ass like an overripe diaper. It's all a matter of what's important to you.
Hopefully. We might, should we survive, revisit such an issue if Islamic terrorists set off a nuke inside the US, for instance.
Good point, however, in case you haven't noticed, there are several dyslexic 8-year-old members on sciforums, so I posted my queries directed at their mental level.
Okay, and should I pretend you were aiming for anything that you or I might agree conventionally is a positive end?
Did you want to communicate with the dyslexic 8 year-olds in order to help them learn to read, or to yell at them for being poor students?
but I hope you understand
The argument in the abstract makes sense. It does not reconcile with what I perceive in reality.
I don't see how my behavior would perpetuate this evil.
Then, quite frankly, you probably should take your mission back to committee and review the methodology.
You know, being members of sciforums is probably the most risque thing they could be doing. They obviously don't read anything else (or they wouldn't be xians!).
No, actually, turning off the computer, putting the Bible away, finding a partner, and shagging their brains out until they're happy for a while is probably the most risque thing they could be doing. Throw some hard drugs in there and hey ... it could get fun.
In the meantime, I fail to see what this brand of spite profits you, me, or anyone else.
We need more people who aren't afraid to speak their mind!
To what end? Take a look around Sciforums, which is
littered with mediocre intellects moved to speak their minds. How many of them just want to bitch and moan and couldn't imagine the idea that solutions to human disagreements
are, in fact, possible? Speaking minds is one thing. Saying anything coherent is another. And even more distant is saying anything coherent that is of positive use.
And all of this leads toward something. We're almost there, as you're setting the stage well.
You know, it really chaps my ass when I read how people hate the Muslims, when our clear and present spiritual enemy is xianity!
Christianity is a symptom. The enemy lies deeper within each person.
Those of us who are non-xians, anti-xians, recovering-xians, need to stick together.
I submit to you the example of Sciforums'
atheists. They like to stick together, though mostly in name. Aside from the common label, they insist on such diversity that the word has no meaning. Fair 'nuff. Though, while sticking together is what good waffles do, I look to the basis of the common bond.
The world will be a better place when all the xians are eradicated, just like it was when smallpox was eliminated.
Nearly impossible. Absolutely impossible if one does not wish to set humanity back a couple millennia.
You may have noticed
Raithere and I throwing around the term "disarming god" in various posts. Please give the idea some consideration:
Disarming God.
If you can remove the sting from the Serpent, you need not kill it.
I take this mission as seriously as I took xianity when I was one of them
As gently and constructively as I can manage this one:
That's your problem. That's your choice.
And I'll further soften that one, as we have arrived at a vital juncture:
I would have expected your support in this matter, tiassa.
In
which matter?
A progressive, harmonious society of humans allowed to pursue their maximum potential contribution to the welfare and prosperity of the species? I'm there.
The extinction of Christianity? I have to nitpick terms.
I'll be happy if I can convince some Christians to merely accept the fact that they are, in fact, human beings.
Your methodology is disagreeable,
Medicine Woman, both for the absence of rhetorical humanity and for the simple and observable fact that your methods function largely as a "call to arms". You sharpen "the enemy's" blade, encourage them to defend the faith in battle against the slings and arrows of persecutory zeal. Any human being is much more reasonable in a disagreement when s/he doesn't feel threatened.
You perpetuate Christianity by giving them a target to identify against; your actions result in a strengthening of the bond between Christians who imagine themselves resisting persecution. Your rhetoric justifies that perception of persecution. You empower Christianity to fight back at a time when it should be left to wander aimlessly about the pasture, wrecking the grass and occasionally getting all fouled up in the barbed wire fences.
The xians were persecuted in Biblical times, why should now be any different?
Because people are supposed to be smarter than the ancients.
History repeats itself for the betterment of the world
This only works out if humanity is capable of learning from history.
But, I know, I know. You're smart enough to know that ideological, memetic, or even real and literal genocide is a bad idea. And yes, I know. You're smart enough that I should trust you when you tell me that
Christians are the one time an exception should be made.
What? What did I miss there?
Think of it this way: if a sex partner cheats on the other in order to be with you, are you going to believe it when the divorce is over and it's your turn to be the spouse and not the illicit affair?
I recommend Sir James G. Frazer's
The Golden Bough. It's long, it's dry, and it's a headache in places. But I can sum up an essential theme for you right here: In the wood near the Lake Nemi there stood a tree, and around that tree could be seen, day and night, a solitary figure prowling about. This was
Rex nemorensis, the King of the Wood. The, Queen ... uh ... well, the Queen was the tree itself. Throw in ... Virgil, I think? Anyway, this is the tale of the Golden Bough. The King of the Wood stayed with the tree, guarded her, and ruled over the forest ... such as it was. The office was his for life. However, the only way he could be replaced was the same way he took office: a runaway slave must break the golden bough from the tree in order to challenge him for the right to the title of King of the Wood. By the sword ascends the King, to the sword he shall fall.
The larger point being that we still carry out this ritual today. The civilized version, of it, of course, is called a general election. But Hussein, Khomeni, Taylor, and a bunch of state officials are uneasy across Africa these days.
The future will be as we fashion it. If we fashion it by the sword, or by supremacy, or through eradication, we merely complete another cycle and begin anew, and we have learned
nothing, and history repeats in vain.
Christianity cannot be eradicated. It cannot be ground under the heel. It cannot be slain. It can only be put in its proper place, its proper context. And, much as with other human beings, if that placement is not reasonably compassionate, the constraints of force will continue to limit society in the future.
Victory, to you or I, will come when Christian faith
evolves--that is
advances and
progresses, not merely "changes"--to a point that Christians, like adherents of some other religions around the world, come to understand their faith better, and understand the value of working harmoniously in the world.
You can't win it without compassion and, eventually, reconciliation.
Remember when fighting against the irrational: humans
are irrational. We tend toward the irrational. The most rational argument in the world will not be of any use unless it is implemented according to the most rational plan in the world. And that rational plan will necessarily have to account for the irrationality of human beings insofar as the rational plan may be able to properly exploit that irrationality.
