Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (40843)	6/19/1999 5:48:00 AM
From: jbe	Respond to of 108807

Michael, I said nothing about "the thread." I am a relative newcomer here, and have no vested interest in its reputation. <g> What I did say that if another visitor to the thread is rude to you, you should not condemn everyone else who happens to be posting here at the same time. If someone was rude to you at a party, would you yell at your hosts and the other guests and stalk out, slamming the door behind you? And -- what group think? Have you paid attention to any of the other arguments going on? Have you noticed how people are constantly switching opponents & allies, depending on the subject? Come on... :-) Now, to the matter at hand. Personally, I will say that there is one thing in your "America is a Christian country" posts that troubles me. And that is that there are some points/questions that have been raised to which you do not respond. I have in mind, specifically, posts that challenge your assertion that the Founding Fathers meant to build a Christian state, and that their references to God were all references to the Christian God in particular. The following three posts all argued, among other things, that many of the Founding Fathers were 18th century Deists, not Christians; i.e., believers in the God of natural theology, not of divine revelation. Quotes backing up this argument were provided. Message 10186175 (jbe) Message 10186503 (X) Message 10186758 (jpmac) The only post you responded to was X's, and your reply did not acknowledge that argument. You simply repeated your original assertion, as if no one had ever challenged it: "...Our founding fathers were Christians, just as no one disputes that the founders of Saudi Arabia were Muslims..." "We were founded as a Christian nation..." I am not saying you should have cried: "Uncle! I give up!" <g> But I, for one, would have appreciated your addressing the points I raised in my post, since I did take some time and trouble to write it. Why would I appreciate it? Because I am interested in discussion, not in proclaiming my views from a solitary rooftop. Still waiting... :-) jbe

To: greenspirit who wrote (40843)	6/19/1999 10:31:00 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

Absolutely. My opinions, only MY opinions (not group opinions- you'll need to take a poll if you want that.)- these have always have been my opinions about you. What else could you call someone who wants to foist a religion on a people who are multi-religious? If it isn't controlling to want to control people's religious belief, then I don't know what controlling is. I don't blame you for that, I am a bit controlling myself, but I am channeling it, rather than directing it at the world at large. And Paranoid. What else would you call people who see Christianity under attack? Christianity, the religion that overwhelms our whole culture in December. You would hardly know we WERE a pluralistic society in December. So when people tell me that Christianity is under attack, even though I see obvious proof that it is healthy and even growing, I have to conclude that they are paranoid. Naive- you have always been. You do not address the actual questions, you parrot things word for word that you have got from who knows where, you do not seem to spend anytime reasoning about the logic or consistency of your ideas. You have a technical job, and are clearly competent in your area of expertise but you are not a whiz at rhetoric nor do you seem to care whether your arguments make sense or not. You merely repeat them, as if, in argument, repetition is the key to success. Reactionary- you are ultraconservative on some issues. That is enough to satisfy the definition (imo). Intolerant- well I've been reading you for a long time. You are intolerant of people whose ideas are antithetical to your own. Toleration doesn't mean liking people who are exactly like yourself. Nor, does it mean you are a racist, if you thought I was calling you one, I was not. I merely mean (and this goes along wiht control, and paranoia) you seem to think that "they" (the liberal secular humanists) are out to get this country and destroy it. You say as much in your posts. For what its worth the secular humanists think people like you would like to destroy this country too (I tend to side with them, but not to any muscular degree). Now as for your leaving the playground with your ball and going home, you always do that. What do you care that I think you are fanatical (on certain issues) paranoid and a control freak? As for "group think" this post is mine and MINE alone. I do not work and play well with others intellectually and I would never collaborate on a post. And "Open"? Does "open" mean we are open to your ideas while you are closed to ours? Silly, we are fully formed adults with our own fully formed opinions, none of us are "open". Do you labor under the delusion that you are "open"? We argue and try to present cogent arguments (well, some of us do) but I personally don't expect to convince anyone. The most I hope for is to, from time to time, achieve a resonance with someone else out there, whose thoughts may be similar to my own. And what exactly did you "try"? To get away with posting silly things and have no one call you on it?