I can see it now, eh?

[Gyp Rosetti]

Another incredibly pathetic thread of back and forth between Jazzfanzz' two resident hacks.

Spoken by the President of the Association.

 

[VINYLONE]

Spoken by the President of the Association.

Your rep power is an illusion. The only people that vouch for you is Hostess.

 

[Hopper]

I don't recall claiming the beliefs were written down directly as such in various holy scriptures.

I remember you quoting, and then purporting to respond to, this statement of mine when you made your "lots of religions" claim, eh, Eric?

I aint no religious scholar, or nuthin, but I hear-tell that the Bible, and many other "holy scriptures" from various religions world-wide, seem to think that killin people is "distasteful." Same with homosexuality.

 

[One Brow]

I see, eh, Eriic, so now you're equatin the KKK and other white supremacist groups with the Christian religion, eh?

I presume this post is a joke or satire of some sort on your part.

 

[Hopper]

I presume this post is a joke or satire of some sort on your part.

Eric, it is your "presumptions" that cause so much confusion between us, I figure. Just like when you presumed I MUST know you were referrin to the order, the new order, and aryan nations, when you made a claim pertaining to "lots of religions." Just like you presumed I MUST know that you had an idiosyncratic definition of "bigotry" (and agree with it's validity and applicabilty) when I couldn't discern any meaningfulness in your claims/suggestions about bigotry.

Sure it "sounds good" (to a devout believer in the type of ideology you subscribe to, anyway) to glibly assert that "lots of religions" espouse racism (and thereby try to identify what I had referred to as "religious thought" with racism), but it don't mean nuthin and it aint really comprehensible.

 

[One Brow]

For those (intelligent) posters who didn't bother clickin on this citation, here are some of the "few different religions" Eric is referrin to:

Try again.

Christian Identity groups include "The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord", Phineas Priesthood, the Oklahoma Constitutional Militia, also known as the Universal Church of God.

All religions, all racist. The paragraph was inbetween the title linked and the part you quoted.

I remember you quoting, and then purporting to respond to, this statement of mine when you made your "lots of religions" claim, eh, Eric?

To me, it does not matter is the claim is supposedly derived from a "holy scripture" or any other source, or the purpose of this discussion. Why would it matter to you?

Eric, it is your "presumptions" that cause so much confusion between us, I figure.

My presumption that you actually read a link before deciding what to do with it seems to be high among them.

Just like when you presumed I MUST know you were referrin to the order, the new order, and aryan nations, when you made a claim pertaining to "lots of religions."

You think these are the only ones? These are just the American-based Christian religions, and even then the list is likely not complete.

Just like you presumed I MUST know that you had an idiosyncratic definition of "bigotry"

I use a dictionary-standard definiiton of bigotry. Hardly idiosyncratic.

 

[Hopper]

Yeah, right, eh, Eric? I'm sure the extremists at many a radical website would readily agree with you, and even use your terminology in the same manner as you do, but ya gotta remember that ya aint at them websites when you're here, see?

The very citation you use does NOT even begin to talk about many different religions. It only addresses one distorted reinterpretation of the christian Bible so as to make it consistent with the pre-existing delusional and fanatical beliefs of small groups of racists. It is not about a "religion" to begin with, but even if it were, it would not be about "lots of" religions, any more that the fact that there are "lots of" (different) Baptist Churches in this country means each church constitutes a different religion.

I'm merely stating what is no doubt obvious to most. I am aghast that I feel I actually have to "explain" that to you.

As I understand it, Hitler, like these nutcases, claimed to be a "christian." I suppose that can only mean one of two things, eh? Either:

1. Christianity and Nazism are the same thing, or else

2. Nazism is itself a religion.

These hate groups don't claim to be a new religion (called "Racism,", or whatever). They claim to be devoted Christians. They aint, and their stupid proclamations can't turn christianity into sumthin it aint.

 

[One Brow]

Yeah, right, eh, Eric? I'm sure the extremists at many a radical website would readily agree with you, and even use your terminology in the same manner as you do, but ya gotta remember that ya aint at them websites when you're here, see?

Are you referring to the term "bigoted", and do you mean radcial websites like the American Heritage Dictionary? Otherwise, I have no idea to what you refer.

The very citation you use does NOT even begin to talk about many different religions.

I agree. It lists three religions that met the needed requirments, but that page does not talk about them in detail.

It only addresses one distorted reinterpretation of the christian Bible ...

Whether a religion is "one distorted reinterpretation" of something or not is irrelevant to my point. I have no intention of discussing it, any more that I will discuss whether the interpretation that the homosexuality is condemned in the Bible is legitimate, which some Christian credit and some Christians deny. These determinations are ultimately arbitrary, with people believing the interpretation they wish to believe, for the most part.

You raised an objection:

I aint no religious scholar, or nuthin, but I hear-tell that the Bible, and many other "holy scriptures" from various religions world-wide, seem to think that killin people is "distasteful." Same with homosexuality.

Is this an attempt to abolish religious thought, that it?

My response, in part:

Lots of religions think darkly-skinned people are morally inferior to lightly-skinned people. If those sentiments are expressed on this board, I have no doubt the moderators will issue warnings/infractions on that basis. You want to call that abolishing religious thought, go ahead. ... So, unless you expect the moderators to tolerate any sort of behavior that someone says is religious, your question is moot.

Ratter than addressing that issue, you said you needed some sort of proof that such religions exist. Now you know they exist, how about going back to the issue. Do you expect the moderators to tolerate any sort of behavior that someone says is religious? If not, is there a reason that, in this forum, homosexual slurs deserve to be tolerated more than racial slurs?

... any more that the fact that there are "lots of" (different) Baptist Churches in this country means each church constitutes a different religion.

If two different churches express different official religious beliefs, they are different religions.

I'm merely stating what is no doubt obvious to most.

What is obvious to most must be correct?

 

[Hopper]

If two different churches express different official religious beliefs, they are different religions.

Then any claim that there are 50,000,000 christians in the world (or whatever number is claimed, I'm just makin that up) is utterly false. The existence of 50,000,000 people with religious beliefs merely proves that there are 50,000,000 different religions in the world.

The fact that I don't feel like addressing the rest of the selective response you made in your last post does not mean that I agree with it. I have told you many times that I'm not very interested in arguments based primarily on semantics and verbal equivocation. Word choice does not dictate the substance or truth of a situation. Ideally the substance or truth of a situation would naturally generate an honest and appropriate choice of words to describe it. Don't always happen, and I tend to lose interest when people think they can dictate substance with word choice.

 

[Sloanfeld]

Hey is my avatar homophobic?

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Hey is my avatar homophobic?

If you have to ask...

 

[Hopper]

Eric, lemme ax ya a question, eh? Let's take two differing views, to wit:

1. The practice of homosexuality is tasteful, and

2. The practce homosexuality is distasteful.

Do you consider yourself to be "tolerant" of view #2?

Using your seemingly preferred authority of the American Heritage Dictionary, "tolerant" means "Inclined to tolerate the beliefs, practices, or traits of others; forbearing," whereas "intolerant" means "not tolerant."

"Tolerate," as a verb, is defined by this source as:

1. To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit.
2. To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).
3. To put up with; endure.

Do you consider yourself "tolerant" of (i.e., willing to tolerate) view #2?

Or do you feel compelled to "prohibit" or "oppose" any belief that homosexuality is "distasteful?'