|
| Thread: The work of an Extremist or the Truth? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV |
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 24, 2004 07:56 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 24 Jun 2004
|
Shirastro,
I respectfully disagree with you. I do not think Svarog explained himself well. I think his arguments had some good points but I also felt like I needed a filter to read between the lines.
Aquaman333's point in his last post about these kinds of people being a very small portion of our modern society is a good one. It's true. However I don't think Aquaman333 is naive at all. I think Shirastro is simply calling names and pointing fingers without fully explaining why.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Shirastro
Famous Hero
Happy happy joy joy
|
posted June 25, 2004 12:17 AM |
|
|
The only reason i dont explain my self is couse i dont want nor need too.
Our opinions are completly diffrent on many things that any kind of discution, even if its a kind and respectful one, will bring no fruits.
I hate fights and i rearly agrea with you consis, but i wont go into over-anlising previus threads to proove my point. It would be useles.
In only one thing i would like to explain my self.
Dont think of this as some kind of arogant behaviour. I just want to avoid whats unecessery.
P.S. Aquaman i apologise if i offended you, though i haven't changed my opinion.
____________
And now to the next post.
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted June 25, 2004 12:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The only reason i dont explain my self is couse i dont want nor need too.
Our opinions are completly diffrent on many things that any kind of discution, even if its a kind and respectful one, will bring no fruits.
I hate fights and i rearly agrea with you consis, but i wont go into over-anlising previus threads to proove my point. It would be useles.
In only one thing i would like to explain my self.
Dont think of this as some kind of arogant behaviour. I just want to avoid whats unecessery.
P.S. Aquaman i apologise if i offended you, though i haven't changed my opinion.
No offense taken, I have some opinions of you as well.
You really should express your opinion on the matter though, since you came into the discussion, it would be a bit rude to hit and run, which is sort of what you did.
In any case, in an attempt to return to the topic; I noticed that Thomas Chick's works have a quality that makes it obvious that his comics are aimed towards children with the childlike characters, etc. Now with the ACLU more powerful than ever, I see no way outside the internet for children to be exposed to these comics unless parents search for them specifically. The only parents who would want their children to see these comics are the small groups that Consis and I discussed, this is scary for a number of reasons because it's tactics like this that kept racism alive after the sixties. Die hard fanatics instilling predjudicial ideas in their offspring will lead Chick's ideas into our youth's heads. If these comics were not so readily available, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. Alas, they are, but I don't think it calls for all the attention that maybe a comic promoting racism should get, because the idea behind these comics is that gays, D&D players, and Halloween participants will supposedly be punished after they die via condemantion to Hell, so I don't think any kids will go out and start hurting the next guy they see playing D&D. That isn't Chick's intention.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
Marelt_Ekiran
Promising
Famous Hero
Watcher of All
|
|
posted June 25, 2004 01:43 AM |
|
|
The good part of his website is that 98% of the visitors are probably atheists, looking for a good laugh.
____________
Perception is everything.
|
|
Shirastro
Famous Hero
Happy happy joy joy
|
|
posted June 25, 2004 02:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You really should express your opinion on the matter though, since you came into the discussion, it would be a bit rude to hit and run, which is sort of what you did.
I guess you are right, i apologise.
____________
And now to the next post.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 25, 2004 04:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I noticed that Thomas Chick's works have a quality that makes it obvious that his comics are aimed towards children with the childlike characters, etc.
They do have a childlike quality, but if you look at some of the other areas of the site and the fact that he has specific tracts aimed at children, it's clear that the tracts are aimed towards all types of people, hoping that a clear simple message is best.
The problems exist though, predjudice and innacurate claims for example. At two seperate points the tracts mention AIDS being given or contracted without mentioning HIV first which is both wrong and misleading, leading to further predjudice.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 25, 2004 04:33 PM |
|
|
PrivateHudson,
Why do you have to be Brittish? Why can't you be american? You'd make one hell of an american, I can tell you that. Ah well, once again visions of grandeur are upon me. I just wish we could have a cup of coffee or tea for a good bit of chatter.
However, if this be the only place we ever talk, then I must accept it. It does not diminish the congenial air though. (Carry on and all that sort of thing...)
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 25, 2004 04:39 PM |
|
|
Well I guess you'll have to find a way of reaching somewhere I'm visiting then 
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 25, 2004 08:36 PM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 25 Jun 2004
|
Quote:
My intention in this thread is to determine which branches would support what, not to skip this part entirely in order to make a conclusion based on very little.
Well, from what I surely know, the two oldest Christian branches (Catholic and Orthodox) advocate Mr. Chick's ideas. Also, as Consis mentoined a number of Protestant Churches do that even more aggressively. In fact, from the small research I did, there were only several Protestant Churches mentioned (including the Church of England) that are not in support of the stupid idea of gayness being a sin. So, how about instead of naming all the churches that support this, I just say Church, indicating the "majority of churches" and save some space? 
Here's an interesting link where it says clearly about the Catholic position on the gay issue: http://www.catholicmatch.com/pl/pages/community/articles/details.html?ra=1;id=202
Quote:
Hello? That was the original topic! I’m trying to get a solid idea of which churches/branches and their followers might support what tracts. I’m not interested in broad based conclusions, assumptions or points you wish to make before finding out which branches do what.
Broad-based assuptions you say? What if that broad-baseness was the majority, as it is the case?
As far as I understand, the topic was and still is: "the work of an extremist or the truth". I'm trying to give another option here, and discuss your question.
It's not all churches that hold this view, but I do think you're making a bold move by ignoring the majority that do, and representing them as saints and innocent, which they, by all means, are not. In fact this kind of degrading sexual discrimination is no worse than racial or any other kind. By doing so, the church takes a position that is not much different from the neo-nazist one. And it is effectively used as a direct stimulator for many "extreme" movements (the term extreme distinguishing only the aggressiveness of the promoting of such believes, while the beliefs themselves are the same).
Quote:
And to Svarog, I'm going to have to agree with PH, your not doing a very good job of expressing your point with your constant references to "the Church" which lends itself to the assumption that your referring to Christians as a whole, and if that's the case, then I can assure you, your point is incorrect.
*sigh*
"The Church" is not the same as "refering to Christians as a whole". In fact, I emphasized that I do know that most Christians do not agree with the rubbish the clergy believes. And this is where the whole hypocrisy point comes into play.
(btw, Aquaman, which church are you in?)
Once again, excuse my over-generalization of the term "church", but I feel it's much more important one to know that extremist non-sense are still supported by the vast majority of churches, than pick on the exact number.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 25, 2004 09:20 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 25 Jun 2004
|
Svarog,
The "two oldest christian branches"? Are we forgetting Judaism?
Regardless of that small fact being overlooked, I agree with you that most christian churches oppose homosexuality. This should be common knowledge though, I would think.
I think the point that PrivateHudson is making is that although the majority of churches oppose such behavior, many if not most do it in an insidious secret fashion. I agree with him that they publicly ignore the issue for the most part, while behind closed doors they most certainly talk of such things. If a man seeking advice on homosexuality, were to approach a bishop of such opposing christianity then I believe the bishop would tell him that it is wrong in God's eyes. But if certain churches were asked to make a public anouncement addressing homosexuality then many would abstain for fear of public reprisal.
It's all very hypocritical and shallow of a church to act in that way but I believe many church heads to be of quite dubious intentions. In a word, I don't trust most of them. Trying times are upon us I'm afraid...
The Pope, on the other hand, I happen to have a great deal of love for. I'm not even catholic but I feel as if this is a man with forgiveness in his heart.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 25, 2004 09:37 PM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 25 Jun 2004
|
Quote:
The "two oldest christian branches"? Are we forgetting Judaism?
Judaism is not Christian. It's well... simply Judaism.
Other than that, Consis thank you. You finally got my point. About the hypocrisy of the church and the concealed way of condemnation of homosexuality, D&D etc. That was my point too, not just PH's.
Quote:
It's all very hypocritical and shallow of a church to act in that way but I believe many church heads to be of quite dubious intentions. In a word, I don't trust most of them. Trying times are upon us I'm afraid...
Quote:
The Pope, on the other hand, I happen to have a great deal of love for. I'm not even catholic but I feel as if this is a man with forgiveness in his heart.
 He tricked you too, huh?
Trust me, he's not the good old helpless man he seems to be. That old crook's resposible for milions of death each year due to his continual stubborn opposing of the use of condoms.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 25, 2004 10:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, from what I surely know, the two oldest Christian branches (Catholic and Orthodox) advocate Mr. Chick's ideas. Also, as Consis mentoined a number of Protestant Churches do that even more aggressively. In fact, from the small research I did, there were only several Protestant Churches mentioned (including the Church of England) that are not in support of the stupid idea of gayness being a sin. So, how about instead of naming all the churches that support this, I just say Church, indicating the "majority of churches" and save some space?
Because I set out to discover which, not make conclusions about them just yet. If you want to do that feel free to find another thread. So far we have a range of answers/assumptions about some churches on 1 or 2 tracts, and none on the others, but since you've been reluctant to discuss any tract that doesn't support your conclusion, I'm begining to think that bringing more to the fore is a waste of time.
Quote:
Broad-based assuptions you say? What if that broad-baseness was the majority, as it is the case?
Doesn't matter, what I'm attempting to do is both find out which churches follow the tracts and which of the members who believe themselves christian agree also. I guess it's too much to ask for this before we analyse the possible results.
Quote:
As far as I understand, the topic was and still is: "the work of an extremist or the truth". I'm trying to give another option here, and discuss your question.
I'll be willing to adress the question when the outline above has been finished, not to do so prior to that.
Quote:
It's not all churches that hold this view, but I do think you're making a bold move by ignoring the majority that do, and representing them as saints and innocent, which they, by all means, are not.
See this is why going to conlcusions is bad, you never draw the right ones... I don't recall saying any church was innocent, or passing judgements on those that do support the tracts just yet. I've not offered my conclusions to any great degree, which leaves me once again as always wondering how you ever draw conclusions.
Quote:
You finally got my point. About the hypocrisy of the church and the concealed way of condemnation of homosexuality, D&D etc. That was my point too, not just PH's.
You've not offered any evidence other than the orthodox church and maybe 2 other churches for being against D&D. You've not even answered any points on the other extremes, which was the entire point of the thread. Instead you're drawing a conclusion based on some churches and some tracts before we've heard about all churches and christian members and adressed all the tracts. Accordingly debating this with you is getting truly tedious since you refuse to discuss what I wanted to be discussed...
In fact, why doesn't everyone just talk about what the hell they want to, you do anyway. I think I'm starting to recall why HC became one of my least visited forums...
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 25, 2004 11:18 PM |
|
|
PrivateHudson,
Quote:
I think I'm starting to recall why HC became one of my least visited forums...
Well I addressed your topic. Why can't you simply observe that it is only one member you are at odds with? I'm not infringing on your right to chat elsewhere, simply hoping you'll not leave me here to debate on my own. That would be a truly dismal future indeed.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 25, 2004 11:24 PM |
|
|
Whatever... 
OK then, let's now wait for everyone to fulfil PH's wish and report the stance of every religious denomination out there, before anything else is discussed.
Everybody must listen to you and talk only about what you say. After all, this is your thread.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 26, 2004 12:29 AM |
|
|
|
No offense consis, but I'd rather discuss it where I might get a civil response. All I'm asking for is that we review the whole evidence before going into a conclusion based on less than 1/2 of it, if we can't even do that without sarcasm I'll go somewhere where I can.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted June 26, 2004 06:05 PM |
|
|
(After reading the Birds and the Bees and the D&D "tracts" but almost none of the thread)
---LMAOROFL
These were just so bad I actually did start laughing out loud in the middle of the B&B one. The words "simple-minded" and "pathetic" came to mind.
I hope I do not offend anyone with this post. But those two little ditties were about as fundamentalist-extremist-lunatic fringe as it gets.
|
| |
|
|
