Go to Thoughts of the moments
- Add a comment
- Go to Why do Christians think they are outnumbered here?
kooka_lives
Christians making sense? They'd have to remove their heads from their arses for that to happen.
posted by
Mother2303
on November 9, 2003 at 10:08 AM
| link to this | reply
Inkling
You are making no sense here what-so-ever.
Did you even understand the topic of my post to begin with?
Did you read my comments and understand where the quotes from your blog were coming from?
What you just said kills just about all your argument right now. You are saying that you had no clue as to what we were talking about. Reread the post, reread all the comments and see what was begin talked about.
This wa a post about how Christians think there is a problem on BN with anti-christians. It never said anything about you and others bashing anti-christians.
As for the misunderstanding, you said:
"As for my last blog in Who's Who being a call for an attack, you must not have read it through to the end...or else we're speaking different languages, and that could very well be the case."
In response to me quoting you. The quote your ere responding to was taken from an earlier quote, not yesterdays. You obviously did not read through my comment then. That is where the main misunderstanding happened. I figured 'my last blog' was referring to the last blog I quoted of yours, since that was the only logical thing that made sense. I had made no comments about the last blog you ahd written in Who's Who. I think I see where the misunderstanding came from now.
As for the offense thing, which I really see as just a way to keep as off topic as possible, not being a football fan, means that the first meaning of the word that comes to me is the meaning that is most used here on BN. I know it is used elsewhere with the other meaning, but since I am not a military strategist either, that is still not the first meaning of the word that comes to mind for me. I very rarely use the word offense the way you did, so it should to be a big surprise that I went with the meaning more common for myself. The only thing you could hope to gain by saying such a thing is to try and show a lack of intelligence in myself, which is a really cheap trick to try and prove a point.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 9, 2003 at 10:03 AM
| link to this | reply
Congratulations Kooka
You got me to laugh out loud. I'm not a sports person. I don't watch them or play them. I was using football as an example to define "offense" and "defense" (since that's where the terms are most commonly heard) but they are in common use in other contexts as well, i.e. "a defense attorney", "the U.S. launched an offensive attack against Iraq", etc. I see that I need to be very precise when communicating with you because we are constantly misunderstanding one another (it's not an act, I promise). When I said that I wasn't talking just to other Christians, I was referring to today's post in Who's Who. I wasn't talking about the posts where you found those quotes. I frequently talk to other Christians here, or to specific individuals, or to other groupings of people, or to everyone in general (that's usually what I do--perhaps you should check out my blogs that are not in religion/spirituality, so that you can see that).
posted by
Inkling
on November 8, 2003 at 10:21 PM
| link to this | reply
Inkling
If you want me to understand you, don't use football terms. I am not into sport, so most of the time such comments are ignored by me.
Do you want me to quote your whole blog now to point out that you were only talking to Christians?
I really don't see the need, unless you need to reread it yourself.
Look at lines like,
'The dilemma we face is this: Is it possible to find common ground with those who call themselves our enemies? Is it possible to break through the ignorance, the wounds inflicted by those who bear our name, and the indoctrination by the self-appointed sages of the age?'
cause I can tell you right now, that line was not talking to me. If it was, then you are calling yourself ignorant, which if not your way.
Or how about this one?
'Jesus commanded us to love our enemies. This implies that we will have people who slander us and falsely portray our beliefs.'
Could you point out which one of these line was talking to me?
Of how about the big finish there,
'That means going to the religion/spirituality category (and after that, any other applicable category) and clicking, very selectively, on the blogs that you know (either by author or by title) will be an affirmation, rather than an aberration, of the Christian faith. This is why I am totally serious about the roll call today, so if you meet the criteria for being a fundamentalist Christian and haven't signed your name in the comments, please do so now.'
I really want to know what part of this was talking to non-Christians, because I can not find it. Your message was clearly, beyond a doubt aimed at the Christian members. Of course I don't have a degree in journalism from UC Berkeley or write for the San Francisco Chronicle, but I do know enough of the english language ot know what you said in that Blog.
You do this all the time. You act like I have no idea what I am talking about, yet time and time again I prove that I do. I can read a little higher than the 3rd grade level (Which seems to be about what you give me credit for). So please, before you try to defend yourself here, know what is being said, know what you have said and think out what you are going to say. That is how good debating happens.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 8, 2003 at 9:42 PM
| link to this | reply
Poet-3
Thanks for the very needed encouragement...I'll save any more comments for your blogs.
posted by
Inkling
on November 8, 2003 at 8:56 PM
| link to this | reply
Inkling, keep up the defense as a moving offense, I will also help as I can
posted by
MountainClimber57
on November 8, 2003 at 6:27 PM
| link to this | reply
Cynthia
It's obvious that you either selectively read my blogs (looking for what fits your stereotype of Christians) or you don't read them at all. You have clearly bought into the media lie that Christians are uneducated bigots incapable of intelligent discussion. Just how did I get my masters in journalism from UC Berkeley and write for the San Francisco Chronicle again? Was I really just an undercover spy for the religious right? And who is GWB?
posted by
Inkling
on November 8, 2003 at 6:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka (as I bang my head against a wall)
I meant "offensive" as in offense-defense. You know, like football? Being on the offensive rather than the defensive. I was talking to everyone in my Who's Who blog, not just the Christians. I was suggesting that we all take a new approach--rather than tearing down each others' beliefs, why not just state our own without pointing the finger at those who believe differently? I tried to explain this in my earlier comment, but I am getting nowhere, so I give up.
posted by
Inkling
on November 8, 2003 at 6:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka, Christians particularly those like Inkling and GWB
are ideologues. The concept of dialogue, debate
(which you seemed to be trying to do here) is foreign
to them. They KNOW they are right because God has chosen them
and speaks to them directly. No one else need apply.
Like GWB said "You are either with us or with the terrorists".
People like GWB and Inkling see things CLEARLY. Which means
black and white, right and wrong. Life is simple for them
becaus ethey already know the answers. It is difficult for
the reast of us because we know life is all shades of gray.
posted by
Cynthia
on November 8, 2003 at 5:42 PM
| link to this | reply
Inkling
My point was that you and others are cliaming there to be a problem with non-blievers here, not that you slander them. A problem which I do not see because there seems to be more blogs for your way of thinking than agianst.
You should reread your blog as well then. I just did when I found the quote. It does say what it says. Now you do finish by saying we should start over, although you are talking to Christians from the way it is phrased. You are saying you want the Christian to do everything they can to get us non-believers phased out.
As for sharing your beliefs to be offensive, I have never said that or anything close to it.
I will share mine as long as you are sharing yours.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 8, 2003 at 5:23 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka
Thank you for taking the time to collect those quotes, none of which slanders unbelievers, and all of which have been in response to attacks on my faith. In other words, you prove quite well, that I and other Christians have been put in a defensive position, should we choose to play the game. But now that you remind me of my words, I would do well to indeed not click on blogs that are intended to get me up in arms. As for my last blog in Who's Who being a call for an attack, you must not have read it through to the end...or else we're speaking different languages, and that could very well be the case. I know that I have been provocative at times, but it's usually been in a defensive manner, not an offensive one (unless you consider me sharing my beliefs to be that), and at the close of my blog, I said that I wanted a fresh start. So even if you had been able to dig up incriminating quotes from me (such as my parody of your blog--see, I'm even willing to help you prove your point), it wouldn't matter now in light of my new resolution.
posted by
Inkling
on November 8, 2003 at 5:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Inkling
I have no idea what point you are trying to make now. It almost feels like you are trying to chang the subject.
I picked the title of this Blog by what I thought would get the most attention. I'll admit that freely. Isn't that the way the game works around here? It has worked very well so far.
Here are quotes from you:
"My dad would be in good company on the BN with the numbers of people who view Christianity just as he does."
"and all the other lost souls on the BN who wish the Bible would just go away so they would never have to think about it again."
"As you know from reading the titles of various blogs (which is all that I read when I can see that the content will be hateful), a few bloggers have taken it upon themselves to "enlighten" the BN concerning people like us."
"Let's boycott the blogs whose only mission is to provoke (and get clicks) and let's lift up the blogs whose titles make it clear they intend to inspire. That means going to the religion/spirituality category (and after that, any other applicable category) and clicking, very selectively, on the blogs that you know (either by author or by title) will be an affirmation, rather than an aberration, of the Christian faith. This is why I am totally serious about the roll call today, so if you meet the criteria for being a fundamentalist Christian and haven't signed your name in the comments, please do so now."
And this last one was bascially a call to arms agaisnt us.
You openly claim that there is a problem.
You have taken it upon yourself to point out how bad we are and that something need be done about us. I know there are many more quotes of your's out there that back-up what I am saying here. I would bet most of those were on Chris' blogs he deleted though. And there are many others who say the same kind of things.
I am all for defending one's beleifs, as you have seen. But I have yet to start saying 'Do not litsen to those who talk about Christians in a postive way because that is not my way.' I just talk about the reason I do not like organied religions here.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 8, 2003 at 5:00 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka
an issue as me and the others have made it out to be? The last time I looked it was your blog that was entitled "why I don't like organized religion." That's an antagonistic approach. It's like if I had a blog title "why I don't like disorganized religion" or "why I don't like agnostics", etc. I was just making a suggestion that people blog about what they do believe, as opposed to what they don't believe. For example, your blog could be called "why I like disorganized religion" or "why I believe the way I do", etc. That way you're not putting others on the defense. I think I will add this comment to my blog.
posted by
Inkling
on November 8, 2003 at 4:38 PM
| link to this | reply
Inkling
Just went through the top 25 blogs in everything else snd I sitll don't see it. There were a few, but it seemed there was as many pro-Christian blogs there as anti-christian blogs. I really don't think it to be the issue you and others have made it out to be.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 8, 2003 at 3:33 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka
oops...I just reread your blog and noticed that you were talking about the top 25 in religion/spirituality. The categories are not a good reflection of overall blogging. Most of the religious bashing is taking place in other categories. Most blogs tend to wind up in Everything Else for some reason.
posted by
Inkling
on November 8, 2003 at 3:18 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka
The top 25 blogs are not the entire BN and I don't see what's very "pro-Christian" about many of them, but that's beside the point. Just in the last half hour or so, I watched at least three or four anti-God or anti-Christian (at least from the titles) blogs go by, and the comments are full of similar material. I do think it's interesting that the most venomous do not make it to the top of the ranks, and that does say something about most people who blog here. In Who's Who (which is written by a Christian, but I don't always talk about my faith there) I wasn't trying to say that believers were outnumbered by unbelievers--I was trying to make a point about both sides not making personal attacks, and I was implicating myself as well.
posted by
Inkling
on November 8, 2003 at 3:16 PM
| link to this | reply