Comments on SINCE WHEN DID YOU EMBODY ALL OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE AS YOU DO?

Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t - Add a comment - Go to SINCE WHEN DID YOU EMBODY ALL OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE AS YOU DO?

Gomedome

Just forget it. I never knew "hot turd" or "bullcrap" were curse words. You've enlightened me.

I see right now that we will never get past your obstinate attitude. I was trying to put my good foot forward and forget about the past, but I see you're going to throw it up in my face every chance you get.

So, we don't need to go any further with this diatribe. Thanks anyway.

posted by b2008 on December 16, 2007 at 6:31 PM | link to this | reply

bpitter2007 - I took a quick look back through the previous comments

You have me at a bit of a loss as to where I had cursed at you and especially where I had done so to the extent that it warranted an apology. Is the sentence that I begun as follows what you are referring to?: "What the hell are you talking about . . . . ?"

I can find no other example of anything that could be construed as cursing, except in comments you had made previous to that one. Let me refresh your memory:

"You guys are flipping me out believing that something so beautiful can be so harmful. And all that (intellectual bullcrap) don't mean a darn thing to me."

"If you're an Atheist, talk to another Atheist about those feelings, NOT ME! I could give a ("hot turd") how anybody feels about me and religion."

I'm not going to pretend that I took either of these statements as your cursing at me but they were instrumental in my determining were the boundaries were in future dialogue with you. In other words; it will be a cold day in hell before I apologize for speaking in a manner to someone who has clearly set the tone with thier own words.

The part you seem to not realize is that I ended up in this dialogue with you by your taking offence to an innocuous comment on my part. If you want my views on certain subjects, including the likelihood of one on one dialogue, you can begin HERE

posted by gomedome on December 16, 2007 at 2:46 PM | link to this | reply

Gomedome

I can definitely say "insulting" people comes by you quite easily, I see. My problem was not understanding the structure of the threads. At one point, I didn't know who was responding to whom. That's why I started putting in the names of the people I was talking to. That was my only error.

I've already apologized to you and certainly was not "dumping" on you. That's not me and I don't do that purposely. I do, however, try to defend myself when someone seems to be "dumping" on me.

Plus, you have not apologized for "cursing" at me. That would be a nice place to end this battle, don't you think. I'm only human, I can make mistakes. Can you?

Now, can we get to a point of conversing one on one? I believe it would be interesting to hear your view on some questions I have, if you don't mind!

posted by b2008 on December 16, 2007 at 1:26 PM | link to this | reply

bpitter2007 - You've never had any problems with me other than those which

you have created.

You have to learn to read, digest what is written and keep responses relevant to what is written. You may want to start with learning some public forum courtesies with number one being; to make it clear whom you are speaking to in your responses. Notice that almost every one of my comments begins with the user name of whom I'm addressing. I find it incredibly rude when someone uses the "reply" link to one of my comments, leaves the subject line unedited, then admonishes me by saying they were speaking to someone else.

I am happy to have civil dialogue with anyone who is able to . . . but I don't have a minute to spare for talking in circles with someone who doesn't seem able to understand what is written.

This is a perfect example:

MY ORIGINAL COMMENT:

The same people that will saunter right past qualified statements such as "some Christians", to remind us that everyone should not be painted with the same brush, are so quick to do it themselves. They remind us that all Christians do not act the way we may describe, yet both act as representatives of their religion and utilize others a representatives of alternate belief systems. I don't want the honor of speaking for all agnostics, yet it is bestowed upon me regularly and routinely, . . . as you are similarly bestowed upon to speak for atheists.

YOUR EXPLANATION OF YOUR RESPONSE:

I responded to this statement about your reminding us not to be painting everybody with a broad brush. Since my response was to Kooka's blog, I never paint any group of people with a broad brush and didn't see where I did that at all. That's all I was saying and that's what I thought was not funny at all, because you were putting me in a category that I did not belong in. My response "And I agree also" was to Kooka's blog only. And I don't see anywhere in my response that I did what you commented. So, what was so funny?

HOW I SEE IT:

The problem lies in the fact that somehow you saw yourself being protrayed in a comment that makes absolutely no reference to you whatsoever. Then to make matters worse, your responses afterwards were mostly irrelevant. This blog is 4 years old, there have been many persons that do fit the description in my comment that have come through here.

Do you think anyone enjoys being dumped on by someone who cannot read?

I sure don't.

posted by gomedome on December 16, 2007 at 12:00 PM | link to this | reply

To Gomedome!

I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. Will you accept my apology? I hope so because I have so many questions that need to be answered and I hate to push them all off on Kooka. You could help me so much in understanding your thoughts if you can just be kind. I will give you 100% respect if you will do the same. Thank you.

posted by b2008 on December 16, 2007 at 8:29 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Oh and bpitter

You are right and again, I apologize. Thank you.

posted by b2008 on December 16, 2007 at 8:27 AM | link to this | reply

Oh and bpitter

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you are equally guilty as Gomedome for the misunderstanding between you two. Which is form my experience how these things normally start out. If you just take a step back and go into you next exchange with him a little less confrontational to begin with, you might be able to have some useful dialogue.

And I would recommend the same of Gomedome.

posted by kooka_lives on December 16, 2007 at 8:09 AM | link to this | reply

bpitter

I did not say anything in the post about the church leader speaking for the church. I would think such a thing is generally implied though in such cases. When a church leader speaks to the news agencies after such events in an prearranged gathering, he is generally always speaking on behalf of the church. In this case it very much was an arranged statement, making there no doubt that he was speaking for the church as whole.

Now if this was something he said in a private interviews or just randomly as he was walking by reporters, that would be different and could be viewed as only his personal statements. But to say such a thing to a gathered crowd when he is obviously speaking on behalf of the church is what make the real difference here.

posted by kooka_lives on December 16, 2007 at 8:06 AM | link to this | reply

To KOOKA only!

Hi, Kooka, and thank you for your response. I can talk to you but let's understand each other first, ok?

I didn't see anywhere in your statement about the church leader where he said he was speaking for the church. Was there something I missed? Or, did you not include that in your statement? I just would like to know what makes you believe that the leader was unquestionably speaking for the church? And then you say that he was obviously implying that the church itself was backing him on everything he said. I didn't see that anywhere either. The church leader's statement from what I have heard and have seen did not suggest to me that he was speaking for the church per se. It seemed to me like he was speaking as a member or head of the church and if that is to assume that he was speaking for every single member of the church, then I must disagree with that assumption. That is the only reason why I said what I said about categorizing. I'm absolutely sure every single member might not have agreed to what he had said.

Therefore, I can't see why you would want someone else from the church to comment on his personal beliefs. They were smart enough not to do that, I believe.

I read every word of your posts so I can make sure I know exactly what you are saying. If I misconstrued what you said about the supposedly representative speaking for the church, then please accept my apologies. Maybe I look too closely some times and I can agree to that. But please do not think I'm talking out of the sides of my mouth and categorizing you also. I would never do that. I'm talking to you as an individual and hope you talk to me as the same. I could care less what any other Atheist have to say up here when I'm talking directly to you.

And I misunderstood your response before that also because I thought you were talking to me because you said you had promised to respond to my request about when you decided you were an Atheist. I didn't know you were talking about others also. So I was wrong in that respect.

I am responding to your answers to my questions separately. And thank you, thank you, thank you for your responses. I hope we can take this further.

posted by b2008 on December 16, 2007 at 7:49 AM | link to this | reply

Re: kooka_lives - I apologize for this and will be leaving it alone from now on

Yes, you are missing something!

posted by b2008 on December 16, 2007 at 7:35 AM | link to this | reply

Re: bpitter2007 - I think you should reread both your comment and my initial

I beg your pardon! Don't curse at me, please. We are supposed to be having conversation not a "slam fest". I was not slamming either you or Kooka. I was commenting on "what you said". Evidently you don't even know what you're saying. These were your words I was responding to:

posted by b2008 on December 16, 2007 at 7:29 AM | link to this | reply

kooka_lives - I apologize for this and will be leaving it alone from now on

I must be missing something, I keep running into people that miscommunicate routinely. There have been a couple of recent experiences that have been entirely pointless from my perspective. It isn't coherent dialogue, I can't make any sense of some of it.

posted by gomedome on December 15, 2007 at 11:50 PM | link to this | reply

Oh what fun

See what happens when I leave you kids unsupervised?

Anywhos, on with my replies to this all.

Bptter2007, I don't categorize everyone who disagrees with me as being a Christian. I don't even place them all as being believers. I have met atheists who I have disagreed with. The only reason I used Christianity here is because all the examples I was using were Christian. Normally in my posts you will see I say 'believers' to insure that I am not generalizing, even though very often I get Christians who decide that I am talking about only Christians. In this case though the point would not have made as much sense by using 'believers'. Also please note that at no time do I ever make the claim that all Christians are like that. As Gomedome has tried to explain to you, both of us do all we can to make sure we do not generalize or make sweeping statements about religion, including atheists and agnostics. We say 'a good deal' or 'some' or use some other qualifier to make it clear that we are not talking about all of any particular group.

The church leader in question was speaking for the church when he made his statement. By that he was obviously implying that the church itself was backing him on everything he said. For him to say that the attack, which as against the church was an 'attack against Christianity' is him saying that the church itself believes that the attack was an attack giant Christianity as a whole. He was the chosen spokesperson for the church and so whatever he says in this case has to be viewed as the ideas of the church itself. So unless someone else speaking for the church steps forwards and makes a correction on this, the church has to be viewed as holding that belief.

I answered all your questions that I am aware of here. If you feel I missed some, please ask them again and I will do all I can to answer them.

When I used 'they' I was using it to reference all Christians who fit the description I was talking about in the post itself, not Christians in general. Once more, I DO NOT generalize or make sweeping statements. I could point you to several blogs done by believers here on Blogit where they often do nothing but that about atheists and see if you are able to see the difference. I can promise that if you really look at what I say I am not doing that here. I will not allow myself to become like those who show such a lack of respect for beliefs other than their own.

Basically you really do need to step back a little and look at my posts, my comments and even Gomedome's comment without any preconceived notions before you reply to them. I really do feel that if you read what we say with and open mind and really look at what is being said, you might see that we are not doing what you seem to think we are doing.

posted by kooka_lives on December 15, 2007 at 7:35 PM | link to this | reply

bpitter2007 - I think you should reread both your comment and my initial

comment.

When you use part of my comment in your response, why would I not assume that you are responding to me? Furthermore you blather on about not painting all people with the same brush as if both Kooka and I are guilty of this, which is simply not true. Again, you will see that all statements that can be construed as a generalization are qualified. Both Kooka and I have instituted this practice as a policy for many years here on Blogit. So what the hell are you talking about when you suggest that we shouldn't do something that we never do?

posted by gomedome on December 15, 2007 at 6:53 PM | link to this | reply

To gomedome!

Furthermore, I responded to Kooka concerning this one statement:

This post is about a comment made by one of the church leaders shortly after the shootings took place. He said that the shootings were an 'attack against Christianity'. Such statements, especially before any facts are known, do not gain sympathy. And now that the facts are known and we know that the attacks were very much direct towards just that church and missionary school, we know it was not an 'attack against Christianity'. Yet we have not seen any one from the church come forwards and say they were wrong about that. In fact most likely they would hold to that statement still. As far as they are concerned any attack against the church personally is an attack against Christianity as a whole. In their minds they are the embodiment of Christianity, which is a mentality that can be found in a great number of Christians.

This statement indicates that one of the church leaders responded on the fly without proof. Yet he went on to say "we have not seen any one from the church come forward and say there were wrong about that." Now he has categorized the entire church when only one member of the church made the original statement. And then Kooka goes on to say what I put in bold above in which he indicates an attack against the church as being an attack against Christianity as a whole. I don't think so. When the guy spoke, he never mentioned anything about Christianity as a whole insofar as that particular church was concerned. The guy spoke for himself. Why can't you guys understand that fact and stop involving others who are not involved.

Have I gotten my point across now or do you still see me as not listening to what you have to say? I listen too well, believe me.

posted by b2008 on December 15, 2007 at 5:20 PM | link to this | reply

I was responding to what you said about "act as representatives of their religion and utilize others as representatives of alternate belief systems." That statement was why I said you guys need to stop putting everybody in the category of ALL CHRISTIANS. I do NOT speak for ALL CHRISTIANS. I speak for bpitter2007 only. And you don't speak for ALL AGNOSTICS, that's why I said "who died and made you boss". I'm seriously trying to get a point across but you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. When I speak to Kooka, I'm speaking to him, not you. When I replied to you, I was replying to you alone and not Kooka. Can we at least make that clear?

And when I speak, I speak for me only. But you guys seems to want to say Christians do this, act like that, or all Christians feel this way and that is wrong. I feel my way, not somebody else's way. That's why I said you should not categorize people. Speak to me and I'll speak directly to you. There should be no others between us. That's all I was trying to say. And don't take my words as being agitated or whatever you said. I speak with kindness. People dont agitate me with words, only with "disrespect." And you have not done that, thank God.

posted by b2008 on December 15, 2007 at 5:11 PM | link to this | reply

bpitter2007 - Re: It's not funny at all!

It is funny but moreso it is very sad.

You cannot accuse people such as Kooka and myself of painting all persons with the same brush when we both make a point of qualifying every statement that refers to others. That is every statement, with very few exceptions.

As for the rest of your comment, (which I am assuming responds to my earlier comment) it makes little sense to me. You seem to be taking an agitated stance on the very positions we are contending. How is it that you can skip right past clearly written English to do such a thing?

posted by gomedome on December 15, 2007 at 12:47 PM | link to this | reply

haven't read, I meant!

posted by b2008 on December 15, 2007 at 10:25 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: Re: It's not funny at all!

Well, thank God I have read any of those blogs yet. I would like to speak for myself if y'all don't mind!

posted by b2008 on December 15, 2007 at 10:24 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: It's not funny at all!

MANY OF THEM WILL SAY THAT cHRISTIANITY IS BEING ATTACKED -- AND NOT ALL cHRISTIANS WILL AGREE WITH THEM --

PRAYER IN SCHOOLS

DISPLAY OF 10 COMMANDMENTS

(sorry for the caps -- accident)

presenting evolution in school curricula,

etc.

belief is divided -- quite considerably.

and yet, some of Blogit's people talk as though they are talking for all Christians. Read them.

posted by Xeno-x on December 15, 2007 at 10:18 AM | link to this | reply

Re: It's not funny at all!

You talk about someone painting a broad brush, I think that's exactly what you are doing. I haven't heard anyone say anything on here about ALL CHRISTIANS. It seems to me they are speaking for themselves. You guys have got to stop putting all Christians into one category.

In that case, what do all ATHEIST act like? I'm sure you don't want me to go there! I don't represent all Christians and you don't represent all Atheist, and I don't see any legal paper saying you are speaking on behalf of all anybody. Who died and made any of you a spokesman for Atheists, Christians, Agnostics, or whoever? Speak for yourself why don't you. Are you afraid to say I believe.... without the help of all those who may not believe as you? Be brave!

posted by b2008 on December 15, 2007 at 10:08 AM | link to this | reply

they aren't listening

posted by Xeno-x on December 15, 2007 at 10:03 AM | link to this | reply

And I agree also!

But don't fall in the trap of categorizing everyone who disagrees with you as a Christian also. Sometimes people can disagree and religion don't have to be a part of that disagreement because you can disagree on the substance rather than the ideology.

And for you to hold "one statement" said by a church affiliate against Christianity as a whole is somewhat short-sighted, I believe. That one person was speaking for himself, no matter what he said. No group of people sign waivers for one person to speak on their behalf in the name of Christianity. And individuals do make mistakes when they speak. So why are you holding that one statement against the church? That one gentleman should clarify his statement if he feels he needs to, not the church. Maybe he doesn't feel his statement was wrong to him. And you generalized his statement as being from each individual in that church and that they all believe it was an attack against Christianity. I think your assumption was wrong when it comes to the entire church. And then you went on to speak as to what was in their minds. I think that's a real stretch.

That's how people misunderstand others when they speak for people who had nothing to do with the price of apples, so to speak. And here on Blogit, I know you're absolutely correct about how some speak to others when Christianity is involved. I've seen it for myself. But you should connect your feelings with those who you are in dispute with. Otherwise, you might make the wrong people feel your wrath for no reason.

Personally, Mr. Man:), I'm still waiting for a response to the questions I asked you. I thank you for responding to my request to know when you decided you was an Atheist. And I was very touched by your story.

Lastly, when you say "they" in reference to all Christians, you are again categorizing Christians into a negative category. I've never felt victimized by you or anyone else on this blog. And if I feel you are being mean, I'm just going to tell you. I will never be a victim. I'll just straighten your butt out and we can go on from that point. Being a Christian does not mean you are a victim. Being a Christian means you are loved by God, that's all.

babs

posted by b2008 on December 15, 2007 at 10:01 AM | link to this | reply

Well said and well written. I couldn't agree with you more. That is why

opinions are called opinions and beliefs are called beliefs but we are who we are as individuals and our words and actions based therein speak volumes of our character. Good post.

posted by roadscross on December 14, 2007 at 10:31 PM | link to this | reply

kooka_lives - it's damned funny when you think about it

posted by gomedome on December 14, 2007 at 9:41 PM | link to this | reply