Freethought & Rationalism Archive

angela2 · 08-30-2006, 05:47 PM

Someone said somewhere in this thread that this board belongs to the infidels implying that I as a Christian am not welcome here.

My guess is that is true to spite denials. The evidence is that I find myself being challenged by a half dozen people. And if I don't respond, I get called out.

I'm having trouble understanding why you say you want theists here.

angela2 · 08-30-2006, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maddog

It's usually the theists who proclaim that morality is absolute and unchanging. I don't think all moral judgments are black and white. All I am is surprised that it has taken 10 pages for you to explicitly disavow the morality depicted in the Elisha story.

It took me 10 pages because I knew you would <edit> what I had said just as you have done. Wow! What a surprise!

All you are accomplishing is to further convince me that this is a closed board.

maddog · 08-30-2006, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angela2

It took me 10 pages because I knew you would <edit> what I had said just as you have done. Wow! What a surprise!

What have I misrepresented? I have only treated you with courtesy and respect, and in the interest of fair play to all concerned. Now you accuse me of lying. I am ANGRY about that, and I categorically deny the accusation.

#1414

angela2 · 08-30-2006, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maddog

What have I misrepresented? I have only treated you with courtesy and respect, and in the interest of fair play to all concerned. Now you accuse me of lying. I am ANGRY about that, and I categorically deny the accusation.

#1414

I'm putting you on ignore.

maddog · 08-30-2006, 06:05 PM

If you are going to accuse me of lying, I deserve at least the courtesy of an explanation of what you think I have "intentionally misrepresented." I have misrepresented nothing.

#1415

angela2 · 08-30-2006, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maddog

I thought that this part: was a response to my question why the liberal Christians seemed to have trouble dropping the other shoe. I thought you were dropping the other shoe, i.e., disavowing the morality depicted in the story.

You wouldn't have had that problem if you had responded to what I had written.

Quote:

This part: appeared to me to make a distinction between the morality of now (disavowing the morality of the bears killing the children) and the morality of another society and another place and another time (in which the morality of killing the children might be accepted).

You did not make clear that you were making "no judgments" as opposed to making "2 different judgments" (now vs. then) about the story.

Where do you see the word "now" in my post?

Nice try. Well, maybe not. Maybe a couldn't-do-any better-considering-how-badly-you-messed-yourself-up try.

angela2 · 08-30-2006, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maddog

Agreed.
at least that puts it into some kind of context in which the liberal Christian, together with the atheist, readily condemns the morality of setting bears on children to teach them a lesson.

Love the way you reframe the context.

I don't know if you consider me one of your "liberal Christians." But I have never agreed either that God set bears on children or that the intent was to teach them a lesson.

You gotta learn to have more respect for the facts.

maddog · 08-30-2006, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angela2

You wouldn't have had that problem if you had responded to what I had written.

Where do you see the word "now" in my post?

Nice try. Well, maybe not. Maybe a couldn't-do-any better-considering-how-badly-you-messed-yourself-up try.

I have treated you with nothing but fairness and complete honesty. I resent your continued insinuation that I have somehow lied or intentionally misrepresented things when I absolutely have not, and I have explained to you what I believe is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of your response. You put the phrase "It is not moral to kill children for teasing." into quotes, as I had done in my post suggesting that that was the "other shoe" I was waiting to hear drop. Then, in a paragraph separated by extra lines, you remarked about whether the same judgment would apply to the story in a different culture. That looks like 2 different things to me. I understand now that I may have been mistaken about what you meant, but I made NO MISREPRESENTATION.

#1420

angela2 · 08-30-2006, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maddog

I have treated you with nothing but fairness and complete honesty. I resent your continued insinuation that I have somehow lied or intentionally misrepresented things when I absolutely have not, and I have explained to you what I believe is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of your response. You put the phrase "It is not moral to kill children for teasing." into quotes, as I had done in my post suggesting that that was the "other shoe" I was waiting to hear drop. Then, in a paragraph separated by extra lines, you remarked about whether the same judgment would apply to the story in a different culture. That looks like 2 different things to me. I understand now that I may have been mistaken about what you meant, but I made NO MISREPRESENTATION.

#1420

Well if what you say is true, you sure have a very low threshold of mistakenness. Please, spare me your outrage. We both know that you repeatedly prodded me for a response, both directly and indirectly. And when I responded you immediately jumped on my response and 'misunderstood' it. Pardon me for being incredulous.

Psst. By being mistaken, you did in fact misrepresent, even we take you at your word that it was an innocent mistake.

I must be clairvoyent, knowing in advance the way I did how you would be mistaken.

maddog · 08-30-2006, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angela2

Love the way you reframe the context.

I don't know if you consider me one of your "liberal Christians." But I have never agreed either that God set bears on children or that the intent was to teach them a lesson.

You gotta learn to have more respect for the facts.

Please stop the insinuations and character assassination.

I was agreeing with Joykins1 that there are interpretations of the Elisha story available which do not amount to siccing bears on children to teach them a lesson.

The fact remains that that is literally what the story depicts, AND that fundamentalist Christians frequently defend its morality as stated, as God siccing bears on kids for making fun of God's priests.

If you don't think that God set the bears on the children as a punishment for making fun of Elisha, then what is so hard about saying (1) what the story DOES mean, AND (2) in any case, "it's immoral to sic bears on kids for teasing"?

As a stand-alone statement, do you agree or disagree?
"It is not moral to kill children for teasing."

#1422

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-30-2006, 05:47 PM	#1
angela2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: boston Posts: 3,687	De-rail from "Elisha & the Bear" Someone said somewhere in this thread that this board belongs to the infidels implying that I as a Christian am not welcome here. My guess is that is true to spite denials. The evidence is that I find myself being challenged by a half dozen people. And if I don't respond, I get called out. I'm having trouble understanding why you say you want theists here.

08-30-2006, 06:05 PM	#5
maddog Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: nm Posts: 2,826	If you are going to accuse me of lying, I deserve at least the courtesy of an explanation of what you think I have "intentionally misrepresented." I have misrepresented nothing. #1415

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.