Posted on 10/15/2003 4:29:25 PM PDT by Truth666
I do it just for you, Stevie.
[Note to Moderator: Stevie has made it personal mission to stalk me. Its OK with me. I like the comic relief.]
Yep, you got me all figured out. I have been exposed!
[You still can't have my personal demon, no matter how much you flirt with me.]
It almost seems as though you have an aversion to being in agreement with anyone. It seems like you feel you must distance yourself even from those with whom you find yourself to be in agreement, so that you can be a party of one, alone in your "correct assessment" of the issue.
The only folks who will be "incited" and "inflamed" are those of simple minds and weak constitutions. I don't care about their petty and fragile feelings. I am even less interested in kowtowing to the Leftists and the cultural deconstructionalists that try to dictate our thoughts and try to manipulate and intimidate us through their hate and hypocrisy.
I have been experiencing some real good laughs from the usual cast of characters around here tonight over their shock and horror over an alleged "offensive" word that they have been programed by the Leftists to hypnotically jump into a frenzied state of hysteria over; but then jump with equal ease and speed in dispensing deliberately offensive hate speech and childish cartoons. I treasure these moments as an insight into the particularly disturbed mind. Fortunately tonight we don't have just one example that can be dismissed as an anomaly, but a table of consistant data.
Rightly or wrongly, it tends to negate anything else you say.
Are you bucking to be a part of the easily programmed myrmidons of the Left? I have much greater respect for you than that.
It almost seems as though you have an aversion to being in agreement with anyone
When "anyone" is defined by the likes of reprobates like Stevie, then it is a good thing to "have an aversion". IN fact, to agree with them is a sure sign that there is a serious defect in one's belief.
That is one thing that I have seen that is common in many nominal "Christians". Their emotions are easily manipulated and controlled by just mere rhetoric. Their focus rapidly shifts from one of critical thinking, to hormonal reaction. In fact, it seems that the most important thing to these people is that they defend their pitifully fragile egos and their wounded pride. Look how the atheist was abusing the Christians with the normal inflammatory tripe. I post one word that a few years ago was not offensive except to the professional race-baiters and dimwitted Liberals in the media. Immediately, the most important thing in the world was to attack me. That's OK, actually it was rather amusing that their emotions can be so easily manipulated by six simple keystrokes.
I don't really care what they think, because, quite frankly, no one cares what they think. I'm installing an OS on my notebook computer and am whiling away the time in simple social engineering exercises.
I am surprised though, that defending Liberal thought control has been so important to you that you author this opinion. In deference to you though, (and in light of 1 Cor 8:9-13) I will refrain. My point has been made and the Peanut Gallery had their chance to assuage their pride.
All in a day's work!
James 4:7 ........Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
Well, it is accurate in your case.
4 ¶ Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Or you will also be like him.
5 Answer a fool as his folly deserves,
That he not be wise in his own eyes.
-- Proverbs 26:4-5
No, I am not. My only point is that gratuitous use of terms that are offensive to some serves to blur the discussion rather than sharpen it. It's one thing to clearly establish your viewpoint before utililizing such words (and they are only words, after all), and quite another to try to use those same words to establish your viewpoint. Kind of like the difference between "the easy way, and the hard way."
I have no love for the Leftists whose policies of division, destruction, and fragmentation are hidden in code words like "inclusiveness", "multi-culturalism", and "hate crimes". The Left has become very good at taking words that mean the exact opposite of what the Left define them as, and then droning on and on with those words to indoctrinate as many as possible into thinking they are for what the masses think those words mean, rather than the masses seeing that they are enabling those (the Leftists) who would destroy those very definitions. Words are words, but words do mean things. One thing we must keep in mind is that we must know what certain words mean to our enemies, and if we utilize those words, we must be careful to define them correctly, rather than as our enemies have defined them. Otherwise, we will be saying one thing, but they will be understanding something else. In other words, if you want your enemy to hear what you're saying, don't use words that you know will set them off and cause them to judge everything else you say by their wrong understanding of the words that cause them so much angst. All it does is give the enemies ammunition to further confuse the discussion. It's one thing for the Lord to send confusion into our enemies, and quite another for us to deliberately or inadvertantly cause it through unjudicious use of words.
There may be a time and a place for out and out baiting and causing offense to highlight the hypocrisy, but it's not every time, nor is it every place. That's all I'm arguing for.
Using God's Word in that way is more "offensive" than any word that I type. At least I don't break a commandment and use God's name in vain, like you do, to justify hate speech.
[Really beginning to like this game of "I am offended®" for it is so easy to play!]
BTW, exactly who should have been offended? According to your perverted and dysfunctional system of "right and wrong" just the mere use of a word against absolutely no one in particular is "offensive". You and your fellow reprobates though join the atheist in mounting not just a general attack against Christians, but in a persistant and even mor imbecilic attack on a believer. So to recall the events of last night. You and your leader not only defended an atheist in his verbal assault against all Christians, but you went one step further and made it personal and mounted a much longer attack against a Christian. Now you have the gall to quote Scripture after doing the gruntwork for an atheist, and now you mock God by twisting His words of wisdom as if saying that God would post child like cartoons of an animal deficating.
You have reached a new low. Care to go any lower? I am curious to see if you know any bounds in your hypocricy and hate.
I think we philosophically differ here. My enemy doesn't care about what I say other than to scrutinize the words in order to seek out something that can be used to attack me. Look at those around here who immediately sided with the athiest over six letters directed at no one. They don't care about how a word was used. They have been programmed by the Leftists to go hysterical when certain ordained buzz words are used. They are under the control of the demonic Left. When the Left declares by fiat that a word commonly used by one subjectively defined people group is not offensive, but that same word spoken outside of that group uses it - no matter the context, then some inviolable law has been broken and the Thought Felon must undergo punishment. The myrmidons of the Left here have merely followed their programming perfectly.
There is a lesson here in human psychology.
On the other hand, some words have lost their meaning. "Terrorism" is one of those words. The Left uses that word to describe anything that they don't like. George Bush is a "terrorist" because he wants to open ANWR to oil exploration. McDonalds is a "terrorist" organization because they provide inexpensive and convenient food that has not been deemed healthy enough by the Annointed. The word has been absued so much that when a real "terrorist" is mentioned, like the townspeople hearing Peter's warning, they no longer feel threatened. Now why would the Left abuse that word, and make "The 'N' word®" Holy and Sacred to be only uttered by people with more melanin in their skin? Answer: because the Left likes terrorism because terrorists are the armed goons doing what the Left not so secretly wishes would happen to Western culture. By abusing the word and using it so much, it loses its power and its ability to garner attention. The reprobates who sided with the atheist in their defense of protecting the holy stature of "The 'N' Word®" so that it keeps its magical power over free people. The term "racist" was getting abused because everyone was deemed "a racist" (except true racists like Jesse Jackson and Cruz Bustamonte). Because the Left has made "being a racist" the same as being the Devil Incarnate, they must reserve certain words so that they can lord over their opponents and silence them with the power of one word.
Those who sided with the atheist and decided to spend the evening attacking a Believer in Christ are working hand in glove with the demonic Left by doing their dirty work for them. That is why they deserve my pity.
I was merely using their simple and predictable reactions to make a point. And outside of their little world, I am sure that thinking people can see it through this rather provocative example.
So why do the equivalent of handing your enemy a loaded gun? You play right into his perception of you, and his desire to neutralize you. If that happens in ignorance, that's one thing, but deliberate is not ignorant. We are to be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
The atheist got something else he wanted: an open break in the ranks. Your dispute with Steve would be better handled privately. Personally, I don't share your assessment of him. However, for me to pile on and attack you publicly would serve no purpose other than to entertain the atheists, who by now must be sitting back in smug satisfaction, watching the Christians tear each other apart. Now, who's doing the atheists' work?
I personally couldn't care less about what words you use, except as it reflects on Christians as a whole. The words themselves are just words. I've heard far worse from others, and have used far worse myself, in moments of anger, passion, and frustration. I think we all have, if we're going to be honest about it. But, there is scripture indicating that we will be held to account for our words, and I think we would all do well to occasionally remember that. There is a certain amount of wisdom in the saying, "Lord let my words be sweet, in the event that I must eat them."
Stevie is a confederate of the athiest. Stevie and I tried to keep things private, but for reasons known only to him and broccolli he wants to make his foolishness public. If he wants to show the world that he is an ass, why should I deny him the opportunity? You need to understand that he and his sychophants are nothing but ankle-biters and mean nothing to me and I am sure that the lurking atheists are having their laugh at them. Giving them "a loaded gun" is just an opportunity for them to shoot themselves in the rear.
You play right into his perception of you...
Perceptions are not reality except to the feeble minded. That may explain why everyone ignores their insolent behavior. Just a bunch of yappy little dogs.
Let me ask you this. To gain your approval do I need to use the Lord's name in vain like Jude and post childish cartoons of a defecating moose like My Personal Demon? Or am I missing something :)
I know the modern church is adopting some strange practices by the MTV world, and I am admittedly out of touch with the current fashions in "brotherly love" advanced by the PoMos - should I be posting vapid and hackneyed insults in Jesus' name now?
I think perhaps you project your objections to his actions onto your perception of him as a person. He has done nothing more or less that what you have done. He has just done it differently. You have belittled and derided him almost from the beginning. You have done so to me as well, but I have chosen to ignore that which I find needlessly offensive. Sticks and stones...
Perceptions are not reality except to the feeble minded. That may explain why everyone ignores their insolent behavior. Just a bunch of yappy little dogs.
Perception is unavoidable. Everything you decide, think about, or even reject is colored by your perception of it. No one can escape that. To say that only the feeble-minded engage in perceptions is really a very arrogant, back-handed way of patting yourself on the back, because implicit in your statement is the belief that you are not so encumbered, which is demonstrably false. The very fact you think of yourself that way is a perception. To not engage in or employ perceptions is in itself a perception. Perception is the taking of raw data and organizing it so that it is understandable, accessible, and meaningful. The criteria for doing so may be flawed, incomplete, or biased, but that is the nature of perception which we all must deal with. I would posit that only God can be truly free from flawed, incomplete, and biased perception. So dismissing perception as a factor in debate is meaningless and very short-sighted. It can, and should, be used as a tool. To prove a perception false, one need only prove that the underlying basis for it is false. That is the essence of logic.
Let me ask you this. To gain your approval do I need to use the Lord's name in vain like Jude and post childish cartoons of a defecating moose like My Personal Demon? Or am I missing something :)
No, you don't need to do that, and I would prefer that you didn't. You don't need my approval, nor do I need yours. I am secure without it, as I would guess that you are without mine. If anything, I would be more likely to believe that approval is for the feeble-minded, not perceptions.
I know the modern church is adopting some strange practices by the MTV world, and I am admittedly out of touch with the current fashions in "brotherly love" advanced by the PoMos - should I be posting vapid and hackneyed insults in Jesus' name now?
The best thing would be to just ignore it. I think that valid points can be made without resorting to insults. In fact, the debate would be much clearer if insults were studiously avoided, no matter how tempting they may be to send, or how provocative your opponent might be in hurling them. I do not deny that they have their entertainment value, for the insulter as well as the audience, and there is a certain admiration due for a well-placed and insightful riposte, but in the end, do they really further anything? Verbal jousting can be a sport in itself, but must all debates employ it as a primary tactic? I think not....
Nows THAT is an admirable riposte!
Incidentally, if a picture of moose droppings is offensive to you, you must find Paul horrible. Here's a guy who calls his old legalist lifestyle crap (Phil 3:8, Gr. skubalon) and wished aloud that the Judaizing legalists would castrate themselves (Gal 5:10, Gr. apokoptoo).
I find it intriguing that a guy who would call another man a n$%%#@ would find a picture of moose droppings offensive. Seems as though you need to get your priorities straight.
I'm earning a chemistry B.S. from a state university.
Signed, a young-earth creationist.
Oh, you made it crystal clear. The kind of Christian you object to is the kind that has a backbone, that will stand up and unabashedly state the Truth, the Absolute Truth, and will not back down. No True Christian would advocate curtailing freedoms, muzzling the media, or imposing a Police State, as you are so fond of portryaing Bible-believing Christians as being advocates of. This country was founded by Calvinist Christians, and it is that very foundation that is now being shaken by the likes of you atheists, who will not tolerate the idea that there is a God Who rightly demands that men live by moral standards, and Who will hold men accountable for their actions.
(Rom 1:21-22)Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,....(Rom 1:32) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
That's the message you don't want to hear, that God deems you worthy of death because you do not acknowledge Him, or serve Him. So you do your best to suppress any mention of such truth, any reminder of it, because it "offends" you. In reality, you're whistling past the graveyard. Removing any mention of it will not make it go away. The very laws you claim to uphold are derived from Judeo-Christian Law. To be consistent, you would have to advocate the overthrow of those laws as well, and replace them with their opposites. To expunge any and all reference to Christianity, and to God from public life, you would have to advocate the violent overthrow of our government, and replacement of it with a godless, socialist, tyrannical regime. Are you advocating such? No? Then quit yer bellyaching about all the "oppressive" laws that are derived from Christianity and have the blessing of God upon them, allowing you to enjoy the benefits of His blessing in spite of your hateful attitude toward Him.
I can read just fine, thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.