gadgetlady

:omg: :omg: :omg:

Actually, Wheetsin, I wouldn't have thought you equated fundamentalist and fanatic. So your silence wasn't even noticed by me :-)

Which is precisely what I was saying to Alexandra and laurend. I am a fundamentalist Christian. And you put me on par with a fanatical Muslim, who we also know most would equate with terrorists. And you wonder why I don't much care for the box you put me in?

Don't you believe your beliefs are true? Why are you uncomfortable with it if you disagree with it? I'm not uncomfortable with athiests who say when they die all they do is rot -- and that I will, too. I just don't agree with them.

That's a bit tough to read through, but is your conclusion is that fanaticism and fundamentalism are the same?

I've been gone for a while and I'm still hearing crickets. Alexandra and laurend, I think you'd be surprised with how many people equate fanaticism and fundamentalism.

Now that I think more about it, I believe it has been said outright. I don't have the time or energy to find it, though, as I'm running out the door to pick my daughter up from [gasp] our fundamentalist Christian church.

I'd lay odds there are several on this thread that equate the two. I'm not going to name names, but the silence (other than you and laurend) is deafening.

But I think we can all agree that Hitler wasn't a Christian in any way, shape, or form.

Ahhhh, but the reverse is not also true. Are most fundamentalists fanatics? I don't think so!

But you shouldn't base your opinion of the validity of the Whosit religion on what the so-called Whosits (who aren't really Whosits because they don't subscribe to what the Whosit religion preaches) do.

Again, I'm not sure everyone would agree with you. There are many who think I try to pick fights or change minds. For want of a better term, I think it's our usual audience that makes the difference. My parents are both transplanted New Yorkers. Living in California, which is much more laid back, they can seem abrasive to some people. Some of my employees have told me they can deal with me fine, but they can't handle my mom. The funny thing is, she and I agree on pretty much everything, yet they would rather have me tell them "XYZ" than my mom tell them the exact same thing. Ron's approach is a function of his life and his ministry. Let me give you another example. Last week I was in Las Vegas and I was on the Strip watching the fountains at Bellagio with my parents. All in front of the fountains were street evangalists with megaphones preaching (I've never seen this before; usually I'm accosted by people handing out porn). Besides the normal "they have guts to do that in THIS city!" thoughts, I also wondered if they would get through to anyone. A guy with a megaphone would never get through to me. But then I noticed that one of the evangalists had put down his megaphone and was having a heart-to-heart conversation with a non-Christian who had been walking by. They talked calmly for at least 20 minutes, at which point my ride arrived and I had to leave. Would a megaphone get through to me? No. To you? Perhaps not. But to that guy on the street, it was the impetus that started the conversation. We all have our methods and they don't work with everyone.

. . . whose husband is the head of her household. (lest anyone get riled up, that was a JOKE , and you'd have to have read through this whole thread to get it) Thank you, laurend. I think what I'm saying is that some people equate fundamentalistism with fanaticism. Knowing Sue was one of those people, I took her charge of "dangerous", "stupid", and "deserving of derision" to be directed at me.

Correction. I don't doubt Sue would agree with you. I know she wouldn't. She has called me such (I'm not looking up individual posts while I say this, so if not in so many words, certainly in spirit), and she's said very hateful things to me on other threads.

I doubt Sue would agree with you, and I daresay there are a lot of others on this thread that would disagree as well. I also doubt they'll speak up. Thank you for your vote of confidence, though!

Alexandra, I think Ron's said more than once that people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. And I know a lot of people on this thread lump me and Ron together, so I'll say it again. People have the right to believe whatever they want. That being said, don't we all think our belief is right? If an athiest didn't believe that there wasn't a God, would he still be an athiest? Doesn't he think he's right in his belief that there isn't a God? Don't people who don't take the Bible literally believe they are right in not doing so? And haven't they said as much on this thread? Similarly, why is it wrong for people who DO take the Bible literally to say that they believe others are wrong in their beliefs? I am a libertarian. I believe people are entitled to do whatever they want to do (so long as it doesn't interfere with other peoples' rights) and believe whatever they want to believe. But that doesn't mean I have to believe that their actions and their beliefs are RIGHT. I just have to believe it's OK for them to do or have them. If you think drinking green tea will cure an infection, when really you need antibiotics, you are entitled to your opinion -- but it won't CURE you!

Thank you, laurend, for being honest. I mean that very sincerely and I have always found that to be true of you. My suspicion was that no one called Sue on it because they secretly liked what she was saying, and you've been brave enough to confirm that suspicion.

I agree with you on rational discussion -- 100%. 200%, if that were rational. I'm just wondering why no one's calling Sue on it. I have my opinions as to why, but I thought I'd pose the question and see if my suspicions are right.

There have been Christians on this thread who claim Ron does not speak for them due to what they see as his abrasive tone. I'm wondering why none of the athiests on this thread will say the same about athiests who post things that are abrasive, mocking, condescending, and downright rude.

I rest my case. If anyone thinks there's no mockery going on on this thread, GeezerSue admits to it in this post. She justifies it by saying she's not mocking Christianity, but only fundamentalist Christianity, or fundamentalist Christians. And not only is there mockery, but because I am a fundamentalist Christian she is calling me "dangerous", "stupid", and "deserving of derision".

Hitler was a "professed" Catholic but a practicing occultist.

Would this constitute mockery?

Believe me, I like jokes as much as the next person -- probably more. I spend a lot of my day laughing. And I understand satire. My mind is not messed up, thankyouverymuch. Main Entry: mock·ery Pronunciation: 'mä-k(&-)rE, 'mo- Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -er·ies 1 : insulting or contemptuous action or speech : DERISION 2 : a subject of laughter, derision, or sport 3 a : a counterfeit appearance : IMITATION b : an insincere, contemptible, or impertinent imitation <makes a mockery of justice> 4 : something ridiculously or impudently unsuitable Yup, I think the shoe pretty much fits.

lisah25, your feelings about Ron aside, you reallly haven't seen insults and mocking of Christianity? Really, truly? Because I have, in lots of places. In fact, besides here, there's a whole thread devoted to mocking Christianity.

Yes, he is. My husband also loves me like Christ loves the church - and in case you don't know what that means, he would DIE for me. I don't see anything disrespectful of women in that. In fact, I feel like I'm put on a pedastal.