Good news: 'This movement is evil: Religious leaders denounce White Lives Matter rallies

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Religious leaders across Tennessee are denouncing white supremacy ahead of White Lives Matter protests in Murfreesboro and Shelbyville.....

Scores of clergy have signed their names to statements opposing the white nationalist groups’ values.

To read more good news:

http://religionnews.com/2017/10/27/this-movement-is-evil-religious-leaders-denounce-white-lives-matter-rallies/

[Cuthbert Allgood]

1. I thought you said they were supposed to be tolerated in this country.

Why are these churches not supporting their legal right to exist?

[guillaumeb]

2. Do you really not understand that you are talking about 2 different topics?

Perhaps you can explain why you feel confused about this.

[trotsky]

5. The confusion comes from you, g.

You're the one who muddied the waters in the first place. You started a whole new thread to complain, and were schooled by everyone in it.

[guillaumeb]

9. No, the apparent confusion seems to be limited to a very few in this group.

Perhaps simply a coincidence.

[Lordquinton]

16. So in this instance you are keenly aware of the nuances

Where as before you got very confused. Congratulations, you just played yourself.

[trotsky]

21. LOL!!! n/t

[guillaumeb]

25. And the choir is in near perfect harmony.

No real surprise there.

[trotsky]

26. Um, so do you understand that putting "eom" on the end of your subject line...

means that you aren't going to put any text in the body of your post?

My goodness.

[guillaumeb]

28. I do, but I do make mistakes.

How about you?

[trotsky]

29. Sure.

But part of making mistakes is apologizing when someone points out you've made one that falsely accuses someone.

When are you going to do that?

[guillaumeb]

31. So can I expect an apology for the few times you have accused me

of claiming to define Christianity?

One imagines that your apology will not be coming soon.

[trotsky]

35. I am sorry that I ever accused you of claiming to define Christianity.

Now you can't use that as your last excuse anymore.

YOUR TURN, guillaumeb. Apologize for the false claims you've made against me.

[guillaumeb]

36. I am amazed.

Remind me, if you would.

[trotsky]

37. As I figured.

You reveal yourself to be the person you are.

I apologized, but you cannot. Truly despicable.

[guillaumeb]

38. I admitted that I cannot remember which of the things that I said

you took issue with. So, if you still feel I misrepresented you or your position, simply remind me.

[trotsky]

39. OK, I'll naively play along.

Here's one of the latest.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=256676

I eagerly await your apology.

[guillaumeb]

40. I should have remembered that one. And it was my error.

I apologize for the initial misstatement and for my failure to quickly retract it.

[trotsky]

41. And look! YOU APOLOGIZED AND YOU'RE STILL ALIVE!

WELL DONE, G-MAN! Have you reached a turning point? Let's find out.

Since you now admit my claim was true (and proven!), you can support the claim you made on the other thread (which you said you wouldn't document until I proved my claim). Namely, the claim that you had "...read posts here talking about the end of theism."

Please prove that claim, or apologize for it being false and unsupported.

[guillaumeb]

52. The end of theism is a metaphorical description of the numerous posts

that discuss how people are abandoning theism. And given the large number of posts that focus on this topic, my description is, I feel, quite accurate.

Now, how do you feel about a claim by a different poster that theism equates to mental illness? Is that particular stance conducive to dialogue? Could it be hyperbolic? I asked the poster for clarification and the poster stood by the initial claim.

[Pope George Ringo II]

68. As long as we're on the topic

Would you care to not duck the question about whether or not sane human beings murder people over blasphemy?

You don't object to the way something walks. You don't object to the way something quacks. But you get awfully bothered when somebody calls it a mallard.

[trotsky]

71. "a metaphorical description"

You didn't claim it was "a metaphorical description" in your thread. You specifically claimed you had "read posts here talking about the end of theism." Your claim was false. Admit it.

The mental illness comment is a red herring and I will not discuss it until you admit your claim was false.

[trotsky]

44. While you're at it...

Last edited Tue Oct 31, 2017, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)

I was going back to find more of your false claims to ask for an apology for, and made an interesting discovery.

You've gone back and DELETED a bunch of your posts, including thread-starters.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218233826
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218234308
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218238440
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218238685
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218240164
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218240291

And what's more interesting is that some of those posts were more than a year old, yet you went back and deleted them within the last few weeks. For instance, the first link above is from a thread you started in August of 2016, but it now says:

This message was self-deleted by its author (guillaumeb) on Fri Oct 13, 2017, 07:33 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

What's up with that, guillaumeb? Why are you erasing posts and claims you've made in the past?

[guillaumeb]

53. I might ask why your posts are not entered into your journal? But I do not care.

Is it forbidden to delete old posts? If you look at my profile, you will see that I post in a number of spots and I deleted most of them as well.

[trotsky]

70. I don't use the journal feature, so I fail to see why that matters.

But it's extremely disturbing to see just how frequently you go back and alter history, well after the fact. It implies you're hiding something. Coupled with your consistent dishonesty and deceit, it's quite damning.

I will be pointing this out as needed. People need to be aware of your documented tactics and methods, so they can choose whether to interact with you.

[guillaumeb]

79. An interesting attack you made,

thinly disguised as an informational post.

[Lordquinton]

75. The real reason for asking for links?

Perhaps we should start documenting these posts before they are scrubbed.

Just when you thought things couldn't get more shady.

[guillaumeb]

83. Accusing me of being dishonest?

Interesting attack on your part.

Edited to add:

IMPORTANT: If you choose to continue, the self-delete function will completely delete this post, along with its edit history and other information. Only your username will remain. There is no penalty for using the self-delete function. Replies already posted in this discussion thread will not be deleted, but the thread will be automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted. You will not be able to undo this: Click here to self-delete.

No penalty for using the function, but some here are apparently determined to make it a penalty.

[Mariana]

84. You certainly have the privilege of using the self-delete function.

Everyone else has the privilege to call attention to your use of it, and to comment on it. That's not a penalty, and it's dishonest to pretend that it is.

[guillaumeb]

85. It is an attempt to frame by claiming that using the function is an attempt to hide something.

[Mariana]

86. Not a penalty. nt.

[guillaumeb]

88. Of course not.

But some are obviously determined to make it so.

[Mariana]

89. No, they aren't.

Penalty: a punishment imposed for breaking a law, rule, or contract.

They're talking about your deletions. You don't like what is being said. That is not a penalty.

[guillaumeb]

90. No? Read this:

I edited my response to you to remove a post that was apparently self-deleted. There is no reason to mention it now.

[Lordquinton]

92. Lolololololololololo

[Lordquinton]

48. No

You have routinely defined other's beliefs while claiming you don't.

[guillaumeb]

54. Not true at all.

I have defined atheism as, in my view, a belief, but that is my opinion.

[Pope George Ringo II]

65. That's not a definition.

That's still a strawman.

[Lordquinton]

67. No, you have defined atheism for others

and when challenged you defended your definition, and doubled down on it.

[guillaumeb]

56. Were you not one who also claimed that I define Christianity for others?

If so, given that Trotsky has retracted that charge, can I assume that you also have abandoned that particular accusation?

[Lordquinton]

66. Did I stutter?

You have, repeatedly, defined other's beliefs. You run to this dog and pony show of "That's just my opinion" but that holds no water.

[guillaumeb]

77. So you persist in this statement. Which misdefines my own expressed beliefs.

I understand.

[Lordquinton]

91. No misidentification here

I'm going by your own words. You were told repeatedly that your definition of atheists was wrong (and no, you weren't doing it for only you) and you persisted. You also called other literalists when they read the Bible differently than you did.

And no more links for you, once it came out you were scrubbing old posts, that demand is off the table.

[guillaumeb]

94. I said that I was not a literalist.

I do not accuse literalists, or attack them. We simply disagree.

[Lordquinton]

104. Nice try

That's not what you said.

[guillaumeb]

109. Okay. I concede that you have convinced yourself. eom

[Lordquinton]

111. So everyone who has called you out on this

Somehow came to a group delusion?

You can claim what you want, but it's recorded what you said. And your weaseling tactics are well known.

[guillaumeb]

113. "Everyone" in your context is a handful.

A very tiny universe.

[Lordquinton]

122. That is a way to describe the people reading this group

Very nihilistic of you.

[guillaumeb]

124. A few of the people.

From appearances, a relative handful.

[Lordquinton]

127. So what?

Logical fallacy, argument of the masses. Also sad attempt at reframing, like I commented elsewhere.

[Lordquinton]

125. Side note: this is an attempt at reframing

Moving the topic away from your words to your nihilistic description of anyone who's called you on your shenanigans.

[sprinkleeninow]

143. Shenanigans. 😀

[sprinkleeninow]

106. Literalists can and do gum up the works. IMO. EOMMM.

[Lordquinton]

112. The pope gums up the works?

I can't disagree.

[sprinkleeninow]

115. I'm befuddled. Which doesn't take much.😤

Where did the pope jump in chere?

What bc the papal head and patriarch(s) schmooze from to time? In brotherly fellowship?

Doing my level best practicing Orthodox Christianity with all my human foibles.

Christian Orthodox are doin' fine, gigantic numbers or not. We like it. I like it. It's what I 'know'.

[Lordquinton]

123. The pope is a biblical literalist

As has been pointed out, and ignored every time the subject is brought up. So accusing people of literalism is saying the pope is reading his holy book wrong.

[sprinkleeninow]

138. I'm sorry. Say that again? S-l-o-w-l-y, please.

And I am not pulling a smarty pants stunt.

I got a lot going on and once I get it, I got it.

[Lordquinton]

151. I don't know how planer I can say it

The pope is a biblical literalist, he believes the Bible, or parts of it, are to be taken literally. That is relevant because a common accusation on this board from certain theists is "biblical literalist" that reading the Bible at taking its words at face value is a really bad thing. That the words in it don't actually mean what they say, rather you have to guess at their meaning, which is conveniently left out of any discussion.

[sprinkleeninow]

155. Thee pope.

Do some catagorize him as a full literalist or a partial one? I really cannot speak for him. I can only give an abbreviated picture of the faith I'm familiar with.

Some of scripture holds, yes, literal 'truths', if you will. But taking scripture 'solely' in a literal reading/interpretation/understanding is where it gets sticky.
Case in point: some right wing flavored Christianity. No judging. Just stating reality.

(Had to go back to your reply.)

One who interprets scripture literally can 'muddy theirs and the water of others'.
Scripture is to be gleaned with an assist from those who were there in the early days. Sadly, some western theology pooh-poohs this. And thus a myriad of interpretations and nouveau whimsies.

Not judging my sisters and brothers who practice their form of Christianity with sincerity of Christ's love in them.

That last sentence. Hope I didn't bum you out.

[Lordquinton]

161. I can't speak fully to your points

When asked direct questions those who make the claims of literalism put up a tremendous smoke screen and refuse to answer questions directly.

Generally around here a question about a part of the Bible is raised (like the great flood) and the reply is along the lines of "only a literalist would think that" there is no nuance until the question is explored, and then it's groping around in the dark to find any answer. That is the basis of a lot of the frustration from atheists in this group. The faithful, ironically, never argue in good faith.

[sprinkleeninow]

168. You guys appreciate nuance?

So, literalists obfuscate, (hem 'n' haw), and do not answer a query in a direct manner.

That's a tad surprising to me knowing literalists bc they got scripture down pat and there ain't no two ways about it.

How you said 'argue'. I know, I know. Debate term. I would like it said as a charitable exchange, a give and take.

I detest proselytizing.

Got stopped years ago in a parking lot where I finished food shopping. A person stopped me while putting the bags in the car and asked me if I was saved. I said, "From what?" And that went over really big. I had ire in a large way.

In Orthodox theology, it's said, "We were saved, are being saved, will be saved." There 'are' somewhat conditions. Non-Orthodox have a bird when they hear this. Their version is, 'once saved, always saved'. No nuance, if you will.

Wait, here's another tidbit. Ortho. theology calls the process from start to finish: 'theosis'. Becoming 'like'God. (Not becoming God.) Whoo boy, that doesn't sit well with some folks neither.

[sprinkleeninow]

139. This is interesting, but if you do not wish to respond, I understand. eom

[Lordquinton]

47. So you have nothing?

Thought so.

Your catch phrase is already worn out. I guess it's nice you're not attempting to reframe the whole debate again.

[guillaumeb]

87. No, the reframing is obvious here.

An attempt to make a negative out of a positive.

[Lordquinton]

93. Like how you reframed that one question

And ended up defending Nazis?

[guillaumeb]

95. Except that I did not.

As any can read who care to.

If you call my stating that being a Nazi is legal in the US is a defense of Nazis, that speaks to your brand of logic rather than any failing on my part.

[Lordquinton]

105. Still maintaining that story?

Like you said, anyone can read what was written.

[trotsky]

20. Sure, g.

Just a coincidence. Wouldn't have anything to do with you making political statements elsewhere that people agree with, but blatantly ridiculous and/or hateful religious statements here that they don't.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

14. I'm not confused at all.

Why are you saying it is good news that the church isn't tolerating the right for this group to exist?

[guillaumeb]

32. You still sound confused.

Try rereading the many posts about this.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

45. I'm not the one confused.

Maybe you should take the advice I read to you that maybe it's you if that many people are pointing it out.

[trotsky]

46. Reminds me of a quote from a famous sailor.

“If one person says you have a tail you can probably ignore it, however, if two or three people say you do, then you better turn around and look.”

[guillaumeb]

55. Define many people?

Is it a few self-described non-theists who routinely post in this group?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

74. Well, since this is a discussion here

it would be relevant to the people that post here. I wonder why that would confuse you.

"self-described"? So you don't believe us?

[guillaumeb]

81. I was taking issue with your initial wording.

Which was vague at best.

[Mariana]

3. Scores of clergy across Tennessee.

Well, I'm certainly impressed. Scores!

[Pope George Ringo II]

24. True story

If you type "dozens" with the caps lock down, what comes out is "scores". Really.

[Act_of_Reparation]

4. Yeah, great.

They condemned explicitly racist assholes and in doing so managed to vault over what is possibly the lowest bar we could conceivably set. Color me impressed!

[trotsky]

6. GOOD NEWS, EVERYONE! n/t

[Act_of_Reparation]

7. ...

[guillaumeb]

8. What an amazing coincidence.

The "sameness" of the various responses.

[Rob H.]

17. Thats Professor Farnsworth of Futurama and his catchphrase

Maybe you should start on OP asking people to explain how pop culture works.

[Act_of_Reparation]

18. When everyone says you're wrong for exactly the same reason...

...you conclude the problem is with them?

[guillaumeb]

27. Do not conflate a tiny group of frequent posters

with everyone. Unless you mean everyone in the choir of course.

[Act_of_Reparation]

42. So when I say "everyone"...

...you think I'm literally thinking everyone on planet Earth, not just everyone involved in this conversation?

Curiouser and curiouser.

[guillaumeb]

59. So when you write "everyone",

what do you mean?

[Act_of_Reparation]

69. This is the part where I say "I can only define it for myself", right?

[trotsky]

72. Use his weapons to your advantage.

There is no point trying to have an actual honest discussion with him. Clearly.

[guillaumeb]

78. Well said. eom

[Mariana]

50. Gil, if your posts are being misunderstood all the time

Maybe, just maybe, the problem is you.
Don't you think it's odd how everyone else manages to make their meaning clear, and you're the only one with this issue?
Have you ever stopped to wonder why?

[guillaumeb]

60. Look at my many posts in other areas,

and explain how everyone is having an issue with my posts. As I said before, it is only among a very few frequent posters in this group who claim such problems.

Trotsky and I had an exchange earlier. Trotsky retracted a charge that he made against me. A charge that I allegedly try to define Christianity for others. A charge that was repeated by another here. Was this also a misunderstanding on the part of both posters?

[marylandblue]

96. You take very generic position

Less objectionable to take generic progressive positions on a progressive board, and you have allies in General Discussion. Here you taketheistic positions against a group of atheists. The atheists here want to pin down your beliefs, but you refuse to allow it.

[guillaumeb]

97. An interesting analysis.

I take what I would define as very left positions in GD. And my positions are frequently disputed by others. That is one of the points of posting.

Here, meaning the Religion group, my first position is that I aim to present a balanced view of theism. Thus my posts labelled as good news or bad news. I freely admit that any human group will contain a mixture of good and bad.

As to my beliefs, I have stated numerous times that I am a Christian, and a non-literalist when it comes to Biblical exegesis. I also believe, and have stated, that in my opinion, the essence of the message is contained in the statement to "do to others as they would do to you".

What I do take issue with are attempts to reframe what I see as clear statements that I make into something else.

As one example, I recently posted that being a Nazi is legal in the US. More than one poster accused me of defending Nazism. To me, that is either reframing or a misreading of a clear statement.

Thank you for your response.

[marylandblue]

100. Maybe banal or trivial is a better description than generic

I looked at one of your controversial posts. You took trivial positions there as well, ones that were difficult to argue with. Then people who were more controversial, joined in and did most of the fighting for your position while you just offered a comment here or there.

Take your position that "Nazism is legal in the US." Yes that is true, but so what? Of course it's legal, so it's trivial. The atheist did not like it because it was too trivial, and in their view, a way of sidestepping the debate. So they took issue with it. And instead of arguing about the actual issue they wanted to raise, the argument ended being about whether you were defending Nazis or not. Which argument did in fact side step the real issue.

[guillaumeb]

101. I find such questions as "should we tolerate Nazis" to be pointless.

My many posts here on many subjects offer no reason to infer that I have any sympathy for Nazis or other genocidal extremists.

And that does not address the point that some here subsequently insisted that my statement that being a Nazi is legal is in fact a defense of Nazi ideology. Nor does it address the point that I asked for clarification. Clarification that could have been provided, but was not.

[marylandblue]

103. There is a long history of argument and misunderstanding among you and other posters

A history I don't completely understand because I wasn't there. It's sort of like walking on a marital argument where the argument seems pointless because they are actually arguing about things that happened a long time ago. Such arguments can include statements like "you know exactly what I am talking about," and the other person responds, "No I don't."

[guillaumeb]

108. A good observation. eom

[guillaumeb]

102. Allow me to add this to my response:

This was the post in question:

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=257361

A post about a proposed law that would ban Muslims from wearing a face veil in public. My point was that the law as written is an example of anti-Muslim intolerance. During the debate, the totally unrelated subject of Nazis was introduced.

[trotsky]

22. Wow, so now it's an Internet conspiracy against you?

Damn, g-man. Might be time to step away from the computer for a while.

[guillaumeb]

10. And the choir is in near perfect harmony. eom

[marylandblue]

11. Okay, here is a different voice.

Had the assembled clergy issued a statement that said "white supremacists have a legal right to exist," would you still regard that as good news?

[Lordquinton]

15. How's that new catch phrase going?

You seem to bring it out when multiple people nail you on the same topic.

[Act_of_Reparation]

19. Writing a good catch phrase can be hard.

[MineralMan]

12. Bad news: Even more praised it.

No doubt at all.

[Mariana]

13. But it was scores of them, MineralMan.

From all across the state! Scores!

How many thousands of clergypersons are there in Tennessee, I wonder?

[guillaumeb]

33. How many are there?

Perhaps you could research the matter.

[Mariana]

49. It's enough to make SCORES statistically insignificant.

Clearly the SCORES are fringe extremists in Tennessee.

[guillaumeb]

57. So do you feel we should reject those with whom we agree?

Call them outliers? An interesting way to build alliances.

[Mariana]

61. Build alliances with scores of religious leaders?

You know, that's great that they're speaking against white supremacists. Good for them. Doesn't change the fact that they are outliers. Do you think we should lie and pretend they are mainstream?

[guillaumeb]

62. We can build bridges, or build walls.

I belong to a group that includes theists and non-theists. We disagree on some issues, mainly those of religious belief, but we agree to disagree and we work on political issues together.

And these religious leaders might also reach out to other religious leaders. Would you agree that such outreach and bridge building is a good thing, or should we only speak with and praise those already on our side?

[Mariana]

63. Frankly, I'm not interested in building bridges

to reach religious leaders who can't be bothered to strongly oppose white supremacists. Fuck them.

I'm glad you found a nice group of people with whom to work toward common goals. Tell me, would you admit someone who supports white supremacists, in the interest of "building a bridge" in order to "reach out" to them? Why or why not?

[guillaumeb]

64. Then we clearly disagree on tactics.

But what I said was:

And these religious leaders might also reach out to other religious leaders. Would you agree that such outreach and bridge building is a good thing, or should we only speak with and praise those already on our side?

Would I speak with a white supremacist? Yes, to at least try to understand why the supremacist holds such beliefs. But if the supremacist continued to express the same views, we might have no common ground.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Better ways to talk a LOT of these white people down off the ledge rather than calling them evil.

MUCH better ways.

But if you want to go that route, nothing stopping you I guess. It won't be effective though.

[guillaumeb]

34. Feel free to discuss the ways you do so.

It should make for an enlightening post.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. It's simple. You ask them if they would respond to a Breast Cancer fundraising/awareness campaign

with #AllCancersMatter

It's not difficult to, in a couple points, illustrate that the issue is worth breaking out into sub-components, and why. And why making it bigger than the sub-component drowns out the entire purpose of the message. It's also easy, through the magic of public records requests for police footage to make the issue not about an estimation of whether the police response was warranted/justifiable, and simply make it about the fact that the police account of what happened DOES NOT match the video evidence in multiple instances where black people were shot by the police. if they're still on the fence, show them armed white people who were taken into custody without injury.

It doesn't take much to show them why it's broken. But you have to do it person by person, and name calling is an immediate disqualifier as 'helping' the issue. When you call them racist, or evil, you're closing off any possible avenue of changing their mindset.

[guillaumeb]

51. I agree.

And if the same method were to be used by progressives when talking to non-progressives, it might actually promote dialogue.

And the same method might also work when discussing the same issues with non-progressive people of faith.

[trotsky]

73. Then why did you categorize this as "good news"?

FFS!

[guillaumeb]

80. Denunciation of intolerance is good news. eom

[Mariana]

98. So denouncing those people's behavior as evil is good news.

And, "reaching out" to them and "building bridges" would also be good news. Interesting.

[guillaumeb]

99. Denouncing racism and white supremacy IS good news in my opinion.

Do you disagree? If you do, I would be interested in hearing why you feel it is not good news.

[saidsimplesimon]

30. guillaubeb

These people, I know them, hypocrites in name and deed. It is NOT good news, just more trumpian propaganda.

[guillaumeb]

58. Denouncing white nationalists is not a good act?

Interesting.

[sprinkleeninow]

107. Hiya. You just wrote something that may go over

more better'n 'Good News'.

Entitling posts'Good Act'. Good deal?!

I yam not agin you, Guillaume.

[guillaumeb]

110. An excellent suggestion.

But one assumes that the same objections will be raised by the same few posters. It involves, in my opinion, the use of the word good in any matter referring to religion in a positive light.

[sprinkleeninow]

114. Wise sage. (Heheh.)

This could be true.

Howsabout 'Positive Act'.

Darned if ya do, darned if ya don't.

A God Believer becomes Atheistic=Good.

An Atheistic Believer becomes a God Believer=Baaad.

A God Believer becomes Atheistic. We're aggrieved, but what can ya do.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

116. Do you think this bit is working?

Just wondering...no need to answer. I just can't believe you are going into this thinking "yup, everyone is going to buy this."

[sprinkleeninow]

117. Please clarify what 'bit'.

[sprinkleeninow]

118. I don't even know why I'm on here.

It's round and around.

What are you guys seeking?

I have no debate skills.

When stuff is typed on a keyboard, it's like clinical.

You can't get to know the person who's relating.

[sprinkleeninow]

119. What. The bit about the wise sage or my take on

Atheist->good.
Anointed One Believer->Bad.

I personally do not give a fig what one believes if it has no bearing on my life. Would I be thrilled to see one come into the fold? Yes. Joy.

I 'm not in charge of the scheme of things.

Oh, yeah and, "THROW THE BUMS OUT!"
[Y'all know who.)

[marylandblue]

120. They spend a lot of time talking past each other

As you astutely pointed, 160 clergy denouncing white supremacy isn't really "good news." It's more accurate to call it a "positive act." But it doesn't really change things. It's a shame they even have to say it, and it's an even bigger shame they only got 160 out of the thousands of clergy in Tennessee to sign on.

[guillaumeb]

121. IF you call it a positive act,

are you not saying the same thing?

As I previously stated, in my personal opinion there are some here who seem to reflexively oppose applying a positive label to anything which involves theists.

[marylandblue]

126. No

positive act = doing something good without regard to large or small effect. ex. a few people sign a document that few will notice or read.
good news = large positive effect or evidence of such an effect. ex. neonazis cancel major rally.

[guillaumeb]

128. An arbitrary and personal definition.

You are entitled to that opinion, and entitled to title your posts as you wish.

[marylandblue]

130. Don't you believe that all definitions are arbitrary and personal?

[guillaumeb]

131. When we are talking of labels, yes, they can be. eom

[marylandblue]

132. Then you shouldn't have a problem if someone

believes that you support Nazis. The words "believe," "support," and "Nazi" being arbitrarily and personally defined.

[guillaumeb]

133. Not even the same topic.

But feel free to explain how a statement that being a Nazi is legal can be interpreted, when considered by itself, as showing sympathy for Nazi ideology.

If you personally say that the death penalty is legal, does that mean that you personally support the death penalty?

[marylandblue]

134. I don't think you have sympathy for Nazis

I just think if we can define words arbitrarily and personally, then you shouldn't have a problem when someone else defines "Nazism is legal" as equivalent to "I support Nazis."

[guillaumeb]

135. But that is a "logical leap" that requires facts in evidence.

I do not feel that anyone at DU supports Nazi ideology, or believes that others here support it. But the words good and bad are often used, as we both know, to show an opinion.

Thus my titles.

[marylandblue]

136. I don't need facts in evidence if I can define my own terms EOM

[guillaumeb]

137. True, but the debate arises when one applies those self-defined terms

to another person. So if another poster asks me why I title a post with the caption "good news" or "bad news", and that poster tells me that my title is wrong, or incorrect, I will respond that it is my definition.

[marylandblue]

141. No there is no debate

You define something as good, they define it as something else. This should not bother you at all. You've each defined terms as you each see fit.

[Lordquinton]

152. Facts in evidence:

The question: "should Nazis and the KKK be tolerated? yes or no?"

The answer "Is it legal to be a KKK or Nazi member in the US. Yes, so it is legally tolerated"

You went out of your way to reframe the question to suit whatever agenda you have, but it makes it really unclear where you stand because that is a very common rhetorical tactic of those groups.

Maybe if you gave a yes or no answer all this could be cleared up. But you refuse to.

Like you say, we can only work with facts in evidence.

[guillaumeb]

162. And if you have no facts, is it permissible to construct them?

And as I stated a few times, I asked for clarification, which was not provided.

[marylandblue]

163. I can make my own personal definition of facts and construction

I can also make my.own personal definition of clarification and declare a matter clarified.

[Lordquinton]

164. This thread destroyed that claim

By posting it you clearly demonstrated you know what is meant by all the words mentioned.

All the facts I presented were copied directly out of the thread in question.

Today's word is Gaslighting.

[sprinkleeninow]

140. I think I see what you mean.

"Ya know, nazism IS legal, so therefore, it ain't that bad and has my support."

'am i rite?',
[which is being run into the ground by the minute]

[marylandblue]

142. Yup.

[sprinkleeninow]

145. Thing is, a poster says something and they get jumped on, pulled apart and

critiqued into the beyond. It's like ya can't ever say anything acceptable. I don't know why I 'm here.

I sense a consensus that the pope has no redeeming qualities?

P.S. I am not of the Roman Rite, but had close family members and acquaintances who embraced Latin Rite Christianity. I do not wish to be disparaging; however, will listen to non-pro sentiments in order for understanding.

[marylandblue]

149. A lot of people on this site are New Atheists

They are atheists who think religion has done more harm than good. So they look at everything this Pope does in a negative light. I am not a New Atheist. I am just an old agnostic. So I see the Pope trying to drag the Catholic Church kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. But it's an inherently conservative institution. There are some things he just can't say. There are probably things he can't even think.

[sprinkleeninow]

153. Okay. I see how some who have embraced atheism more recently than not

have newer stirred up adverse sentiment toward the pope and what he's 'leading' with.

I am not well versed in re: the Roman Rite Church. They have transformed somewhat from decades ago. There are some foundational practices that we and they are still on the same page about, but much is not identifiable to me.

Again, I reiterate. Close family and acquaintances were of the Latin Rite and I take care not to be disparaging.

Factual elements cannot be denied though.

[Mariana]

160. Some posters get "jumped on" a lot more than others.

Some members of this group, including myself, do not appreciate dishonesty in our discussions here. Such dishonesty may include, but is not limited to, using strawman arguments, moving of goalposts, ad hominems, refusing to provide simple straightforward answers to simple straightforward questions, exaggerating, and lying. Posters who engage in such behavior consistently will tend to be "jumped on" consistently.

[guillaumeb]

165. And if a member accuses another of one thing,

and subsequently retracts that accusation, would that qualify as dishonesty?

And if some posters constantly refer to theists in insulting terms, would that qualify as an ad hominem attack?

And if some posters use the word "many" in referring to a handful, is that exaggerating?

[Mariana]

166. ...

Some members of this group, including myself, do not appreciate dishonesty in our discussions here. Such dishonesty may include, but is not limited to, using strawman arguments, moving of goalposts, ad hominems, refusing to provide simple straightforward answers to simple straightforward questions, exaggerating, and lying. Posters who engage in such behavior consistently will tend to be "jumped on" consistently.

Edited to include "assigning imaginary definitions to words and phrases" as dishonest behavior. Add that to the list.

[guillaumeb]

170. You ignored my response, and my questions.

Why did you do so? Do you hold to a double standard, or do you not recognize that there is a double standard?

[sprinkleeninow]

167. Okay, those offenses would be a bummer.

I haven't ad hominem'd anyone, have I?

I have no debating skills.

I attempt to answer truthfully within the realms of experience and 'ology', to the best of my ability. If I remiss, I relent.

[Mariana]

144. Would I be thrilled to see one come into the fold?

Which fold is that?

[sprinkleeninow]

146. You be thrilled for your fold and I be happy happy joy for mine.

🤗

[Mariana]

147. I was quoting you. Sorry I didn't use the correct punctuation.

Which fold were you talking about?

[sprinkleeninow]

148. Can we pick this up l8r? Gotta cook supper for dogga and dogga's pop.

Keepin' pappy happy [so he thinks!🤣]

[Mariana]

150. Sure, take your time. nt.

[sprinkleeninow]

154. Not as young as I used to be. In body, not mind/spirit.

The republucres' and their komrade's stuff they pull multiple times daily wear on me.

I make an effort to squeeze DU reading, saving threads and screenshots forwarding them to husband, etc. amidst chores and sundry dumb stuff that takes my time! See the time stamp of this reply? 😳

Where were we then?

[Mariana]

156. You said,

"Would I be thrilled to see one come into the fold? Yes. Joy."

What fold are you talking about?

[sprinkleeninow]

157. The Church. The Church Community of Communicants.

When it receives a neophyte, a catechumen, someone who is drawn and wishes to embrace that which they are drawn to. Joyous for me, them, us.

I know what they are experiencing because I also share that experience.

Now then, what about infants and the young who are placed in this environment. The parents or guardians do what is meet, good and proper in their estimation at the time.

During the young ones'maturation, they are guided and 'fed' by the church and community, in LOVE. It is termed "theosis".

Prayerfully they continue on in the faith given them, without coercion or guilt-tripping. Sometimes they do not.

[sprinkleeninow]

158. That's not to say you may also have a 'fold' wherein

someone is welcomed and there's fellowship and acceptance.

[guillaumeb]

129. Interestingly enough, I wonder the same thing at times when you post.

An interesting coincidence, agreed?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

159. I think I'm pretty straightforward with my style.

And I'm not throwing out this homesy thing.

[sprinkleeninow]

169. Did y'all call me homely?

I resemble that.
😜

[guillaumeb]

171. A nice response.

Allgood in my book.

[sprinkleeninow]

172. At times, I do speaketh truth. 😉 😇/😈

[sprinkleeninow]

173. If you grew up stateside, way back if someone said, "I resemble that!", it was a play on words,

instead of, "I resent that!"

But ya already knew that dint ya!

[guillaumeb]

174. I actually did not.

Grow up stateside. But I understand. And I like your attempts to lighten things a bit.

[sprinkleeninow]

175. There's just something about you I do sense and like.

Not that I'm giving any stamp of approval of mine that says you are qualified and pass muster to have utterance. Who am I anyhow. Please do not take in that manner.

Brothers and sisters in humanity.

I've learned to mellow out at this stage of my game to not jump with sometimes an initial surmising of others' words. Many times having not an inkling of others' personal lives and experiences, and this in reverse, a tendency to form an initial picture can gum up what could be a decent and charitable rapport.

I hope to project a kind spirit to all. Yeah, at times I can come off as a wise acre, but my core sensibility is not really of that.

Peace be unto you and yours, Guillaume.

[guillaumeb]

176. And peace to you and yours.

And to all here who seek and/or speak.

[sprinkleeninow]

177. Appreciative. Yes, peace be 'to all' who seek, ask, and respond concerning

lovingkindness, beneficence, and that which is meet and right 'for all'. 💝