Dan56

Dan, it is true that you did not call them a schoolgirl. What you did was use the analogy of a schoolgirl to unfavorably characterize them as being weak and overly emotional. You were not only personally attacking them, but also engaging in casual misogyny. Regardless of how justified you may feel in doing it, it is what it is. And what it is is against the rules you agreed to follow when you signed up for the forum. What's your word worth, Dan? I don't look at it as any kind of attack, but an accurate characterization of the responses I got. The consistent complaining about every little word or how I phrased something was ridiculous. How do you tell people about that without hurting their feelings? They would have complained about any euphemism I used, its always the end result of having no argument. Would "childlike behavior" have been more polite? I've noticed that when people hate my opinion, they inherently begin knit-picking about how I expressed it. In any event, there was no name calling, so I don't think forum decorum was violated. An insinuation like"acting like schoolgirls" was mild in comparison to things like "Dan gets to crap all over the board". But you are essentially correct, comparing the maturity level of others to schoolgirls was unnecessary. I usually try to rise above the fray, I make my point and move on, leaving the snide commentary to others. But sometimes, returning a little sarcasm is hard to resist

I don't see nothing wrong with any of that either. I didn't call you school girls per se, I insinuated that you were crying like schoolgirls. Maybe a little crude, but I honestly don't see how that analogy is "nasty"? My point of asking the difference between a regular and extreme pacifist was to illustrate that people define it different ways. From what you wrote, I'd define you as somewhat extreme, but how others define 'extreme' is not my call. Just as I define myself as a conservative fundamentalist, others might classify me as extreme. You should care-less how others label you, you know who you are.

I made one post about what I thought about tolerance/hate. Since then, many have asked questions or responded to my opinion, so I've stuck around to respond. The best way to get rid of me is to stop bringing me up. I've said nothing nasty, you keep saying that without quoting anything I wrote (straw man). Lets look at nastiness; Dan said 'extreme pacifist' instead of 'pacifist', he's a liar... Dan craps all over the board... Dan thinks he's God, etc.. There's your nonsense! And I don't think I've written anything provocative enough to warrant all the whining.

Some do say Christ was a pacifist, but I obviously don't see it that way. While he encouraged the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9), he never asked followers to be willing victims of violence. His disciples owned weapons which conflicts with the idea that Jesus was a pacifist (Luke 22:38). While Jesus did suffer and die without resistance, it was unique to him in fulfilling a greater purpose. His Truth is controversial; "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). And reading the OT, God is not a pacifist when it comes to defeating evil. As Solomon put it; "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace" (Ecclesiastes 3). I'd just ask anyone who thinks Christ is a pacifist to read Revelation 19; 11-16, it sure isn't describing a pacifist.

Very true... I tend to think that a regular pacifist is one who just tries to avoid violence, and is reluctant to resolve disputes via physical confrontation. The extreme version is one who won't retaliate under any circumstances, even self defense. But its up to individuals to label themselves. Whenever I define atheist, agnostic, pacifist, etc, it pisses people off.. What's 'extreme' to one person might be moderate to another, so we're usually arguing semantics. The same goes for Christian fundamentalist, there are degrees of fundamentalism, some extreme, some moderate, some liberal. I'd define myself as moderate, but I'm sure there are others who think I'm a radical s.o.b. I didn't mean to cause a ruckus, I just chimed into this tread to say; "I don't think its possible to respect something you dislike or hate". I believe the volatile response I got lends credibility to my opinion . Tolerate what you hate, yes... but speaking for myself, I can't respect what I hate.

I don't believe I was presenting a straw man's argument, I was more-less just sizing up the gist of what I thought you were saying and responded to it. There was no deliberate attempt to misconstrue what you said or fabricate a false impression of anything you wrote. I just drew some inaccurate conclusions by comprehending something different from what you meant to imply. Keep in mind that you did write; "I have no problems embracing the pacifist way. If someone attempts to strike me, I will try to dodge and ask why.. If they continue, I have no problem fleeing the scene". What's the difference between a regular pacifist and extreme pacifism anyway? And in regards to my crazy statement; "Imagine a terrorist decapitating your mother with a dull knife and then tell me your incapable of hate or that its just superficial". I was just trying to make a point by attempting to suggest something that might get you angry, but neither you or scottedward could even imagine such a thing, let alone get upset about it. Sometimes I use analogies to expound on a pov, not to misdirect the conversation or put words in your mouth (straw man), but to illustrate a point relative to the subject matter. Its just my style of conversing, not a contrived tactic to intentionally alter the subject. Pacifism isn't my cup of tea, but I don't have a problem with anyone who chooses that route. In fact, if I were on trial for my life, I'd prefer having you guys on my jury. But if I were under-fire in a foxhole, I'd definitely want some angry guys alongside me who were willing to fight.

If you guys would like me to leave the board I will.. Your both super-sensitive and easily angered, but I shouldn't be required to walk on eggshells just because my opinions are diametrically opposed to yours. You complain because you don't like how I express myself, don't like how I explain things, say my arguments are unfair, don't like my debate tactics, don't like my conclusions, insinuations, or analysis, and you have an obvious hatred of Christianity, but your complaints against me are based on nothing mean spirited or against the rules. I say what I think, but I usually try to sugarcoat it because I'm aware of the fragile ego's here. If you think I've mischaracterized something you've said, don't cry like a couple of school girls, correct my error. And for the record, the subject wasn't about 'Dan' until you made it so.

We just disagree, I guess things are black & white for me, but there are shades of gray for you. Evil is evil, but you excuse evil when its derived from someone who's desperate or without hope. I just don't feel that being unfortunate gives a person the right to harm others. I do agree that patience and understanding go a long way in defusing conflicts, but I don't agree that hate is always a negative emotion that should be squashed, because sometimes its justified. Hate can be an unjustified emotion that emanates from evil intent, but hate can also be a strong dislike of the unrighteous and harmful actions of others. Not excuses, I just interpret what Christ meant differently. If someone is your enemy, hate is a natural response. But as Paul wrote; "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21). Jesus was teaching not to return evil for evil. If someone steals from you, don't steal from them, that amounts to vengeance and is returning hate. But when you hate someone who offends you, its a positive emotion when it motivates you to pray for them, wanting God to help correct their error is an act of love. As I mentioned before, just as a parent corrects a child for doing something they dislike or hate, making an effort to put the child on the right path is rooted in love. We can hate evil, but confront it with good, and by 'good', I mean corrective measures. No problem, I don't take your objection to my debating tactics as a personal attack, feel free to express any problems you see as unfair responses. You didn't resort to name calling, so that's a plus . However, insinuating a person is dishonest could be construed as saying they're lying. Sorry if I mischaracterized your position or thoughts, it was not my intent. Sometimes I draw the wrong conclusions or don't express myself with enough diligence.

It would help if you provided an example of what words I put in your mouth? I'd be happy to clarify.. I was responding to the over-all gist of your post, I don't mean to speak for you, what I write is just my response and opinion to where I perceive you stand on any particular issue. I don't think I'm 'misunderstood', keep in mind that I use extreme examples to accentuate my position and the differences in what we believe. Granted, it may be an unorthodox way of making a point. Johnathan, Pete, and yourself are atheist/agnostic, so of course we disagree on everything. And how many of their arguments have been fallacy or diverted impressions of biblical conversations of what I believe? Talk about a straw man's argument. They've written things like "You support genocide", they assert such things because they contend that my God committed genocide. But of course I don't support genocide. Words are often put in my mouth, but I just interpret it as their reasoning and drawing their own conclusions. In any event, the only example you provided was my misrepresentation of "pacifist". You wrote; "I find it interesting that you, Dan, use the term pacifist as if it were a dirty word". And my response was: "Its true, I have little regard for extreme pacifism". I was confirming what you asserted, but I intentionally added "extreme", not to misquote you, but to clarify that it was the extreme element of pacifism that I objected to. With regards to hate, I simply believe there are good and bad forms of hate. If you dislike a person who steals from you and use your hate of theft as a motivation to correct the wrong doing, its good. But if your the thief and hate being poor, so you steal from rich people, then your hate is bad. Its no different than love, it can be a negative or positive emotion depending on how its administered.

I see your point, but I just have a broader outlook. Jesus preached to people who shared the same faith, so a brother or sister was looked upon as we would view a fellow member of the same church today. So I don't think Jesus was inspiring us to love an enemy who's about to chop your head off, that's not your neighbor. God hates sin, wickedness, rebellion, etc, and God himself gets angry. Jesus got angry and chased the money changers out of the Temple with a whip, but I actually see that as an act of correction being done in love for their sake's. If you see a man about to stab a woman to death, you hate the crime but you act out of love. You intercede to stop the would-be murderer because you 'hate' what he's doing, whereby saving him from the death penalty, and you fearlessly act out of compassion (love) to save the victim. A pacifist would not have gotten involved, they would have been shaking like a frightened bunny and watched the show from the sidelines. Remember that Jesus instructed his disciples to buy a couple of swords, and it wasn't to chop wood with. He also said; "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6). And Paul wrote; "Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head" (Romans 12:20). Nice guys eh? I believe vengeance is God's, but self-preservation is ours. Admittedly, I can be a tad extreme in how I explain my pov. If you hate crime and called 911 to report a crime in progress, your motivation is your 'hate' of illegal activity, which causes you to get involved and take action. The police respond to your call and arrest the perpetrator. The thief is caught and your neighbors property is safe. So the result of your hatred of crime did not lead to suffering, but kept your neighbor from being violated and losing their stuff. Imagine if someone saw Timothy McVeigh building a bomb and turned him in because they hated what he was doing, whereby preventing the Oklahoma bombing. Hate is not always a hopeless emotion, it can actually stop suffering. Being ambivalent and not caring about the bad things people do (pacifism) can be much more detrimental. How do you think refusing to hate Adolf Hitler or Osama bin Laden would have benefited society? Should we have refused to hate those evil doers with the hope that "People who are hopeless can change. They can become better people". How many more people would of had to die while you gave them the benefit of doubt? I believe its okay to hate injustice, refusing to do so means that your endorsing the bad along with the good. Hate is just the dislike of the bad and nasty things people do. A person who's incapable of hating evil is probably deprived of any moral compass themselves. That's just how I look at it. I should apologize for posting bible verses in an Atheist topic.. I 'hate' when that happens

The bible must not be my accuser, because I found nothing in those 54 verses that supports your conclusion? Well, its good to know that you wouldn't confront a maniac wielding a knife with a hug . In a perfect world, hate might be a worthless emotion, but where good and bad exist, most people support what they love and reject what they hate. Saying you can only love and not hate is like saying you can only be happy and never sad. Its true, I have little regard for extreme pacifism.The bible says that a man who refuses to take care of his family is worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8). You wrote; "People are bombed, but that isn't face to face". Do you really think that matters to the people being blown to bits? I'm not advocating violence as a cure-all solution, or suggesting that you shouldn't try to defuse a volatile situation, but there might be times when you can't run away and need to man-up.

I never put those words in your mouth, my comments regarding "love our enemies" was my answer to mererdog, who brought the bible reference up, and my "do nothing" remark was also a separate answer to his post, not yours. No offense intended, if you don't think hate or anger are viable emotions, then by all means, don't hate anyone. I just think that they are necessary emotions and a natural part of the human psyche. Do you really think that not hating Islamic terrorist will open their minds and cause them to try and understand us? They aren't killing us because we don't hate them, they're killing us because they hate us.. I seriously doubt that brown nosing them will instigate a favorable response. Hate leads to action, and action is often necessary for self-preservation.

You don't need to imagine your own mother losing her head, but can't you have compassion and sympathize with innocent people who suffer such a fate? You don't need to search for a reason to hate, these murders are actually happening. Its difficult for me to fathom how your understanding goes to the 'unique terrorist' because their lives suck! For me, the abuse excuse doesn't work, they are butchering neighborhoods. The only hopeless emotion is pretending it doesn't happen, and refusing to acknowledge that hate is a natural reaction towards those causing all the suffering. When I witness innocent people being decapitated, burned alive, thrown off buildings, etc, my response is not cultivated, its automatic. Loving your enemy is not voluntarily subjecting yourself to their abuse, and praying for your enemies is not wishing them good fortune and success. Just as God chastens and scourges those he loves (Hebrews 12:6), and just as a parent disciplines a child they love, loving your enemies entails correcting and addressing the harm they're causing. Doing nothing is not love, its saying; "I don't care". My intent wasn't for anyone to actually imagine their mother being killed, it was to demonstrate that those who claim that hate is negative and is never warranted, are themselves capable of hate... But I was wrong... Its a little sad to me that you can't get angry unless you or your family is a direct victim of violence. What does it take to get your dander up? Imo, pacifism perpetuates and emboldens violence. Refusing to imagine that nothing bad could ever happen to you wasn't my point, my point was that hate is a natural response to decapitations in general, which are in fact, based in reality.

Like I said, your both better men than me.... Or your extreme pacifist? Imagine a terrorist decapitating your mother with a dull knife and then tell me your incapable of hate or that its just superficial.. Hate is an emotional response to evil, and hate usually generates a response.

If you can respect people you hate, your a better man than me ! If someone worships a rock, I accept their right, but I don't respect what they're doing because I think its nuts. Likewise, people here accept that I believe a 2000 year old book about a 'mean' God, but I certainly don't expect them to respect something they personally despise. Tolerating my choice is sufficient. A hurricane is natural phenomenon that must be tolerated because you can't kill a hurricane, but you can kill a terrorist. That's a sure-fire way to mitigate the damages . If your neighbor wants to sacrifice your dog to their gods, do you really think 'your only real choice is to either learn how to tolerate it or let it destroy you.'

I don't think its possible to respect something you dislike or hate. All you can do is accept the right of others to believe what they choose, no matter how crazy it may seem. And I don't think its necessary to tolerate the intolerant, at least not when their intolerance interferes or is harmful to others. I personally don't respect Islam, in fact I hate the religion. And I certainly won't tolerate the radical and extreme element, no one should tolerate terror. A person's belief system is their own, and that should be respected until they try to forcibly make it yours... jmo

Why would he appear to you? No where in the bible does he appear to anyone without a purpose, not even angels appeared for no reason. An appearance with no message seems unlikely. And just out of curiosity, what did he look like?

Virtue is defined as morally good behavior or character. I view God as good, so whatever God says is virtuous.

That belief doesn't appeal to me at all. Yes we all physically die, but someone taking the liberty to speed that process up means that they can touch you and alter your life, or make it miserable. Just because we all ultimately share a common fate, doesn't mean that a person with a desire to expedite your death doesn't matter.. Sounds like extreme pacifism, i.e; Oh well, I'm going to die someday anyhow, so just shoot me now

I see... But that presumes the attacker decides he was wrong, has a conscious, and is capable of feeling guilt. I'm guessing that in many cases, an attackers inner-self would be in a celebratory mood and not conflicted in the least . There's similar bible verse; "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul" (Matthew 10:28).

How so? What if some maniac is smashing your face in? That's certainly a fault that can 'touch' you, and you can surely be injured by it. I usually don't comment on threads like this, but the above just seemed like denial since faults committed against you can literally hurt you.

No, I'm never happy about giving half my money to the government.. Stupid or not, I'd fully support another tax revolt, but that won't happen because most people don't pay a cent, they already have zero taxation with representation. Yes, that war could have been avoided, but only if those patriots were content to stay on their knees to England and surrender their independence & freedom. Defiance is brave when its corrects the unfair and immoral rule of law.

That's probably what King George told those idiots who dumped his tea in Boston Harbor

And that's why people worship something beyond the here & now.. The beauty of nature are examples of better things to come. That's the hope anyhow, that youth and life are everlasting, and without all the garbage.