We all have agendas and that's not a bad thing

At least I hope everyone on this forum has agendas. For instance, the world is falling apart piece by piece, wanting to stop any of that is an agenda. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't come to a conspiracy forum with agendas, I would wonder what you're doing there.

What I'm here to rant about is why people see that as being negative. In the following thread I was accused of being anti-"God", anti-Christianity, and anti-Bible:

Christians: What's your opinion of Matthew 19:21 ('sell your possessions and give to the poor')?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have no problem with the allegations, it comes with the territory when posting controversial opinions on a site like this. The thing that bothers me is the hypocrisy and the elitist attitude of the people making the allegations. They obviously have a pro-Bible agenda. They're hypocritical because they want to push their agenda while trying to stop me from furthering what they believe my agenda to be. They have an elitist attitude because they believe that their pro-Bible agenda is automatically superior to what they believe my agenda to be.

None of these people bothered to ask me if I have an anti-Bible agenda, they just assumed that I did and they went from there. That fact in itself exposes yet another agenda on their part. They're trying to discredit my argumentation by using the genetic fallacy. "This person is anti-Bible so his argumentation should be ignored." That's what they're trying to say.

The point I'm tying to make here is we all have agendas. It comes with the territory. I think we should accept that and move on.

a reply to: Profusion

I have many highly opinionated agendas. But If I ever say anything pushy, outside of the evolution/creation debate let me know.

I wouldn't want to be perceived as pushing my religious views on anyone. If I create a thread on religion and you reply expect me to defend the OP but outside of that I hope I haven't pushed my views on anyone.

But you are correct. There are many people who believe they have the only right view who can't accept that others don't agree. Most of the members stay civil in disagreements but there are some who become rude without provocation.

It is sad that all debates don't remain civil. My buttons get pushed occasionally. So I apologize to anyone who may have been on the other side of one of my rants.

a reply to: Profusion

I'm not even religious but I've defended religious people here because free expression is so important. And as a result, been called every name in the book by those that would rather silence people than allow free expression.

Being an atheist defending Christians is awkward sometimes.

a reply to: DBCowboy

By the sounds of it, you aren't defending Christians, rather their right to express that religion freely. It really isn't awkward at all, because for that cause, your agenda is compatible with that freedom of expression. I am not saying that is good or bad, but merely is.

In response to the OP, of course everyone has an agenda. Even Mother Theresa had an agenda. Having an agenda in and of itself isn't bad.

So the real question is, should those(individuals) agendas be public? If they are, then they are easy to use to attack perceived bias of those who hold any particular agenda. If they aren't, then one can be accused of having a "hidden" agenda.

But I digress, an agenda can be more simply an implementation roadmap of an ideology. We can't simply choose to ignore agendas and ideology because if they are incompatible, they are simply incompatible. You can attempt to "re-align" certain ideologies, but on a macro scale very hard, I imagine.

While I agree with the idea of moving on, I just find it extremely unlikely that will happen, particularly at a macro scale. In order to, all ideologies would need to come to standing agreement of some "independent, unbiased" process for integration. Which is hard, since the agendas and ideologies are incompatible.

It is kind of like the children's song, "A hole in the Bucket".

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Profusion

I'm not even religious but I've defended religious people here because free expression is so important. And as a result, been called every name in the book by those that would rather silence people than allow free expression.

Being an atheist defending Christians is awkward sometimes.

I find myself defending Christians quite often these days and its weird because I used the be the one challenging them. I suppose I am old enough to see religion being attacked these days from every direction and despite my lack of desire to adopt one of these dogmas, I do feel sorry for them.

Most religious people I have met are really wonderful people. I am happy to be friends with them as long as they don't over do the God thing or try to convert me.

Love is love.

a reply to: Metallicus

Most religious people I have met are really wonderful people. I am happy to be friends with them as long as they don't over do the God thing or try to convert me.

Love is love.

Interesting yo say that it relates to me on a personal level,my sister is highly religious as in christian with their own version of it as they run their own sermons....during a debate with her and her husband a few years back we did finally agree with one point and that was prayer is the transfer of positive energy and that is a good thing ...

I am agnostic i know there is something out there greater than us i am just not sure we know what that is and it was at least nice to find some common ground....

a reply to: Profusion

I found one post referring to agenda in the thread you linked (might be more implying an agenda, I didn't read the thread back to back):

If I am not mistaken you are the same person who recently posted another verse out of context. Clear agenda.

From the context I'm reading, it's not the issue of having an agenda precisely that the person is complaining about. I believe it' s the presentation not being clear about that agenda. Like starting a conversation with a bunch of innocuous questions and then suddenly pulling out a conclusion, or having a conversation under the guise of learning but actually trying to force an opinion.

I'm not saying left or right this is what was going on, I'm just saying this is what I think was the issue. You would have to ask them.

a reply to: Profusion

Well agenda can be positive and negative

Plumber coming to unplug my toilet after holidays has an agenda

To unplug it



I am just feeling silly lol

originally posted by: Pinke
a reply to: Profusion

I found one post referring to agenda in the thread you linked (might be more implying an agenda, I didn't read the thread back to back):

If I am not mistaken you are the same person who recently posted another verse out of context. Clear agenda.

From the context I'm reading, it's not the issue of having an agenda precisely that the person is complaining about. I believe it' s the presentation not being clear about that agenda.

It was just that poster's opinion that I "posted another verse out of context." I don't believe I've done that on this site, I have no idea what that poster was referring to.

Here are the other posts I alluded to in my original post of this thread:

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: Profusion
I wonder if you patronize Satanist and Wiccans and UFO enthusiast like this, or is it just people that believe in God?

I wasn't being "patronizing." I was attempting to deal with the question fairly from a Christian point of view. That's the opposite of being patronizing.

originally posted by: Cinrad
originally posted by: [post=19933438]Profusion


Here are my favorite explanations:

Theory #1 "Christians are not required to be perfect."
/quote

You have really heard or seen this explanation? I call BS

The post above implies that I had an agenda (which was negative) with the thread we're discussing IMHO.

People seem to forget that there are thousands of denominations of Christianity (according to my research). So, I may have picked up ideas from one of the smaller ones. People don't usually go out of their way to proclaim their denomination, they just call themselves "Christian" (usually). Someone like me could be presenting a very unusual theory concerning the Bible without realizing how unusual it is.

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: Profusion
I was in another thread a couple days ago talking about trolling.
I was genuinely interested because I was unsure what the official meaning of 'trolling' was.

It was pointed out that it is a comment written with the intension of provoking others.

From your post history on Christianity I would say this thread fits into that description.

I see ATS has come through though and answered your 'questions' regardless of the original intent. The OP may not find this information useful, but many others who may question their faith based on the OP's tactics will be reaffirmed due to this.
So thank you OP for reaffirming my faith

And thank you infolurker, Murgatroid and others for taking the time to answer the OP, whatever the original motivation for this thread was.

This is the post that really inspired this thread. This poster really went off the deep end. Calling my thread "trolling"...

Again, I only approached the question from the Christian point of view. "Trolling" is an absurd allegation when I was obviously trying to be fair in my assessment based solely on Christian beliefs, the text of the Bible, and purely logical analysis. I did not stray from that at all and it was labeled "trolling." Just when you thought you've seen it all...

a reply to: VeniVediVici

I'm not defending Christianity. I don't get it, don't know it, don't care to know it. I'll defend Christians though, as much as I'd defend muslims, jews, witches, or anyone else's rights to free expression.
I don't push my beliefs, but I'd like to think that my rights to my beliefs are just as valid as anyone else's rights.

a reply to: Profusion
It can be a tough one.
Some questions you can ask yourself maybe: (they're not original or anything unfortunately!)
What does your post look and read like to other people? (Is it toned well? Is the title inflammatory? Will people feel targetted by it?)
Are the people complaining your target audience?
When you were posting were you thinking of starting some poops? (trying to upset / convert / bait / whatever)

From what you're saying, it seems mostly the first one? People are detecting something that's putting them off?

Sometimes people just ignore your identity and categorize you in these types of discussions. For example sometimes people think I'm a nutty leftist feminist, other times an angry athiest, even sometimes an anti-feminist when I disagree with another feminist. Sometimes I come across as insensitive maybe.

Sometimes this is my fault. I just don't explain myself so well, or I don't have a preamble so people read into the intentions. Sometimes (and most people have done this) people just see something in you that reminds them of a stereotype they hate. Like I've kind of learned, most people don't actually hate say *feminists* or *Christians* they hate what they *think* feminists or Christians are. (Just examples)

Sometimes you can fix this a bit, gently remind people that you're not meaning harm or you're genuinely curious. Ask some questions about them, have (don't show) genuine interest, and let them know where you're coming from.

Keep in mind you can't fix everyone, haters going to hate, everyone has a bad day sometimes, change is slow and it takes time to build trust.

If you're sincere about it at least some people will come around.