Originally posted by AshleyD
Foxy, you may not have seen the first thread linked to in my signature but you might want to take the time to read it before referring to Whammy as an
ignorant backwoods savage.
I don't think it would have given me much pause. I regard his opinion to be grossly ignorant and backwards. He staunchly stands by his opinion, and
so what does this make him? I would respond the same to him if he were saying that it's impossible for me to understand Emily Dickenson because I'm
not white, or because I'm not a woman.
I have enough faith in you to believe that you would agree with me in either such case, as well.
As a former Christian, I am sure you realize what Whammy is referring to: a lack of Holy Spirit guided discernment- not 'stupidity' (the term
you used) in what a previous member described as an effort to misdirect and incite Jerry Springer-like drama.
I realize it quite well. My response is exactly the same.
You are incapable of understanding Aesop because you lack the proper understanding of Hellene religious beliefs? You can't comprehend the music of
Matisyahu because you aren't an Orthodox Jew? You can't possibly appreciate the rich flavors of a good curry, because you were not raised Hindu?
The statement being made is that you are deficient, lesser, and incapable of looking at something and understanding it. Now maybe you can re-package
it into some namby-pamby feelfood "Christians would never use a word like 'stupid' to call you stupid!" nonsense... but that's exactly what it
is.
The statement that a person cannot understand a religious text
unless they are a member of that religion, is a method of deflection. It is a
statement that unless you are in agreement with him, your opinion is meaningless. Obviously, if we were Christian, we
wouldn't be arguing
against the bible - but that's the criteria we have to meet to make any argument against the bible valid?
'Man on a stick.' Nice bait but I'm not taking it.
Well, isn't he? Would you prefer "man on
two sticks?"
You chastise others for not believing what you do
Isn't lying a sin, Ashley? Better say a quick "sorry Jesus" for that one there. I don't chastise anyone for not believing as I do. I don't
want people to believe as I do. I've seen what you people have done to your own religion, and I want you to stay as far away from mine as I
can possibly keep you.
I chastise them for attacking the beliefs of others - and I do so by delivering the same attitudes they present, back to them. Curious how our
illustrious moderators accept one and not the other, but besides the point, I suppose.
all the while not taking the time to notice just how condescending and hostile you sound while looking down your own nose at everyone else. I
have noticed this is a pattern for you ever since first encountering you on ATS.
My hostility is carefully worded and planned, Ashley. I know precisely what I'm doing and what I'm saying. And it's not everything else. If you
paid as much attention to my posting as you claim you do (clearly you don't, as there have been many instances where you clearly responded without
reading a damn thing I had written...) you would notice that it's only a certain group of attitudes, and the posters that express them that draw my
hostility.
I suppose you're expecting me to feel some shame or remorse for this, of course? Maybe you should post another thread about how evil another religion
is, using a racist hate site as your source, then get back to me.
Who needs a conspiracy when there are people who bully and insult their debate opponents into submission? Take care.[edit on 4/9/2008 by
AshleyD]
Heads of concrete require a jackhammer.