08 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderHis statement clearly expresses that he is in disagreement with much of what is said. Furthermore, he plainly states that much of RB's statements understandably antagonize his critics.
What a surprise; another "Christian" who thinks that RB shouldn't be "ganged up" on just because he espouses sentiments that are more in line with the KKK than any "Christian" church I ever heard about. You guys are certainly tolerant of racism, sexism and other extreme forms of bigotry. Kudos to you!
There is a significant and critical difference between agreeing with, or advocating for, a postion and simply being tolerant of the individuals expression of their views.
He is simplisticly expressing his tolerance of others views, and a disagreement with the verbose and inflammatory criticism RB's comments frequently draw. I am of firm agreement with his stance. The rational and civil person will respectfully permit the views of others and exhibit a modicum of entertaining their positions. This is only rational. To the converse, retort based upon generalization and thick with inflammatory remarks, are the hallmarks of the irrational, comparable to the proverbial caveman beating his chest.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
08 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by OmnislashOf course; it is of the utmost importance to listen quietly and respectfully when someone is calling people "niggers", saying they dislike women who are, of course, intellectually inferior to men, describing someone else's church as "The Great Whore" etc. etc. etc.. I admit I should be more tolerant of these views. After all, I wouldn't want to make "inflammatory, irrational remarks".
His statement clearly expresses that he is in disagreement with much of what is said. Furthermore, he plainly states that much of RB's statements understandably antagonize his critics.
There is a significant and critical difference between agreeing with, or advocating for, a postion and simply being tolerant of the individuals expression of their view ...[text shortened]... rational, comparable to the proverbial caveman beating his chest.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
08 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWay to go caveman. 😉
Of course; it is of the utmost importance to listen quietly and respectfully when someone is calling people "niggers", saying they dislike women who are, of course, intellectually inferior to men, describing someone else's church as "The Great Whore" etc. etc. etc.. I admit I should be more tolerant of these views. After all, I wouldn't want to make "inflammatory, irrational remarks".
08 Dec 05
Originally posted by kirksey957RB, she has agreed to play you two games and as an added feature, she will play black in both games to help you demonize her more.
I have sent a message to skeeter to see if she will play RBHill ten clan games, one on one against him. To me this is reminiscent of the ancient Old Testament challenge where the god's of Baal met their match against the one true faith. As I believe it was Elisha who even had the wood soaked in water, I believe that maybe skeeter may indulge you with R2-R3 as her first move. The gauntlet is thrown down.
08 Dec 05
Originally posted by dottewellEver hear of David Koresh? Or Jim Jones?
Interesting that so many people's paragon of a "fundamentalist" Muslim is either someone from the Taliban or a group like Al Qaeda. So many scholars think their ideologies are NOT based on a proper (or even literal) interpretation of Islamic texts, in toto.
Does something similar apply with Christianity?
08 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeOne of the definitions. Course, I can hear your response:
[b]Sonhouse: "They all have one thing in common: Extreme pressure on people to convert."
So, this would be a criterion in your definition in order to establish whether someone is a fundamentalist or not ? Correct ?[/b]
I never put pressure on people to convert.....
08 Dec 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672If Hitler was posting in this forum and I blasted him, the same people would come to his defense from my "bullying" tactics. It's not what's being said; it's who's saying it. It also helps RB that he wraps his bigotry in a religious cloak, so that these people think he's some kind of kindred soul.
Omni, gotta tell ya bro, I think you're backing the worng horse here. RBHILL is STANG's half-brother (hmmm...they both capitalize their names...co-inkydink?) and espouses the opposite ideals as Stang, but they're both callous, angry, judgmental, bigoted, racist attention whores.
Get on the right side of this one.
08 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderIf Hitler was posting on this site, he would be on your side .... insulting and bullying people.
If Hitler was posting in this forum and I blasted him, the same people would come to his defense from my "bullying" tactics. It's not what's being said; it's who's saying it. It also helps RB that he wraps his bigotry in a religious cloak, so that these people think he's some kind of kindred soul.