Soulty

[danwxman]

Why would you bash me then lock the thread? Really mature of you.

There was nothing wrong with the question I asked. Those of you on the far-right who subscribe to the philosophy that one must accept Christ in order to get into heaven, do you believe that someone like Terri Shiavo will still go to heaven if she has not accepted Christ?

[dazzleman]

Believe me, you're not doing your philosophy any credit with the type of stuff you have said.  It is cruel.  Is this what your brand of liberalism has come to, cruel remarks about a woman in dire distress?

[danwxman]

Believe me, you're not doing your philosophy any credit with the type of stuff you have said.  It is cruel.  Is this what your brand of liberalism has come to, cruel remarks about a woman in dire distress?

I'll tell you whats cruel...those on the right who believe that someone like Terri Shiavo will go to hell if they have not accepted Christ...no matter how good of a life they have lived or how much suffering they have endured. That is cruel.

[Cashcow]

This thread is much more inappropriate than your other one, dan. Just PM him. If you have a complaint, post it in "The Atlas" forum, as I did.

[danwxman]

This thread is much more inappropriate than your other one, dan. Just PM him. If you have a complaint, post it in "The Atlas" forum, as I did.

I'd like everyone to know that he bashed me then didn't give me the chance to respond. Thanks for the suggestion though.

[Keystone Phil]

Believe me, you're not doing your philosophy any credit with the type of stuff you have said.  It is cruel.  Is this what your brand of liberalism has come to, cruel remarks about a woman in dire distress?

He is just an angry, anti-Catholic. He has said in the past that he doesn't care if the Pope is ill and that he doesn't want to hear about it. Basically, if it doesn't involve him, he doesn't care.

[danwxman]

Believe me, you're not doing your philosophy any credit with the type of stuff you have said.  It is cruel.  Is this what your brand of liberalism has come to, cruel remarks about a woman in dire distress?

He is just an angry, anti-Catholic. He has said in the past that he doesn't care if the Pope is ill and that he doesn't want to hear about it. Basically, if it doesn't involve him, he doesn't care.

I didn't say that at all. I said I didn't care to hear about it on the news every night, but that I wish him the best.

[dazzleman]

Believe me, you're not doing your philosophy any credit with the type of stuff you have said.  It is cruel.  Is this what your brand of liberalism has come to, cruel remarks about a woman in dire distress?

I'll tell you whats cruel...those on the right who believe that someone like Terri Shiavo will go to hell if they have not accepted Christ...no matter how good of a life they have lived or how much suffering they have endured. That is cruel.

Who is suggesting that she is going to go to hell?  I really don't know what you're talking about.  You're raising a strawman, as usual.

[danwxman]

Believe me, you're not doing your philosophy any credit with the type of stuff you have said.  It is cruel.  Is this what your brand of liberalism has come to, cruel remarks about a woman in dire distress?

I'll tell you whats cruel...those on the right who believe that someone like Terri Shiavo will go to hell if they have not accepted Christ...no matter how good of a life they have lived or how much suffering they have endured. That is cruel.

Who is suggesting that she is going to go to hell?  I really don't know what you're talking about.  You're raising a strawman, as usual.

Umm...I'm trying to figure that out. The right cannot deal with this issue because it's so cruel.

[12th Doctor]

Where to begin:

1) First, you start out your thread by attaching onto to the emotionalism of a very senstive topic, using it as a vehicle to attack the other side when the two points you makes have absolutly nothing in common.

2) Second, you are attacking a strawman.  No one has ever claimed the possition that you are going after.  Instead, you take the possition of a small minority of the electorate, assume that all of your opponents hold that possition.  Then you apply it to a situation that has no direct relevance to that possition.  Somehow, in this thread, you seem to have concluded that I believe this to be so.

3) You have a long history of open hostility towards the "religious right" and practicing Catholics in particular.

4) You have a long history of mischaracterizing the possitions of those who disagree with you, even if the difference is slight.  It is the only weapon in your arsenal.

5) If you want to respond, from now on, PM me, or respond in the "Give a Hoot" Thread.

[Jake]

What do you expect troll.  Post crap and it gets shouted down.

[A18]

What do you expect troll.  Post crap and it gets shouted down.

Tons of people think unbelievers go to hell. It's mainstream Christian thought among fundamentalists.

In whatever case, his topic contributed a lot more to the forum than the above post of yours.

[danwxman]

Where to begin:

1) First, you start out your thread by attaching onto to the emotionalism of a very senstive topic, using it as a vehicle to attack the other side when the two points you makes have absolutly nothing in common.

2) Second, you are attacking a strawman.  No one has ever claimed the possition that you are going after.  Instead, you take the possition of a small minority of the electorate, assume that all of your opponents hold that possition.  Then you apply it to a situation that has no direct relevance to that possition.  Somehow, in this thread, you seem to have concluded that I believe this to be so.

3) You have a long history of open hostility towards the "religious right" and practicing Catholics in particular.

4) You have a long history of mischaracterizing the possitions of those who disagree with you, even if the difference is slight.  It is the only weapon in your arsenal.

5) If you want to respond, from now on, PM me, or respond in the "Give a Hoot" Thread.

1) It's a valid question and a valid point...you are the one who is applying blanket emotionalism to this topic.

2) Wrong. It's really a basic belief of the fundies...you have to accept Christ to get into heaven. I don't subscribe to the belief that a perfectly good human being can rot in hell just because they didn't have a personal relationship with Jesus before they died. Maybe we agree?

3) Of course I have hostility to the religious right.

4) Well then, you have mischaracterized this situation...so we're equal.

5) I'm going to respond in this thread so everybody can read it as a reply to yours. Why are you so affraid of me responding directly to your posts?

[Keystone Phil]

Where to begin:

1) First, you start out your thread by attaching onto to the emotionalism of a very senstive topic, using it as a vehicle to attack the other side when the two points you makes have absolutly nothing in common.

2) Second, you are attacking a strawman.  No one has ever claimed the possition that you are going after.  Instead, you take the possition of a small minority of the electorate, assume that all of your opponents hold that possition.  Then you apply it to a situation that has no direct relevance to that possition.  Somehow, in this thread, you seem to have concluded that I believe this to be so.

3) You have a long history of open hostility towards the "religious right" and practicing Catholics in particular.

4) You have a long history of mischaracterizing the possitions of those who disagree with you, even if the difference is slight.  It is the only weapon in your arsenal.

5) If you want to respond, from now on, PM me, or respond in the "Give a Hoot" Thread.

3) Of course I have hostility to the religious right.

You ignored Super's other point about practicing Catholics. I have an obvious dislike for our religion. I've noticed a few of your posts that had "Oh I could go on and on about the hypocrisies of the Catholic church..." and then there was our one argument when you attacked something or someone religious, I responded with "I thought liberals were supposed to be tolerant" and you replied, "I'm not tolerant of intolerance."

[Lunar]

Y'all take this a bit too seriously.  I trust that Supersoulty wasn't being malicious.  You may have been "wronged" somehow, but if so, it was slight enough that it doesn't really matter.

[phk]

Conservative political correctness is going a bit too far.

[The Duke]

danwxman,

Dude.  Seriously dude.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Believe me, you're not doing your philosophy any credit with the type of stuff you have said.  It is cruel.  Is this what your brand of liberalism has come to, cruel remarks about a woman in dire distress?

I'll tell you whats cruel...those on the right who believe that someone like Terri Shiavo will go to hell if they have not accepted Christ...no matter how good of a life they have lived or how much suffering they have endured. That is cruel.

Get a life buddy... Read the Bible.. Only people who accepts Christ into their heart will go to heaven. Thats just as black and white as you can get.

[KEmperor]

Believe me, you're not doing your philosophy any credit with the type of stuff you have said.  It is cruel.  Is this what your brand of liberalism has come to, cruel remarks about a woman in dire distress?

I'll tell you whats cruel...those on the right who believe that someone like Terri Shiavo will go to hell if they have not accepted Christ...no matter how good of a life they have lived or how much suffering they have endured. That is cruel.

Get a life buddy... Read the Bible.. Only people who accepts Christ into their heart will go to heaven. Thats just as black and white as you can get.

Good job in proving his point.

[dazzleman]

The whole point of this thread is mean-spirited.

Even if I knew that Terri Schiavo were a horrible person in life, I wouldn't presume to judge her at this point.  I don't even presume to judge what will happen to death row prisoners after they are executed.

True Christians believe in certain standards of behavior, but don't get into deciding how God will judge each individual person.

The implication here is that Christians are harshly judgmental of everyone.  There are some who are, but I don't believe the majority are.  I think most Christians feel only sympathy for Terri Schiavo, whatever their position on her feeding tube issue, and are not sitting around asking whether she can get into heaven.  That is an insulting implication.

Beware the person who is always accusing others of being judgmental.  That person is often the most judgmental of all.  As Mao Zedong said to US Pres. Gerald Ford in 1975 (about the Soviet Union):  Today, it is the country that most zealously preaches peace that is the most dangerous source of war.

[WalterMitty]

it is a little crazy to label those who dont care to get nightly updates on the pope's health as anti-catholic.

i wish him the best.  but i certainly dont want to hear about it 20 times a day.

[12th Doctor]

Where to begin:

1) First, you start out your thread by attaching onto to the emotionalism of a very senstive topic, using it as a vehicle to attack the other side when the two points you makes have absolutly nothing in common.

2) Second, you are attacking a strawman.  No one has ever claimed the possition that you are going after.  Instead, you take the possition of a small minority of the electorate, assume that all of your opponents hold that possition.  Then you apply it to a situation that has no direct relevance to that possition.  Somehow, in this thread, you seem to have concluded that I believe this to be so.

3) You have a long history of open hostility towards the "religious right" and practicing Catholics in particular.

4) You have a long history of mischaracterizing the possitions of those who disagree with you, even if the difference is slight.  It is the only weapon in your arsenal.

5) If you want to respond, from now on, PM me, or respond in the "Give a Hoot" Thread.

1) It's a valid question and a valid point...you are the one who is applying blanket emotionalism to this topic.

2) Wrong. It's really a basic belief of the fundies...you have to accept Christ to get into heaven. I don't subscribe to the belief that a perfectly good human being can rot in hell just because they didn't have a personal relationship with Jesus before they died. Maybe we agree?

3) Of course I have hostility to the religious right.

4) Well then, you have mischaracterized this situation...so we're equal.

5) I'm going to respond in this thread so everybody can read it as a reply to yours. Why are you so affraid of me responding directly to your posts?

How is it valid?  You drew a connection between two totally unrelated topics and attempted to smear the other side by baiting them into a response that is a no win situation.  The main thrust of your point is that you hate the religious right.  You could have said that without bringing her in, because, other than the emotional play, there is no connection between the two points.

Fundamentaists do not make up the majority of the Republican Party.  Plain ans simple.  They are a segment of the party, but guess what, black fundamentalists make up just as large a segment of the Democrat Party and they hold the smae beliefs, for the most part, as their white counter-parts, so your argument is fundamentally (no pun intended) flawed.  Why are you only hostile towards white fundamentaists?

I mischarecterized nothing.  If reading back to you what you said (and you just reaffirmed that that was what you said, but don't seem to realize that) is "mischaracterizing" your possition, then the problem is with how you express yourself, not how I interpriet it.

Finally, you are free to responde to me as you wish.  If I was truely affraid of what you might say, won't I not have immediatly shut this thread down?  You are too paranoid and give yourself far to much credit, if you think I want to silence you.

[Keystone Phil]

it is a little crazy to label those who dont care to get nightly updates on the pope's health as anti-catholic.

i wish him the best.  but i certainly dont want to hear about it 20 times a day.

It's not a way to show respect by saying "I don't want to hear another thing about the Pope because I don't care."

[Bono]

it is a little crazy to label those who dont care to get nightly updates on the pope's health as anti-catholic.

i wish him the best.  but i certainly dont want to hear about it 20 times a day.

It's not a way to show respect by saying "I don't want to hear another thing about the Pope because I don't care."

Not showing respect doest mean you're anti-catholic.

[Keystone Phil]

it is a little crazy to label those who dont care to get nightly updates on the pope's health as anti-catholic.

i wish him the best.  but i certainly dont want to hear about it 20 times a day.

It's not a way to show respect by saying "I don't want to hear another thing about the Pope because I don't care."

Not showing respect doest mean you're anti-catholic.

There have been other comments from him.