was not a bash at Christians

Post #166,982 by hnick 8/1/04 3:30:24 PM Reply	was not a bash at Christians It was an honest answer to the question: Why do people vote against thier apparent interests? My post was my best conclusion. If you have a better one, I'm prepared to listen. I have absolutely nothing against people who behave according to their religious beliefs. I only get snarky when they feel that I must behave according to their religious beliefs.
Post #167,037 by Nightowl 8/1/04 9:24:55 PM Reply	I did wink, by the way in case no one noticed. It was an honest answer to the question: Why do people vote against thier apparent interests? I was referring to Andrew's post, not yours, and his comments in particular, where he says: *********** Andrew said: Christianity in particular began as a religion for the screwed-over class, proclaiming this life as insignificant except for the importance of believing in Jesus. ********* I have a problem calling the pilgrims the "screwed-over class." I preferred to think of them as rebellious souls who chose to change the way they were forced to believe. Then his next sentence makes me cringe even more... ********** Andrew said: But who'da thunk they enjoyed getting screwed over? Just to make sure they kept their minds on the glories of the next life the Christians filled in the Roman sewer system, closed the baths and lost the recipe for soap for 1000 years so they could wallow in filth, stench and disease. ************ Okay, I really don't see why he has to claim Christians are DIRTY. Even if he means it in a non-literal manner and means it as their hearts or minds, it's still a generalization that I don't agree with. This to me, was the "bashing" part, it implies that we are in some way all bad or "unclean". It also bothers me that he implies we like to be screwed over. I think it's mostly that most Christians don't know what will and won't cause them to get screwed over. I voted for a president once, (not the last election, it was some years back), that I believed would benefit me and the first thing he did in office was something that royally screwed me over. So I don't see it as a conscious choice we make. Do you understand any better where I was coming from now? As for your post, I didn't read anything terribly upsetting or offensive in that to cause any response. It was strictly Andrew's post that prompted my response. :) I have absolutely nothing against people who behave according to their religious beliefs. I only get snarky when they feel that I must behave according to their religious beliefs. And you'll find that I'm not one who will try and ever make you do that. I just kinda get tired of hearing all Christians painted as this or that, when in truth we are all individuals with individual ways of believing and our own personal ways of worshipping, and I guess that's what I don't see any indication that the majority of IWT gets that. Nightowl >8# Note to self: Find new signature soon.
Post #167,040 by ben_tilly 8/1/04 9:39:20 PM Reply	Learn some bloody history, woman! The Pilgrims came after 1600 years of Christian history. As for the rest, Andrew (unlike you) knows basic history. Christianity was a religion that appealed strongly to slaves, and fact that Christian Europe did did not believe in bathing is a well-reported part of European history. If you continue to mistake simple fact for bashing, no wonder you don't know much history! (And you're unlikely to improve!) The next time that Andrew launches into one of his rants, you'd be well-advised to ask what parts of it are speculation, and what parts are confirmed fact. It may save you some embarrassment. Regards, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #167,065 by Nightowl 8/1/04 11:05:34 PM Reply	Re: Learn some bloody history, woman! The Pilgrims came after 1600 years of Christian history. I've already explained numerous times I was seeing the beginning of "Christianity" i.e. the departure from the Church of England, as the U.S. version, not the Old Testament. I also explained why I viewed his post as "bashing" and why some parts of it still come across that way. It certainly can't be viewed as a positive post about Christianity. I was just pointing out I was a little tired of hearing all the negativity about religion. I know a lot of history, just never focused on religious history or political really. I focused on military history. Not every human being, even if they learned it ALL in school is expected to remember every fact in history, and that includes me. I observed something, I made a comment, we've resolved it, time to move along, nothing to see here. :) Nightowl >8# Note to self: Find new signature soon.
Post #167,071 by ben_tilly 8/1/04 11:23:04 PM Reply	Still no excuse The fact that Andrew talked about thousand year period and Roman baths made it utterly clear that he was talking about a time period that is longer than US history, and he was talking about something that was nowhere near the New World. (Assuming, that is, that you have a rough idea where Rome is.) If you knew any dates at all on the relevant events, this would have been abundantly clear to you. But even if you were completely clueless as to what events Andrew was talking about, you could have asked! Not knowing something is unavoidable - as you say we are all in that position from time to time. But jumping down someone's throat because they stated facts you were unaware of is avoidable, and should be avoided. How you avoid it is simple - if what that person says makes no sense to you, give them the benefit of the doubt and ask for clarification. When people make stuff up, you can figure that out and call them on it later. When people are referring to stuff which you just didn't happen to know, you can find out more without causing this kind of problem for yourself. So remember this for for next time: there was no excuse for your behaviour. When you don't know, ask before assuming the worst. Particularly if the person who is making comments (Andrew) happens to be someone who is known to know a lot of odd things. Regards, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #167,073 by Nightowl 8/1/04 11:25:48 PM 8/1/04 11:27:26 PM Reply	I didn't jump down anyone's throat. I made a semi-sarcastic comment, with a wink included, meaning I wasn't upset or anything. If you choose to take it differently, that's your problem. Edit: And I've already clarified and handled the mix-up with Andrew in the Religion Forum. I don't ask as much on here as I used to, because when I do it now, people tend to ridicule me for asking. Nightowl >8# Note to self: Find new signature soon. Edited by Nightowl Aug. 1, 2004, 11:27:26 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #167,057 by jake123 8/1/04 10:51:50 PM Reply	One note the filling in of the roman sewers, destroying the baths, and losing the recipe for soap for a thousand years all started and ended well before the pilgrims. US christianity is not the beginning of that faith. BTW- he was in fact being quite completely literal when he said, that: not metaphorical in any way. For many years, people who purposefully injured themselves were considered better people for it, and bathing was something that only pagans did, for which they burned. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #167,062 by Nightowl 8/1/04 11:01:35 PM Reply	Yes, I'm getting that now I also realized I was confusing Christianity with religion, hence Drew pointing out that Christ wasn't even known then, so it couldn't have been. I get confused because they keep saying God/Christ/Spirit are all the same, yet different. And yes, I was viewing the start of it, as U.S. Christianity, not new Testament Christianity, which was my second mistake. No biggie. I just get a little tired of constantly hearing negative things about religion sometimes, just like you all get tired of Marlowe's rants, or De-Sitter's anti-women crusades. Wasn't trying to create an uproar. Nightowl >8# Note to self: Find new signature soon.

Welcome to IWETHEY!