ZOT! Why the constant posts on religion?

None but me

[Mr. Silverback]

Your assertion, your responsibility to back it up.

When someone reports what is basically a crime and provides no evidence, I presume innocence until they prvide some. So, put up or shut up.

[Mr. Silverback]

No, God wants us to be strengthened through trials, and the whining from you guys is surely a trial.

[svcw]

Up to this - unless you should. I confess you had me.

[ctdonath2]

Huh? it applies to me; dunno about you.

[svcw]

To review: you wrote Don’t take it personally, man - unless you should.

[ctdonath2]

Well, only you know whether it applies to you or not. I don’t.

[tacticalogic]

No, God wants us to be strengthened through trials, and the whining from you guys is surely a trial.

So I get to stay as long as I'm nice, and if you can get me to not be nice, I'll be gone.

[fr_freak]

What Colofornian was pointing out, imo, was your inconsistency.

What inconsistency? This is what has my mind reeling. This is a thread that began with the question of why so much religious discussion. I added my $.02 that I hate to see all of the infighting. I didn't disparage anybody's religion. Another poster replied saying that Mormons often get attacked here, and I said hey, I don't mind Mormons, myself. Where is the inconsistency there? Where is there even room for inconsistency in any of my statements? I can't help but think that with you guys, anyone who is not explicitly and aggressively FOR you, must be against you.

I generally stay off of the religious forum precisely because it is not an area where I think there is any worth in arguing here, although I will jump in occasionally when I see some blatant Catholic-bashing. However, the religious bickering often extends way beyond the religion forum and hijacks all kinds of strictly political/news threads. That's where I see most of it, and that's where it is absolutely counter-productive to the main purpose of this site.

Keep in mind that ol' collie came after me, not me after him/her/it.

[fr_freak]

(Yeah, I know...5 graphs is too long for you...too bad they don't have nursery rhymes for newspaper formats so that you could at least get thru a daily newspaper article)

I bet it took half an hour for you to come up with that incredibly witty remark, and you heard a choir of angels singing as you graced the world with this divinely-inspired masterpiece.

[fr_freak]

It would be un Christian of me to suggest you take your head out of your ass, so I'll just ask you to back away from the trees for a view of the forest. Thanks.

Gosh, you had me at "hello".

[Colofornian]

What inconsistency? This is what has my mind reeling.

At least a few.

On post #220 you were telling me to "lighten up". By post #230, about 75 minutes later, were you "lightening up" in your own posts??? (Well, not unless you label a comment about "a bunch of the very same useless denominational crap that I just got done saying had no useful business on a political forum" as "lightening up.")

Therefore, by post #237, which I suggest you re or re-read, I pointed out your biggest inconsistency: That somehow YOU "getting" at OUR throats over our religious vision being integrated with our political vision is apparently A-OK for YOU to do...
...but for some of US to have taken umbrage over how others have merged their religious vision with their political vision...
...(I mean, what? You haven't seen all the Mormon "White Horse prophesy" threads about how the Lds will rise up & save our constitution?)...
...then what we say is relegated by YOU as "useless crap" deserving of "no useful business"???

IOW, why were you initially preaching interdenominational tolerance over a merged religious-political viewpoint -- but you apparently had no tolerance for our distinctive religious-political viewpoint? If tolerance is the upmost "bottom line" in order to remain "united," then why were you showing your "disuniting" spirit with us? (You should have practiced your sermon of tolerance and tolerated what we've said -- because re-look @ post #230 -- hardly a post of "tolerance" on your part)

Therefore, that's why I asked you in post #237: Or have you joined the leftist doctrine of "tolerance for thee but not for me?" crowd without even knowing you're an effective proselyte of it???

You can't preach tolerance, and simultaneously be intolerant of us, without us noting the inconsistency.

[fr_freak]

You can't preach tolerance, and simultaneously be intolerant of us, without us noting the inconsistency.

Sorry, but you're off your nut. My original comment had nothing to do with which religion is better, or which religious discussions should be tolerated and which not, or who's right and who's wrong. I didn't say a thing about any of that. I'm not preaching tolerance, co-existence or any other hippie nonsense. All I said was that the religious bickering is not conducive to conservative unity. I don't know any better way to state that simple point.

Since then, I've had you quoting scripture, tossing out nuggets of Mormon doctrine and how their printed stuff insults Christians etc etc, and your parsing and misrepresenting darn near every word I type, as if that might convince me that, yes, we should all be kicking the tar out of each other on FR! How wrong I was! In essence, your over-reaction seems to prove the very point I was trying to make.

And, quite frankly, I didn't originally have the Mormons vs. Christians in mind when I said we should knock off all the bickering, although it applies. I've seen some really nasty Protestant vs. Catholic stuff go on here, which I find especially asinine.

Honestly, I don't know if you guys are just so frazzled and traumatized by your regular religious cat fights that you no longer have an indoor voice, but you guys seem to be reading a whole heck of a lot more into my posts than is there, and you are making an apocalyptic crusade out of a relatively minor thing. That is where the "lighten up" came from. Still no inconsistency there.

Now, this post ran a little long because this is my last serious attempt to reason with you. I'm not going to bother with anything more than this.

[Clinging Bitterly]

Should have just not read the threads you don't like (as the rest of us do who have not been zotted). But your relatively short posting history suggests you are a malcontent who would complain if hanged with a new rope.

Maybe this'll work for you ('cause y'know we aim to please)...

[genetic homophobe]

Gosh, you had me at "hello".

Ha! You're a good sport. We're on the same team.

Bein' as yer a Californian, you get some extra slack too. The homos and commies are out of control here, but I've got family out there...you get some slack.

[Colofornian]

And, quite frankly, I didn't originally have the Mormons vs. Christians in mind when I said we should knock off all the bickering, although it applies.

Why that's "funny"...all anybody has to do is to go back to post #15 -- you're opening salvo on all of this -- and you said: Protestant vs. Catholic vs. Mormon vs. whatever only serves to divide us at a time when we all need to be as united as possible.

So not only do you write 5-graph "novels" (your term for 5-graphers) -- though don't want to read them -- but you have short-term memory loss, too?

...as if that might convince me that, yes, we should all be kicking the tar out of each other on FR! How wrong I was! In essence, your over-reaction seems to prove the very point I was trying to make.

Well, for the record, for others noting this exchange, what's so ironic is that you get on some of our cases for what you call "bickering" -- yet you don't seemingly see the irony of how you've chosen to "bicker" with us over what we say on FR. ("Bickering for me & not for thee" seems to be your motto...more inconsistency...for if your standard of "Thou shalt not bicker" was a FR "commandment" -- one of your 10 -- you don't seemingly adhere to it)

[Mr. Silverback]

No, I’m not trying to get rid of you. I just prefer that you not whine while you’re here.

[tacticalogic]

No, I’m not trying to get rid of you. I just prefer that you not whine while you’re here.

Well, we have a difference of opinion, and it's unlikely that I'm going to agree with you or STFU because you don't like it, so you'll just have to keep on complaining about the whining. Somehow I imagine you'll be quite able to do that.

[fr_freak]

Sigh. Nighty-night.

[Colofornian]

Sigh. Nighty-night.

'Night. (There. Kept it short :) )

[valkyry1]

Trying to incite more flame wars on threads with ‘religion’ in them again tactical.