Diary of Anne Frank

[seespotrun2008]

Buddhism is not a religion, not my opion, see below links.

I had a Buddhist professor who would totally disagree with you.

[CWT36]

Buddhism is not a religion, not my opion, see below links.

I had a Buddhist professor who would totally disagree with you.

Stah also claims Christianity isn't a religion. This is part of what makes it impossible to dialogue with him, he uses different definitions of words than those the rest of the English speaking world have agreed on.

[Interbane]

Bart knows that his blog is full of quotes out of context and deliberate misinformation.

"She gets what she deserves in Hell, but at least she wasn't naked in her last moments on earth."

Is this the quote you're referring to? It's not a direct quote, as he stated. It's a summary of your position. Judging by your responses, it's accurate, therefore not taken out of context to misrepresent your position. The responses I'm talking about are:

"It has nothing to do with YEC.
It has nothing to do with you, or me.
Why do you suppose Jesus died on that cross? To amuse us?
Why do you suppose that thousands of people joined the church when it was just starting and did not have 2,000 years of history? When it went against everything they had been taught? When it probably would cost them their family, job, and possibly their lives.

You're offended by what I said about Anne Frank.
God is offended by what you say about His Son.
I can live with offending you.
You cannot live with offending Him."

Which shows the bigoted position you represent was accurately portrayed in Bart's summary. Perhaps you think the part that was taken out of context was that you celebrate her nakedness. With a bit more reading comprehension you'd realize he said your celebration was her avoidance of nakedness. You went out of your way to make this a point, as an upside of the event. "...at least she did not have her modesty abused at the time of her death." What you fail to realize is the emphasis of this statement is made to contrast the rest of your beliefs. You actually believe this innocent girl is burning in hell for all eternity! This belief is a crime in how terribly it tarnishes her memory and her story! You say that you're just the messenger, bringing news from the front lines. This analogy is all well and good, except that you're not bringing news. You're spreading the lies of a fiction book. The fact that you aren't aware they are lies does not make it any less of a crime to tarnish the memory of an innocent girl. Your belief is false. Anne Frank is not currently burning in hell.

His defense is to dismiss me and pretend I don't exist. Nice, but that is typical of atheists, Gould, Dawkins, et al.

It's not a defense, he does not need any defense, nor does anyone who opposes your position. There is a very good reason for this, and that's why you offhandedly claim it's 'typical'. There is a point at which a position is so untenable that to engage in debate against it is actually counter productive. The reason is that by engaging in debate, it makes the ridiculous position seem legitimate. YECism is not legitimate. It's a crime against the intellectual progress of humanity and we will all be better off once it has faded into history. I only respond to you to keep a beacon of rationality visible on the pages of Booktalk for guests to see.

I was hoping you'd leave by now so I wouldn't have to cover up the graffiti of your idiocy. It's almost as if you revel in our harsh words. Perhaps you think that by being the recipient of such words, your position is of the same type as your fictional savior. You picture yourself standing up for what's true in the face of harsh opposition and ridicule. How noble. The problem is the words used against you are harsh for a very good reason. You're wrong. You're ignoring reason. You change the definitions of words to suit your warped beliefs. These are crimes against intelligence and reason. You're not in the same type of position as your fictional savior, you're spreading bigotry and exclusionary beliefs. Such exclusionary beliefs(us vs them, believer/nonbeliever,etc.) are quite simple in their immorality, yet your stupid book praises such exclusion for it's own benefit. Such exclusion is the reason wars are started, as evidenced across the entirety of our history. People such as yourself enable them by spreading exclusionary beliefs.

[stahrwe]

Buddhism is not a religion, not my opion, see below links.

I had a Buddhist professor who would totally disagree with you.

Perhaps, but the links I provided were from Buddhists explaining what Buddhism is, and not my opinion. I agree that there is not a consensus on this matter and generally, when asked to name the religions of the world, Buddhism makes the list, but I maintain that Christianity is not a religion either, so don't take offense. I think religion per se is a closed system which does not allow for growth. While I presume that Buddhism does and so does Christianity.

[stahrwe]

Bart knows that his blog is full of quotes out of context and deliberate misinformation.

"She gets what she deserves in Hell, but at least she wasn't naked in her last moments on earth."

Is this the quote you're referring to?

No, that is not what I was referring to. Bart knows. But The Atheist Turtle, ah I mean Camel prefers to hide rather than discuss.

[Interbane]

But The Atheist Turtle, ah I mean Camel prefers to hide rather than discuss.

Here's an excellent example why harsh words are thrown your way. You completely ignored this part of my post. What is wrong with you? Do you not understand the words? Do you read them but not comprehend them?

Here, read it slower:

There is a very good reason for this, and that's why you offhandedly claim it's 'typical'. There is a point at which a position is so untenable that to engage in debate against it is actually counter productive. The reason is that by engaging in debate, it makes the ridiculous position seem legitimate. YECism is not legitimate. It's a crime against the intellectual progress of humanity and we will all be better off once it has faded into history. I only respond to you to keep a beacon of rationality visible on the pages of Booktalk for guests to see.

No, that is not what I was referring to.

Followed by an awkward silence. What were you referring to? You're like talking to a person who doesn't know how to communicate!