Symmetry wrote:Weird stuff, a magazine for a group called the "Son's of Thunder" turned up on my doormat, apparently for a previous occupant. They kind of sound like a cult. I've dealt with a fair few weird Christian denominations in my time, and some of their "love" is pretty much indistinguishable from virulent hatred.
Any of you guys heard of them?
Is it a typo or is it "Son's of Thunder" and if it's the latter, is it possessive (i.e. the son owns of thunder) or is it "Son is of Thunder."
Very confusing.
I received a visit from Jehovah's witnesses who handed me two brochures. The first was about how I could live forever and the second was about how I should stop watching porn. I didn't read them so I'm not sure if they were mutually exclusive.
Symmetry wrote: And yet I feel that this argument applies more to your logic than mine. Clearly I'm talking about a Christian hate group, yet you seem to feel that this means that I think all Christians are members of a hate group, or that it's not possible to be a Christian hate group. I disagree with your logic on this Psychosis.
not at all... from my standpoint to be a member of the human race is to be a member of a hate group... from your definition anyway.
Symmetry wrote:In these guy's case, it's more of a tautology. They are Christian, thus they hate.
I read this to mean that they hate, therefore they are a hate group. my point was simply that all humans with the capacity for emotion hate (so I suppose I should exclude schizos from the hate group list?)
I have no idea what you mean by this, can you clarify? You've deleted my arguments leading up to this, so I do wonder whether you accepted them, or wish them forgotten, or whether there's something else here.
I'd rather you be up front about what you dislike.
I deleted the extra because it was... well, extra. If you want I can re-quote absolutely everything up to this point, but I was trying to make it easy to see what I was talking about... if you think I'd
Symmetry wrote:wish them forgotten
I probably wouldn't be quoting in the first place...
anyway, my entire point is this: you use bad logic to reinforce your personal ideology which is what I personally hate most about politicians and religious fanatics the most... so I hate groups, does that make me a hate group?
You seem to hate my personal ideology. Can you outline it for me? If it is your entire point, that is.
no
I don't care about your personal ideology... it's your personal ideology
my point is don't use bad logic (sorry, underlined was the best I could do)
John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!
fadedpsychosis wrote: anyway, my entire point is this: you use bad logic to reinforce your personal ideology which is what I personally hate most about politicians and religious fanatics the most... so I hate groups, does that make me a hate group?
You seem to hate my personal ideology. Can you outline it for me? If it is your entire point, that is.
no
I don't care about your personal ideology... it's your personal ideology
my point is don't use bad logic (sorry, underlined was the best I could do)
If your logic led you to a hatred of my personal ideology, you could at least outline what you think that ideology is, however little you care for it.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
thegreekdog wrote:I received a visit from Jehovah's witnesses who handed me two brochures. The first was about how I could live forever and the second was about how I should stop watching porn. I didn't read them so I'm not sure if they were mutually exclusive.
Please report back in 1,000 years after abstaining from porn. For the good of mankind.
fadedpsychosis wrote: anyway, my entire point is this: you use bad logic to reinforce your personal ideology which is what I personally hate most about politicians and religious fanatics the most... so I hate groups, does that make me a hate group?
You seem to hate my personal ideology. Can you outline it for me? If it is your entire point, that is.
no
I don't care about your personal ideology... it's your personal ideology
my point is don't use bad logic (sorry, underlined was the best I could do)
If your logic led you to a hatred of my personal ideology, you could at least outline what you think that ideology is, however little you care for it.
you don't listen do you? let me say it again... I. Don't. Care. your ideology is your own personal business. I don't care about it, I don't know anything about it, I don't want to know. I don't hate your ideology either. what I hate is you using bad logic to push it.
if you want to learn the difference between good and bad logic go read a book or take a class, I haven't the patience or inclination to try to teach one who doesn't listen.
John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!
fadedpsychosis wrote: anyway, my entire point is this: you use bad logic to reinforce your personal ideology which is what I personally hate most about politicians and religious fanatics the most... so I hate groups, does that make me a hate group?
You seem to hate my personal ideology. Can you outline it for me? If it is your entire point, that is.
no
I don't care about your personal ideology... it's your personal ideology
my point is don't use bad logic (sorry, underlined was the best I could do)
If your logic led you to a hatred of my personal ideology, you could at least outline what you think that ideology is, however little you care for it.
you don't listen do you? let me say it again... I. Don't. Care. your ideology is your own personal business. I don't care about it, I don't know anything about it, I don't want to know. I don't hate your ideology either. what I hate is you using bad logic to push it.
if you want to learn the difference between good and bad logic go read a book or take a class, I haven't the patience or inclination to try to teach one who doesn't listen.
So, what was the ideology that you hated? Or were you just hating the rhetoric I use?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
fadedpsychosis wrote: anyway, my entire point is this: you use bad logic to reinforce your personal ideology which is what I personally hate most about politicians and religious fanatics the most... so I hate groups, does that make me a hate group?
You seem to hate my personal ideology. Can you outline it for me? If it is your entire point, that is.
no
I don't care about your personal ideology... it's your personal ideology
my point is don't use bad logic (sorry, underlined was the best I could do)
If your logic led you to a hatred of my personal ideology, you could at least outline what you think that ideology is, however little you care for it.
you don't listen do you? let me say it again... I. Don't. Care. your ideology is your own personal business. I don't care about it, I don't know anything about it, I don't want to know. I don't hate your ideology either. what I hate is you using bad logic to push it.
if you want to learn the difference between good and bad logic go read a book or take a class, I haven't the patience or inclination to try to teach one who doesn't listen.
So, what was the ideology that you hated? Or were you just hating the rhetoric I use?
it was the rhetoric, if you want to call it that... I call it bad logic. I don't care what you or anyone believes, but be honest and correct when you try to persuade others... if you read close what I said, it was the way politicians and religious fanatics use bad logic that I hate (I even bolded it in the quote above for you) as you have shown you're not a religious fanatic, I can only pray you have no political aspirations...
John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!
also, for more clarity, it was the word tautology that really set me off, followed by the line "They are Christian, thus they hate." calling a logical fallacy a tautology is rather offensive to me.
John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!
Symmetry wrote: So, what was the ideology that you hated? Or were you just hating the rhetoric I use?
it was the rhetoric, if you want to call it that... I call it bad logic. I don't care what you or anyone believes, but be honest and correct when you try to persuade others... if you read close what I said, it was the way politicians and religious fanatics use bad logic that I hate (I even bolded it in the quote above for you) as you have shown you're not a religious fanatic, I can only pray you have no political aspirations...
I don't get your take on this, nor why you would want to pray for that. Are you saying that you'd prefer these guys in office?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
fadedpsychosis wrote:also, for more clarity, it was the word tautology that really set me off, followed by the line "They are Christian, thus they hate." calling a logical fallacy a tautology is rather offensive to me.
His point (or so I thought anyway) was that it seemed a tautology to THEM -i.e. THEY think that hate is a necessaary part of being a Christian. I don't believe Sym meant that he agrees. Or am I reading it wrong?
fadedpsychosis wrote:also, for more clarity, it was the word tautology that really set me off, followed by the line "They are Christian, thus they hate." calling a logical fallacy a tautology is rather offensive to me.
His point (or so I thought anyway) was that it seemed a tautology to THEM -i.e. THEY think that hate is a necessaary part of being a Christian. I don't believe Sym meant that he agrees. Or am I reading it wrong?
You read me right Jones.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Symmetry wrote:Weird stuff, a magazine for a group called the "Son's of Thunder" turned up on my doormat, apparently for a previous occupant. They kind of sound like a cult. I've dealt with a fair few weird Christian denominations in my time, and some of their "love" is pretty much indistinguishable from virulent hatred.
Any of you guys heard of them?
and????? where is the hate??? I don't get it, unless it's just something you wanted to include in the title in order to deal with your own hate issue?
Symmetry wrote: So, what was the ideology that you hated? Or were you just hating the rhetoric I use?
it was the rhetoric, if you want to call it that... I call it bad logic. I don't care what you or anyone believes, but be honest and correct when you try to persuade others... if you read close what I said, it was the way politicians and religious fanatics use bad logic that I hate (I even bolded it in the quote above for you) as you have shown you're not a religious fanatic, I can only pray you have no political aspirations...
I don't get your take on this, nor why you would want to pray for that. Are you saying that you'd prefer these guys in office?
to quote Jigo from Princess Mononoke: "I give up, you can't win against idiots."
John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!
hahaha3hahaha wrote:As already mentioned, a Christian hate group is unable to exist. It's like a "Christian evolutionist", a term people liberally throw around that doesn't actually make any sense whatsoever. The two terms both conflict themselves, and in reality cannot exist.
You mean 'Christian evolutionists' like the Pope,and the Archbishop of Canterbury,or come to think of it the vast majority of self-identifying Christians?
hahaha3hahaha wrote:As already mentioned, a Christian hate group is unable to exist. It's like a "Christian evolutionist", a term people liberally throw around that doesn't actually make any sense whatsoever. The two terms both conflict themselves, and in reality cannot exist.
You mean 'Christian evolutionists' like the Pope,and the Archbishop of Canterbury,or come to think of it the vast majority of self-identifying Christians?
"Vast majority" is a gross overstatement... Secondly the scriptures clearly state that man was created by God, not that man has slowly evolved from bacteria and other species. It is fairly difficult, if not impossible, to claim to be a follower of Christ if you believe in evolution. Much like it is quite difficult to claim to be an atheist if you believe in Jesus Christ as Lord.
I should avoid this discussion, but, well, Catholics (the first organized Christian religion) are evolutionists (or at least the Church teaches that evolution is correct).
They're apparently very liberal when it comes to punctuation and capitalization. =)
The Sons of Thunder, on the other hand, seem ok. They describe themselves as Christian mystics, which sounds kind of funky.
Thanks for trying, but I think only Symm can answer the question. I will take a guess (after 5 days of asking) that, in Symm's mind, they are a hate group because they do not embrace and promote homosexuality. I will also take a guess, in Symm's mind, that groups whom chop people heads off for not believing in their religion and stone women to death for getting raped are not worthy of labeling a hate group.
Last edited by Phatscotty on Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
