Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder The repeated use (or misuse) of the word hysterical has amused me in these threads. Exactly which definition (from Dictionary.com) is being used? hysteria noun 1. state of violent mental agitation [syn: craze] 2. excessive or uncontrollable fear 3. neurotic disorder characterized by violent emotional outbreaks and disturbances of sensory and motor functions and then, of course... hys·ter·i·cal –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or characterized by hysteria. 2. uncontrollably emotional. 3. irrational from fear, emotion, or an emotional shock. 4. causing hysteria. 5. suffering from or subject to hysteria. 6. causing unrestrained laughter; very funny: Oh, that joke is hysterical!
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I didn't "compare Christ to Santa Claus", I stated a fact, that just because you think something is real doesn't make it so...maybe YOU should go back and re-read" Sure you did. When someone said they believed, you said you used to believe in Santa Claus. That's definitely a comparison. "And even if so, where is the personal attack in stating the opinion that religion is hokey, or that believing in some afterlife is akin to believing in other make believe stuff? Don't WE have a right to believe what WE want to?" Boy, you guys just keep proving my point. Religion is indeed a very personal thing, and to attack a person's religious beliefs is to go to the core of their being (but you knew that, right? I mean, you once believed too, or something like that). If this concept is indeed foreign to you, then you and jonvn are incapable of understanding their answers.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I didn't "compare Christ to Santa Claus", I stated a fact, that just because you think something is real doesn't make it so...maybe YOU should go back and re-read. < maybe you need to take a reading comprehension class -- where in my statement did I say YOU said that ? it is a personal attack to call someones beliefs hokey -- did I say you were hokey for not believing, did most people say anything was wrong with jonvn being an atheist ? ( which many of us knew from other postings )- NO! we said it would be hard for him to understand our viewpoint -- since he did not believe. You really need to grow up with your arguments/discussions because as soon as you are confronted with a statement you don't like you keep reverted to extremely juvenile retorts -- jonvn may be very closed minded on this ( and again I think a lot is because he would be incapable of understanding parts of the discussion) -- you just choose to repeat the same thing over and over
Originally Posted By Mr X ***for all the 'hysterical' comments you claim - I remember exactly one*** "unjustifiably self righteous and a bigot in your own way" "Mr X -- grow up my friend" "as closed minded as anyone can get" "Forgiveness. With your views being what they are, I'm sure you don't understand the concept." "Wow, how pompous can a person get." "welcome to the one sided world of Mr x and jonvn -- don't you know all religious people are fairy tale followers and rapists" "I'll meet your rapes and raise you ten." "truly one of the most insensitve and idiotic statements I have ever read" "I’ll admit it. I really like watching kids get corn-holed." "God. No guts. I was only at blow jobs and you wouldn't go all in." "I give this thread the respect it deserves. None." "I don't really care because you obviously have no clue" "You have a real problem." "I like watching X and jonvn engage in a little circle jerk." "anytime we donate anything to the church we mark it explicitely for abuser use only -- what a load....." "more maturity....really pathetic" "you re so full of crap" "listening to you talk about religion is like listening to a priest talk about marital sex" "I have news for you. Your name should now be Jesus Christ because you are without sin." "what the hell gives them any right to comment on what religions we belong to?" "I specifically DO NOT apologize to either Mr. X of jonvn" "That kind of bigoted remark that says that anyone who remains a Catholic "supports" such behavior is the kind of bigoted remark that would do the likes of Hitler proud whenever he came up with his remarks about all the things Jews were guilty of." Well, surely more than one anyway, but unfortunately that's all I could come up with since most of the really nasty stuff has been removed.
Originally Posted By Mr X "maybe you need to take a reading comprehension class -- where in my statement did I say YOU said that ?" I did say that. I comprehend fine, thanks.
Originally Posted By jonvn First, that article in the LA Times is very, very good. And what he talks about is a lot of what I've seen here. I don't see how any thinking person could come to any other conclusion than what he has. It is very sad and disturbing to see people defend child molesters, and to continue to support the people who hid them. "no, no one is going down this road except Jonvn who has made up his mind he is right 100% and everyone else is wrong" I'm going down the road of child molesters and their protectors are bad, and organizations that create a situation where this is tolerated are not worthy of support. That's the road I'm on, and yes, that is 100% right. There is no ambivalence in this.
Originally Posted By jonvn "jonvn may be very closed minded on this" Yes, I am. My feeling is that religion is basically nonsense. But that some people seem to have a need for it, and that I don't understand. HOWEVER: I am very much of the mind of the guy who wrote the article in the Times. If I were a member of a church, and it was systematically engaged in certain amoral behavior, I could not be a member. That other people can basically hand wave it away is shocking. It's cut and dried. Child molester? Evil. Protectors? Even more evil. Punishing the victims? Beyond belief. There is basically nothing that can be said, given what the church has done time and time again, over and over, throughout the entire planet that can justify continued support. That's all there is to it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Post 84- see post 81. Which of those statements fit the definition of hysteria? None that I can see.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF I knew the LA Times piece would have some relevance here, but my intent for posting it was to illustrate how this person's faith has been affected by the issues being discussed in this and other threads. The comments he's received are very interesting to read as well. I typically stay out of the religion-oriented threads because, as I'm sure I've demonstrated over time, for obvious reasons, I have a very sour opinion on organized religions. Religion, in my life, has been a source of pain, not of strength. However, as I struggle to determine just what it is I *do* believe when it comes to my own spirituality, this passage really resonates with me: "Clearly, I saw now that belief in God, no matter how grounded, requires at some point a leap of faith. Either you have the gift of faith or you don't. It's not a choice. It can't be willed into existence. And there's no faking it if you're honest about the state of your soul." In four sentences, he's just about summed it up for me.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder >"Clearly, I saw now that belief in God, no matter how grounded, requires at some point a leap of faith. Either you have the gift of faith or you don't. It's not a choice. It can't be willed into existence. And there's no faking it if you're honest about the state of your soul." In four sentences, he's just about summed it up for me.< And demonstrates yet again why jonvn and X can't grasp what others are saying. They haven't/won't make that leap.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<"I like watching X and jonvn engage in a little circle jerk.">> I said I was exiting this thread but I just wanted to clarify my use of the term cj since it really seems to bother you guys. I was not using referring to cj as a sexual act. Among some of my friends we will say a couple of people are cj'ing when they dominate a thread basically telling each other how right they are. Another term would be mutual admiration society. That was the way I intended to use the term. You apparently have not heard it used that way. I thought it pretty accurately described the pattern I saw in the thread. Some of the other more 'out there' comments were in response to jonvn's continued claim that all Catholics supported rape. I figured what the hell... if that's what he wants that's what I'll give them. They were clearly (if taken in context) not sincere comments, but my ridiculous response to what I felt was as an equally ridiculous claim.
Originally Posted By Mr X "Which of those statements fit the definition of hysteria?" Considering the context, all of them. " irrational from fear, emotion, or an emotional shock" The word is quite fitting, I can't think of another more suitable.
Originally Posted By Mr X "Which of those statements fit the definition of hysteria?" Considering the context, all of them. " irrational from fear, emotion, or an emotional shock" The word is quite fitting, I can't think of another more suitable.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder >"Which of those statements fit the definition of hysteria?" Considering the context, all of them. " irrational from fear, emotion, or an emotional shock" The word is quite fitting, I can't think of another more suitable.< That's a laughable interpretation stretched very thinly and solely to fit your agenda. On both times you said it.
Originally Posted By Mr X Fine, whatever. You are so very intelligent to point this out, and my choice of wording is not only poor, but laughable. Happy? I'll try to find another word for describing a situation where people make angry, fearful, accusatory statements out of emotion related to a topic that is very significant to them.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>And demonstrates yet again why jonvn and X can't grasp what others are saying.<< I grasp it just fine, thanks. I just don't agree with it. I agree with Jon that continuing to fund and support a clearly immoral organization is wrong. I liked how that reporter said " I didn't see these institutions drenched in God's spirit." That's very much how I feel about the catholic church at this point. There are some other Christian denominations that don't feel so immoral to me, though. So, despite the fact that I COMPLETELY grasp what people are saying, I disagree with it and think the only morally clear answer is to worship elsewhere. "You just don't get it" is not much of an argument, sorry.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I'll try to find another word for describing a situation where people make angry, fearful, accusatory statements out of emotion related to a topic that is very significant to them." Why not just stick with angry?
Originally Posted By jonvn I am quite tired of being told I can't grasp something. This is akin to calling me stupid. I am perfectly capable of grasping what is being said. I simply find it of no use.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "So, despite the fact that I COMPLETELY grasp what people are saying, I disagree with it and think the only morally clear answer is to worship elsewhere. "You just don't get it" is not much of an argument, sorry." It's all you're gettin', bubba. Why not just disagree and move on then? Why continue to pursue it? It goes back to what I also said before. You two don't really care for discussion on this topic, you want capitulation.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Among some of my friends we will say a couple of people are cj'ing when they dominate a thread basically telling each other how right they are." Which is precisely what we are seeing on the other side of the discussion. "I'll try to find another word for describing a situation where people make angry, fearful, accusatory statements out of emotion related to a topic that is very significant to them." No. The word "hysterical" is completely apt.
