jogvanth wrote:
Vuz, do you eat produce from pigs? Do you know how they are slaughtered in DK? (...) In my view, this is inhumane and should be banned, but nobody says a damn about this.
WTF? I'm a fucking vegetarian, and have been active in the animal rights movement, what do you think? Are you telling me I haven't said anything about this? WTFx2? Well, since you're showing a whole new sensible and tolerant side of yourself on this thread, why don't you take action on your own belief and stop eating pork/bacon/ham?
Yeah JT WTFx2. You honestly haven't noticed that vuzman has been a vegetarian for the past 5 years?!? Of all the things in this tread that's the most ridiculus thing yet...
Oh and for those of you wondering, yes I have been lurking along in this discussion also. I agree with vuzman 95% of the way in this thread...just think that if I also get into it this dicussion might become too jumbeled with even more people responding to several different posts at once...
Respond away!
Forgot about Vuz and his "rabbit-food". My bad. But he has been living abroad for almost his entire veggie time. There is, by the way, a thing that I see as deeply irrational and unnatural. Vegetarians. Humans are carnivores. Carnivorous females of the human species have a five times larger posibillity of becoming pregnant with twins, than vegetarian females of the human species. Just one point of reasoning against vegetarianism.
Causing irreparable physical harm to children is wrong, no matter what your reasoning might be. I still say your method of "throwing all religious people into the lunatic-pile" is unnecessary, and would like you to tone it down, in general. Since this has developed into a forum of discussing this, write on.
vuzman wrote:
I don't presume, I lean on the interpretations that have been made throughout history. Circumcision, slavery, witch hunts, burqas, halal/kosher butchering, sexism, and countless other wrongs have been performed throughout history in the name of the bible/talmud/quran, and still are today. I can also read, and I find ample evidence in the bible to back up these practices. But what I think isn't the point, the point is that no one really understands the bible, because it simply cannot be wholly understood. Its irrationality, faulty logic, and contradictory nature is made painfully clear by the number of different interpretations of it. And this leads to these tragedies, and will inevitably lead to more in the future.
Again, I am perfectly aware that the bible is irrational and of all the horrors that have been committed in the name of religion. I could counter, that horrors have been committed in the name of just about any ideology, but that's not the issue here. The issue is what you propose to do about your religious misgivings.
vuzman wrote:
I have talked about banning religion, which I still think is a fine idea. Organized religion, that is. Not belief itself, that would be banning certain thoughts, and beside from being impossible to uphold, it could hardly be farther from my wishes. I have, in fact, mentioned that we should take our churches and convert them into non-denominational "safe-houses", i.e. a place where everyone, regardless of belief or non-belief can go and meditate or pray or just gather one's thoughts in peace.
Fair enough. You do not want the state to be affiliated with religion in any way, I can agree with that.
However, while banning something certainly would be discriminating, it is not the only form of discrimination. To publicly compare homosexuals to pedophiles is legally considered to be discrimination in most of Europe, even if it isn't in FO. In the same manner, to publicly proclaim that Christians are morons would, in my admittedly ignorant opinion, also be considered a case of discrimination. Now Torellion pointed out to me that stating facts about something could never be regarded as discrimination, which I reluctantly will accept. Being a moron however, implies lower than average intelligence, and there is no evidence to suggest that this is true of Christians. There are some Christians who definitely are morons, but there are also some homosexual pedophiles. Furthermore, "moron" is widely regarded as a derogatory term which, in and of itself makes it offending no matter if it is factual or not. Gross generalizations and the use of derogatory terms like these are what I, and I suspect Dr. Tyson, object to. To me they display the kind of narrow-mindedness and prejudice one typically associates with fundamentalism of various kinds, and is therefore an extremely poor foundation for opposition against it.
Having said all that, let me just quickly point out that my arguments do not pertain to what vuz has said about Christians on this forum for the following reasons:
1. This is not a public forum in the sense that a newspaper is. vuz is free to have his opinion and free to express that opinion however he likes in this forum that only 28 people frequent.
2. While there are many types of democracy, there are two fundamental principles that all of them adhere to: the rule of majority and the protection of minority. The anti-discrimination act is intended to protect minorities and not as a tool of censorship for the majority. To suggest that Christians are the victims of discrimination on this forum is about as ridiculous as a white man suing a black man for racism during the apartheid regime in South Africa.
3. We all know fully well that the opening comment was a joke, so there is no need to get worked up about anything.
vuzman wrote:
As for keeping an open mind, I think I can safely say that I am most the open-minded of us all, at least when it comes to trying to understand what these religions are trying to say and offer. I am not against religion because I'm ignorant, I'm against religion because I do know what it is about, what they have to offer, and what it's effects are.
Yeah I know how you study religion. Knowing a lot about various religions doesn't make you open-minded. Adolf Eichmann knew a lot about the Jews too: "He studied all aspects of Jewish culture, attended Jewish meetings and often visited Jewish sections of cities while taking volumes of notes. He became familiar with the issue of Zionism, studied Hebrew and could even speak a bit of Yiddish. "
vuzman wrote:
I'm not saying that religion is all bad, far from it, some people seem to get a lot of good out of it, but it has some most unwanted side-effects, and in addition to those it is also a hinderance for mankind to progress into a more tolerant, enlightened, civilized, and compassionate species.
Religion might be such a barrier, but so are gross derogatory generalizations about groups of people, as well as the mockery of that which some regard as the most important thing in their lives. It's not enough just to want to change someone's opinion. It's just as much how you do it.
EDIT: hey I didn't mention Hitler so its allowed. His henchmenn are free game!
jogvanth wrote:
There is, by the way, a thing that I see as deeply irrational and unnatural. Vegetarians. Humans are carnivores. Carnivorous females of the human species have a five times larger posibillity of becoming pregnant with twins, than vegetarian females of the human species.
[sarcasm] Well, you're the expert [/sarcasm]
grizlas wrote:
You do not want the state to be affiliated with religion in any way, I can agree with that.
I should think that both the state and the state sponsored religion should want it this way too. I doubt that female priests and gay union rituals in the church would be a reality if the Danish church was independent from the state; the state actually has a say in what the church teaches (how often this happens in reality, I don't know, but the principle withstands). The other way round one can say that the state has to pass laws that conform to their religion of choice (This is obviously only in theory, but again, it's the principle). This also affects the royal family, which by law has to follow the state sponsored religion.
Regarding your "moron" tirade, I'm not really sure what you are referring to. Neither I nor Dawkins (AFAIK) have called christians morons (Unless I have done so in private, in which case I don't think anyone on the planet hasn't been called that at least once ). Even in my first post I wasn't talking about all christians, I was specifically targeting pentecostal/charismatic christians, who often have meetings where they display use of a similar force as was shown in the first clip. It was also said in jest. I believe this should be clear.
Yeah I know how you study religion. Knowing a lot about various religions doesn't make you open-minded. Adolf Eichmann knew a lot about the Jews too
Well, exposing myself to religion kinda makes me more susceptible to being converted. And while I in my studies certainly have been gathering ammo for my war (), I certainly have kept an open mind about it. Those of you with good memory will recall that I used to call myself an agnostic, then an agnostic atheist, and it is first in later years that I have gone full-blown atheist (Commando style!).
Religion might be such a barrier, but so are gross derogatory generalizations about groups of people, as well as the mockery of that which some regard as the most important thing in their lives.
What gross generalizations have I done in this thread? And why is it ok to mock Tom Cruise for his religion, but not ok to mock someone christian?
I was under the impression that it was generally ok to mock religious people when done in jest. Take a look at this clip, which shows that even Americans can do this. Jesus H Christ, you guys are whining more than the religious right in America. When did you guys become holier than thou?!
Oh, and did you just compare me to Eichmann? Really? Seriously? No kidding? Really? No shit?
It wasn't a tirade as much as it was an attempt to express a rather difficult point, that you quickly dismissed in a JT way without stating wether you agree or disagree with my argument. It is of little consequence whether you or Dawkins have actually uttered that exact phrasing which I made up to be able to demonstrate my view on this issue.
vuzman wrote:
And while I in my studies certainly have been gathering ammo for my war (), I certainly have kept an open mind about it.
Forgive me if I beg to differ. You have never as I recall been able to present to me any argument for harbouring any kind of religious belief. You have always, as I remember, dismissed any such talk as moronic, and you have frequently expressed to me that you regard all people of faith to be stupid and defended that view. No, not in jest. Since you do so feverently ask me to prove it now, I can only assume that you have changed your viewpoint since then, but allow me to question your proclaimed open-mindedness all the same.
As for you (subtly) changing your view from agnostic to atheism (hard atheism) my memory seems to fail me. I do, however, clearly remember the first time I realized how narrowminded you were about this issue, when you, Magni and spiff for the first time came to a meeting up in the meinigheitshúsið to "educate" yourself about christianity, all prepared with quotes from Prestar og Profetar to take down any and all opposition you might find. Nothing has happened since then that has made me re-evaluate your open-mindedness.
vuzman wrote:
What gross generalizations have I done in this thread?
Again, you disregard the argumentation and plead ignorance.
vuzman wrote:
And why is it ok to mock Tom Cruise for his religion, but not ok to mock someone christian?
That you actually ask this question demonstrates how you have completely misunderstood what discrimination is, despite my best efforts to explain it.
vuzman wrote:
I was under the impression that it was generally ok to mock religious people when done in jest. Take a look at this clip, which shows that even Americans can do this. Jesus H Christ, you guys are whining more than the religious right in America. When did you guys become holier than thou?!
Hey, I love to joke about religion. See my 3. point in the above post that you perhaps quickly glanced over. This thread seemed to have developed into something more serious than what you intended in your opening post, so I thought it was ok for me to delwe deeper into my reservations about how you express your views. This should not be taken to mean that I can't joke about faith. All the people of faith that I know would find that clip very funny. I know I did.
vuzman wrote:
Oh, and did you just compare me to Eichmann? Really? Seriously? No kidding? Really? No shit?
For some reason, suddenly you do not find it in the least bit funny that I compare your zealous study of religion to Eichmann. Apparently, Atheists like yourself do not have the same sense of humour about yourselves as that whihch you expect from theists...
grizlas wrote:
It wasn't a tirade as much as it was an attempt to express a rather difficult point, that you quickly dismissed in a JT way without stating wether you agree or disagree with my argument. It is of little consequence whether you or Dawkins have actually uttered that exact phrasing which I made up to be able to demonstrate my view on this issue.
Well, it sounded like an attack on me, but if you're just being general, then I agree, and as I did mention above, I don't think I make gross generalizations in public. Subject closed.
Forgive me if I beg to differ. You have never as I recall been able to present to me any argument for harbouring any kind of religious belief. You have always, as I remember, dismissed any such talk as moronic, and you have frequently expressed to me that you regard all people of faith to be stupid and defended that view. No, not in jest. Since you do so feverently ask me to prove it now, I can only assume that you have changed your viewpoint since then, but allow me to question your proclaimed open-mindedness all the same.
Well, I have an image to uphold... I guess you're just gonna have to take my word for it. I believe faith should be kept private, and as such have applied that criteria to myself. I have in several instances starting with the time we went to bible study, and ending with my first year in Denmark prayed every day for prolonged periods, the longest just over a year IIRC. That is not information I volunteer lightly, cause I kinda feel like an idiot saying that. But there you go. Whether I have called all people of faith stupid or not, well, I don't think so, but if so it should be obvious that I wasn't talking about the people themselves, but the choice they made in believing. I realize that many (probably most?) people haven't made a conscious choice to believe, they just do because their parents did.
Now, what I have said for certain is that I believe people who claim to be christians (as in following the bible) are either ignorant, stupid, or evil. That I firmly uphold (maybe with the exception of really smart people, but I guess their intricate reasons for still believing are self-delusional, and it's pretty stupid to delude yourself, so yeah, they're stupid). Most would however fall into the first category, as they haven't read the bible and only have a superficial notion of what's in the bible. Then there are people who call themselves christians, but don't believe in the bible per se. These people, I think, should stop calling themselves christian, as they fall out of any proper definition of christians (but I guess there aren't many substitute labels they can use). These people and other people who say they believe in a god, but not any real dogma, well, not believing in dogma is great, and I don't really have a problem with these people, but I would argue that there is no need for a god, and that life could be so much better without the god.
As for you (subtly) changing your view from agnostic to atheism (hard atheism) my memory seems to fail me. I do, however, clearly remember the first time I realized how narrowminded you were about this issue, when you, Magni and spiff for the first time came to a meeting up in the meinigheitshúsið to "educate" yourself about christianity, all prepared with quotes from Prestar og Profetar to take down any and all opposition you might find. Nothing has happened since then that has made me re-evaluate your open-mindedness.
I think your memory fails you again; "Prestar og Profetar" wasn't even published at the time, and I didn't know about the book until Høgni av Heiði gave me a copy personally, several years later. I don't remember us taking any quotes or material of any kind with us, I'm not sure where your memory gets that from. I don't know why you're not in the memory either...
Anyway, maybe you will also remember that I was very into UFOs, ghosts, the Bermuda Triangle, and other stuff including religion, as a kid. I spent countless hours at the public library reading and searching for this stuff. I definitely wasn't a skeptic at that point.
Anyway, what I did or didn't do and did or didn't believe, is irrelevant to this discussion, try to stick to this debate instead of talking about what I say in private or said 10 years ago. I might just have changed my mind since then, and only what I say here now is relevant to this discussion. Stick to the plan!
That you actually ask this question demonstrates how you have completely misunderstood what discrimination is, despite my best efforts to explain it.
Nah, it's your fault for bringing up weird examples that don't relate to the discussion at hand, but have something to with something you're pretty sure I said at some point.
For some reason, suddenly you do not find it in the least bit funny that I compare your zealous study of religion to Eichmann. Apparently, Atheists like yourself do not have the same sense of humour about yourselves as that whihch you expect from theists...
You thought I didn't get the joke? Really? Seriously? No kidding? Really? No shit?
Actually, the Eichmann comparison was kinda funny, but comparing me to JT, that was just mean, asshole!
(I kid, I kid, relax. I'm not mad at Yutani either. FFS )
vuzman wrote:
Well, it sounded like an attack on me, but if you're just being general, then I agree, and as I did mention above, I don't think I make gross generalizations in public. Subject closed.
At least we agree on something.
vuzman wrote:
Well, I have an image to uphold... I guess you're just gonna have to take my word for it. I believe faith should be kept private, and as such have applied that criteria to myself. I have in several instances starting with the time we went to bible study, and ending with my first year in Denmark prayed every day for prolonged periods, the longest just over a year IIRC. That is not information I volunteer lightly, cause I kinda feel like an idiot saying that.
What can I say. Wow. Somehow my brain just won't accept this as true of the vuzman kudos to you for admitting to it here. I guess this explains your zeal. Wrath hath no fury like a woman scorned.
vuzman wrote:
Now, what I have said for certain is that I believe people who claim to be christians (as in following the bible) are either ignorant, stupid, or evil.
See, this is the point where I think some people might not fully understand what you're saying. To the casual observer this sentence seems to mean that you actually think all Christians are ignorant, stupid or evil, but that's obviously not it at all, because :
vuzman wrote:
it should be obvious that I wasn't talking about the people themselves, but the choice they made in believing.
You only believe that their choice in believing is stupid, - not the people themselves obviously...or? Can you see how that might be slightly confusing?
vuzman wrote:
I think your memory fails you again; "Prestar og Profetar" wasn't even published at the time, and I didn't know about the book until Høgni av Heiði gave me a copy personally, several years later. I don't remember us taking any quotes or material of any kind with us, I'm not sure where your memory gets that from. I don't know why you're not in the memory either...
I distinctly remember you bringing a book or leaflet of some kind with writted notes on it. If it wasn't P&P then it must have been something else. I also remember that you tried to get the guy to answer some of your arguments against believing in God, and I also remember how dissapointed you were when he said his faith wasn't up for debate, but he'd happily show you what faith was, and asked if that wasn't why you had come. Now my memory is perfectly fine even though I have on occasion been known to forget certain things...wait did we have this discussion before?...and incidentally...who are you anyways?
vuzman wrote:
Anyway, what I did or didn't do and did or didn't believe, is irrelevant to this discussion, try to stick to this debate instead of talking about what I say in private or said 10 years ago. I might just have changed my mind since then, and only what I say here now is relevant to this discussion. Stick to the plan!
If you say you are open-minded then you are open-minded god damnit. No matter what has happened in the past. Yessir. Sticking to the plan Sir.
vuzman wrote:
Nah, it's your fault for bringing up weird examples that don't relate to the discussion at hand, but have something to with something you're pretty sure I said at some point.
Ididn'tdoitnobodysawmedoityoucantproveanything. Sticking to the plan Sir. *places fist against head*
vuzman wrote:
Actually, the Eichmann comparison was kinda funny, but comparing me to JT, that was just mean, asshole!
Ok, the JT remark was kind of a low blow. You might be exactly like Eichmann in most respects, but the JT remark was over the line. I apologize.
(I kid too btw, Although I'm fucking furious with Yutani)
vuzman wrote:
Now, what I have said for certain is that I believe people who claim to be christians (as in following the bible) are either ignorant, stupid, or evil.
See, this is the point where I think some people might not fully understand what you're saying. To the casual observer this sentence seems to mean that you actually think all Christians are ignorant, stupid or evil, but that's obviously not it at all, because :
vuzman wrote:
it should be obvious that I wasn't talking about the people themselves, but the choice they made in believing.
I think that's just semantics. You are what you do. Now we know that isn't the whole story. If you were fiddling around with your vacuum cleaner and you had to call for an ambulance to get them to cut the hose off your hose most people would call you an idiot. It is given that this doesn't define your entire person, history, personality or mind, but it still makes you an idiot. Ever hear the old saying "Stupid is as stupid does"? It means that an intelligent person who does stupid things is still stupid. And if someone thinks I think all christian people are either stupid, ignorant or evil, AND ONLY THAT, then he's an idiot. Or fucking me over with semantics. Subject closed.
grizlas wrote:
I distinctly remember you bringing a book or leaflet of some kind with writted notes on it. If it wasn't P&P then it must have been something else.
I won't rule it out, I just haven't got a clue as to what that might be. At that time I didn't have any books on this matter, and I couldn't have lifted something off the net. Maybe I wrote some of my own questions down, but it seems unlikely. We did bring some Metallica CDs and went through some of the lyrics (after he had said that Metallica was devil music), could this be what you're remembering?
I actually remember us having some hope that this guy would show us something. He was recommended to us by several people in the Heimamissión, he was very charismatic, and I remember all of us liking him very well. And yes, I did get very disappointed when it turned out that he had nothing but a few old wives tales.
grizlas wrote:
Ididn'tdoitnobodysawmedoityoucantproveanything. Sticking to the plan Sir. *places fist against head*
No really, no need to get ad hominem on my ass. I don't think we should discuss what I did or didn't do or think 10-12 years ago. I seem to have misunderstood the hypothetical example you wrote a couple of days ago. What's the chance of you having misunderstood me a decade ago? Or forgotten how it really was? Or that I have forgotten or remember incorrectly? In any case, I'm not the same person anymore, and have changed my mind about a lot of things. If we just stick to what's being written here, it will make the whole thing a lot easier. Subject closed.
While doing some research I fell over this little clip from the Daily Show. It's very apropos, and eerily similar to the first clip of my original post. Just watch:
This is what I was thinking of in my first post. Don't know why JT got offended, I don't think he should have any reason to feel targeted.
As funny as that was, I feel really bad for those people. They are being misled by the preacher, Benny Hinn, who claims to be healing them.
As unbelievable as that was, don't think that this doesn't happen in the Faroes. I have seen quite similar things happen there (without the jacket though )
Benny Hinn is one of the most popular and prosperous televangelist in the world. He is actually very popular in the Faroes as well, at least among the neochristian underground. I have been shown several videos of this guy, as proof of god. Seriously. Open mind or not, I had (and still have) a hard time comprehending that people believe this obvious fraud. It makes me sad.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Hinn is Canadian) exposed this guy a couple of years ago, but he's still going as strong as ever. The entire 40-minute documentary can be seen on the CBC site, or you can take a look at this 10 minute excerpt which shows where these people's money go:
vuzman wrote:
I think that's just semantics. You are what you do. Now we know that isn't the whole story. If you were fiddling around with your vacuum cleaner and you had to call for an ambulance to get them to cut the hose off your hose most people would call you an idiot. It is given that this doesn't define your entire person, history, personality or mind, but it still makes you an idiot. Ever hear the old saying "Stupid is as stupid does"? It means that an intelligent person who does stupid things is still stupid. And if someone thinks I think all christian people are either stupid, ignorant or evil, AND ONLY THAT, then he's an idiot. Or fucking me over with semantics. Subject closed.
Semantics is indeed what I take issue with when it comes to how you voice your opinions. Or rather its your rhetoric. It seems very important to ridicule and antagonize the establishment through the use of Spaghetti monsters and derogatory labels. Ridicule is fine of course, when it is for humorous purposes, but when it is plain mockery with the intent of provocation then I take issue with it. That is what I think statements like "all christians are idiots" amount to, and you may call me an idiot for thinking that if you like, but I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way. Subject closed.
vuzman wrote:
I won't rule it out, I just haven't got a clue as to what that might be. At that time I didn't have any books on this matter, and I couldn't have lifted something off the net. Maybe I wrote some of my own questions down, but it seems unlikely. We did bring some Metallica CDs and went through some of the lyrics (after he had said that Metallica was devil music), could this be what you're remembering?
I clearly remember this too heh. That was when we ate all his candy back at his place What I'm talking about was the very first time I saw you up in meinigheitshúsið. I went there on my own first and you guys came later as I recall it.
vuzman wrote:
No really, no need to get ad hominem on my ass. I don't think we should discuss what I did or didn't do or think 10-12 years ago. I seem to have misunderstood the hypothetical example you wrote a couple of days ago. What's the chance of you having misunderstood me a decade ago? Or forgotten how it really was? Or that I have forgotten or remember incorrectly? In any case, I'm not the same person anymore, and have changed my mind about a lot of things. If we just stick to what's being written here, it will make the whole thing a lot easier. Subject closed.
I might very well have misunderstood a lot of things, and I don't mean to be insulting. You did say that you were the most open-minded of us all. I thought (and still do) that it was a pretty arrogant statement to make, so I questioned it the only way one can question such statements; ad hominem. You claim something about your person, and that can only be challenged by an argument that goes to your person.
Anyways, if you think you're open-minded that's fine by me. Subject closed.
@Spiff: I have talked quite a bit to Jehova's Witnesses, and have gotten a bible and a couple of other books from them. I thought that was later than Meinigheitshúsið, but maybe not. I like the Jehova's Witnesses bible because, as you said, it has a section with questions and answers (answered by bible verses), and also an extensive index. I can't always remember exactly where things are in the bible, so having that bible is really great for finding things.
Grizlas wrote: It seems very important to ridicule and antagonize the establishment through the use of Spaghetti monsters and derogatory labels.
Sometimes you need to exaggerate to get a point across. Like we often compare an opponent, his view or his conclusions to ze germans. However, when it comes to religion, this is suddenly not an acceptable tool?
Exaggerations are fine. In stead of the spaghetti monster you could have used an old man, or a rock, a tree, a house, a car..anything. The aim is not to get the opponent to understand, but rather to make him understand how ridiculous he is in believing. Same goes for labels. They are tools too, yet I don't believe it to be a constructive way of debating, do you, you little porchmonkey?
Old men, rocks, trees, houses and cars are plain an booooring. If you exaggerate you will of course use stuff that is a bit far out, to make the point. We do it about every other thing we discuss so why is religion excempted from that?
I, for one, would label the american republicans idiots, politicians slimy, flat-earthers airheads and conspiracy theorists moronic. Apply any of these labels on any religious group and people cringe. WHY?
And what is wrong with the spagetti monster? It isn't an insult as much as it is just ridiculous. The religion isn't being compared to ze germans or other negative stuff, just ordinary silly stuff!
Also, I do believe we have to make people less sensitive about their religions and this is one way to do it.
I find it interesting that this discussion (for me) started out with discussing very precise terms on burden of proof and logic (which is why I did not rejoin it later on). Now it is about spaghetti monsters and how to use ridicule during a discussion in order to get a point across, and this is something I would like to comment on.
I can see the use for such techniques, but I disagree in the use of them in certain serious discussions. Their use will usually result in an emotional response (tilt) from your adversary because you are stating that their view is ridiculus through ridicule and often using examples which are shaky at best.
I think spaghetti monsters are fine if you are looking to win an argument here and now, whether or not you are correct. If you are not really interested in getting a well considered and weighted response, then go ahead.
Another effect of using these exaggerated examples is that it often deflects the discussion fromt he actual issue onto the example.
I personally do not think that you get the best results from a discussion if it degenerates into having the most inventive/amusing or spetacular beatstick. It sort of makes me switch off mentally...
). Even in my first post I wasn't talking about all christians, I was specifically targeting pentecostal/charismatic christians, who often have meetings where they display use of a similar force as was shown in the first clip. It was also said in jest. I believe this should be clear.
kudos to you for admitting to it here. I guess this explains your zeal. Wrath hath no fury like a woman scorned.
