Outraged by Glenn Beck’s Salvo, Christians Fire Back

foxpaws said:
You definition is correct... however...

Don't be so 'exact' when dealing with others....
Click to expand...

If you are not referring to the same thing then communication breaks down because you are talking past each other. Therefore, a similar understanding is necessary for any productive conversation. If that similar understanding is inaccurate, then you are engaging in and furthering disinformation.

It is exceedingly easy to use language to mislead. Therefore, if one is truly interested in the truth, accuracy of language and understanding of ideas is very important.

As you have said before, you need the gray areas. When accuracy is expected, your arguments break down.
 
shagdrum said:
If you are not referring to the same thing then communication breaks down because you are talking past each other. Therefore, a similar understanding is necessary for any productive conversation. If that similar understanding is inaccurate, then you are engaging in and furthering disinformation.

It is exceedingly easy to use language to mislead. Therefore, if one is truly interested in the truth, accuracy of language and understanding of ideas is very important.

As you have said before, you need the gray areas. When accuracy is expected, your arguments break down.
Click to expand...

Shag, finally - could this be a breakthrough? 'A similar understand is necessary for...'

A similar understanding is what was required in the Beck scenario - the church and Beck do not have a similar understanding of the term 'social justice'.

So, accuracy of language and understanding of ideas is very important. The church understands the 'language' of 'social justice' very differently than how Beck was presenting it.

Yes, shag - I 'need' the gray areas. I am dealing with humans, who have every shade and tone of gray imaginable. I just admit that they (we) all have them - you deny it, and want everything in black and white. Something that is unachievable when dealing with the public...
 
foxpaws said:
A similar understanding is what was required in the Beck scenario - the church and Beck do not have a similar understanding of the term 'social justice'.
Click to expand...

A similar understanding is necessary between parties in a conversation. That would be Beck and his listeners in this instance, not Beck and the church.
 
shagdrum said:
A similar understanding is necessary between parties in a conversation. That would be Beck and his listeners in this instance, not Beck and the church.
Click to expand...

the church is the third party in the conversation Shag. Beck to listeners to church- they all need to have a similar understanding of the terms...
 
foxpaws said:
the church is the third party in the conversation Shag. Beck to listeners to church- they all need to have a similar understanding of the terms...
Click to expand...
Church is defined as its members, not its leaders. Clearly Beck was telling members to watch what the leaders say, from a plain meaning of his words. You FAIL at your attempt to add nuance to his statements.

From your own article:
foxpaws said:
Glenn Beck urged Christians to leave churches that used what he called code words for Communism and Nazism.
Click to expand...
 
shagdrum said:
No, they are not and you know it. You have no argument.
Click to expand...

Yes they are... You hear on Beck - 'look for evil words - 'social justice'... you find words on website... you ask minister 'are we for social justice'... minister answers 'yes' (because they are - according to the church's definition, which once again is different from how Beck was using the term)...

The church is obviously part of the conversation. If they weren't, then you are just telling people to leave without asking your pastor... There are 3 people in this conversation Shag, you can't get around that.
 
foxpaws said:
Yes they are... You hear on Beck - 'look for evil words - 'social justice'... you find words on website... you ask minister 'are we for social justice'... minister answers 'yes' (because they are - according to the church's definition, which once again is different from how Beck was using the term)...

The church is obviously part of the conversation. If they weren't, then you are just telling people to leave without asking your pastor... There are 3 people in this conversation Shag, you can't get around that.
Click to expand...
Seriously, are you just typing because you get off on the feeling of your fingers pressing the keys or something? You aren't being persuasive, your argument sucks, your lies have been exposed, you can't define your terms, you don't even know the meaning of the word 'church,' and you are stuck on stupid. Is it a woman thing, that you feel that you must have the last word in every conversation?

Seriously, seek help. Insanity by definition is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result. Nobody believes anything you say here.
 
Beck just defined 'social justice' on his show:

Forced redistribution of wealth with a hostility towards individual property rights under the guise of charity and/or justice.
Click to expand...
 
Finally he admits that he has to define ‘social justice’. Why didn’t he do this earlier with the initial discussion with the churches using the term. He needed to do this – and I am sure this broadcast is a response to everyone’s confusion as to the usage of the terms.

So, he admits that he needs to ‘define’ at about 2:30 into the program. This whole broadcast is in response that he finally realized he had to define the terms.

See guys, Beck finally knew he had to define this… “The kind I am talking about vs the kind they (the church) are talking about…” he had to define the terms…

If only he had done this initially, I would have never had a problem with his first broadcast. As I stated over and over, he needed to define the term, to avoid confusion.

I am glad that he did this - so his viewers, who are out there looking at their church's websites, aren't going to be thinking that they promote communism and nazism if they find the words 'social justice'.

Heck, it would have been awkward for Judaism. Many Jewish temple sites have the words social justice in them... the whole 'nazi' conversation may have been difficult...

Oh, just as an aside - does everyone get double postings of video on this new version of the software that this forum is using, or is it just me typing away on comrade mac... ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
foxpaws said:
Finally he admits that he has to define ‘social justice’. Why didn’t he do this earlier with the initial discussion with the churches using the term. He needed to do this – and I am sure this broadcast is a response to everyone’s confusion as to the usage of the terms.

So, he admits that he needs to ‘define’ at about 2:30 into the program. This whole broadcast is in response that he finally realized he had to define the terms.

See guys, Beck finally knew he had to define this… “The kind I am talking about vs the kind they (the church) are talking about…” he had to define the terms…

If only he had done this initially, I would have never had a problem with his first broadcast. As I stated over and over, he needed to define the term, to avoid confusion.

I am glad that he did this - so his viewers, who are out there looking at their church's websites, aren't going to be thinking that they promote communism and nazism if they find the words social justice.

Heck, it would have been awkward for Judaism. Many Jewish temple sites have the words social justice in them... the whole 'nazi' conversation may have been difficult...
Click to expand...
So you take back your criticism of him, and you're no longer offended?
 
fossten said:
So you take back your criticism of him, and you're no longer offended?
Click to expand...

I am glad he cleared this up... I think it is an appropriate response to the misconceptions that were out there.

I think he did the right thing by dedicating 10 minutes of this broadcast explaining the differences on how many churches use the term and how he was using the term.

Obviously, he took my advice...;) and yes, I wrote him. I actually told him it might be good to have a 'primer' on his show explaining how he (and yes scholarly and politically) uses the term 'social justice' and why your church might use it in a different context.
 
foxpaws said:
I am glad he cleared this up... I think it is an appropriate response to the misconceptions that were out there.

I think he did the right thing by dedicating 10 minutes of this broadcast clearing up the differences on how many churches use the term and how he was using the term.

Obviously, he took my advice...;) and yes, I wrote him. I actually told him it might be good to have a 'primer' on his show explaining how he (and yes scholarly and politically) uses the term 'social justice' and why your church might use it in a different context.
Click to expand...
You haven't bothered to answer either question in your lengthy, rambling, self serving post.
 
He did the right thing in this instance. Regarding this topic... social justice 'term usage', I am no longer offended by him, since he set things straight. Without this broadcast - still offended...
 
foxpaws said:
He did the right thing in this instance. Regarding this topic... social justice 'term usage', I am no longer offended by him, since he set things straight. Without this broadcast - still offended...
Click to expand...
Thus, since he clarified his original meaning, your reaction and assumption was wrong, as was your smear.
 
fossten said:
Thus, since he clarified his original meaning, your reaction and assumption was wrong, as was your smear.
Click to expand...

He had to clarify it - I stated that many, many, many, many, many, many, many times - there are more, but I think you get the point....

I was not wrong - until he clarified himself my 'smears' could have been true. That is why he spent the time with his little primer on 'social justice,' many people assumed the very same thing. He needed to set the record straight.

However, I still stand by my point that he shouldn't be telling you how to judge your church. He got in a huge mess here, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. He shouldn't mix politics and religion. He isn't good enough, and doesn't have a good grasp of various religious theologies. This example is perfect in that regard. He used a term, without knowing how that term is used by churches the world over.

I know very little about religious theologies, but I did know churches use 'social justice' differently than poly sci majors (nod to shag). However, would I ever, ever assume to tell anyone how to judge their church... absolutely not.
 
foxpaws said:
However, I still stand by my point that he shouldn't be telling you how to judge your church. He got in a huge mess here, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. He shouldn't mix politics and religion. He isn't good enough, and doesn't have a good grasp of various religious theologies. This example is perfect in that regard. He used a term, without knowing how that term is used by churches the world over.
Click to expand...
So as long as you're good at it, you should mix politics and religion? Because I hear idiot Democrats do that all the time.
 
fossten said:
So as long as you're good at it, you should mix politics and religion? Because I hear idiot Democrats do that all the time.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that I would better at it than Beck - I just knew how churches use the term differently...

I do know I am not good enough to mix them in public. Among friends over sushi and sake - sure... Trying to tell people how to judge their religion on a national TV show - where people have a tendency to 'follow' you... no way.

And I hear idiots on both sides of the fence foss - there are plenty of right leaning religious evangelists (think Pat Robertson) who do this on a regular basis.
 
foxpaws said:
And when Bill Maher tells you how to judge your church, I won't be arguing that it is OK that he does... ;)
Click to expand...
Who?

You mean this loser?

bilmaherhalloween.jpg
 
foxpaws said:
Finally he admits that he has to define ‘social justice’.
Click to expand...

Where did he do that?

Are you making irrational logical leaps to confirm your lies again?

He needed to do this – and I am sure this broadcast is a response to everyone’s confusion as to the usage of the terms.
Click to expand...

More assumptions.

So, he admits that he needs to ‘define’ at about 2:30 into the program.
Click to expand...

Again, where are you getting this?

It is almost comical how you attempt to deceive yourself. None of what Beck said in any way supports your lies yet you assume it confirms them.

It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead
-Thomas Jefferson​
 
foxpaws said:
And when Bill Maher tells you how to judge your church, I won't be arguing that it is OK that he does... ;)
Click to expand...

Unlike Beck, Maher has no credibility. His arguments are based in arrogance, hyperbole, condescension and demagogery as opposed to facts and reason.

Bill Maher can rant all he wants. Only fools give his words any credence.
 
foxpaws said:
I was not wrong - until he clarified himself my 'smears' could have been true.
Click to expand...

COULD have been true. However, if you listened to his show you would have known that they were NOT true.

So you simply ASSUMED it WAS true and would not consider any other possibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 158 (members: 0, guests: 158)
Back
Top