In Reply to: Re: August 22nd and heaven and hell and Mohammed posted by The Coniuratio on August 16, 2006 at 21:22:11:
Actually, I'm not in a tizzy so much over the content of your posts as I am annoyed by the tone you took in statements like "Oh, in case you forgot, the topic was about why TF has gone on some end-of-the-world fantasy for August" or "It wasn't supposed to be a discourse on whether you like Bernard Lewis or not or launch you into your Bush derangement syndrome. For Petey's sake. Come down and smell the flowers, they are nice this time of year."
The first statement struck me as extremely snide, the second as extremely condescending as well as a misrepresentation of my position. Are you interested in mutually respectful dialog or in using this thread to vent your spleen with knee-jerk commentary?
Since I put up the original post, I'm aware that TFI's August end-of-the-world hoo-hah was among one of several related topics I had in mind. I was also interested in a discussion of the actual August 22 prediction set forth by Lewis as well as the whole notion of religious prophecy. So I expanded in those directions, because I think these broader topics could throw some light on TFI's mindset.
"All one has to do is listen to Mr. Ahmadinejad himself to get a clue about his beliefs. And not only him, but all the other fanatical Imams such as Bin Laden, the head of Hezbollah, etc., etc., etc. Is that so hard? It really doesn't take a "scholar" to get the idea."
Once again, a tone of condescension and snide sarcasm. Maybe I have listened to and read the things Ahmadinejad has to say, and the jury's still out on whether I think he's a total fanatical nutjob. Maybe I'm still evaluating the extent to which his views are being colored by poltically-driven commerical media misrepresentation and spin. (Yes, I am offended that he stated Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, but I'm not going to get into a political discussion.)
"I really don't care what you believe about Biblical prophecy, that wasn't where I was going in the conversation."
Am I allowed to give background information relevant to where I was coming from with the original post, or am I supposed to let you narrowly define & control what I'm allowed to comment on?
Your final paragraph is less condescending, controlling, and sarcastic than 90% of the commentary you've made to me thus far. I don't know how much TFI is influenced by the flip side of the Christian Zionist agenda, which according to Lewis, is a particular form of Islamic fanaticism embraced by Iranian leadership. I find it interesting that this brand of Islamic fanaticism interfaces so neatly with Christian Zionism that it made me wonder if Lewis had invented an evil twin for the media soap opera of what passes for news in the United States. Unfortunately, I don't have a single-minded, one-size-fits all ideological view of the world.