"It was a cub scout meeting in the UK in 2024."
What of it?
"It wasn't a seminary in the 18th century."
Thank you, Captain Obvious, but again, what of it?
"No-one cares about 'according to the Bible.'"
That's a demonstrably (and blatantly obviously) false assertion, and it's also irrelevant.
"And it certainly isn't relevant to the matter at hand."
Yes, it is. The Bible is the source material for "angels."
"The Cub Scouts isn't a Christian group."
Utterly irrelevant. And also, most of the Bible isn't Christian either, i.e., the books of the Old Testament predate Christianity by hundreds of years, as do angels.
"They're very explicit about welcoming people of all faiths and no faith."
What does that have to do with anything?
"Because, well, they have to be in twenty-first century Britain, because even most people who identify as Christian themselves wouldn't send their children to listen to some wacky old-timer bang on about literal interpretations of biblical angels."
What are you talking about? There's nothing in the OP's story to suggest that the old-timer is "wacky" nor that she "bang[ed] on about literal interpretations of biblical angels."
"No-one cares."
Your demonstrably (and blatantly obviously) false assertion is dismissed.
"It is simply not the arena to air such views."
Again, what are you talking about? First, I didn't air any views at all. What I wrote was according to the Bible, and not a single author of the Bible incorporated my personal views into their writings, obviously. Second, this is the arena to air anything that isn't politics (read the forum description), plus the Bible is relevant to this thread, since the Bible is the source material for angels.
"Keep it inside your church."
I don't have a church.
"And, indeed, if this scout leader was preaching in some manner, you've probably provided another potential cause for complaint against her."
That's hilarious. And what if she was talking about harpies? Would that also be a "potential cause for complaint against her"? It's funny that students learn about e.g., Greek and Roman mythology in public schools, and that's "teaching," but e.g., ancient Hebrew mythology is off limits, because somehow that's inherently "preaching," and, OH NO! OH NO!
Speaking of which, substitute harpies for angels in the OP's story, and substitute "according to Hesiod" for "according to the Bible" in my reply. Would your reply have been fundamentally the same (such as making the laughable assertions that Hesiod "certainly isn't relevant to the matter at hand" and that "no one cares about 'according to Hesiod'" in a discussion about harpies)? I very much doubt you'd have the same irrational reaction to discussions about Greek mythology as you do to discussions about the Bible, and I also highly doubt that you'd equate such discussions with your concept of "Arkansas," despite them both being discussions of ancient writings.
"I do wonder what some of you imagine twenty-first century Britain to be."
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
reply
share
capuchin (2796)
4 months ago
I think you're being wilfully obtuse, so I'll leave you to it.
But try not to imagine you know more about Britain, its social norms, its culture, its attitudes, and its laws than a British person who lives here. Because it makes you look incredibly stupid. Which you are not, so try harder.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4265)
4 months ago
"I think you're being wilfully obtuse, so I'll leave you to it."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, and since you didn't address, let alone refute, anything I said, your tacit concession is noted.
"But try not to imagine you know more about Britain, its social norms, its culture, its attitudes, and its laws than a British person who lives here."
This is another non sequitur from you, given that nothing I said suggested, nor even hinted, that I "know more about Britain, its social norms, its culture, its attitudes, and its laws than a British person who lives [there]." And why would I, given that those things are utterly irrelevant to the definition of racism or the concept of angels?
"Because it makes you look incredibly stupid. Which you are not, so try harder."
First, this is negated by your false premise (see above), and second...
Comical Irony Alert
... you know, coming from the clodpate who claimed that "No-one cares about 'according to the Bible,'" (when obviously millions of people do), and that "according to the Bible" isn't relevant to a discussion about angels, which is like saying that Rocky (1976) isn't relevant to a discussion about Apollo Creed.
reply
share
capuchin (2796)
4 months ago
When someone tells you 'I'll leave you to it', that's usually taken as a signal that the conversation is over. You haven't understood what you were being told, so there's no point in continuing.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4265)
4 months ago
"When someone tells you 'I'll leave you to it', that's usually taken as a signal that the conversation is over."
No, it means the argument is over, and you lost, due to an utter lack of arguments and an utter failure to even address anything I said (tacit concession). You just replied again (obviously), so the conversation isn't over (obviously), though I don't know why you bothered after tacitly conceding.
If you want the conversation to be over, then stop replying (obviously).
reply
share
capuchin (2796)
4 months ago
OK, buddy. If you say so.
There actually wasn't an argument. You were simply given information. You failed to understand that information or the context in which it was provided. But that's fine. Have a lovely day.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4265)
4 months ago
"OK, buddy. If you say so."
Your explicit concession is noted.
"There actually wasn't an argument."
Yes, there was, though you only presented one set of arguments (in the common-speak sense of the term) and then immediately bowed out when I refuted them.
"You were simply given information."
Your "information" consisted of things such as false assertions, non sequiturs, Captain Obvious-type statements, and statements stemming from some sort of irrational aversion to the Bible.
"You failed to understand that information or the context in which it was provided."
I refuted everything you said, and you tacitly conceded, so this is another non sequitur from you (i.e., it doesn't logically follow from anything that actually happened in this branch of the thread). As such, consider it dismissed out of hand.
"But that's fine. Have a lovely day."
Your concession remains noted and your resignation is accepted. Also, why do you keep replying after conceding and saying that the "conversation is over"?
reply
share
capuchin (2796)
4 months ago
Childish.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4265)
4 months ago
"Childish."
Comical Irony Alert: Part II
In any case, your concession remains noted and your resignation is still accepted. Also, why do you keep replying after conceding and saying that the "conversation is over"?
reply
share