Featured Post

For Those Who Disregard Prophecy

People who snub prophecy bewilder me. They say, "I'm not obligated to pay any attention to private revelation. The strict teachin...

Sunday, December 14, 2014

The Echo Chamber's Fears of Honesty and Atheist Confrontations

The Christians are losing. The Church is laughed at and mocked. Godlessness, and thus the Evil One, is winning almost every temporal battle.

At every turn the enemies of Creation are winning new ground. Catholics ought to know this.

But if Catholics are truly aware of this problem, why is nothing being done to combat evil? Here in the West, Christians have a direct and obvious ideological enemy: militant hostile atheists. And yet, these out and loud enemies of Christ are hardly ever taken to task.

And so, Lucifer gains more ground.

Since I am interested in making Catholics become aware of their own apathy, I began a thread this week that addressed this problem over at Suscipe Domine The Echo Chamber. I have since been banned.

Raising awareness of confrontations with atheists is too much for the "too long, didn't read it" leadership of The Echo Chamber, and so I was deemed unfit to remain in their company.

This blog post is therefore the third and final installment following my ban from the Catholic forum, Suscipe Domine. Here, I shall explain the order of events of the final thread I created which irked the illiterates of The Echo Chamber.

So, what happened in that post? There are many people who are banned from that forum who might not have access to the forum's otherwise public discussion threads.

I began by stating objective truth that every Catholic involved in social media should be aware of:

Atheists are vile, loud, and quite emboldened in this age of Satan, their lord.
In every encounter I've had with them, there has been absolutely no communication, and I've received nothing but complete disrespect from them.
I have never seen such massive quantities of people thirst for Hell so badly, and I'm sure that a great deal of them would violently slaughter Christ Himself if they got a chance, such is their hatred for everything good.
As we observe these lunatics--ungrateful for their own creation--bumbling madly through their short and wasted lives, on a path straight towards the gaping throat of Hell, I find myself drawing a blank when it comes time to say anything whatsoever to these people.
There is no meeting in the middle. There is no giving the benefit of the doubt. These people have chosen to be the enemies of Creation.
And so, I figured I'd ask if any of you have had any dealings with them in a confrontation about religion. What do you do when you come across such individuals? 
While the words are strong, these statements ought not be objectionable to any Catholic. They are as true as the sky is blue. I list the qualities of the 21st Century atheist, and then I turn to the forum to ask what they do when confronted with these kinds of people. 

Generating an awareness for these kinds of battles is the first intended part of this conversation. It never got beyond that, however.
One person was quick to respond.
LausTibiChriste's First Response
LausTibiChriste read that original post, mockingly asked if I'm "smoking something," self-righteously proclaimed how he treats atheists with respect (as does Pope Francis!), and then upbraided me and said I should "not sit here and rave like a lunatic about how evil they are."
His response was ridiculous. His first sentence was an insult, so I could safely conclude he meant no respect towards anything I was trying to say. He is fair game for debating, as far as I was concerned. And his blindness towards the problems Catholics have with atheist cultural incursions is glaring and in dire need for correction.

I returned his strong words with my strong words:
How fun. What an interesting perspective.
Also fun is how you consider my description of your typical vocal atheist as "raving like a lunatic."
These people have had ample opportunity to consider Christianity, and collectively speaking, they reject it in spades.
I truly don't think you get out much. If you do, I am disturbed by how softly you accept their Satanic hatred for Creation.
Remember, folks! Don't "sit there and rave like a lunatic at them!" Instead, treat them with respect! Because they've definitely earned it, haven't they? 
A reasonable return. Just listen to how ridiculous he sounds. Treat atheists with respect? How about if they're cussing at you and cussing the Church? Should you give more ground to their insults? Does LausTibiChriste think that giving a raging atheist another inch will somehow soften their hatred for you as a Christian? No. Giving any ground will only cause them to smell weakness and embolden them. 
I then quoted an atheist, Sam Harris:
"Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them."
Surely, I thought, this example of Sam Harris' atheist hate and desire to kill off Christians would show LausTibiChriste that atheists can be very intolerant and wicked.
At that point in the thread, I wanted to introduce (but never got to fully discuss) an idea: Catholics should be unafraid to aggressively confront atheists in confrontations. To perhaps help him see where I wanted to go with the dialogue, I quoted Saint Nicholas when he mocked the cult of Artemis:
In the spirit of the season, let's recall what St. Nicholas said to the cult of Artemis:
"Go to Hell's fire, which has been lit for you by the Devil."
But oh, no! Not you guys! You be respectful, else you're a raving lunatic. 
I had hoped that by showing how LausTibiChriste sounded, by showing him Sam Harris' desire to kill Christians, and showing how St. Nicholas handled non-believers, that perhaps he would back down from being insulting and to reconsider what I was saying. 

LausTibiChriste's Second Response
After one of the forum members gave an honest account of how he dealt with atheists, LausTibiChriste replied.

Again, he mockingly asked if I was smoking something. He then had 4 points.

Second Response, Point 1
(1) Have you stepped out into the world lately? Given the state of the Church and how little the Church as a whole cares about converting those without the Faith I'd argue they really haven't had a good chance to embrace Catholicism. You've clearly met a bunch of Richard Dawkins type folks, because most people I've met who are "atheists" don't have any reason for their beliefs, they don't even care - they just look at Christianity today and think it's completely f***ed up and there's no way Truth could come of it. They don't sit there formulating logical arguments as to why God doesn't exist...they go to work, come home, eat, play with their kids etc. But when the conciliar Church is what it is, you can hardly blame them for looking at it and thinking it's nonsense. That's where you come in Laramie - open their eyes to the Truth...with compassion (as much as I hate that word) because a forceful, threatening demeanor is just going to harden the views they already hold....let's face it, you can sit here raving about how we should kill all atheists, or you can sit down with them over a cup of coffee and open their eyes to the Truth. You decide. 

In this first point, he rambles about how the Church doesn't care about converting people. But my original post had nothing to do with how the Church goes about converting people. I specifically was asking people how they handled encounters with atheists.

He then becomes a sort of apologist for atheists, as if they were victimized and forced into their decision to deny Christ and despise Christianity. Yes, Richard Dawkins is an extreme example of public hatred towards us, but only because he has more ability and the means to make his points known.

He then concludes by telling me that I am forceful, threatening, and raving that I want to kill all of the atheists. This is so very wrong. I never once said that I wanted to kill atheists. I said that the atheist Sam Harris wants to kill Christians. Furthermore, I never implied that Catholics should be forceful, threatening, and raving. And if LausTibiChriste thought that the original thread post was how I would approach atheists, he was quite wrong. The original thread post was typed out for the members of The Echo Chamber, and not for atheists.

This demonstrates, once again, the lack of reading comprehension that I have become accustomed to from SD.

Second Response, Point 2
His second point:

(2) I do get out much - a lot more than you do by the sounds of things. I've been all over the world (60+ countries at last count), worked a few unique jobs and have friends who are atheists (including a brother who is vehemently so)/agnostics/buddhists, an aunt who is Hindu...and you know what I learned? Sitting there bitching about how wrong they are and how logical Catholicism is will get you no where. In fact it'll (in my experience) drive them further away from Catholicism...but my all means Laramie, since you get out so much more than I do, enlighten me.
So, here he implies that I'm some sort of shut in. Laughable.

He then boasts about aaaaaallllll of his worldly travels and intercultural experience. And he mentions Buddhists and Hindus, even though I started a conversation about atheists, and not various false religions.

He then concludes that my approach (I suppose in addition to being forceful, threatening, and raving?) is to "bitch" about how wrong my opponents are. I find this so strange. I was banned from The Echo Chamber before I was ever able to go into any kind of meaningful depth about how to approach atheists. And yet, here LausTibiChriste boldly ASSERTS FOR THE SECOND TIME about how I want to address atheists.

Second Response, Point 3
His third point:

(3) I do not accept their disbelief at all, you're clearly misreading what I am saying. What I am against is railing against your average, normal joe who doesn't believe in God. You're not going to convert him like that. I have no place for disbelieving the truths of our Faith, but our mission is to convert these people, not burn them at the stake.
THIS IS THE THIRD TIME HE'S DONE IT, NOW. Three times, LausTibiChriste has presumed that I am advocating "railing against your average, normal joe who doesn't believe in God." He just doesn't know how to shut up for a minute and read what I said. I never said I wanted to rail against atheists.

Then he says I want to burn atheists at the stake. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME HE ACCUSES THAT I WANT TO KILL ATHEISTS. Was LausTibiChriste truly this dumb? Was he this illiterate? I never said I wanted to burn atheists at the stake.

Second Response, Point 4
His fourth point:

(4) THEY deserve respect yes, their beliefs do not. Do not think they do not deserve respect and do not lump them into the same category. I highly recommend you go do some spiritual reading and read up on Christ's Creation. If you love it so much than why don't you see these people as a Son of Christ and try to win them over for Him, instead of bitching on the internet like a loon? Christ loves them just as much as He loves you, so how can you sit there and say they should all be put to death? Seriously. It's attitudes like yours that turn people off from Catholicism, and I can hardly blame them. It's up to Christ to punish them for their disbelief, but until the moment they're dead it is your duty as a Christian to try to win over their conversion. Christ is constantly calling them, so why aren't you?  
The first part of point 4 can be confusing. At first, he says atheists deserve respect, but their beliefs do not. What is that supposed to even mean? Respect what? Their right to be snotty disagreeable people? Their personal space? At most, I will respect the soul of an atheist. I will love my enemy that much. But a definition of what LausTibiChriste meant by "respect" would have been helpful.

But then he gets confusing. He says: "Do not think they do not deserve respect and do not lump them into the same category." Two clauses, no comma separating them. (Call the Grammar Gestapo!)

First clause: he says atheists deserve respect. But again, what does he mean by "respect?" Pope Francis seems to think that respecting atheists means giving them interpretable interviews, letting them earn brownie points with Church Hierarchy, and at the same time spitting on actual Catholics. Is that how we should "respect" atheists? Should I just let atheists figuratively beat my bloodied head down until I'm on the street and I'm dead, never pulling my gun?

Second clause: "do not lump them into the same category." What? Lump who? Into what category? What is LausTibiChriste trying to say here? Lump "they" (the atheist as a person?) and "their beliefs" into the same category? What is that supposed to mean? Should I have started an entire thread discussing whether or not a man is separate from his beliefs? How many tangents do we have to open up here, LausTibiChriste? You've already posted 4 long and inaccurate points that I'm still dissecting.

After that confusing pair of sentences, he insults me again and insists I read something spiritual about Creation, insinuating I'm illiterate on such matters. Because remember folks, at The Echo Chamber it is okay to be insulting and snarky towards Laramie Hirsch! But by gum, if he tries to hold his own against you, rest assured that Jayne will report him to the moderators for a swift banning! I am then called a loon. I don't recall any moderators intervening in the thread to warn him against calling me names. But he's done it several times already, so I guess that's The Echo Chamber's double-standard for ya.

Finally, he accuses me of wanting to "put to death" atheists. THIS IS THE THIRD TIME HE'S ACCUSED ME OF WANTING TO KILL ATHEISTS. I never EVER even implied such a thing. I wonder, if I reported him to the moderators for false accusations, would Archer give a damn? Or would Archer the Moderator just tell me to "shut up," as he did before? The Echo Chamber Double-Standard…on special reserve for Laramie Hirsch.

How many times on that forum have I heard people bring up calumny, scandal, or ruining someone's reputation? I mean, in this thread, I've been repeatedly falsely accused of wanting to dart out at atheists and rail at them, and I've been repeatedly accused of wanting to kill atheists. People with a weaker nerve would run off and bitch to the moderators for this type of nonsense. 

I decided to take the hits and try to keep going with the thread, not complain to the moderators.  

Laramie's 2nd Response to LausTibiChriste
Over 24 hours later, another member of the forum states his honest method for approaching atheists.

After that, I decided to respond as best as I could to LausTibiChriste's long-winded, confusing, deceitful, and insulting reply.
I reminded him of how insulting he was and that he was putting words in my mouth. I had faintly hoped that by showing a poster of a prominent New York atheist, former Catholic Catherine Deveny, that the flagrant insult of the poster and her smirk attitude would convey the difficult hurdles that faithful Catholics have to overcome when confronted with atheists. I said:
Even better than your previous post. You go from telling me I'm a raving lunatic to putting words in my mouth.
First off, let's cover old ground. Everything I've stated is objectively true. 100%. These people have become the children of Satan. That's scriptural. They ARE vile and loud. Read any of their comments in news stories lately?
They collectively despise Christianity. This is the truth of our age. They rejoiced when Satan was publicly worshiped on public property in Oklahoma, and they rejoiced further when one of them ran his car into the Ten Commandments Statue at the same government property where there is planned to be a statue of Lucifer.
I don't suppose you have too many atheist colleagues on your Facebook inundating your page with blasphemies or renunciations of what used to be Christendom. Oh, wait. You've been to 60+ countries. Gratz. I'm sure all of the great saints have been to 60+ countries.
These people are ungrateful for Creation and the Creator. It is why they jerk their knees at any mention of God in any setting. Have you not witnessed this? For them, conscience and morality are illusions and artificial constructs that must be erased and covered over. And they go out of their way to offend Christians by creating arguments filled with rhetoric designed to make the Christian lose his temper. They do this because they are broken withered souls. They want to destroy anyone who stands above them. They will find nothing but emotional collapse in this life and endless Hellfire in the next. It is almost as if they are getting a head start at their place with the demons in the next world.  
I tried to explain that those who reject Christ are children of Satan. This is true and this fact is in the Bible (John 8:44, Acts 13:10, 1 John 3).

I then reiterate the vile behavior of atheists in the 21st Century, discussing their nature and how nasty they are when confronting Christianity in the public sphere. I thought that mentioning my state of Oklahoma's recent battle against Satanists--and the following delight of atheists--would strike a chord with LausTibiChristie. I then referred to social media, such as Facebook, in hopes that he would perhaps recollect some encounter online with obnoxiously hostile atheists. After all, who hasn't experienced that before? Surely, he wasn't that sheltered.

I returned his posturing (about world travel) with my own pinch of sarcasm. And I concluded by explaining the mindset of atheists. I thought that if I were perhaps more descriptive about atheists--perhaps then, LausTibiChristie would understand what I am saying.

I then try to clarify that my detailed descriptions of atheists were directed towards the forum, not to atheists. And I reinforce my position: that I am focused on the ultimate temporal battle for souls, here in Church Militant.
Am I talking to atheists right now? No. I'm talking to other Catholics. And it appears that I'm talking to other Catholics who "don't really believe all that bull$hit." For such a person, all that "Church crap" is just something to read in a really good book or read on a blog on the internet. Keep it in the sanctuary but out of the public eye, right?
But as for me, the endgame is the souls of people. The only things that matter are my soul, yours, theirs, and the souls of those people that atheists further influence.
So if you think I'm a bit brash, it's probably because I actually believe in all of this stuff about Jesus Christ. I don't just sit around passively watching the world go to Hell without giving it a further thought.
I started a thread to discuss approaches to atheists. Not a thread that actually approaches atheists. Here, in this thread on Suscipe Domine, I am speaking to whom I believe to be Catholics. I have not even stated my past exchanges with atheists.
If you don't like the fact that these people are on a path to Hell, that's your problem, and I'm not sorry for saying that. Get over it. 
  I try to defend myself, and tell LausTibiChristie that I am not advocating killing atheists:
Kill atheists? Burn them at the stake? Are you insane? Have I said any such thing? Can you not see that I did not say any such thing?
Just look at how you throw out your assumptions.  
Was my mentioning the ongoing fight with atheists the act of "bitching like a loon?" It ought not to be seen that way. Confronting atheists is a very important battle for Catholics. How can it be loony to want to engage in this fight?

So, I decided to perhaps show LausTibiChristie how he sounded. I decided to label SD's common everyday discussions as "loony:"

"I think sedevacantists and haters of the Novus Ordo Mass and the Conciliarist Church are bitching on the internet like a bunch of loons."
See how crappy that sounds? 

In LausTibiChristie's previous reply, he said that my attitude turned people away from Catholicism, that he couldn't blame them, that I need to grow up, and that I was making Catholics look bad.
Most people find that sort of statement insulting. So, I decided to describe LausTibiChristie:
Your attitude comes off as flacid, un-fiery, unconcerned, and uninspiring. It's no wonder hardly anyone in this world respects Catholicism any longer.
I'm not even debating atheists. I objectively state their nature, and you come at me with this tripe.
It is as if I am watching someone who is jumping to the defense of atheists. And if that were the case, then this explains a lot of how society has fallen into its current state. You would rather be friends with these people than set them on a right path.
I'm not always a polite guy. The world is drowning in politeness and political correctness. Are you, by chance, a fan of Pope Francis? It sounds as though he's your non-confrontational idol. 
Finally, I tried to steer the thread back on track. I was more interested in good dialogue about the thread subject than bickering with my opponent. I wanted to keep this thread a good contribution to the forum.
Moving on, we all know how LausTibiChriste tiptoes confronts atheists whenever a confrontation arises.
Has anyone else ever had any experiences they'd want to share? 

Good Conversation for a While
Good exchanges followed. There were five replies from people other than LausTibiChristie and myself. Somewhere in there I even decided to change the thread's title, in order to keep the conversation honest and accurate.

The original thread title was:
What do you do when you meet atheists?

The newly-changed title was:
What do you do when you meet HOSTILE atheists?

Kaesekopf the Reckless
After that short spat of honest talk with other forum members, the owner of The Echo Chamber, Kaesekopf, decided to dart in and insult me:
Laramie bloviating again?
Man, for a man who has such little free time... he sure finds time to cause a rabble! 
What a complete jerk you are, Kaesekopf. I was accused of wanting to kill atheists three times, and I was accused of wanting to harangue and "rail" against atheists three times. IT WAS EITHER KAESEKOPF'S DUTY OR A MODERATOR'S DUTY TO CAREFULLY READ AND DISCERN WHAT WAS GOING ON. 

But instead, "TL;DR Kaesekopf" either didn't read any of what transpired or simply overlooked what was happening. What a worm. Multiple times on your forum, you, Kaesekopf, have darted into a conversation I was having and talked out of the side of your mouth like a snake. What a DISHONORABLE CATHOLIC YOU ARE. You are supposed to be the leader of these people. It is your forum. You are supposed to be setting a good example. Instead, you insult me like this (and many other times in the past). And if I am being insulted or I am defending myself against someone else's conniving in a thread, you allow your moderators to come in and tell me to "shut up, Laramie." Suscipe Domine's moderation is a double-standard to some people, and more and more people are getting to know that. I wonder if the day is coming when you and your crew whittle down your forum into nothing. You are not a respectable leader.

A Couple of More Good Posts, and Then I Defend Myself Against Kaesekopf
There were two more good contributing posts to the thread. One of them was even an unobjectionable post from Jayne, the two-faced.

But then, after I saw Kaesekopf's nasty little squirt of disrespect, I decided to stand up for myself:

What fun we are having! Hey! Here's Kaesekopf whining about not having time to sort things out on his forum:
I have a full-time job, I am heavily involved in my local KofC Council, I have a girlfriend, and a very active social life. I don't have time for this petty garbage that apparently others have. I spent my Sunday going to Mass, eating lunch, babysitting, and watching the Packer game. 
It gets busy, and this is our side thing. We don't get paid here, and we're juggling personal obligations alongside this forum. We're all very busy here at Suscipe Domine. All of my moderators have at least one kid and are married and very busy. I'm juggling too many things to count. We'd like a little bit of slack, because I feel we GIVE a lot of slack and leeway.
The mods here are very busy, very active members of the world outside our internet forum. We do not always get to things the moment they happen. You might have time in life to spend hours on this forum. Others are busy with lives, work, and church activities.
Your previous complaints are quite funny to me, considering that you have the time to post 10,000+ times (whereas I'm sitting around the 620).
Perhaps you can get Moderator Archer to chime in with an:
Quote from: Archer on November 16, 2014, 05:18:29 PM
"Oh shut up Laramie."
That'd be really cute.
Or perhaps Jayne could report me to the moderators for some small thing.
I also am entertained with the fact that you can just make fun of this thread that seeks to approach the atheists in our culture, when you yourself in your all-important-forum-owner tone carry on and spout off:
We're already fighting an uphill battle to win souls for Christ, let's not make it harder by being abrasive idiots about it all.
But ah! It's just fine and dandy to be abrasive to good ol' Laramie. "Just ban him for a few days, and it will blow over," some like to joke. That seems to be the standard program, it seems.

I apologize for daring to consider how we approach those poor wittle itty bitty atheists. Clearly, that has nothing to do with the "uphill battle to win souls for Christ."

Perhaps we can close off this thread with some fart jokes.
I knew that addressing Kaesekopf would merit some sort of response. A private message to me would have been a good start. I've had a few grievances against the leadership of The Echo Chamber for the past year. But there was simply no dialogue with me. No one came to me in private during this fiasco at all. Everything that is publicly displayed in the thread is the extent of communication with me up until now. And I find this to be completely dishonest.

Jayne the Self-Righteous Takes Position
The Scourge of Catholic forums sees an opportunity, and the demonization begins:
This was an interesting and potentially useful topic. It is unfortunate that you seem more interested in personal attacks and complaining about your past grievances. Try to focus on what is really important.
If only The Echo Chamber's moderators and owner could see through her noxious fronts. But, as we can see from the moderator's inability to comprehend what they read, it is no surprise to me that they are fooled and perhaps flattered by Jayne's butt kissing.

LausTibiChristie Insults Again, I Defend
Five good contributing posts later, and LausTibiChristie joins up with Kaesekopf and lays on another insult.

I don't have time to read your last ramble Laramie (I've decided I need to get out more)...but I'll answer your question with this:
You deal with hostile atheists with patience, meekness and humility...the same way the Saints would have. 

My latest ramble? Look at your own ridiculous 4-point reply that completely missed the point! The assumptions and mistakes you made in that pablum are numerous!
And then, you just tell me in a general way that saints deal with atheists with "patience, meekness, and humility," but I was the one who quoted an actual saint, Saint Nicholas. Remember? "Go to Hell's fire, which has been lit for you by the Devil." Santa Clause said that. And he punched Arius in the face as well. And every Christmas he's the most remembered Catholic saint in the entire world.
Two good productive posts later from forum members, and I defend myself and return his insult:
No problem LTC! 
Not everyone has the attention span beyond a 3rd grader. By all means, carry on with the usual pope-bashing. I understand that evangelization is not a priority for you. 
He really did not seem to have any fire in his belly for discussing the original post of the thread. I asked what people do when confronted by nasty and vile atheists. LausTibiChristie goes off on a tear filled with lies and insults about how I want to kill atheists, how I want to yell at atheists, and how I'm a loon. LausTibiChristie merited disciplinary action. It was my fault for not reporting him to the moderators first. Though, I doubt that would have done any good, since The Echo Chamber's masters disliked me. I was too forgiving and too nice. I gave him too many chances to understand what I was saying. Arguing with LausTibiChristie was like arguing with liberals: I gave him an inch, he took a mile. And I got banned. 

Jayne the Meddler Wades Into Someone Else's Business
After another brief insult from LausTibiChristie and a good contribution to the thread, Jayne decided to pretend to be moderator again and tell Laramie "how it is."
Your OP did not really come across as a call to evangelization. It sounded like emotional venting. Going on about how evil atheists are does not promote evangelization. LTC's objections to that post said nothing about his priorities.
I do not like pope-bashing and I wish there was far less of it on this forum, but, for the most part, what we see here is being done by good people with good motives. You are making a false dichotomy between the desire to have a good pope and evangelism. As far as I can tell, most people here consider both to be very important. We do not have to choose between them. 
Typically, I do my best to completely ignore Jayne. But since this post is an explication of the entire incident, I am forced to examine her poisonous words.
You are right, Jayne. The OP is not a call to evangelization. It is a statement as to the nature of hostile atheists in social media, and it is rounded off with a question of how SD members deal with atheists in confrontations.

I think we know who we can blame for the reasoning behind my banning. Emotional venting? I was told that I was banned for my "emotional" posting. Gollee gee, where did that language come from? Jayne, your reputation for getting people ostracized from groups is well known, and you are a terrible person for this. You destroy friendships and associations, and you should go to confession for this horrible sin that you do.
"Going on" about the evil of atheists and describing their characteristics is THE VERY FIRST STEP in evangelizing them. It helps to know who you are talking to before you talk to them. Typically, I think before I talk to people. And it is clear that you think before you talk ABOUT people--so that you can harm them.
"You are making a false dichotomy between the desire to have a good pope and evangelism." I don't even care about whatever point you are trying to make here. I've explained each of my replies to LausTibiChristie, and it is clear that you have been thrilled to add your subtle self-righteous posturing to his insults as well as Kaesekopf's insults, thereby ostracizing me all the more. Such is your wicked hobby.

In Spite of Insults and Being Cornered, Laramie Tries to Be Honest and Stay On Track
At this point in the thread, three days after the original post, I decided to try to keep the conversation about handling atheists on track. I did not want LausTibiChristie, Kaesekopf, or Jayne the Meddler to derail the thread with their crap.
I tried to suggest re-directing any negative energy into something more positive: the approach towards atheists. I mentioned the incident where a Duck Dynasty star was getting clobbered by secular press for his Christianity, and I mentioned some inspiring words from a blogger I enjoy reading.
All of the glib scorn I've seen in this thread ought to be directed towards the hostile atheists I've been talking about. Rather than remaining an infighting Catholic who brushes the subject off with the usual smirk, why not turn that energy towards the hordes of nasty atheists that I am referring to?

Society is succumbing to the atheist religion. Social media swarms with their comments and offenses. They are hardly ever matched or called out. They continue on and on. Meanwhile, people of faith are quiet and passive, allowing godless madness to be unchallenged.

When one of the Christian Duck Dynasty stars spoke out against homosexuality, atheist America glibly laughed at the old guy for being intolerant of gays. Of this incident, one blogger that I follow said:

QuoteFirst, give them an inch and they will not only take a mile, but will insult you in the process. Second, there is absolutely no reasoning with these people. They are an implacable enemy and no quarter should be shown to them even when they wave the white flag and start talking about negotiating a settled peace.
As Churchill once said of the Hun, he is either at your feet or at your throat. We can't leave them alone because they won't leave us alone. We can't tolerate them because they will not tolerate us. So, root them out of your lives, stop supporting them, stop enabling them, and stop funding their assault on your beliefs, your family, and your faith. There are no fences upon which moderates can safely sit in a cultural war.
...One cannot reason with totalitarians. One can only refuse to submit to them. And sooner or later, one must fight them.
I think this is a great attitude.  It shows perseverance and steadfastness in the face of an overwhelming trend towards societal disintegration.  
Are any here ever inclined--at least on occasion--to call out some atheist in public or a troll on the web?  Does anyone ever pick that battle at least on an annual basis?
Fasting and prayer are nice. They're strong weapons, to be sure. But so is actually doing something.
I then posted a picture, where the head of a Virgin Mary statue was cut off by some Catholic haters. The photo is from a recent news article, where in Illinois some vandals destroyed Church property. I thought the photo was a good representation of what Catholics are up against when facing hostile atheists. Pictures are louder than words, right?
Surely this enthusiasm for the topic and my attempt to keep the thread on track would demonstrate that I am trying to be honest with what I was saying. Surely my attackers would see that I was trying to move beyond the muck and make a good contribution to the forum. Right?

LausTibiChristie Returns to Insult, I Defend
After two legitimate contributions to the thread, LausTibiChristie chimed in briefly with no content or contribution to the discussion. He popped back in, only to pick at the wound:
L if youre this insufferable in real life Id be an atheist too
After a bit of encouragement from TheKnightVigilant, who agreed with some of what I was saying, I defended myself against LausTibiChristie once more:
You already speak like one [like an atheist].
And I was right. Lying that I wanted to kill atheists, insulting me, and putting words in my mouth IS EXACTLY WHAT AN ATHEIST WILL DO IN AN ARGUMENT WITH A CHRISTIAN. LausTibiChristie's behavior was uncharitable, mean, and spiteful. Just like a hostile atheist.
Jayne Stirs the Pot More, Creates More Strife, Builds a False Impression of Laramie
Your words are filth, Jayne. I just want to start this section off by saying this, in case the readers miss that point.

You say this: 
Quoting Laramie:
Fasting and prayer are nice. They're strong weapons, to be sure. But so is actually doing something.

Like what? What are you actually suggesting that people do? Are you proposing violence? If so, that is stupid on several levels.
Uh oh! Jayne sees that I'm being portrayed as potentially violent towards atheists, and she's going to take advantage of the situation to get good ol' Laramie in trouble again! She accepts LausTibiChristie's portrayal of me.

By asking me if I am proposing violence, you, Jayne, lend credence to LausTibiChristie's absurd accusations that I want to kill atheists. You know this. You know that you are creating trouble when you do this. You are creating a narrative. You are beginning to paint me as a bad guy with this nasty subtle tactic.

No one likes you because of stunts like this.

You then go on to imply I am "stupid on several levels."

You are a brown-noser. I would expect better behavior from someone as old as you. You are supposed to be an example to the younger generations. But this bullshit is the actions of a spiteful 15-year old gossip queen. LausTibiChristie should be telling YOU to grow up, not me.
You continue. After quoting me when I liken LausTibiChristie to an atheist, you say:
That is just ridiculous. LTC does not resemble an atheist at all. Please try to make sense.What condescension! "Please try to make sense." Ha! I've already detailed above how LausTibiChristie sounds like an atheist. His behavior was apparent without me having to even explain it. But because of illiterates like the moderators you cozy up to, I must explain everything in microscopic detail.

Your actions, Jayne, also resemble that of a person outside of the Catholic Faith. I just want to add that.
Jayne finishes: 
Quoting TheKnightVigilant:
Actually, Laramie has the right attitude. These people should be confronted and their false opinions refuted. All atheists without exception are of bad will (Romans 1:20) and it is the honourable, charitable thing to do to hit them with hard, uncompromising truths. If we offer no public opposition to their preaching, if we fail to raise our voices above theirs and make ourselves heard, we've already lost. They already overwhelmingly dominate the public discourse thanks to the pathetic indifference of most Christians.
We are commanded to speak the truth in love. Yes, we must preach the truth, but not with a belligerent and confrontational attitude. I have not seen anyone in this thread suggest that we not publicly present the truth. The disagreement is about how we do it. People are not converted by being told that they are evil children of Satan. Look at the examples of the saints who are famed as preachers.
Hostile atheists make us angry and so we want to get back at them. It is a temptation to convince ourselves that acting on our anger is somehow doing God's work. It is not. We must purify our motives if we wish to best serve God.
I never said to be "belligerent and confrontational." I never even got to start suggesting approaches to atheists in this thread. You are riding the coattails of LausTibiChristie's false accusations.

"People are not converted by being told that they are evil children of Satan." Who suggested that?!?  It wasn't me.

The way you self-righteously preach how people should act--in between your manipulations--is what tricks so many people. You mix sound words with slithery nasty contortions of the truth, and I find this to be very Satanic. You have a real problem, Jayne. You have a psychological problem, and it is destructive to anyone in proximity to you.
The Thread Goes On, Even After I Was Banned
The fact that the thread continued on after I was banned is a testament to my solid contributions to The Echo Chamber.

After LoneWolfTrad suggested that "everyone chill," there was about a half-dozen legitimate contributions to the thread.
After I was gone, LausTibiChristie leaped in and spitefully joked:
If wanting to convert atheists, even the most vehement ones, through meekness and humility makes me an atheist, then slap my ass and call me Dawkins 
What a worm. What you need is a slap across your mouth, as Saint Nicholas did to Arius. You're a smart ass, a reckless accuser, and contortionist of words. The way you've talked to me in this thread is ANYTHING BUT MEEK AND HUMBLE. 

LausTibiChristie's insults do not deserve this kind of examination. I was sharing dialectic, but he was spewing rhetoric. I was on a wholly and completely higher level, and he had no chance at keeping up with what I was saying. Instead, he was destructively insulting and deceitful. However, there are many who have asked me what, particularly, happened for me to finally be banned from The Echo Chamber. And so, I have condescended to explain his fallacies. With this blog post, I am talking over LausTibiChristie and over the moderators of The Echo Chamber for the benefit of the many good, kind, and honest associates that I have made in my time on these Catholic forums.

In the past, I have tried to help save face for the moderators and forum owner of Suscipe Domine. But this recent action, this recent banning, has earned my condemnation. I condemn their decision, their behavior, their attitude, and their methods for running a forum. I have been completely wronged in this matter, and I am innocent of all charges. The spiteful instigators of this thread were LausTibiChristie, Kaesekopf, and Jayne. I tried a few times to move beyond their pettiness. But by trying to overlook them, by not addressing their bullshit, they conjured a narrative out of thin air that metastasized into my banning.

I am banned "for emotional and agenda-driven posting over a sustained period of time." What the hell is that supposed to mean? Can you get any more vague? I have the ability to explicate an entire thread, looking at exactly what was said. I know precisely what I am talking about. I've said this before: if anyone is being emotional and agenda-driven, it is the moderators and owner of The Echo Chamber.
It is unfair that I am in a position to have to describe a thread in this manner. Looking into the matter is a job for The Echo Chamber's moderators. But, as I've pointed out before, and as Kaesekopf has previously whined, he and the moderators have outside lives, and SD is their "side thing." Well, if you don't have the time to properly and justly moderate your forum, you ought to not have one.

This ridiculous episode has demonstrated a fact to one-and-all about The Echo Chamber. Either SD has banned me because the owner and the moderators despise me and were looking for any shallow reason to get rid of me, or SD has banned me because they're a collection of cowards who are afraid to even approach discussing a confrontation with atheists. I think it's both. The leadership of SD would much rather gossip and tear down other Catholics, rather than focus on productive discourse.

I am certain that other forums can succeed where The Echo Chamber horribly fails.

It's not my problem anymore, and I am freer than ever. I'll just let the losers worry about losin', and I'll move on to converse with mature adults elsewhere.

At least they still have Jayne. What a prize.


  1. You sound more than a little supercilious here.

    1. Yeah. But it's good to get such things off one's chest. In the past few days, I've given an overall summary of where I think that forum is going. I described what I think the ideal forum would look like. And finally, I went through a lot of detail in this post explaining how opponents will set you up to be stabbed in the back.

      It sucks when you invest yourself in something that betrays you.

      But that's life!

  2. Boring.

    Get over yourself. By the way, you'll fit right in with the rest of those snot-nosed children at Te Deum.

    1. Thank you, anonymous coward! Your colorful attitude today has been noted and observed by hundreds of people. The overall impression of The Echo Chamber continues to turn towards my camp.

      I guess we'll just have to guess whether or not you're Jayne, Kaesekopf, or LausTibiChristie, since you lack the courage to tell us who you are.

  3. It wouldn't surprise me if the two comments above were from either Kaesekopf or Jayne, they have a penchant for revealing their true colors when they don't get their way.

    It just confirms the obvious about SD - it's a cultic place where daring to disagree with the party-line gets you in trouble.

    1. Thanks again, Angelorum. I actually personally know the first commenter, and he means no harm, just a friendly observation.

      The second poster, however, speaks for themselves. Whoever they are.

      Yes, it's a cultic place, and I've actually heard SD called that before by someone else.

    2. After reading your reply, I think it necessary to tell the full story of what happened during my final experiences with SD. I will post the link when I finish.

    3. I'd be interested! It took me a bit of time to compose this one. But it really explains everything that happened in that last thread.