logo Sign In

A moment of chastisement — Page 3

Author
Time

skyjedi2005 said:

Neglify said:

Seriously people, whatever happened to the concept of "You have your beliefs, I have mine, no more needs to be said or debated." Mutual respect motherfuckers.

 Good luck with that in a completely  unmoderated forum.

I find off topic to be recklessly unmoderated, but i think that is what some people find fun about it.

Again it is Jay's site not mine, but i have never seen another place do this.  Everywhere else i have been online you need to be screened before posting and are banned immediately for troublemaking or trollery.

I think that the place is unsafe sometimes, it can become a free for all for bullies in the virtual world but none of this stuff is real. I hope it does not effect peoples real lives.

Unfortunately online posts do really hurt people.

Wonder why Frink never updates his classic lol moments in original trilogy history page.  I know this post will probably go up there.

 When I started the thread, I was stuck in a job that I hated and that required little time to do adequately.  It left me a lot of free time for things like that thread.  These days I have a more tasking job that I enjoy quite a bit more, so I don't bother.

Having said that, as an agnostic, I disagree with every single one of you mother[REDACTED]s, except for Neglify.

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

Having said that, as an agnostic, I disagree with every single one of you mother[REDACTED]s, except for Neglify.

I did not know there was another agnostic in the house.  

I'm totally okay with people wanting threads of their own where like-minded people can discuss the issue.  When other members start trolling those threads it should be time for a mod to put the hammer down.  I know it says (Un-moderated) but there are rules against trolling and disrespecting other members so it shouldn't be that difficult to see and curtail.

:)

 

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

skyjedi2005 said:

Neglify said:

Seriously people, whatever happened to the concept of "You have your beliefs, I have mine, no more needs to be said or debated." Mutual respect motherfuckers.

 Good luck with that in a completely  unmoderated forum.

I find off topic to be recklessly unmoderated, but i think that is what some people find fun about it.

Again it is Jay's site not mine, but i have never seen another place do this.  Everywhere else i have been online you need to be screened before posting and are banned immediately for troublemaking or trollery.

I think that the place is unsafe sometimes, it can become a free for all for bullies in the virtual world but none of this stuff is real. I hope it does not effect peoples real lives.

Unfortunately online posts do really hurt people.

Wonder why Frink never updates his classic lol moments in original trilogy history page.  I know this post will probably go up there.

 When I started the thread, I was stuck in a job that I hated and that required little time to do adequately.  It left me a lot of free time for things like that thread.  These days I have a more tasking job that I enjoy quite a bit more, so I don't bother.

Having said that, as an agnostic, I disagree with every single one of you mother[REDACTED]s, except for Neglify.

 You agree with me too then.  I'm not an atheist.  I recognize the possibility that God exists, and would even say that it's a good possibility.  I just don't respect him if he does, unless he's misconstrued in the bible, which I also recognize as a distinct possibility.  If God exists, then I DON'T blame him for the world's problems like alot of people do.  It's not his job to babysit us and stop us from messing up, if we can't keep from blowing each other up on our own then we get what we deserve.  The only thing I really don't like about God is his desire for us to have stayed ignorant like animals, but once again the possibility that that story has been twisted is also pretty fair.  And I also respect people's opinions that don't see it that way.

Author
Time

I thinking you are confusing remaining sinless with remaining ignorant.

Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

TV's Frink said:

Having said that, as an agnostic, I disagree with every single one of you mother[REDACTED]s, except for Neglify.

I did not know there was another agnostic in the house. 

And here I thought my theological uncertainty was as obvious as sunset and twilight ... 

Author
Time

skyjedi2005 said:

Everywhere else i have been online you need to be screened before posting and are banned immediately for troublemaking or trollery.

If we take this thread as sample, I don't see any post that would qualify for a ban (according to sane standards of of course). Except maybe for posts I quoted from other threads where people called me an idiot.

真実

Author
Time

Warbler said:

I thinking you are confusing remaining sinless with remaining ignorant.

I believe it was called "The Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil", not "The Tree of Good and Evil".  He wanted us to not even know the difference between what is right and wrong.  So we would only be considered sinless because we didn't know any better=ignorant.

Author
Time

imperialscum said:

timdiggerm said:

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

I love how Christians are bigots who believe that perhaps it is against God's will that homosexuality is an acceptable practice in his eyes, though they still defend the rights of homosexuals.

I can't help myself but point out this technical issue.

Christians who believe that homosexuality is against God's will don't believe in omnipotence of God, which is basically equal to not believing in God at all.

If it was against God's will then it wouldn't exists, would it?

 Yeah, "against God's will" might not be the best way to say it. I think it's more accurate to explain this way:

  • God does allow people to sin, even if it's wrong. That's probably a concept you're familiar with? Like, you know we believe it?
  • People come in all ways. Some of my grandparents had problems with alcohol. Some people have problems with anger. Other with pride, etc.
  • Not all desires are good.
  • Not all sexual desires are good.
  • Some people have problems with not-good sexual desires (see above).
  • Some of those bad sexual desires are homosexual in nature.
  • Modern concepts of identity have made those desires into an immutable part of a person's identity, which they believe they can not and should not forsake.
  • Many Christians disagree with that last part.

Well if an event can happen then there are two possible scenarios.

1. God allows it to happen, which basically means it is God's will as God must have designed the possibility for such event to occur.

2. God has no control over it, which would negate omnipotence.

Welcome to the issue of Theodicy, which has much debated for a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

ROTJ Storyboard Reconstruction Project

Author
Time

imperialscum said:

skyjedi2005 said:

Everywhere else i have been online you need to be screened before posting and are banned immediately for troublemaking or trollery.

If we take this thread as sample, I don't see any post that would qualify for a ban (according to sane standards of of course). Except maybe for posts I quoted from other threads where people called me an idiot.

 If it makes you feel any better, I'm reasonably sure you aren't an idiot.  Annoying asshole for sure, but not an idiot.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Possessed said:

Warbler said:

I thinking you are confusing remaining sinless with remaining ignorant.

I believe it was called "The Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil", not "The Tree of Good and Evil".  He wanted us to not even know the difference between what is right and wrong.  So we would only be considered sinless because we didn't know any better=ignorant.

I'm no theologian, but I think not wanting us to not know evil is not the kind of ignorance we find a problem with in our now sin-filled world. Per the Bible, we were sinless beings in the beginning. To the extent that something was a sin, God was there to tell people (eg don't eat from that tree). Without the capacity to know sin, the thinking was that we wouldn't commit sin. The fault is in thinking God should not have created such limited beings as us, but rather we should all have been created as angels, aware of Good and Evil from the start. Maybe God wanted to try something different (perhaps seeing how angels could be problematic).

Also, some would say the Garden of Eden can be allegorical. That we were fully capable of knowing evil, but in so knowing, it only leads to more sin.

I've wondered whether someone who has known little sin, having a good stable family, no psychological issues can compare to someone predisposed to alcoholism, with abusive parents, poverty, etc. Is the man exposed to, or more tempted by, sin better or worse for a lack of knowledge concerning sin? Is the man living a charmed life less worthy of saving simply because he hasn't been challenged? After contemplation, I think this is just the wrong way of looking at it. It has been said that all sins are equal. Thus the man who lives a charmed life will sin in at least small ways and must atone no less than the man who commits robbery to fuel an addiction. I don't think ignorance of sin is a problem...else we should all seek out sin in order to fight its temptation. And at times, that is awfully tempting.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

imperialscum said:

skyjedi2005 said:

Everywhere else i have been online you need to be screened before posting and are banned immediately for troublemaking or trollery.

If we take this thread as sample, I don't see any post that would qualify for a ban (according to sane standards of of course). Except maybe for posts I quoted from other threads where people called me an idiot.

You don't see it because you see no problem with what you did.  

You were personal about going after warbler, it wasn't just some random surprise post, your intentions seem to come through quite clear ... which do equal troublemaking and trollery .... like a cat that plays with a mouse before it kills it.  

I don't know you well enough to say anything more than you seem to have a serious issue with Christianity and possibly warbler.  

Feel what you will about Christianity but when it comes to warbler, I believe you owe him an apology.

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

Possessed said:

Warbler said:

I thinking you are confusing remaining sinless with remaining ignorant.

I believe it was called "The Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil", not "The Tree of Good and Evil".  He wanted us to not even know the difference between what is right and wrong.  So we would only be considered sinless because we didn't know any better=ignorant.

I'm no theologian, but I think not wanting us to not know evil is not the kind of ignorance we find a problem with in our now sin-filled world. Per the Bible, we were sinless beings in the beginning. To the extent that something was a sin, God was there to tell people (eg don't eat from that tree). Without the capacity to know sin, the thinking was that we wouldn't commit sin. The fault is in thinking God should not have created such limited beings as us, but rather we should all have been created as angels, aware of Good and Evil from the start. Maybe God wanted to try something different (perhaps seeing how angels could be problematic).

Also, some would say the Garden of Eden can be allegorical. That we were fully capable of knowing evil, but in so knowing, it only leads to more sin.

I've wondered whether someone who has known little sin, having a good stable family, no psychological issues can compare to someone predisposed to alcoholism, with abusive parents, poverty, etc. Is the man exposed to, or more tempted by, sin better or worse for a lack of knowledge concerning sin? Is the man living a charmed life less worthy of saving simply because he hasn't been challenged? After contemplation, I think this is just the wrong way of looking at it. It has been said that all sins are equal. Thus the man who lives a charmed life will sin in at least small ways and must atone no less than the man who commits robbery to fuel an addiction. I don't think ignorance of sin is a problem...else we should all seek out sin in order to fight its temptation. And at times, that is awfully tempting.

 Sounds reasonable actually.

Author
Time

Thread title sounds a bit kinky, just saying.

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

Well, I did mean more in the online forum setting.  If I said, "Hey, dclarkeg, you're going to hell" (which I don't believe, but I know many Christians do), were I in his shoes, I'd probably laugh.  Whereas if he (or more likely Darth Id, since dclarkeg is more respectful) said, "Hey, ender, Jeebus was the bastard child of Mary fornicating with a Roman soldier, and only fools believe in him," I might just get offended.

But I can see how such beliefs might offend more personal relations, especially if such statements were frequently restated.

I personally do not like Stephanie Meyers (though she is a Mormon ;)  ), but there are people who are passionate about her books and characters.  While in certain circles I might freely criticize her and tear up the Twilight series.  But if I'm in the midst of great fans, I'm not going to loudly proclaim just what an idiot she must be, how trashy her books are, how weak her prose, and how anyone who reads it must be the epitome of ignorant.  I would choose to be respectful.

I really do appreciate your defense against such vocal jerks, and I appreciate your helping me see a bit more perspective.  I just personally don't see a reason justifying why some have acted as they have.  Like I said, I am writing a book.  I am actually writing two, and if I am being honest, I'm not terribly far in either. However, both books carry heavy religious themes: one about the dangers of religious extremism, the other about two primary characters, one who is religious, the other atheist, and how they learn to appreciate each others' views.  I see no reason why atheists and believers cannot have mutual respect, but a certain breed of arrogant atheists see no need for such mutual respect.

 I would be interested in reading those books when they are finished...as always you have a lot of admirable insight on the topic...

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time

If I ever finish them, I will send you signed copies :)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jetrell Fo said:

your intentions seem to come through quite clear

I guess not so clear after all, considering you completely misjudged them.

Jetrell Fo said:

I don't know you well enough to say anything more than you seem to have a serious issue with Christianity and possibly warbler. 

I don't have any issue with it beyond not being fond of religions in general.

Jetrell Fo said:

Feel what you will about Christianity but when it comes to warbler, I believe you owe him an apology.

As I already explained numerous times by now, when it comes to Warler's thread I simply argued that he cannot demand from people to not use the primary function of the thread. It just so happens that he was posting stuff about Christianity. I would make the same argument if he was posting scientific equations or photos about his pubic hair.

真実

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

If I ever finish them, I will send you signed copies :)

I will look forward to it...!

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

darth_ender said:


I was also defending Jesus Christ.  You see, to me he is not just some guy.  He is not even some remote supernatural being.  I see him as a very dear friend, someone for whom I have a great deal of love.  You may criticize me, my beliefs, my church, its founder, its leaders, its doctrine, its scripture.  You may criticize similar things for broader Christianity.  But when you actually belittle the Man I love most in this universe, I really cannot take it.  It's not just being thin-skinned.  Most of you wouldn't take me insulting a family member.  This is much like that.  You don't have to believe in him, but please do not disrespect him.

Are you aware that the guy is dead right?

You are aware of what we Christians believe happened about 2000 years ago this Sunday, right?  We don't believe he is dead.

 Yeah, I know what you guys believe but I was pointing out the fact.

darth_ender said:

 See, I just don't see how even the most extreme Christian statements like an atheist will burn in a hell he doesn't even believe in could really be that offensive.  But mocking someone special to me in as disrespectful language as possible, as Darth Id insisted on doing in particular, is very hurtful.  I am always respectful towards atheists' reasons for lacking belief.  I believe in the rights of atheists and do not condemn them or criticize them for their lack of belief.  But if that respect cannot be reciprocated, I get irritated.  If you don't think it would be hurtful to criticize Jesus Christ to a Christian, then clearly you've never loved.  If you want to say you don't believe, you still don't have to call him bull****.

 Of course hell threats don't insult me at all, I was referring that me as human being find offensive that another human being is willing to condemn to eternal suffering a person who just doesn't agree with his/her believes.

I do understand that Jesus is special for you, I get that, but I think you missed my point here. First let me clarify that for me Jesus as the biblical character didn't existed (the reasons why are matter of another discussion). If ANY Christian/Mormon makes a statement about believing that Jesus was real and that he is still alive somewhere then I'll just share my opinion on that which is: ''all of that is a bunch of bullshit'' and then we can proceed to a debate o whatever comes next. I don't think that me as an atheist should withhold my honest opinions on religion because it could offense those who believe and specially when I don't even believe none of that.

I'm not saying that atheist can deliberately be disrespectful but that is why I said that there is a difference between someone being offensive and you finding something offensive. I would never try to directly disrespect you or any believer by just saying nasty shit about Jesus or you faith in general ''just because'' but I will indeed speak out my mind when it comes to my honest views on Christianity and religion in general. If you say ''Jesus rocks'' and I say ''Jesus is not real and is absurd to believe so'' you may be offended by my opinion but I'm not being offensive at all.

I often do make fun of contradictions in the Christianity and I like to point at the flaws that I see and to be honest I find amusing how angry some believers can get when you ''disrespect'' religion just because you think is not true. I understand that some people is just plain aggressive and disrespectful and I don't agree on that, the true is that to be an asshole you don't have to be of any faith (or lack of it).

I think is important to establish that pretty much any atheist opinion at some point will be taken as a personal offense by believers even if those are articulated in the proper manners, this is understandable since the faith is something that operates at a very deep level in the identity of those who believe. I hope you understand that I will never try to disrespect you but if my opinions on religion offend you then I can't do nothing about it but if I'm being offensive in my ways then please point out my error.

<span>The statement below is true
The statement above is false</span>

Author
Time

Well, bear in mind that there are respectful ways to express one's opinion as well as disrespectful.  If I say, "I think you're ideas are a bunch of crap, but it's simply a fact, so don't get offended," it's a little different than if I said, "Well, I feel that because there is no evidence for what you believe, it cannot possibly be true."  You tend to speak in terms of the former, when the latter would certainly come off a little less condescending.  You do realize that there are brilliant people who understand the Bible and its contradictions and that there are challenges to one's faith in a secular and scientific world, brilliant people who are indeed quite scientific themselves, who still believe in God, right?

Author
Time

dclarkg said:

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

darth_ender said:


I was also defending Jesus Christ.  You see, to me he is not just some guy.  He is not even some remote supernatural being.  I see him as a very dear friend, someone for whom I have a great deal of love.  You may criticize me, my beliefs, my church, its founder, its leaders, its doctrine, its scripture.  You may criticize similar things for broader Christianity.  But when you actually belittle the Man I love most in this universe, I really cannot take it.  It's not just being thin-skinned.  Most of you wouldn't take me insulting a family member.  This is much like that.  You don't have to believe in him, but please do not disrespect him.

Are you aware that the guy is dead right?

You are aware of what we Christians believe happened about 2000 years ago this Sunday, right?  We don't believe he is dead.

 Yeah, I know what you guys believe but I was pointing out the fact.

Can you prove he is dead?  Do you really know for a fact that he is dead?

 First let me clarify that for me Jesus as the biblical character didn't existed (the reasons why are matter of another discussion).

If for you he didn't exist how can you state so mannor of factly that he is dead?  If someone is in fact dead, they had to have existed.

 

Author
Time

^ Surely Jesus is dead though right? He was ressurected to eternal life in heaven but he's still dead. If he's alive the whole time it kinda takes away from miraculous aspect of the "Second Coming"... then it would be the "Still-Came".

Not meaning to offend, just stating that point.

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time

Ryan McAvoy said:

^ Surely Jesus is dead though right? He was ressurected to eternal life in heaven but he's still dead. If he's alive the whole time it kinda takes away from miraculous aspect of the "Second Coming"... then it would be the "Still-Came".

Not meaning to offend, just stating that point.

 That isn't what Christians believe. We believe that he rose from the dead, and though his body was elevated to a higher form (which we are to receive in our own resurrection after or at the second coming) than our regular bodies, it was still his body. He said he would be with us "to the end of time," but not in the full glory of God, which is what we expect at the parousia.

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

But is Paul dead?

 *sigh*