A moment of chastisement — Page 3

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.

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

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.

Thread title sounds a bit kinky, just saying.

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...

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.

darth_ender said:

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

I will look forward to it...!

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.

^ 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.