Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

GG, you are not a bogeyman. You post what I perceive to be dishonest and harmful things.

If I see a falsehood being spoken, I can help others by pointing out that falsehood and contradicting it. In this case one of your fellow Christians pointed out several of the, to put it charitably, inaccurate things you posted. But if you keep going on basing your reasoning and your arguments on untruths, I have to reference those untruths to point out what I perceive to be flaws in your reasoning.

Manchu wrote:That is not a depiction of Bronze Age slavery, my friend.

That may be so, but I don't think it's a hate crime for people to conflate Bronze Age slavery and Industrial slavery. Both are monstrous things.

Mannahnin wrote:That may be so, but I don't think it's a hate crime for people to conflate Bronze Age slavery and Industrial slavery. Both are monstrous things.

The purpose of the conflation is what concerns me.

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:That may be so, but I don't think it's a hate crime for people to conflate Bronze Age slavery and Industrial slavery. Both are monstrous things.

The purpose of the conflation is what concerns me.

I can see that. Per the original article, Perce has opined that the Bible is "evil"; if he doesn't perceive the distinction, that could be one reason why he holds that opinion.

And I think that's a hateful thing. Ignorance is not excuse for hatred, as in the case of racism.

LOL just found something. Judas dies twice in the bible:

1st time:

And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. -- Matt. xxvii, 5.

2nd time:

Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity: and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. -- Acts i, 18.

Manchu, he may well hate the Bible. It doesn't necessarily follow that he hates Christians in general.

Athiest Rally in DC

I reiterate: open bar.

Mannahnin wrote:GG, you are not a bogeyman. You post what I perceive to be dishonest and harmful things.

If I see a falsehood being spoken, I can help others by pointing out that falsehood and contradicting it. In this case one of your fellow Christians pointed out several of the, to put it charitably, inaccurate things you posted. But if you keep going on basing your reasoning and your arguments on untruths, I have to reference those untruths to point out what I perceive to be flaws in your reasoning.

Manchu wrote:That is not a depiction of Bronze Age slavery, my friend.

That may be so, but I don't think it's a hate crime for people to conflate Bronze Age slavery and Industrial slavery. Both are monstrous things.

But you seem to be hypersensitive to things I post. Is it possible that I just made a mistake when I posted the information about the 7 year release? A mistake in not following through with enough research? Why do you immediately think there is something sinister at work.

When polonius posted his response to mine....I immediately thought.."Uh Oh..that's what I get for being quick to post something".

Since when did the OT become so snarky? There are a few posters on here namely Melissia, Howard treesong, and mannaheim that seem to get away with a lot more than what used to be considered acceptable. Who is the OT mod now? If it's manny then that would explain things.

GG




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Athiest Rally in DC

I reiterate: open bar.

Hmmm westboros are going to be there....this could get interesting.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GalacticDefender wrote:LOL just found something. Judas dies twice in the bible:

1st time:

And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. -- Matt. xxvii, 5.

2nd time:

Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity: and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. -- Acts i, 18.

Sigh....

Judas hanged him self and then fell headlong and burst asunder.

One death, one hanging, one bursting asunder.

GG

generalgrog wrote:Who is the OT mod now? If it's manny then that would explain things.

There is no OT-specific mod and that's a little much.

generalgrog wrote:
Since when did the OT become so snarky? There are a few posters on here namely Melissia, Howard treesong, and mannaheim that seem to get away with a lot more than what used to be considered acceptable.

You should read some of my older posts. If anything these are halcyon days compared to times of yore.

And, really, lets be honest. This thread aside, dropping the "deviant" bomb when homosexuality (or porn) comes up isn't going to win you many friends.

Man what happened to this thread. I'm not even sure what it's about anymore. Hot dogs, for a while, I got that.

"One death, one hanging, one bursting asunder."

That is one interpretation, yes.

Not necessarily the correct one.

I agree with Melissia. Traditionally, exegists have favored a harmonization like GG proposed (specifically, rupture due to botched hanging) but their concerns were about divine inerrancy rather than historical-critical evaluation.

Back to the topic; my interpretation of the poster was that it was intended to mock the legislature who promoted the "Year of the Bible", by highlighting one of the more questionable passage in the Bible.

That was a very indirect way of making the attack, however, and as seen was liable to interpretation in various ways.

It would have been more useful simply to sue the legislature on the grounds of no establishment of religion.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Since when did the OT become so snarky? There are a few posters on here namely Melissia, Howard treesong, and mannaheim that seem to get away with a lot more than what used to be considered acceptable.

You should read some of my older posts. If anything these are halcyon days compared to times of yore.

And, really, lets be honest. This thread aside, dropping the "deviant" bomb when homosexuality (or porn) comes up isn't going to win you many friends.

Yeah see, GG got Matty banned plenty of times Im sure..

Basically I think that some Christians seem to think they should be immune to criticism. Ridiculously vitriolic comments about how we are perverts and sexual deviants and Melissa is the snarky one?!

PhantomViper wrote:People are just pointing out the inherent hypocrisy present when other people, for example, use the bible to defend their homophobia but then turn around and say that the bibles defence of slavery had to be put inside the context of the time it was written...

Which, of course, unfortunately doesn't somehow make GG's posts in any way approving of slavery.

Monster Rain wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:People are just pointing out the inherent hypocrisy present when other people, for example, use the bible to defend their homophobia but then turn around and say that the bibles defence of slavery had to be put inside the context of the time it was written...

Which, of course, unfortunately doesn't somehow make GG's posts in any way approving of slavery.

Yeah of course it doesnt, but surely his point was simply that they pick and choose from the bible so they can pretty much argue for or against anything?!

I mean, on one hand these Christian types are saying "oh well.. The Bible when it talks about the slavery thing has to be taken in the context of the time/ignored/altered.... but this bit here about the dirty queers is 100% accurate!"

mattyrm wrote: Yeah of course it doesnt, but surely his point was simply that they pick and choose from the bible so they can pretty much argue for or against anything?!

I mean, on one hand these Christian types are saying "oh well.. The Bible when it talks about the slavery thing has to be taken in the context of the time/ignored/altered.... but this bit here about the dirty queers is 100% accurate!"

When Christians focus solely on the New Covenant and the Golden Rule, I foresee a significant decrease in criticism of the religion.

Monster Rain wrote:

mattyrm wrote: Yeah of course it doesnt, but surely his point was simply that they pick and choose from the bible so they can pretty much argue for or against anything?!

I mean, on one hand these Christian types are saying "oh well.. The Bible when it talks about the slavery thing has to be taken in the context of the time/ignored/altered.... but this bit here about the dirty queers is 100% accurate!"

When Christians focus solely on the New Covenant and the Golden Rule, I foresee a significant decrease in criticism of the religion.

Damn straight..

They would probably be fine if they just forgot about the auld testament!

I think I'm on topic here though I might be wrong.

The bible isnt simple, It's not like 1 + 1 = 2. It's more like x + 2 = fish with no explaination as to how they got there. So its up to the reader to decide how.

The billboard was a Dick move.

If I'm still not on topic then hotdogs = meat which I don't eat therefore everyone who does will suffer when I bring about the apocalypse at the end of the year.

Nom

Ahtman wrote:Athiest Rally in DC

I reiterate: open bar.

Open bar!?

Thats worth the plane ticket alone!

GalacticDefender wrote:... There are quite a few things in the Bible that I do agree with. Things like "Thou shall not Kill" ).)

Misquote:
It actually says "Thou shalt not murder."

Regards,



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:

Phanatik wrote:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]

God is self limiting by his decision to allow free will to exist. If everything were suddenly fixed free will would be gone. To do so justly would also involve correction/punishment. As we all contribute to the worlds woes it is in aggregate better that God does not intervene in this way or we would all be in trouble.

Incidently this is evidence of Gods actual opinion on slavery. He doesn't want to be an overbearing master, so He abstains to a large extent from what happens in the world. Is this right? Ask God, but at least understand that from Gods perspective the timeless effects of the spiritual journey are worth more than the cost of lessons learned in the (comparatively) fleeting moment which is a human lifespan. I think a lot is taken with what to us is an overly long term perspective.

Phanatik wrote:
God created Man sick, and commanded him to be well. - Christopher Hitchens

We choose to be 'sick'.

Supposition.
Do you have any evidence to support that you understand the mind of god and/or his intentions?

God created sickness. God created sick man. Man has no choice but to be sick. God commands Man get well or suffer.

Regards,

Mannahnin wrote:Manchu, he may well hate the Bible. It doesn't necessarily follow that he hates Christians in general.

True.

Faith/religion brings a lot of comfort on the individual level. I have no issue with someone having faith or believing in a religion themselves.

I see organized religion (the institutions themselves) as corrupt, hatemongering, self-interest groups that cause much of the world's ills and unrest.

Mannahnin wrote:GD, I don't think most religious people think that every word of their chosen religious text are infallible. I think that's pretty uncommon.

In the south it's extremely common, fwiw. That's why these people are scary.

And GG, there's no way to say "I'm right" without saying "you're wrong." Anytime someone claims to know the absolute truth and is clearly playing with a rigged deck (at this point in time your argument will ALWAYS be in favor of your belief system regardless of what anyone says) despite the fact that at least double the number of people disagree, there's never going to be a good reception. Also, again, the calling people perverts bit was way over the line. Expressing beliefs is one thing, but most of us don't think we're judged and it just kind of makes you look like a loony when you get really fanatical.

My personal stance is that no one should have to feel guilty for who they are, and I will always defend someone's right to make their own decisions without someone telling them it's wrong because an outdated book that belonged to a culture completely unlike our own says otherwise. There's enough hurt in the world, let's just stop perpetuating it.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:GD, I don't think most religious people think that every word of their chosen religious text are infallible. I think that's pretty uncommon.

In the south it's extremely common, fwiw. That's why these people are scary.

And GG, there's no way to say "I'm right" without saying "you're wrong." Anytime someone claims to know the absolute truth and is clearly playing with a rigged deck (at this point in time your argument will ALWAYS be in favor of your belief system regardless of what anyone says) despite the fact that at least double the number of people disagree, there's never going to be a good reception. Also, again, the calling people perverts bit was way over the line. Expressing beliefs is one thing, but most of us don't think we're judged and it just kind of makes you look like a loony when you get really fanatical.

My personal stance is that no one should have to feel guilty for who they are, and I will always defend someone's right to make their own decisions without someone telling them it's wrong because an outdated book that belonged to a culture completely unlike our own says otherwise. There's enough hurt in the world, let's just stop perpetuating it.

Cannerous I really do appreciate your point. I never called anyone on dakka a pervert, I never picked a member of dakka and said this person is a pervert. I did focus on the behavior, and I did so with the intent of trying to get people to look at things differently. Sometimes love must be tough. I think maybe it wasn't the best way to go about it on the internet, with people that only know of me through things I type on a forum. When I think about it, I probably wouldn't have approached the situation the same way in person.

GG

Ha, in person we'd all be sharing a pint around a 40k table, someone making an atheist joke and you making a scrunchy face for a second and not much more, with you later making a religious reference and someone else making the same scrunchy face. People are nowhere near as rude IRL

While you didn't call anyone out specifically, knowing that 99% of Dakka users utilize porn, it's hard not to see what you said as an insult designed to slip past Rule #1 and probably why no mods stepped up to do anything about the discussion til a couple pages later. You might be that naive, but on the intrawebz it's just so much more fun to assume the worst That being said, I used to believe like you did (hell, you can trace my corruption through my Dakka history...) and now I don't, whereas you used to not believe like I do now, and now you do. What that ultimately tells me is that we're probably both wrong Good luck with that whole afterlife bit though.

Also, at some point saying "doing X is perverted" becomes "peole that do X are perverts."

I mean, isn't a pervert "somebody that that engages in perversion?"

When you repeatedly and earnestly label a group of behaviors with a negative label, you can't act shocked that people who engage in those behaviors feel like you're attacking them.

Particularly when you're in a dwindling minority about the moral nature of those behaviors.

Part of the problem, I think, is that you're using a secular term, "pervert," but no secular rationale. If you want to call homosexual acts sins, that's fine, because sin is defined by religion.

No, that is actually the problem. That distinction does not allow for the Catholic understanding of homosexual acts as sinful. Insisting that there is a difference between perverted/deformed/defective sexuality and sin is fine only if you don't care about understanding Catholic tradition. I mean, its fine if you dont. But ignorance is a poor ground for criticism.

nomsheep wrote:The billboard was a Dick move.

So was the "year of the bible" crap.

I'd suggest having a "year of evolution" but I think the idea of change scares these people.

Manchu wrote:No, that is actually the problem. That distinction does not allow for the Catholic understanding of homosexual acts as sinful. Insisting that there is a difference between perverted/deformed/defective sexuality and sin is fine only if you don't care about understanding Catholic tradition. I mean, its fine if you dont. But ignorance is a poor ground for criticism.

What?

I was saying that the term perverted has a secular, even psychological, meaning. Modern science does not, generally, consider homosexuality to be "perverted."

It's still a sin to many christians.

Calling something "perverted" solely becuase it's a sin is going to offend people, because many things are sins that aren't considered abnormal.

I wouldn't call a person eating a steak on Good Friday a freak. That's normal behavior.