17 Jan 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterFirst of all, you never apologised. Ever. Do try and let that little tidbit sink in, even if nothing else I say does. Apologies are very simple--you simply state that you are sorry you offfended another. And you don't and any of the following words to it: but, however, yet, nevertheless (I think you get the idea).
Ok , so i set you a trap.....
Notice how you used the word "brainstorm" without a second thought.
Now if I were a sufferer of epilepsy I could easily say that the word you should use is "thoughtshower" because brainstorm is offensive. Someone could be complaining to the moderators right now , how would you defend yourself?
See how easy it i ...[text shortened]... I did) and then expect to move on.
Floyd ..please get over yourself now and let it go.
I would have done so (as you indicated) ,when it has been pointed out that something I said lacked tact or courtesy. And that has happened on these hallowed forum pages more than once. But as I say, I had the guts to tell the person I was sorry I acted that way.
The analogy is poor. Brainstorm in no way is insulting to a majority of people, epilepsy sufferers included. To be called insand however, IS pretty much universally accepted as an insult.
I have no need to get over myself. My only troubles in life come from trying to "get over" the tactless bullies of the world, and like all of us, I do the best I can when dealing with such boorish behavior.
17 Jan 09
Originally posted by PinkFloydBrainstorm in no way is insulting to a majority of people, epilepsy sufferers included.----------------floyd-------------------------
First of all, you [b]never apologised. Ever. Do try and let that little tidbit sink in, even if nothing else I say does. Apologies are very simple--you simply state that you are sorry you offfended another. And you don't and any of the following words to it: but, however, yet, nevertheless (I think you get the idea).
I would have d ...[text shortened]... f the world, and like all of us, I do the best I can when dealing with such boorish behavior.[/b]
I agree , but some individuals apparently do find it offensive , just as you find my words offensive.
So , afterall, you do think that whether a term is insulting or not should be decided by a democratic decision or majority? This seems in contradiction with what you were saying earlier. I'm sure that the majority of people on this forum would find what I said to you pretty mild and inoffensive. If so , then , by your own logic above , you must question your own individual reaction and submit them to the majority view yes?
I have said that I am sorry if you have found my words offensive but I will not apologise for what I said. Why? Because if you really think that God would deem sandwiches an "abomination" then you must have a screw loose somewhere. I personally do not think that you are insane. I think this is all about something much deeper. It's about resistance to accepting homosexuality and holding on to (whatever the cost) some sacrosanct idea that scripture is infallible.
So unless you can give me one (just one) rational reason why God might declare sandwiches an abomination then I will feel entitled to question your rationality. If you make public such a blindly obedient approach to God (whatever he might say) then you are opening up yourself to criticism.
You seem more worried about your own offended feelings than you do about the great harm and violence that is created by such irrational , unquestioning obedience. Sandwiches are harmless , suicide bombs are not. Your concerns seem very narrow to me compared with what is happening out there in the world.
Let me ask you this.
If God said that suicide bombing non-believers was a righteous act - would you just accept it or question it? If you would question it , then why?
18 Jan 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf God said anything yo me, I would not question it. I WOULD however, make particylatly sure that it WAS God who was doing the talking and that I was not misunderstanding Him in any way.
Brainstorm in no way is insulting to a majority of people, epilepsy sufferers included.----------------floyd-------------------------
I agree , but some individuals apparently do find it offensive , just as you find my words offensive.
So , afterall, you do think that whether a term is insulting or not should be decided by a democratic decision ...[text shortened]... ighteous act - would you just accept it or question it? If you would question it , then why?
Yes, I am far more concerned about my own feelings and character being trampled on yhan a nebulouos idea of some unnamed person being crucified for his aactions or beliefs, whether it be for being gay, the wrong color, whatever. That is a human failing and we all have our share of them.
So please, I've answered and admitted everything possible in this matter. As you feel no compunction to apologize "for what (you) said", and since I am far more concerned about that failing in your code of conduct than any of these analogies you choose to derive, there's really nothing more to say--except that I still find the name calling repulsive and worthy of report to the moderators, and I did just that. If they agree with you and deem no action is necessary to be levelled against you, then I must accept their decision, ill-informed though it may be.
18 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydIf God said anything yo me, I would not question it. I WOULD however, make particylatly sure that it WAS God who was doing the talking and that I was not misunderstanding Him in any way.
If God said anything yo me, I would not question it. I WOULD however, make particylatly sure that it WAS God who was doing the talking and that I was not misunderstanding Him in any way.
Yes, I am far more concerned about my own feelings and character being trampled on yhan a nebulouos idea of some unnamed person being crucified for his aactions or bel o be levelled against you, then I must accept their decision, ill-informed though it may be.
----------------floyd-----------------------
And one of the big ways of doing that is to pay attention to the content of the message. A declaration by God that sandwiches were and "abomination" should immediately raise suspicions due to the bizarre and irrational nature of it. You seemed to think it quite normal to just blindly obey such a bizarre message without question. I then questioned your rationality on this (expressing myself in a way that tried to convey my shock and dismay) and then you took offence at me.
Do you not see how believing that sandwiches were an "abomination" would be a .....erhem.....rather silly thing to do, shall we say?
(BTW- You still didn't answer the question re- suicide bombing)
18 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo you worder the question obliqurly. You said "If God said...", not "Suppose you hear what you PERCEIVE to be God saying..."
If God said anything yo me, I would not question it. I WOULD however, make particylatly sure that it WAS God who was doing the talking and that I was not misunderstanding Him in any way.
----------------floyd-----------------------
And one of the big ways of doing that is to pay attention to the content of the message. A declaration by God that s ing to do, shall we say?
(BTW- You still didn't answer the question re- suicide bombing)
For Christians, that's a big difference. If your premise begins with "if God said...", then my reply is most likely to be "Amen!" But if you interject the possibility of a false prophet you've changed the rules.
The suicide bomber uses the same rules--are you saying "God unequivocally ordered such an attack, or that a voice was perceived to be that of God?
Now, since I continue to patiently answer you, and yet you still haven't shown the guts to apologize for calling me insane, which means that I am dusting off my sandals as I take my leave of you.
Happy trails.
19 Jan 09
Originally posted by PinkFloydIf your premise begins with "if God said...", then my reply is most likely to be "Amen!" But if you interject the possibility of a false prophet you've changed the rules.
No you worder the question obliqurly. You said "If God said...", not "Suppose you hear what you PERCEIVE to be God saying..."
For Christians, that's a big difference. If your premise begins with "if God said...", then my reply is most likely to be "Amen!" But if you interject the possibility of a false prophet you've changed the rules.
The suicide b ...[text shortened]... means that I am dusting off my sandals as I take my leave of you.
Happy trails.
The suicide bomber uses the same rules--are you saying "God unequivocally ordered such an attack, or that a voice was perceived to be that of God? [WORD TOO LONG]
And one of the ways we figure this out is via the content of the message. There is always the possibility of falsity and misinterpretation. If man could understand and hear God infallibly then the world would look very different.
You might ask a suicide bomber to re-think his appraisal of what he thinks God is saying due to the fact that it's not likely God wants a whole load of women and children blown up in a restaurant.
Equally I asked you to think about whether God would really declare sandwiches and abomination or not. The fact that it seems such a bizarre and insane declaration for God to make should have made you question it. You did not. I rest my case.
20 Jan 09
Originally posted by FMFIt's hate speech for you to complain about it.
How can someone argue that this is [b]not hatespeech...
man and man or woman and woman..this would be biologically unacceptable... Homosexuality is an abomination ... Christians are taught to [...] hate the sin... Non-believers [i.e. people you disagree with] will be eternally separated from God and eternally associated with Satan in hell, wailing and ...[text shortened]... d strength of belief absolve us from accusations of hatespeech in the realm of spirituality?
