High-brow ambitions

[Gustaf]

This is supposed to be a forum for religious and philosophical issues, so this is not an off-topic playground.

In other words, I will attempt to hold a somewhat higher standard here than one might expect of some other boards. So, please refrain from smart-ass one-liners, cheap shots, etc. And try to stick to the subject and the philosophical premises that an OP establishes.

This goes for everyone, in general. But some examples include that if someone wants to discuss his own conversion don't make it into a thread about your personal hatred of a specific church. If someone wants to discuss the interpretation of a holy text don't make it into a thread on your personal disbelief in the holy text.

You're always free to start your own threads about your pet theories.

[Torie]

That is a very well thought out and thought provoking statement indeed. It caused me to ponder a bit. Well done!

[Sam Spade]

You got it, Heinreich!

[fezzyfestoon]

Philosophize, but only if you agree with A, B, and C.

[State Comptroller Atkins]

This is supposed to be a forum for religious and philosophical issues, so this is not an off-topic playground.

In other words, I will attempt to hold a somewhat higher standard here than one might expect of some other boards. So, please refrain from smart-ass one-liners, cheap shots, etc. And try to stick to the subject and the philosophical premises that an OP establishes.

This goes for everyone, in general. But some examples include that if someone wants to discuss his own conversion don't make it into a thread about your personal hatred of a specific church. If someone wants to discuss the interpretation of a holy text don't make it into a thread on your personal disbelief in the holy text.

You're alreligious and philosophical issuesways free to start your own threads about your pet theories.

Religious and philosophical issues are all about "smart-ass one-liners, cheap shots, etc."

[Gustaf]

Philosophize, but only if you agree with A, B, and C.

I'm not sure I get your point. As I said, if you want to philosophize freely and randomly make a thread about it.

[fezzyfestoon]

Philosophize, but only if you agree with A, B, and C.

I'm not sure I get your point. As I said, if you want to philosophize freely and randomly make a thread about it.

The gist of your problems are when someone who isn't religious posts in a thread about religion.

[Gustaf]

Philosophize, but only if you agree with A, B, and C.

I'm not sure I get your point. As I said, if you want to philosophize freely and randomly make a thread about it.

The gist of your problems are when someone who isn't religious posts in a thread about religion.

No, not really...those are just the most recent examples. Unless you mean in an empirical sense, because, yes most of these occurrences will most likely be.

Of course, it is just as wrong to bring God into an explicitly atheist philosophy, if done in a stupid way.

It seems as if you're critical of me but I'm not sure in what way exactly, so it would help if you were more specific.

[fezzyfestoon]

My point is that it's totally fine for conversations about religious things to have atheist input.  It's an equally valid viewpoint regardless of whether the creators of the thread intended them to have input.  What I have a problem with is you suggesting that whatever atheists have to say has no place in a religious conversation.  Sure some of them are less than friendly, but so are a large portion of posts regarding Islam and atheism.

[Gustaf]

My point is that it's totally fine for conversations about religious things to have atheist input.  It's an equally valid viewpoint regardless of whether the creators of the thread intended them to have input.  What I have a problem with is you suggesting that whatever atheists have to say has no place in a religious conversation.  Sure some of them are less than friendly, but so are a large portion of posts regarding Islam and atheism.

That is not what I'm saying. It depends on what kind of religious conversation it is, of course.

[fezzyfestoon]

My point is that it's totally fine for conversations about religious things to have atheist input.  It's an equally valid viewpoint regardless of whether the creators of the thread intended them to have input.  What I have a problem with is you suggesting that whatever atheists have to say has no place in a religious conversation.  Sure some of them are less than friendly, but so are a large portion of posts regarding Islam and atheism.

That is not what I'm saying. It depends on what kind of religious conversation it is, of course.

That's just what it seems like, but whatever.  It's no big deal, just by two cents.

[Torie]

I think Gustaf's point is along the lines of two posters arguing about the meaning of some religious text, and then Torie drops by and states that it is so inane that both believe that the text has some nexus with a non-existent God and they both are delusional and should seek mental help, or something like that. Gustaf would prefer that that not happen. Among other things it is disruptive to the conversation.

The converse position is if someone is arguing some public policy issue in the public square dealing with secular considerations, and someone drops by and states that it is all immoral based on some religious text, and so on, and starts rapping about that ad nauseum. Then suddenly you have a two track conversation, with potential animus ensuing.

[Gustaf]

My point is that it's totally fine for conversations about religious things to have atheist input.  It's an equally valid viewpoint regardless of whether the creators of the thread intended them to have input.  What I have a problem with is you suggesting that whatever atheists have to say has no place in a religious conversation.  Sure some of them are less than friendly, but so are a large portion of posts regarding Islam and atheism.

That is not what I'm saying. It depends on what kind of religious conversation it is, of course.

That's just what it seems like, but whatever.  It's no big deal, just by two cents.

Torie pretty much summed it up. I'm not on an atheist-witch-hunt.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Gustaf,

I just read my PMs and realized one of my posts was edited due to "personal attack".

Tell me why no moderators stepped in when I, along with others, held prophetman's feet to the fire and told him he was a racist, yet I get edited for pointing out that another poster is draining meaning from the word of God just like the bible described Satan doing?

In other words, how can "you're a racist" be acceptable but "you're a deceiver bent on draining meaning from scripture" not be acceptable when BOTH had to do with someone's way of "interpreting" scripture?

Late edit: Or has both now become unacceptable, meaning the next time prophetman shows up we can't call him a racist?

[Torie]

I am going to butt in here, perhaps against my better judgment. The problem as I see it, is that describing a poster's interpretation of some religious text as Satanic could be construed as a personal attack. It may be something in the Bible states that distorting its meaning is Satanic, but what the text means is personal opinion, so if someone has another view, to then have such certitude that your point of view is right, and thus the other posters view is Satanic, strikes me as hubristic, subject to misinterpretation even if not meant as a personal attack, unnecessary to carry on a conversation about what the text means, and a reasonable judgment call to redact by a mod, assuming that is what happened.

JMO, and I don't mind if jmfcst disagrees.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I am going to butt in here, perhaps against my better judgment. The problem as I see it, is that describing a poster's interpretation of some religious text as Satanic could be construed as a personal attack. It may be something in the Bible states that distorting its meaning is Satanic, but what the text means is personal opinion, so if someone has another view, to then have such certitude that your point of view is right, and thus the other posters view is Satanic, strikes me as hubristic, subject to misinterpretation even if not meant as a personal attack, unnecessary to carry on a conversation about what the text means, and a reasonable judgment call to redact by a mod, assuming that is what happened.

JMO, and I don't mind if jmfcst disagrees.

Again, if he even attempted to address the evidence, I wouldn’t be making the charge.  But when he totally ignores the mountain of evidence and attempts to make synonyms out of two words which is not supported by either secular dictionaries or religious context…I do call it disingenuous.

So don’t lie and claim my approach and his approach are simply six and one half dozen of the other, for in a lot of ways, you're just as bad as he is.

[Torie]

for in a lot of ways, you're just as bad as he is.

That is quite unfair I think to your interlocutor. I am far worse; in fact I may be Satan's representative while on this mortal coil. Indeed, I have since rocks cooled been far more interested in hell than heaven.Perhaps Mark Twain was a "bad" influence on me; I agree with him entirely on this matter. Anyway, take care, and await the response from the one you wanted one from, Gustaf, rather than the annoying Godless lawyer. Sorry to intrude.

[Gustaf]

Jmfcst, the only thing I edited was a sentence that called your opponent an idiot, because I thought it was over the line.

I didn't touch your other posts even though they were rather agressive in tone as well. I'm merely asking you to keep it civil, that's all.

And I don't think the stupid troll prophetman is at all comparable to Gramps who is a serious poster. Even if they were I was not a moderator back then and can hardly be charged actions taken or not taken at that time.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And I don't think the stupid troll prophetman is at all comparable to Gramps who is a serious poster.

And isn’t it ironic that our “Troll” was more willing to examine his religious claims against the backdrop of scripture than our “Serious Poster”?

[Derek]

what is the point of this forum, we are all looking for answers. I'm willing to listen if the other person speaks intelligently and gives reasons to support their claims.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

what is the point of this forum, we are all looking for answers. I'm willing to listen if the other person speaks intelligently and gives reasons to support their claims.

a leftover gem from Derek

[afleitch]

what is the point of this forum, we are all looking for answers. I'm willing to listen if the other person speaks intelligently and gives reasons to support their claims.

a leftover gem from Derek

I look forward to the day when we can quote your leftover gems....

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

what is the point of this forum, we are all looking for answers. I'm willing to listen if the other person speaks intelligently and gives reasons to support their claims.

a leftover gem from Derek

I look forward to the day when we can quote your leftover gems....

I've put up with your retarded posts for years, what makes you think your new form of retarded logic is now going to drive me away?

[Gustaf]

Guys...no fighting in the sticky-thread.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Guys...no fighting in the sticky-thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAeqVGP-GPM