[OT]: Prayer for America
Xaonon
<bb...@frostbite.falls.state.mn.us> wrote:
> Dear Heavenly Father,
> We are moved by the alarming news
> and crisis that our country is
> facing. This is the greatest nation, founded in
> the belief that "In God We Trust" the Land of the Free
> Please have mercy on those
> suffering, hurting and in fear, and give wisdom, strength to
> those who are assisting. May the forces of evil be broken by
> your power and may we be humble before thee, our strength and refuge.
>
> Give wisdom to our President, our
> leaders and bring your comforting
> peace through the power of your Holy
> Spirit. Help us reach out to
> those that have been affected by this tragedy
>
> In the name of our Lord and Savior, Christ
> Jesus. AMEN
http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/
Religion has caused enough carnage already. Why didn't your all-powerful,
loving God stop this from happening in the first place, you mangy git?
--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
Visit The Nexus Of All Coolness (a.k.a. my site) at http://xaonon.cjb.net/
You were an atheist. You were stridently aligned. You were poison resistant.
You were invisible. You were a werejackal. You were lucky. You are dead.
Carl F. Hostetter
> Religion has caused enough carnage already. Why didn't your all-powerful,
> loving God stop this from happening in the first place, you mangy git?
Why didn't Eru stop Morgoth from wreaking all the carnage he did?
Because God gave His creations free will, to do good or to do evil.
In other words: God loves, man kills.
Xaonon
Hostetter <Carl.Ho...@home.com> wrote:
> In article <Xns911D70CE...@128.113.100.15>, Xaonon
>
> > Religion has caused enough carnage already. Why didn't your all-powerful,
> > loving God stop this from happening in the first place, you mangy git?
>
> Why didn't Eru stop Morgoth from wreaking all the carnage he did?
Because he's a fictional character. Kinda reminds me of another book like
that...
> Because God gave His creations free will, to do good or to do evil.
>
> In other words: God loves, man kills.
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 commeth evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?
-- Epicurus
Either way, this god person isn't anything that deserves our respect.
Carl F. Hostetter
> 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 commeth evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?
> -- Epicurus
God is of course able, but He will not violate His gift to us of free
will. You call that malevolent. Others have called it love; as do I.
It is God, or at any rate a belief in God, that has allowed man to
realize that what he does to himself and others matters, even if no
other man knows of it or disapproves of it. We believe there is a
Higher Being, a standard against which all men must be judged. I assume
that you believe in that standard, even if you do not believe in that
Being. If so, you have religion to thank for that belief. Let's not
overlook the credit in the balance sheet just because man has built up
a debit as well.
Xaonon
<Aelf...@elvish.org> wrote:
> In article <Xns911DC5B6...@128.113.100.15>, Xaonon
>
> > 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 commeth evil?
> > Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?
> > -- Epicurus
>
> God is of course able, but He will not violate His gift to us of free
> will. You call that malevolent. Others have called it love; as do I.
I'm sure the victims will be glad to know they're loved. Oh, wait, they're
dead. Never mind.
> It is God, or at any rate a belief in God, that has allowed man to
> realize that what he does to himself and others matters, even if no
> other man knows of it or disapproves of it.
Nonsense. The 'golden rule', as it's usually known, was invented
independently in numerous cultures worldwide, many of which believed in no
sort of deity whatsoever.
> We believe there is a
> Higher Being, a standard against which all men must be judged. I assume
> that you believe in that standard, even if you do not believe in that
> Being. If so, you have religion to thank for that belief. Let's not
> overlook the credit in the balance sheet just because man has built up
> a debit as well.
Here's my standard: do what's right because it's right, not because an
invisible magic man in the sky will be mad you if you don't. Noble acts are
made less so when performed for fear of punishment.
Flame of the West
Xaonon wrote:
> Either way, this god person isn't anything that deserves our respect.
Troll.
--
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-Earth.
Donald Shepherd
> Religion has caused enough carnage already. Why didn't your all-powerful,
> loving God stop this from happening in the first place, you mangy git?
Here we go again...
--
Donald Shepherd
<donald_...@hotmail.com>
Classic Opening Lines from the Lyttle Lytton Contest:
"The night passed like a kidney stone: painfully and with the help
of major sedatives."
bigme
>
> Xaonon wrote:
>
> > Either way, this god person isn't anything that deserves our respect.
>
> Troll.
Not fair, Xaonon has a valid point of view. Also consider that agnostics and
atheists are unlikely to be capable of being suicide bombers; they don't
believe they can get to heaven by killing people.
Flame of the West
bigme wrote:
> > > Either way, this god person isn't anything that deserves our respect.
> >
> > Troll.
>
> Not fair, Xaonon has a valid point of view.
The validity of his viewpoint is irrelevant. It's obvious that
he's stating his positions as offensively as possible in order
to provoke hostile responses. That's trolling.
Xaonon
<jsol...@erols.com> wrote:
> bigme wrote:
>
> > > > Either way, this god person isn't anything that deserves our respect.
> > >
> > > Troll.
> >
> > Not fair, Xaonon has a valid point of view.
>
> The validity of his viewpoint is irrelevant. It's obvious that
> he's stating his positions as offensively as possible in order
> to provoke hostile responses. That's trolling.
No, that's flame-baiting. Trolling is deliberately posting incorrect
or misleading information in the hopes that someone will try correcting it,
and therefore said to have been 'trolled'.
http://www.kibo.com/kibopost/bacon_trolling.html
http://www.kibo.com/kibopost/meta_trolling.html
But this is irrelevant, as I am doing neither. And 'stating my positions
offensively'? No. Offensive is some bozo posting a suggestion to pray to the
same concept that the terrorists used to justify their murders. I'm angry at
their actions and tired of having religion pushed in my face for any reason,
especially one as serious as this, and if you don't like it, fine. Usenet is
not a place for the thin-skinned.
And now, if I may, I'd like to get back on to the proper subject of this
newsgroup. On page 154 of FoTR, Merry uses the phrase "the men of Carn Dum".
Elsewhere, it is spelled "Carn Dűm". Is the first a typo or a deliberate
omission?
Flame of the West
Xaonon wrote:
> I'm angry at
> their actions and tired of having religion pushed in my face for any reason,
> especially one as serious as this, and if you don't like it, fine. Usenet is
> not a place for the thin-skinned.
You seem a little thin-skinned yourself. Almost everybody believes in
God in some form or another, and we're not going to be silent about
it just for you. If you don't like it, fine.
Flame of the West
Xaonon wrote:
> On page 154 of FoTR, Merry uses the phrase "the men of Carn Dum".
> Elsewhere, it is spelled "Carn Dūm". Is the first a typo or a deliberate
> omission?
A typo, I would expect.
Note please that the pagination depends on what edition you have.
Perhaps someone should go through LotR and the Silmarillion and
assign verse numbers the way it was done for the Bible. Then we
would all have a standard method of referencing particular passages.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:3BA33B29...@erols.com...
> You seem a little thin-skinned yourself. Almost everybody
> believes in God in some form or another, and we're not going to
> be silent about it just for you. If you don't like it, fine.
Hmmm... and why have we seen no such passionate defenses on
behalf of Ed Poor? After all... he believes in God, and yet I
haven't seen anyone leaping forth in defense of >his< right to
proselytize. Rather the opposite in fact.
Xaonon
<jsol...@erols.com> wrote:
> Xaonon wrote:
>
> > On page 154 of FoTR, Merry uses the phrase "the men of Carn Dum".
> > Elsewhere, it is spelled "Carn Dūm". Is the first a typo or a deliberate
> > omission?
>
> A typo, I would expect.
>
> Note please that the pagination depends on what edition you have.
> Perhaps someone should go through LotR and the Silmarillion and
> assign verse numbers the way it was done for the Bible. Then we
> would all have a standard method of referencing particular passages.
I had assumed there was some sort of standard pagination; the little blurb on
the copyright page says things like "this text... constitutes an
authoritative edition... uniform with that published in Great Britain by
Allen & Unwin". All the footnotes refer to the correct pages (e.g. "See note,
III 389"), but I suppose they could have been changed after resetting.
Ell Jay
> In article <news:140920011936271257%Aelf...@elvish.org>, Carl F. Hostetter
> <Aelf...@elvish.org> wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns911DC5B6...@128.113.100.15>, Xaonon
> >
> > > 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 commeth evil?
> > > Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?
> > > -- Epicurus
> >
> > God is of course able, but He will not violate His gift to us of free
> > will. You call that malevolent. Others have called it love; as do I.
>
> I'm sure the victims will be glad to know they're loved. Oh, wait, they're
> dead. Never mind.
And where do you think they are now?
Ell Jay
> "Flame of the West" wrote:
> >
> > Xaonon wrote:
> >
> > > Either way, this god person isn't anything that deserves our respect.
> >
> > Troll.
>
> Not fair, Xaonon has a valid point of view.
And he's pushing his opinion on the rest of us who don't want to hear it, and
have basically said so.
Ell Jay
> Usenet is not a place for the thin-skinned.
In your case, the thick-headed.
Aris Katsaris
Ell Jay <cot...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3BA38ED8...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> Xaonon wrote:
>
> > I'm sure the victims will be glad to know they're loved. Oh, wait,
they're
> > dead. Never mind.
>
> And where do you think they are now?
Most of them in hell, according to most Christian denominations who believe
that only a minority is ever saved.
Aris Katsaris
Conrad Dunkerson
> And he's pushing his opinion on the rest of us who don't want to
> hear it, and have basically said so.
Heh... which is of course what Xaonon himself was objecting to
in the first place. So let's see;
It is ok to proselytize if you are a Christian
It is NOT ok to proselytize if you are a Moonie
It is ok to force your pro-God views on others
It is NOT ok to force your anti-God views on others
I swear, I must be growing ever more cynical with age because I
begin to think that hypocrisy is the glue which holds civilization
together.
Ell Jay
I came to this group to seek enlightenment about Tolkien, not enlightenment
about other people's spiritual beliefs. I now find that this group is filled
with predjudiced bigots. Perhaps I will return to the group in time, if only
to see if you can keep your offensive comments to yourselves.
Ell Jay
> "Flame of the West" <jsol...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3BA33B29...@erols.com...
>
> > You seem a little thin-skinned yourself. Almost everybody
> > believes in God in some form or another, and we're not going to
> > be silent about it just for you. If you don't like it, fine.
>
> Hmmm... and why have we seen no such passionate defenses on
> behalf of Ed Poor?
He ain't in this thread.
Noora Salminen
> > they're
> > > > dead. Never mind.
> > >
> > > And where do you think they are now?
> >
> > Most of them in hell, according to most Christian denominations who believe
> > that only a minority is ever saved.
hey, if majority of religions believe you go to 'Hell' if you're not a member
of that religion, and since people can belong to max one religion that means we
all go to hell anyway.
personally, I believe there's no sentient existance after you're dead. all
that's left of you is memories of you in living people's minds, and your deeds.
what a nice afterlife existance those kamikaze-terrorists have.
> I came to this group to seek enlightenment about Tolkien, not enlightenment
> about other people's spiritual beliefs. I now find that this group is filled
> with predjudiced bigots. Perhaps I will return to the group in time, if only
> to see if you can keep your offensive comments to yourselves.
I take it by 'prejudiced bigots' you don't mean the person who posted the
causer of this discussion but
the people who were offended by it and told it.
there's this thing called 'freedom of though and speech' and part of it is
everyone's got
the freedom to dislike other people's thoughts and express it.
- Noora
what a fine way to start posting here, eh
--
Posted from cache-tre-4.inet.fi [195.165.1.14]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Aris Katsaris
> Aris Katsaris wrote:
>
> > Ell Jay <cot...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3BA38ED8...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> > > Xaonon wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm sure the victims will be glad to know they're loved. Oh, wait,
> > they're
> > > > dead. Never mind.
> > >
> > > And where do you think they are now?
> >
> > Most of them in hell, according to most Christian denominations who
believe
> > that only a minority is ever saved.
>
> I came to this group to seek enlightenment about Tolkien, not
enlightenment
> about other people's spiritual beliefs. I now find that this group is
filled
> with predjudiced bigots.
I beg your pardon? Is this "prejudiced bigots" comment referring to me as
well? It must be because you are responding to my post. And yet I said
nothing about *my* beliefs in this post, only about the beliefs of most
Christian
denominations that I know of.
Are you disagreeing that most Christian denominations do indeed believe
that the saved souls are fewer than the damned ones? My information may
indeed be mistaken about this, and I'd appreciate correction with factual
information about the subject.
Aris Katsaris
Morgil Blackhope
Ell Jay kirjoitti viestissä <3BA3A739...@sk.sympatico.ca>...
>I came to this group to seek enlightenment about Tolkien, not enlightenment
>about other people's spiritual beliefs.
Then why do you read and post to OT-thread???
Morgil
the softrat
Because he is an idiot, a jack-ass, and a troll!
the softrat "He who rubs owls"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Let's jump off that bridge when we come to it.
Douglas Eckhart
Probably the same place as all the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just
because the US wanted to test out their new toys.
Where are their 3 minute silence?
Douglas
Morgil Blackhope
Douglas Eckhart kirjoitti viestissä
<9o0ni1$ahr$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
>Probably the same place as all the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just
>because the US wanted to test out their new toys.
>Where are their 3 minute silence?
IIRC that was 6.8. 1995...
Morgil
Flame of the West
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
> It is ok to proselytize if you are a Christian
> It is NOT ok to proselytize if you are a Moonie
> It is ok to force your pro-God views on others
> It is NOT ok to force your anti-God views on others
I don't think it's OK for anyone to proselytize on non-religous
NGs, nor should anyone force their views of any sort on
others. We should, however, practice tolerance and not
deliberately offend. It is not tolerant to complain that one is
"tired of having religion pushed in my face" with the implication
that believers should censor themselves online. It is
deliberatlely offensive to assert that "his god person isn't
anything that deserves our respect."
> hypocrisy is the glue which holds civilization together.
I kind of like this quote (it'd make a good sig) even
if I don't agree with it.
Flame of the West
Xaonon wrote:
> I had assumed there was some sort of standard pagination; the little blurb on
> the copyright page says things like "this text... constitutes an
> authoritative edition... uniform with that published in Great Britain by
> Allen & Unwin". All the footnotes refer to the correct pages (e.g. "See note,
> III 389"), but I suppose they could have been changed after resetting.
I'm not sure, but I think there are difference editions with the same
uniform text but different paginations.
Flame of the West
Donald Shepherd wrote:
> > Religion has caused enough carnage already. Why didn't your all-powerful,
> > loving God stop this from happening in the first place, you mangy git?
>
> Here we go again...
I have an idea: let's have a huge off-topic argument about religion!
Flame of the West
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
> Hmmm... and why have we seen no such passionate defenses on
> behalf of Ed Poor? After all... he believes in God, and yet I
> haven't seen anyone leaping forth in defense of >his< right to
> proselytize. Rather the opposite in fact.
But nobody was proselytizing in this thread. I was defending
the right of believers to post without censoring their point of
view, not proselytism (which is out of place here).
Walter Minne
On 14 Sep 2001 23:22:32 GMT, xao...@mediaone.net (Xaonon) wrote:
>In article <news:140920011428497410%Carl.Ho...@home.com>, Carl F.
>Hostetter <Carl.Ho...@home.com> wrote:
<snip>
My thanks to Xaonon, for posting the following quote, which really
summarised what is wrong with faith in the omnipotent and an omniesent
deity, in the mold of Jehovah, Allah, or Eru.
> 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 commeth evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?
> -- Epicurus
>
>Either way, this god person isn't anything that deserves our respect.
>
>--
>Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
>Visit The Nexus Of All Coolness (a.k.a. my site) at http://xaonon.cjb.net/
>You were an atheist. You were stridently aligned. You were poison resistant.
>You were invisible. You were a werejackal. You were lucky. You are dead.
My sympathy to the victims of these terrible crimes, and the hope that
their deaths and suffering will not be in vain.
Catch you later,
Walter Minne
RLV
>
> Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
>
> > Hmmm... and why have we seen no such passionate defenses on
> > behalf of Ed Poor? After all... he believes in God, and yet I
> > haven't seen anyone leaping forth in defense of >his< right to
> > proselytize. Rather the opposite in fact.
>
> But nobody was proselytizing in this thread. I was defending
> the right of believers to post without censoring their point of
> view, not proselytism (which is out of place here).
A right that also applies to unbelievers such as Xaonon.
Or shouldn't it?
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Tilde Power!"
RLV
>
> Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
>
> > It is ok to proselytize if you are a Christian
> > It is NOT ok to proselytize if you are a Moonie
> > It is ok to force your pro-God views on others
> > It is NOT ok to force your anti-God views on others
>
> I don't think it's OK for anyone to proselytize on non-religous
> NGs, nor should anyone force their views of any sort on
> others. We should, however, practice tolerance and not
> deliberately offend. It is not tolerant to complain that one is
> "tired of having religion pushed in my face" with the implication
> that believers should censor themselves online. It is
> deliberatlely offensive to assert that "his god person isn't
> anything that deserves our respect."
So, it is OK to say that god is deserving of our blind adoration, but not
that he does not deserve respect. The difference being?
> > hypocrisy is the glue which holds civilization together.
>
> I kind of like this quote (it'd make a good sig) even
> if I don't agree with it.
Sadly, it is quite true.
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Tilde Power!"
Ell Jay
> Then why do you read and post to OT-thread???
A better question is, why do you reply to someone who has just said they've
left?
RLV
To see if it was true.
It wasn't.
(We've seen this before)
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Tilde Power!"
Flame of the West
RLV wrote:
> So, it is OK to say that god is deserving of our blind adoration, but not
> that he does not deserve respect. The difference being?
Neither is appropriate. The first is proselytism, the second
offensive.
Flame of the West
RLV wrote:
> > But nobody was proselytizing in this thread. I was defending
> > the right of believers to post without censoring their point of
> > view, not proselytism (which is out of place here).
>
> A right that also applies to unbelievers such as Xaonon.
Yes, so long as the poster is not offensive. It's one thing
to say "I don't believe in your God," another to say "your
God is not worthy of respect." The latter is offensive.
WindS...@webtv.net
>of our blind adoration, but not that he
>does not deserve respect. The difference
> being?
>>>R.L.V.
If I were an atheist, I would be likely to dismiss as deadly dull and
annoying a message thread labelled "Prayer for America". And here is
the important part - I would _not_ bother to read it - unless of course
I had gotten tired of biting down on that sore tooth, and needed some
other way of annoying myself.
If after reading such a thread and finding myself greatly annoyed by it,
I probably would not post such tactless comments as are under discussion
now:
>>Religion has caused enough carnage
>>already. Why didn't your all-powerful,
>>loving God stop this from happening in
>>the first place, you mangy git?
>>Xaonon
Sure it's ok to have contrary opinions, but why pretend that Xaonon was
doing anything other than being deliberately unpleasant?
I frequent a message board devoted to one of the Star Trek shows, which
you will note was _not_ created by a person well-known for his
religious devotion. From Tuesday on, most of our normal discussion
ceased, and we said kind words to each other, pouring out our grief and
our sympathy, compassion and caring. After a couple days of this, I
felt the need to share something that had brought me great comfort. It
was deeply spiritual in content, but it seemed to me that it was worded
in such a way that it probably would not be offensive. Because of the
non-religious theme of that message board, I did post the item with a
little note stating that it was religious in nature and that I hoped I
was not offending any who believed differently. In response, I have had
not a single flame. In fact, there were not even any polite requests
not to do that kind of thing again. I'm guessing that those who are
likely to have been offended, chose not to annoy themselves by reading
beyond my little warning.
Windy
RLV
>
> RLV wrote:
>
> > > But nobody was proselytizing in this thread. I was defending
> > > the right of believers to post without censoring their point of
> > > view, not proselytism (which is out of place here).
> >
> > A right that also applies to unbelievers such as Xaonon.
>
> Yes, so long as the poster is not offensive. It's one thing
> to say "I don't believe in your God," another to say "your
> God is not worthy of respect." The latter is offensive.
I don't think so. You have expressed clearly your views on some
beliefs/attitudes/people that you consider not worthy of respect. I don't
think why other people should not be able to do so. I don't consider any of
these opinions offensive.
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Tilde Power!"
RLV
>
> RLV wrote:
>
> > So, it is OK to say that god is deserving of our blind adoration, but
not
> > that he does not deserve respect. The difference being?
>
> Neither is appropriate. The first is proselytism, the second
> offensive.
You claim that it is OK to claim you have faith, and faith includes blind
(as in unquestioning) adoration, thus making it clear that you believe that
your god is worthy of blind adoration. (I wouldn't call it proselytism,
unless you say that other people should profess the same blind adoration).
Giving one's opinion that your god is not worthy of respect has the same
moral value.
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Tilde Power!"
Xaonon
<WindS...@webtv.net> wrote:
> If after reading such a thread and finding myself greatly annoyed by it,
> I probably would not post such tactless comments as are under discussion
> now:
>
>>>Religion has caused enough carnage
>>>already. Why didn't your all-powerful,
>>>loving God stop this from happening in
>>>the first place, you mangy git?
>>>
>>>Xaonon
>
> Sure it's ok to have contrary opinions, but why pretend that Xaonon was
> doing anything other than being deliberately unpleasant?
Crikey.
Okay, look. The OP was a trolling bozo who'd made several identical posts in
other newsgroups as well, under various names to avoid killfiling. I was
angry at the mindless stupidity of the post and annoyed with the trolling; he
deserved the unpleasantness. But I certainly didn't mean to start a flamewar!
--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
Visit The Nexus Of All Coolness (a.k.a. my site) at http://xaonon.cjb.net/
"To fill a world with religion... is like littering the streets with loaded
guns. Do not be surprised if they are used." -- Richard Dawkins
Flame of the West
RLV wrote:
> You claim that it is OK to claim you have faith, and faith includes blind
> (as in unquestioning) adoration, thus making it clear that you believe that
> your god is worthy of blind adoration. (I wouldn't call it proselytism,
> unless you say that other people should profess the same blind adoration).
> Giving one's opinion that your god is not worthy of respect has the same
> moral value.
If I claim that you're a malodorous twit with donkey in your
bloodline, and you deny this, do our statements have the
same moral value?
WindS...@webtv.net
>But I certainly didn't mean to start a
>flamewar!
>Xaonon
Let's review, shall we? You use words like "mangy git" and "trolling
idiot". I use words like "tactless" and "unpleasant".
Flames, what flames?
Windy
--------
If you can't stand the heat, get away from my hibachi.
Russ
WindS...@webtv.net writes:
>Let's review, shall we? You use words like "mangy git" and "trolling
>idiot". I use words like "tactless" and "unpleasant".
>
>Flames, what flames?
>
And what's a git?
Russ
RLV
>
> RLV wrote:
>
> > You claim that it is OK to claim you have faith, and faith includes
blind
> > (as in unquestioning) adoration, thus making it clear that you believe
that
> > your god is worthy of blind adoration. (I wouldn't call it proselytism,
> > unless you say that other people should profess the same blind
adoration).
> > Giving one's opinion that your god is not worthy of respect has the same
> > moral value.
>
> If I claim that you're a malodorous twit with donkey in your
> bloodline, and you deny this, do our statements have the
> same moral value?
It would depend on wether your claim were true or not, wouldn't it?
As you cannot say anything for certain regarding the nature of god, any
claim about it is especulative and based on opinion rather than fact. Thus,
you cannot dismiss Xaonon's statements as false; they just reflect his
opinion, just as yours reflect yours. Both opinions are respectable and none
of them should be censored.
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Tilde Power!"
Flame of the West
RLV wrote:
> As you cannot say anything for certain regarding the nature of god, any
> claim about it is especulative and based on opinion rather than fact.
Not true! I can say several things for certain about the nature of God.
This is not because I'm any smarter than you, but rather because God
revealed this information to me via His revelation to His people. You,
OTOH, are so ignorant you don't even know to capitalize His name.
Aris Katsaris
>
> RLV wrote:
>
> > As you cannot say anything for certain regarding the nature of god, any
> > claim about it is especulative and based on opinion rather than fact.
>
> Not true! I can say several things for certain about the nature of God.
>
> This is not because I'm any smarter than you, but rather because God
> revealed this information to me via His revelation to His people.
<g> And the first bit of information revealed was that the aforementioned
revelation was indeed given by God, right?
Aris Katsaris
Johnathan George
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
>
> "Ell Jay" <cot...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3BA38EFE...@sk.sympatico.ca...
>
> > And he's pushing his opinion on the rest of us who don't want to
> > hear it, and have basically said so.
>
> Heh... which is of course what Xaonon himself was objecting to
> in the first place. So let's see;
>
> It is ok to proselytize if you are a Christian
> It is NOT ok to proselytize if you are a Moonie
> It is ok to force your pro-God views on others
> It is NOT ok to force your anti-God views on others
I think the key to what makes some "religion" posts generally
acceptable, and some not (aside from the question of whether they're
stated in rather insulting terms), is whether they seek to apply the
ideas they're about to the people involved in the discussion. For
example, Mr. Poor seemd to be saying "I think you should become a
moonie", and many people disliked that. Similarly, Xaonon's post seemed
to be saying "I think that your belief in God has caused this and many
other tragedies." I think people would have been just as upset if I'd
posted something along the lines of "Your loss of faith in God is
causing Him to withdraw His protection from our country, and that's why
this has happened"!
I don't think it has anything to do with who's "forcing" their views on
anyone else... I mean none of us have to read any of this!
Hmmm... I don't know if any of that makes any sense. I don't have the
energy to look back through it and see, so I'll just post it as is and
hopefully I don't insult anyone too badly!
>
> I swear, I must be growing ever more cynical with age because I
> begin to think that hypocrisy is the glue which holds civilization
> together.
Well at least I'M not a hypocrite like everyone else here ;-)
Johnathan
Conrad Dunkerson
news:3BA55C89...@mindspring.com...
> I think people would have been just as upset if I'd posted
> something along the lines of "Your loss of faith in God is
> causing Him to withdraw His protection from our country, and
> that's why this has happened"!
Mmmm... and yet when people objected to a post quoting Jerry
Falwell doing precisely that there were people outraged that
anyone would criticize Falwell for it.
So, as I was saying...
RLV
>
> RLV wrote:
>
> > As you cannot say anything for certain regarding the nature of god, any
> > claim about it is especulative and based on opinion rather than fact.
>
> Not true! I can say several things for certain about the nature of God.
>
> This is not because I'm any smarter than you, but rather because God
> revealed this information to me via His revelation to His people.
This is just your belief, which cannot be proved in any way. I (or anybody)
can claim anything I want about the nature of god, and it will have the same
strength and certainty as your beliefs.
Actually, my invisible god who sings elvish lullabies to my cats is a much
more believable entity than your version of god. More aesthetically
pleasing, and certainly of a higher moral level.
>You,
> OTOH, are so ignorant you don't even know to capitalize His name.
Not ignorant at all. I don't capitalize its name because its just a generic
entity, not a persona (neither a place or society). You can have your
superstitions, but I'm not obliged to follow them.
OTOH, you use the male pronoun for it; is your version of god male, or are
you "ignorant"? Must be all these beards, shirley.
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Tilde Power!"
RLV
"Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:9o6t8d$i21$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...
Yep, that's how it works:
"The Bible is true"
"Why?"
"Because it's the word of god"
"How do you know?"
"Because it says so in the Bible.".
Perfect reasoning.
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Tilde Power!"
Flame of the West
RLV wrote:
> Actually, my invisible god <snip> certainly of a higher moral level.
You're now being insulting and provocative on purpose.
This discussion is terminated.
Johnathan George
Well, I'd join in disagreeing with Jerry Falwell (if he indeed said
that), and I wouldn't think it was particularly appropriate for this
group (was it posted here? If so I missed it). As you pointed out
hypocrisy and double standards are very widespread, and I wasn't trying
to deny it. I was just trying to figure out why some posts on religious
topics are deemed innapropriate by most people, while others are
discussed and argued over at length without much comment on their
appropriatness. It seemed to me the difference lay in whether the post
seemed to say in effect "you need to believe like I do" or "here's what
I believe and why... you can take it or leave it".
Or something like that. For some reason I had a hard time figuring out
how to express the idea I had in my mind the other day, and I'm not sure
I did any better just now. Suffice it to say I wasn't really
disagreeing with you... just trying to discuss a related point!
Johnathan
RLV
>
> RLV wrote:
>
> > Actually, my invisible god <snip> certainly of a higher moral level.
>
> You're now being insulting and provocative on purpose.
> This discussion is terminated.
Really? For you to proclaim that your god is of a higher moral level than
other people is OK. For people to proclaim the contrary is insulting.
You show your usual double-standards regarding censorhip and morality when
your religion gets involved.
You should get used to it: what you hold as sacred is seen differently by
other people.
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Tilde Power!"
Ell Jay
> "Flame of the West" <jsol...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3BA5365F...@erols.com...
> >
> > RLV wrote:
> >
> > > > But nobody was proselytizing in this thread. I was defending
> > > > the right of believers to post without censoring their point of
> > > > view, not proselytism (which is out of place here).
> > >
> > > A right that also applies to unbelievers such as Xaonon.
> >
> > Yes, so long as the poster is not offensive. It's one thing
> > to say "I don't believe in your God," another to say "your
> > God is not worthy of respect." The latter is offensive.
>
> I don't think so. I don't consider any of these opinions offensive.
Because it's not you that's being offended.
Russ
<cot...@sk.sympatico.ca> writes:
RLV is only offended by one religion.
Russ
RLV
"Russ" <mcr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010925203608...@nso-md.aol.com...
FotW happens not to consider offensive to say: "your lifestyle/belief is not
worthy of respect", and yet he is offended by being told the same about his
god. This is what I was complaining about.
I won't take offense at any of these affirmations. Maybe it's a question of
skin.
> RLV is only offended by one religion.
I'm not offended by any religion (although some offend my sense of logic).
I'm offended by fanatics and bigots. Also by these with double standards,
and the hypocrites aren't too much to my liking either.
People who uses the beliefs of other people to take advantage of them are
offensive to me, too.
There are others but the list would be tiresome.
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Tilde Power!"
Flame of the West
RLV wrote:
> FotW happens not to consider offensive to say: "your lifestyle/belief is not
> worthy of respect",
How do you know that? No one's said it yet.
> I won't take offense at any of these affirmations. Maybe it's a question of
> skin.
Trolls have thick skins. See Tolkien.
> I'm not offended by any religion (although some offend my sense of logic).
> I'm offended by fanatics and bigots.
Define "fanatic" and "bigot", please.
RLV
>
> RLV wrote:
>
> > FotW happens not to consider offensive to say: "your lifestyle/belief is
not
> > worthy of respect",
>
> How do you know that? No one's said it yet.
Please! You mean the loud catholic and other religious people in this forum
haven't argued about how "unnatural" are homosexual relationships, how
murderous are abortionists, how evil are socialists, etc., etc...
> > I won't take offense at any of these affirmations. Maybe it's a question
of
> > skin.
>
> Trolls have thick skins. See Tolkien.
And stupid people get offended easily. See life.
> > I'm not offended by any religion (although some offend my sense of
logic).
> > I'm offended by fanatics and bigots.
>
> Define "fanatic" and "bigot", please.
Haven't you got a dictionary?
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Tilde Power!"
Flame of the West
RLV wrote:
> > Define "fanatic" and "bigot", please.
>
> Haven't you got a dictionary?
Yes I do, but I suspect that *you* are using the terms
in a differemt sense. For instance, I have not seen a
genuine fanatic on this NG. Have you?
RLV
> RLV wrote:
>
> > > Define "fanatic" and "bigot", please.
> >
> > Haven't you got a dictionary?
>
> Yes I do, but I suspect that *you* are using the terms
> in a differemt sense. For instance, I have not seen a
> genuine fanatic on this NG. Have you?
Me? How am I using these terms? Pray tell.
Btw, expanding on my previous reply about the level of respect you demand
for your god.
Do you respect Ossama Bin Laden's god?
With this I don't mean the god of most of the muslims. I mean OBL's concept
of god: a merciless and vengeful god; a god that demands revenge and
punishmen for any offence and attack against its religion; a god that
accepts and rewards the killing of innocents to achieve what it considers a
just cause; a god of fire and brimstone.
Do you respect this god?
Maybe you consider your god (your idea of god) to be of higher moral values
than OBL's god?
Then, why are you offended if I consider my god that sings elven lullabies
to my cats to "be more aesthetically pleasant and have higher moral values"
than your god? (The sentence that made you jump. Do you remember?)
You may disagree with that (as OBL surely would disagree with your belief
that your god has higher moral values than his god), but you have no reason
to take any offence.
Unless you are, of course, applying double morals: other people's beliefs
are open to criticism; yours isn't. Other people's gods can be found faulty;
yours can't.
This kind of double morals are, btw, one of the things I don't respect.
YMMV.
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Tilde Power!"
Ell Jay
> "Flame of the West" <jsol...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3BB25263...@erols.com...
> >
> > RLV wrote:
> >
> > > FotW happens not to consider offensive to say: "your lifestyle/belief is
> not
> > > worthy of respect",
> >
> > How do you know that? No one's said it yet.
>
> Please! You mean the loud catholic and other religious people in this forum
> haven't argued about how "unnatural" are homosexual relationships, how
> murderous are abortionists, how evil are socialists, etc., etc...
You wanna lump any more different people together? If I used my example, I'd say
that all athiests are idiotic trolls, which is untrue because I happen to know
some very nice atheists.
> > > I won't take offense at any of these affirmations. Maybe it's a question
> of
> > > skin.
> >
> > Trolls have thick skins. See Tolkien.
>
> And stupid people get offended easily. See life.
You've met a lot of stupid people?
Ell Jay
> YMMV.
Oh yeah? Well, IYAMITTYAAAWJWTMPMAHNRFTFOO.
--
Gosh, that was fun.
Ell Jay
> Donald Shepherd wrote:
>
> > > Religion has caused enough carnage already. Why didn't your all-powerful,
> > > loving God stop this from happening in the first place, you mangy git?
> >
> > Here we go again...
>
> I have an idea: let's have a huge off-topic argument about religion!
Arr Ell Vee seems to agree with you.
Flame of the West
Ell Jay wrote:
> > I have an idea: let's have a huge off-topic argument about religion!
>
> Arr Ell Vee seems to agree with you.
He's gone for the moment, so let's talk about Tolkien instead!
Jeff George
>
>
> You've met a lot of stupid people?
Most people are stupid. Hope that helps.
--
=====================================================================
I don't want this anger that's burning in me.
It's something from which it's so hard to be free.
But none of the tears that we cry in sorrow or rage
Can make any difference, or turn back the page.
- David Gilmour
=====================================================================
Jeff George
Ell Jay
> Ell Jay wrote:
>
> > You've met a lot of stupid people?
>
> Most people are stupid. Hope that helps.
So I've noticed. Most people are also pigs, but that's just my opinion
now.
Donald Shepherd
<cot...@sk.sympatico.ca> says...
Pigs are people too!
--
Donald Shepherd
<donald_...@hotmail.com>
"It's true that clothes make the man. Naked people have had little or no
lasting impact in society."
- Mark Twain
Has quite a nice ring to it.