The KKK are right

Arella Mae, obviously not being able to respond to my and others' disection of her arguments, has taken the cowards' way out.

I have no problem responding to you aperson. However, I am not going to argue with you or anyone else. What would be the point?

You accept nothing I say or offer so what's the point?

You'll notice I didn't address her. I just wanted those who were trying to have a discussion with her to know exactly who they were addressing.

And, Cyracuz, emphatically YES. The type of thinking demonstrated in the post I linked is an example of the worst manifestation of corrupted "Christianity."

Arella, your views are really offensive.

The reason I do accept anything that you say is not because I cannot accept it, but rather that you have said nothing acceptable.

My views may be offensive to you just as your views may be offensive to me. That's the way life works. You have your right to what you believe or don't, just as I or anyone else has.

So much for tolerance, eh?

I do not find your views offensive, only unacceptable. You fail to distinguish between the two.

I was addressing Cyracuz. He said he found my views offensive. Sorry I should have put his name there or quoted him.

Arella Mae - Honestly though, do you recognize the irony here.

-You are in a thread which points out how groups like the KKK use the bible, and build a dialogue of hate.
-A post of yours is found using similar rhetoric as those of groups like the KKK.

I don't think you are indecent, but I think you shold be aware of both your content and your rhetoric. I'm not offended by your views, I'm frightened by them. Not for their validity either.

Oh and earlier, I wasn't discounting your post about slavery. I appriciate the responce. My frustration comes when the bible has a light switch. I've listened to Neo (who I understand has a very articulate undertanding of the bible) reference how Jesus directly upholds the mosiac law. Hearing you say it is no longer in effect just deparameterizes the bible.

If you want to make both a distinction between different forms of slavery, and at the same time say that old testiment approval of slavery is out the window, why then did slavery (early american) happen in the first place in what I'm sure you claim to be a "christian nation." What good is YOUR distinction if 1600 years later white christians put africans in even worse conditions than the hebrews of the old testiment?

I didn't discard your post.

T
K
O

Wow, lots said in a short time :


She has a point you know.


Perhaps you should reconsider that answer Aperson. If it isn't offensive to you, why then have you felt the need to launch personal attacks on Arella Mae? (that said - the tone of your posts have improved)


You are more than welcome to express your opinions, and my comments were in relation to the manner in which you did so, not the fact that you did express your opinions.




I would think rather that Intolerance is.

Of course blind faith can lead to intolerance.



It's amazing what perspective makes offensive, is it not.




What about understanding?

And I presume you don't literally mean ALL things (like instantly blowing up a mountain - but without bombs, turning me into a pixie - on the spot of course, turning people into mindless zombies - well…maybe only for a day etc etc etc)



Cyracruz has never said nor implied that.



Aperson, sometimes you need to know what you are trying to riddicule, before riddiculing it.



What is so important about understanding it?

TKO, I really appreciate your comments and your patience.

In that situation that happened a year ago I got upset because quite a few posters were being disrespectful to God. I asked some Christian friends to come post on A2K and it seems a lot of people really didn't like that.

I never called a person evil. I called the threads they were posting evil. I do not subscribe to the views of the KKK, Fred Phelps, or anyone else with those kind of extremist views.

My extent of verbalizing what I believe is just that. I verbalize it and I discuss it whether be on a forum or in real life. I don't carry I hate fag signs like some seem to think. I merely get into discussions about religion and (excuse the expression) all hell seems to break loose.

I follow Jesus and I am a firm believer in the Beatitudes. I make no excuse for what I believe. But I will not force my religion down anyone's throat either.

vikorr,

This is the statement of Cyracuz's where I felt at least a bit of implication about my sanity.

Whenever I've talked face to face with people who have a clear vision of God in terms of a creator/deity etc (mostly Christians), one of the things to strike me most often is the heartfelt conviction and honesty from which their answers were springing from. This was way before any ideas of what this god wanted, believed or any laws it had given us, i.e. way before the dogma. It's this place, from which, in trying to convey their inspiration they attempt to return to, that I think many atheists have such a hard time with. Usually, depending on how poetic the person in question is, words like love, warmth, safety, serenity, euphoria crop up and holistic even but the more I've really deeply tried to consider it the more I think at least for a good few (and that's the question, how many?) I feel there are some interesting analogies to be made between, say, the Buddhist appreciation for "the moment" or buddhist "rapture" involving realisation between I and world.

What's funny is the subsequent personification of this deeply rooted inspiration, that's the issue, that's what chafes the asses of so many atheists. To think the issue is a mere matter of belief in God is just silly, it's the nature of the personification that grates because that has serious social issues. Of course I don't doubt that many are just very hateful people who latch onto religions for the purpose of using the religions to fuel their hateful fires but what I ask other religious people is, if they have some appreciation/experience for this "rapture" that I mention above, do they really think it's synonymous with say, the dogma of the Bible? I mean, really??? What you then get is this massive, gaping disconnect between the inspiration and the subsequent personification. The two don't match up, one transcends ego, the other serves it and again I feel as if it's this intellectual mismatch which sparks comments like, "God's wisdom is above my own", "it's not my place to question god" or dodging responsibility for a social position regarding the oppression of a minority with statements like "they're not my laws, they're God's, I don't condemn you to hell, I just wish you'd believe like me and save yourself, if anything I'm compassionate!" etc etc. Then you get more and less intellectual people who either try to bridge the gap with science, reason and logic etc or who shut the whole issue out of their minds completely.

At any rate I hope more and more can begin to appreciate the simplicity of the rapture, if I'm along the right lines there, rather than the petty personifications.

Ahh, I can see where the implication would be read into it.

vikorr,
I know about the Bible. If you deny those things I mentioned then it is you who does not know the Bible.

I have passion. I expressed my passion. Is that a crime?

Ashers,
I object your statement that hatemongers latch on to religion. It was religion which fueled them. They didn't choose to use religion as a vehicle. As someone once said "Good people will always do good things, and bad people will always do bad things, but only religion makes good people do bad things."

Perhaps then we read the same words but came to entirely different interpretations from them. I would be interested in reading the parts that lead you to your conclusions.

And passionate people contribute many wonderful things to life.

Hmmm...this reminds me of a different topic on which I have an opinion - that being that it is not "love that makes the world go around', nor politics, nor religion...but power, and the search for power.

That is to say, I mostly agree with Ashers on this point (except perhaps in relation to the Islamic religion)

Yep, I also notice that the Bible still says the practice is acceptable.



Despite your efforts to sugar coat it, the scripture is quite clear on this matter.

Leviticus 25
1 AND the LORD spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, saying

44'And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have--from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves.

45'Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property.

46'And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.

EXodus 21

20 "And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.

21"Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

Faith is believing what you know ain't so. -- Mark Twain

I can do you better than imply. It is my personal opinion that you are suffering from a mental disorder called irrational faith.


Which is what Mark Twain is describing in that quote, mesquite.
But arella is even further gone, because she believes without any reserve with no requirements that it has to make some kind of sense. That's just crazy.