Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 03:24 pm
vikkor,

My comments and those from ehBeth are not due to her beliefs. The other posts I saw didn't look like personal attacks, but close questioning.

However, in retrospect, I should only characterize MY comments.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 03:25 pm
Trep,

I don't want to sling their names about. You know who they are...
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 03:35 pm
[quote="vikorr]
Intrepid wrote:
I am not saying that you force anything because I do not believe that you do. However, I do believe that you should lighten up a bit and be a little more tolerant of the intolerant.


Quote:
Not that I disagree exactly, but isn't your statement against the Christian ethics of not judging people? (an ethic that I have always thought rather impossible to keep, unless it refers to how one uses the 'judgements' they make...and the subsequent wording used)


I was not judging. At least that was not my intent. Rather I was giving some helpful advice. (There is a difference)

If I told you to get out of the lion's den because you could be eaten, I am not judging the fact that you wanted to enter. I am being helpful in giving you the opportunity to change your mind.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 03:39 pm
Lash wrote:
Trep,

I don't want to sling their names about. You know who they are...


Then why do you sling Arella Mae's name about?

And, no I don't know who you consider them to be since most get the same treatment as Arella Mae. Just not to the same degree.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 03:54 pm
Where did I sling it? You mean where I identified who she is/was?

The reason they don't get the kind of treatment your bud does is that they don't deserve it. I respect them---and treat them with respect.

You know the history. It wasn't the religious belief. It was the Us V Them mentality and the crap she said about the people here to her "Christian" website.

I've seen the other Christian members I'm talking about share their views---and not receive any argumentative responses.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 04:03 pm
Hi Lash,

Accepted that most was close questioning. The posts were sprinkled through with a number of personal attacks, though the main ones were near the start, and the author apologised for those.

Hi Intrepid

Quote:
I was not judging. At least that was not my intent. Rather I was giving some helpful advice. (There is a difference)


I understood that your intent was to be helpful. English unfortunately is a difficult language in which to avoid the portraital of being judgemental. I guess I have a hope that more people will come to understand the structure behind English, regarding the difference between blanket judgements and helpful criticism.

Quote:
I am not saying that you force anything because I do not believe that you do. However, I do believe that you should lighten up a bit (interpretation - you are too wound up) and be a little more tolerant of the intolerant (interpretation - you are intolerant of the intolerant).



Quote:
If I told you to get out of the lion's den because you could be eaten, I am not judging the fact that you wanted to enter.


The last quote - you are correct. That is because the structure here is different from the structure of the quote above it. Here you make comment on the fact and possibilities. Above, you make comment on the persons character and behaviour, using words from your judgement of the character/personality behind her posts, not words of fact/possibility.

It's bloody difficult in English to do properly, and I often enough make the same error in structure and judgement, so I wasn't having a go at you - as I said, I have a hope (probably a pointless one) that we develop a language of peace, where help and criticism still have an understood place.

What you said was very mild, and most people would as it was meant to be read - the good intentions are easy to see. I'm just being picky Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 04:26 pm
Lash wrote:


The reason they don't get the kind of treatment your bud does is that they don't deserve it. I respect them---and treat them with respect.


Not sure why you use the word bud. I am not aware of having any buds on this forum. Since you lump me as a bud and indicate that you respect them and treat them with respect (whoever them are) I assume that I am one that you don't respect. I have no problem with that.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 04:27 pm
You and I used to be buds.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 04:28 pm
Hi vikorr,

I appreciate what you are saying. It is sometimes very difficult to have the written word come out like it would verbally. Because of this, I think that much of what is written is easily taken out of context and intent.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 04:29 pm
Lash wrote:
You and I used to be buds.


Really? Where did I go wrong?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 04:30 pm
We fell out over this crap....if memory serves... Not sure which one of us may have gone wrong.
0 Replies
 
rafamen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 11:15 am
It is human arrogance to think we can understand everything, the old testament has some horrifying stories but I don't think we can just read it and apply our own standards to it, if we were alive thousands of years ago life would be a lot different. The bible is'nt something we can take lightly.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 11:33 am
rafamen wrote:
It is human arrogance to think we can understand everything, the old testament has some horrifying stories but I don't think we can just read it and apply our own standards to it, if we were alive thousands of years ago life would be a lot different. The bible is'nt something we can take lightly.


Why can't we take the Bible lightly? Millions of humans live very happily without the Bible. Why should we take seriously a book that tells us God is a psychopath.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 11:37 am
By that criterion, exactly the same importance should be applied to the I Ching, the Popul Vu, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Quran, etc., etc. Either they are all as profoundly important, one as the other . . .


. . . or none of them are.

See if you can guess which position i would take ! ! !
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 11:37 am
Shocked I have never seen the word psychopath in the bible. Guess I will have to go back and read it again to see where it is listed.

Was that a metaphor?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 11:40 am
YHWH is Hebrew for murderous, puerile, egotistical psychopath . . . didn't you know that?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 11:55 am
One should know that from reading the Bible.

I'm amazed at the excuses Christians give for the Biblical God's barbaric behavior. It's like listening to a Nazi justify the Holocaust.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 11:57 am
Perhaps the qualities of the true God may be ascertained by observing his followers. (John 13:35)
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 12:03 pm
The Golden Rule is common to most all religions.

However thousands of years and thousands of religions show us that self-interest prevails, no matter what or how strong your religious beliefs are.

Do you think George Bush is an atheist?

Osama bin Ladin?

Olmert?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 12:03 pm
God needs no justification or excuses for what He does. He is God. We aren't. Do I like everything He has done? I can't honestly say yes. But I do know that He has a reason for it. I also know He is a just and perfect God so I leave it there.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » The KKK are right
  3. » Page 7
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 05:05:37