Mame wrote:I don't think you'd do that - I was thinking that maybe you'd labelled him as such due to things he'd said; in other words, you were ascribing that to him. THat's all.
Just for the record... I do not make such assumptions. If I did make such assumptions, I would not put them out as fact without my assumptions being verified by the party of the 1st part.
Mame wrote:Really? Are you just saying that or has he said it? In other words, do you know that for a fact? How interesting.
Dok (to correctly abbreviate his screen name) has stated that he is a satanist. At the same time, Christians on this site consistently misstate what that means to him, and he has more than once explicitly stated what it means to him. He now refuses to state the case again, because he say he tires of repeating himself. I consider that reasonable. He has clearly stated that he does not "worship" Satan, nor does he "worship" anyone or anything.
Before you make any assumptions about what it means that Dok calls himself a satanist, you would do well to research his posts, and find out what it means to him. Relying on the testimony of christians at this site about what Dok does not does not believe will lead you far astray.
Okay, point taken. I didn't think so but thought I'd ask. Sorry to hurt your feelings. This is a very touchy thread!
Mame wrote:Okay, point taken. I didn't think so but thought I'd ask. Sorry to hurt your feelings. This is a very touchy thread!
Feeling not hurt. I just wanted to set it straight. You will find that it is not this particular thread that is touchy... it is most threads in the S&R and Politics Forums.
It is not so much touchy as people have very strong opinions and convictions. It may seem that many are angry or upset when you read the posts, but mostly it is just that folks are passionate about these topics.
I know that you do not frequent these areas very often and you seem to have most exposure from this particular thread. Maybe you should check a few of the other topics in these threads to get a feel for what I mean.
You will find that some posters do not get along well with some other posters and much is typed that should never be typed and emotions running high where emotions should remain in check.
All in all....it is quite fun.
This is what i believe is Dok's first post at this site:
Dok introduces himself as a Satanist.
I strongly suggest, Mame, that you do not make any assumptions based on the simple statement that Dok is a satanist. He has taken a lot of crap from religionists here, and it is often predicated upon unwarranted assumptions made about him and what he believes.
Personally, i think he's a jerk, but don't tell him that, we usually get along well enough.
Mame,
You may now see what I am talking about. You may have noted that NOBODY made any judgement or comment regarding Doktor S' beliefs or any criticism on his chosen religion. It was simply pointed out that he is a Satanist. That is a fact by his own words. I find nothing sinister about that.
The previous poster is famous for stirring up the pot with comments like this.
Setanta wrote:This is what i believe is Dok's first post at this site:
Dok introduces himself as a Satanist.
I strongly suggest, Mame, that you do not make any assumptions based on the simple statement that Dok is a satanist. He has taken a lot of crap from religionists here, and it is often predicated upon unwarranted assumptions made about him and what he believes.
Personally, i think he's a jerk, but don't tell him that, we usually get along well enough.
Thanks for the link, Setanta... I also googled it; very illuminating. It's the name, of course, that misdirects. I appreciate your time and effort in setting me straight.
But of course Dok was deliberate in his inaugural post - was his intention to shock or stir up controversy? He was so very direct -- challenging, even. Does he seek the attention to feed something within or did he simply want to share his outlook and maybe find similarly-sentimented souls? Not knowing enough of him, I can't say... it's just idle speculation.
But it's interesting that it was his first post.
Mame wrote:Setanta wrote:This is what i believe is Dok's first post at this site:
Dok introduces himself as a Satanist.
I strongly suggest, Mame, that you do not make any assumptions based on the simple statement that Dok is a satanist. He has taken a lot of crap from religionists here, and it is often predicated upon unwarranted assumptions made about him and what he believes.
Personally, i think he's a jerk, but don't tell him that, we usually get along well enough.
Thanks for the link, Setanta... I also googled it; very illuminating. It's the name, of course, that misdirects. I appreciate your time and effort in setting me straight.
But of course Dok was deliberate in his inaugural post - was his intention to shock or stir up controversy? He was so very direct -- challenging, even. Does he seek the attention to feed something within or did he simply want to share his outlook and maybe find similarly-sentimented souls? Not knowing enough of him, I can't say... it's just idle speculation.
But it's interesting that it was his first post.
Yes, i think it helps to know what he meant, rather than just making assumptions. Perhaps Dok meant to shock, or to stir things up--we cannot know, and on a matter like that, one cannot usually rely upon the testimony of the person concerned. I have found that Dok does seem to be very much interested in religious topics, and i have also noted that he seem to try always to take a pragmatic and logical view of religious questions. Whether or not he succeeds is for each person to judge. I have also noted that he is frequently attacked by religious members here, who make a point of saying that he is a satanist, without further reference to what he says he believes, and many of whom refer to a distortion of something he once wrote, and claim that he says the he is god.
Attacks usually happen when a threat is involved, be it real or perceived. I don't understand how anyone who professes to truly believe whatever it is they believe can feel threatened. If I believe in witchcraft and you snicker and snort and poke fun at me and even if you got vile about it, what does that have to do with me and my belief?
Who in the world cares what someone else thinks? I would just say to myself, "There goes another unenlightened person", or similar.
And why attack? What is gained by it? Nothing positive, that's for sure.
JMO.
I think that a lot of religionists feel personally threatened by any criticism of their belief set, and Dok certainly routinely challenges belief sets expressed by christians (as i do myself). Among christians, any number of wildly extravagent and utterly false negative images can be conjured just by repeating the word "satanist."
I find your point of view laudable--i don't however, think it is common.
So does every conversation here containing differences of opinions or questions or challenges eventually end up in a heated ascerbic conflict? Why would anyone continue? No one is changing anyone's mind... no one is even learning anything anymore. All that's happening is two opponents verbally assaulting one another. What is the point?
This is not the only thread where I've seen people get vicious, for want of a better word.
What does everyone get out of it?
Most probably get nothing out of it. Some get some kind of power and authority feeling to boost their fragile egos. Some just hate for others to get one up on them, for lack of a better phrase.
Some need that surge of being at the top of the food chain. Some have a need to argue with those who they choose to disagree with.
Some feel that they should defend something that does not need a defence. i.e. I have posted that I believe because I choose to believe. That is a statement for which there should be no arguement. Of course, there are rebuttals to that.
There are as many reasons as there are posters. You will also find that some will post in the religious threads for the purpose of goading the faithful to fight back. They are successful far too often. We then hear something like, "You call yourself a Christian?" "That is how a Christian acts?" etc. etc.
The more I think about it, the more I wonder why anybody bothers. Then again, apathy isn't the answer either.
Not apathy, but perhaps confidence in one's beliefs and self so there is no need to prove anything or continue to beat your head against the wall. If someone challenges in a nasty way, why bother to respond? It says more about them than you. Ignore it, as they are immature and won't respect what you say or understand your POV. That type of discussion is pointless. I wouldn't waste my breath on someone who just wanted to challenge for the sake of it, but if they wanted to explore or discuss - great.
This isn't the only board I've seen this happen on, but it 99.99% of the time in RELIGIOUS topics. What is it about religion that brings this out in people?
We watched an interesting documentary last night on the Medici's, when Leo and then Julio (Julius?) were Pope... I had forgotten much of this - esp the selling of indulgences. Do you think much has changed since then?
Whether or not apathy were the answer, one wonders what you contend the question is.
Mame, this is a discussion forum. Yes, certainly, many times these threads do devolve into simple mud-slinging. As often as not, in Spirituality and Religion, just as in Politics, one of the "faithful" does so to divert the topic, because they do not wish to see the topic discussed. One of our members is notorious for posting something to the effect of "that's just what i believe," and of making remarks to the effect that those who do not agree with that member are too dense to see that. The point is to derail topics that member does not wish to have discussed, and sadly, that is often an effective tactic.
However, these are, once again, discussion fora, and the "unbeleiver" has as much right to comment as the bible-thumper does.
If others are aware of this tactic, how does it continue to be successful?
In the case of this particular member, the member in question can rely upon several long-term members to come to the thread and join in an attack on the member or members whose comments are deplored by them--and, the member to whom i refer has routinely recruited people from off-site to come and register so as to comment in S&R threads. The tactic continues to succeed because those who are interested in discussing the topic, and not the too-often stated and narrow beliefs of that member lose interest and abandon the thread. Personally, i have no problem with vilifiying that member in person, and will stay in the thread for just that purpose--largely so the member in question doesn't get a free ride. However, that member has usually "won"--has usually derailed the thread--just by showing up to change the subject, because other members lose interest and leave the thread.
Please note that i have been careful to reveal nothing about the member to whom i refer, and have not commented because i don't want this discussion to be about that member, rather than this topic. Originally, of course, the topic was the treatment of a woman by a christian sect; it has become a discussion of the whys and wherefores of discussion in religious (and other types of) threads. That's an interesting topic.
If anyone alleges that i am referring to any particular member and names that member, i will not respond. However, i will note that anyone claiming to recognize the member from what i've said will have inferentially confirmed the description i have given of that member and the behavior of that member.
Your last paragraph has me smiling, Setanta. Clever.
So, to summarize, it's fun and games... verbal and mental sparring -- and I know that's not all of it, and it's too simply put, but still...
Funnily enough, that's what someone said earlier... I'm not naming the person for the reasons you gave; I simply can't remember
Thank you. This has been informative, interesting, and enjoyable.
Gee, now who could Setanta have been thinking of?
I did try to bring us back on topic here.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2227907#2227907
Did anyone bother to check the link?
The one interesting thing, as it pertains to this thread, is that the said member is a female.
mesquite lol i think the topic has gone far off course....i would love to keep discussing it.....glad you reposted it....
Quote:If 1 Timothy wasn't clear enough for you, how about 1 Corinthians?
one view on these verses is that paul is speaking of tongues...saying that women can't speak in tongues at church etc..another view is that it means women can't speak at all and if this is true then women can't even say Hi to others in church or sing in choir.......I take the view that its speaking on the function of tongues in church....I know many intelligent Godly women that teach and perform other functions within church and I'm thankful for them.......
