God I love this article about religious hypocrisy

Page 5 of 6 [ 95 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

31 Aug 2011, 6:47 pm

dopplercb wrote:

I never said I was perfect. I do contend, however, that I don't need either the threat of damnation nor the promise of reward to do what is right and strive for it. and I don't need to apologize to some sky fairy every time I falter and claim that I'll never do it again, because I know there is the possibility I will, as that is the nature of our beast, but that has nothing to do with religion or original sin at all.

No more do I need the threat of damnation nor the promise of reward. I never did as an atheist. I don't now. I doubt we are supposed to. That is probably why God hides himself - why would he want the kind of people who respond only to threat and reward? I have responded to threats and rewards in some of my interactions with humans.

Nor am I idiot enough to think I will not be a sinner so long I live. Where did I say anything like that? Where did I say anything about original sin? And what does original sin have to do with the topic?

As is all too common, you do not appear to be listening.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

31 Aug 2011, 8:07 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

Xtians are silly.

I don't care about the history of it. I've only ever seen it used by atheists attacking Christians in a rather virulent manner.

It's annoying.

Do you know the historical origin of the "N" word? It came from Negro, which came from the spainish word for the color 'black'. It wasn't originally insulting, just descriptive.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

31 Aug 2011, 8:32 pm

dopplercb wrote:

and I never said the moral imperitive ends, obviously it doesn't. what I want to know is WHY it doesn't end, if the old law is cast away?

I don't understand your question. If I'm reading this right, you're contradicting yourself in a blatantly obvious and silly way, so I'm pretty sure I'm not reading it right.

Quote:

and what is shrine prostitution?

Some form of religiously oriented prostitution. Neither Judaism nor Christianity would approve, so the religion involved would not have been one of those.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

31 Aug 2011, 8:57 pm

Ancalagon wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

Xtians are silly.

Don't bother tossing your pearls before swine, they will not understand or appreciate, and will trample you when you try to retrieve the pearls.

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

31 Aug 2011, 10:30 pm

Ancalagon wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

Xtians are silly.

You are comparing a word that is widely known as derogatory with an abbreviation that you find insulting possibly because of paranoia or something.

I have right now decided that the usage of the pronoun "he" is insulting to me. Please stop using it.

_________________
.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:

31 Aug 2011, 10:40 pm

shrox wrote:

Fnord wrote:

Do you believe that everyone else should believe as you do?

Absolutely, I believe all bars should have at least one TV showing Star`Trek during every Super Bowl. I watch the Puppy Bowl on Animal Planet anyway.

I'm with you so far...

shrox wrote:

As far as believing that everyone else should believe as I do, well, yes. Shall I hope others believe what I perceive to be wrong or incorrect? Of course not!

Remember, this is not about some easily provable fact like how many calories are in a spoon of sugar, rather it's sorting through evidence and testimony.

Still with you...

shrox wrote:

Evidence such as a stone marker that says "This road belongs to King Herod" or a bowl that says "House of David, King of Israel".

The mere fact that these two names were from the Bible does not mean that any of the events they allegedly experienced actually took place.

shrox wrote:

Written testimony from the Roman empire's scribes that were the "security cameras" of their day, writing down what they saw happen in the town square. They followed Jesus, recording what he said and did. They had to be accurate, because the penalty for fabrication by a scribe was death, you didn't lie to Herod or Caesar. The Jews had scribes too, and their writings confirm the empire's scribes . I have not seen these in person, as they are only recently being translated fully for the public. But the oldest known Bible is online at codexsinaiticus.org, with photos of the pages and full translation.

Where are the Roman records? Keep in mind that the first Gospel was written about 20-30 years after the events they allegedly describe.

shrox wrote:

Everyone expects others to believe as they do, whether they admit it or not. It's whether or not one can engage in discussion, or simply fall into arguments about pettiness that determines validity.

I would like for other to believe as I do, but to expect it from them is another matter.

I have a hard enough time convincing others that belief comes after confirming validation, and not before.

_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

31 Aug 2011, 10:56 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

I have right now decided that the usage of the pronoun "he" is insulting to me.

Do you really not see how a specific form of a word used only for insults against a group by non-members is different from a pronoun?

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

31 Aug 2011, 11:26 pm

Ancalagon wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

Xtians are silly.

Do you get offended when you see signs saying "Merry x-mas"? Same origin.

cave_canem
Deinonychus

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 378
Location: Canada

31 Aug 2011, 11:29 pm

LKL wrote:

Do you get offended when you see signs saying "Merry x-mas"? Same origin.

Ah, LKL, you beat me to it... I was going to ask the same thing

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

01 Sep 2011, 12:09 am

LKL wrote:

Do you get offended when you see signs saying "Merry x-mas"? Same origin.

Not at all.

But people other than atheists trying to insult my religion use that abbreviation. Lots of people use xmas all the time, and it shows up in positive and neutral contexts.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

Knifey
Deinonychus

Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 324
Location: South Australia

01 Sep 2011, 2:41 am

LKL wrote:

Do you get offended when you see signs saying "Merry x-mas"? Same origin.

I do. I know a lot of people who are offended by x-mas. It is not really accepted much here as it is deemed offensive, so you wouldn't see a shop with "merry xmas" in the window here. I think I have only seen it in a card, but somebody may have written that themselves. (I assume it's a lot more widely used in usa [because I seen it on futurama]) Maybe 91 could say if it's in shops at christmas time and i'm just blind.

_________________
Four thousand six hundred and ninety one irradiated haggis? Check.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

01 Sep 2011, 3:11 am

Ancalagon wrote:

LKL wrote:

Do you get offended when you see signs saying "Merry x-mas"? Same origin.

Not at all.

But people other than atheists trying to insult my religion use that abbreviation. Lots of people use xmas all the time, and it shows up in positive and neutral contexts.

In other words, you're not offended by the use of 'x' as a stand-in for 'christ,' but by people using that stand-in to argue with you.
Your selective offense has nothing to do with the word and everything to do with what it is being used to say.

Knifey
Deinonychus

Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 324
Location: South Australia

01 Sep 2011, 7:15 am

LKL wrote:

Ancalagon wrote:

LKL wrote:

Do you get offended when you see signs saying "Merry x-mas"? Same origin.

Not at all.

But people other than atheists trying to insult my religion use that abbreviation. Lots of people use xmas all the time, and it shows up in positive and neutral contexts.

exactly. as in real life, calling something an idiot with a snarl is a lot different than calling somebody an idiot with a laugh. it is about what the intent of the word is as to weather it is offensive.

_________________
Four thousand six hundred and ninety one irradiated haggis? Check.

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

01 Sep 2011, 8:14 am

Yet no one called you an idiot. Or maybe I did, but you are focusing on the abbreviation rather than the personal attack, and that's silly.

Knifey wrote:

LKL wrote:

Do you get offended when you see signs saying "Merry x-mas"? Same origin.

I find the idea of religious people getting offended by "merry xmas", disturbing yet unsurprising.

It seems that what offends you is doing things differently and against your tradition.

_________________
.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

01 Sep 2011, 9:02 am

Against tradition?

Check out preprint manuscripts - many of them Christian emphasis. You will note that the copyist, sitting in a chilly scriptorium with writer's cramp and expensive parchment, invented and used a wide variety of abbreviations and contractions. Among them using X for the Christ- sequence.

Actually, when JakobVirgil uses Xtian I tend to see it as a complement, a sign of deep respect comparable to writing G_d which is a nice move from the Tetragrammaton. And if it is not that but a reluctance to seem to endorse the Christian claim that Jesus is the Christ = the Messiah, I can surely respect that.

And if others use it either to save space [Mrry Xmas to you too] or to avoid the ugly Christ which so many think is Jesus' family name, or just because other people did it - well, they know not what they do.

dopplercb
Deinonychus

Joined: 9 Aug 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 359
Location: Ohio

01 Sep 2011, 11:31 am

Ancalagon wrote:

dopplercb wrote:

and I never said the moral imperitive ends, obviously it doesn't. what I want to know is WHY it doesn't end, if the old law is cast away?

I don't understand your question. If I'm reading this right, you're contradicting yourself in a blatantly obvious and silly way, so I'm pretty sure I'm not reading it right.

Quote:

and what is shrine prostitution?

Some form of religiously oriented prostitution. Neither Judaism nor Christianity would approve, so the religion involved would not have been one of those.

follow me. new testament replaces old law. old law still followed. why?

I have never heard of religiously oriented prostitution.

Page 5 of 6 [ 95 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

God I love this article about religious hypocrisy Post Reply New Topic

God I love this article about religious hypocrisy