sundevil777 94 #51 September 15, 2006 QuoteDo you think Ted Bundy should have been allowed to make reparations and then get on with his life? No. That is a really crappy analogy.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mpohl 1 #52 September 15, 2006 W_o having read thru the driffle of all the posts that follow. As a certifiable agnostic, I still am getting tired of all the muslims feeling "violated" every inch of the way! If Western culture makes you sick to your stomach, please leave: the US, EU, Switzerland, all of the South American countries, South Africa, India and China, are probably not for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #53 September 15, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteClearly the Pope has never read the old testament Not surprising, coming from someone who played junior nazi in his youth. Perhaps you should do a little reading on this subject before you spout out such ignorance. I read everything, thank you. Maybe you should do the same before accusing someone of being ignorant. Facts are facts, he was a nazi youth. Nazi Youth Age 13 Ratzinger joined the Nazi Youth in 1941 at the age of 14. Although it's been widely reported that he was forced to join, in his book, Memoires, he doesn't mention being forced or of any resistance at all. In his autobiography, Salt of the Earth (1997), he wrote that his older brother Georg was obliged to join, but that he later registered himself in it. By 1939, the Nazi Youth was mandatory for boys 10 and up, so in all probability his father registered him knowing it would otherwise be expected. His brother Georg told The Times of London recently, that their "father was a bitter enemy of the Nazis". However, with the exception of listening to foreign news radio, his family made no passive resistance, as many other German families had in his area, by hiding their children or other fugitives from the Nazis. • Family Anti-Nazi Benedict XVI (standing right) with family At least one of his family, a grand-uncle Georg Ratzinger, who was a Catholic priest and also a member of the Reichstag (parliament), wrote many anti-Semetic pamphlets. Some critics have also pointed out that there were many Catholic families in his town that resisted, and that his father, who was a policeman, would have been very much aware. In his second autobiography Milestones: Memoirs, 1927-77 (1998), he writes that his father was very vocal in public against the Nazis. In his earlier book though Salt of the Earth, he seems to contradict this, stating that his father "made no public opposition" to the Nazis, and further that it "wouldn't have been possible". White Rose Members There were many Germans who resisted, even in his home town. The well-known resistance group called the White Rose operated in his area, handing out anti-Nazi pamphlets. Some of the leaflets were critical of those Germans who did nothing. Their leaders were eventually executed for their bravery, and considered heros today. In 1937, only a short distance from his home, one family hid the resistance fighter, Hans Braxenthaler, from the SS who searched door to door looking for him in the area. Eventually he was betrayed and chose to shoot himself. Elizabeth Lohner, who also lived in Traunstein at the time, and who's brother-in-law was sent to Dachau as a conscientious objector, was quoted in The Times of London, "It was possible to resist, and those people set an example for others," she said. "The Ratzingers were young and had made a different choice." • Nazi Army Dachau Slave Labour In 1943, at the age of 16, Ratzinger's seminary class were conscripted as anti-aircraft soldiers, responsible for defending a BMW plant outside Munich that made aircraft engines. This was the same factory where the prisoners of the Dachau concentration camp were forced to labour at that time. In September, 1944, he was moved to a post by the Hungarian border where he was tasked with digging anti-tank ditches. Here he saw many Jews being herded off to death camps. In Dec 1944, he was drafted into the Army and stationed near Traunstein. • Desertion In May, 1945 Ratzinger wrapped his arm in a fake sling and deserted the army. Many News publications have claimed this was evidence that he was strongly anti-Nazi. However, Benedict wrote that he deserted "after" hearing of Hitler's suicide, which was actually when most of the soldiers deserted their posts, especially with the fear of being captured by the advancing Russian troops. He returned to his home in Traunstein, and a month later was captured by the Americans on June 19, 1945, who brought him to a prison camp where he was forced to attend de-Nazification classes. A few weeks later he was released, and he then entered the Catholic semimary. • Critical of the Allies In his Milestones, Benedict XVI actually criticises the American liberation as slow, "unhurried". He also comments how the soldiers forced him to stand with his family to take pictures so they could "take home with them souvenirs of a defeated army". A far less consequence compared to what Nazi soldiers did to their prisoners. There is no critique of the German army."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #54 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteapparently you don't read very well. He specified people who have invisible friend(God) that get upset over other people who have a different invisible friend(some other god). Does that include you? I read quite well thanks. Perhaps YOU should read more thoroughly. John has a long history of making insults at people of faith. Let's drop the facade here. Saying that people of faith have "invisible friends" was not an innocent statement and for you to pretend it was is assinine. How is "invisible friend" an incorrect description of a god? It isn't John, but it's entirely disingenuine of you to pretend you don't mean it as an insult. Such is your history. And you know what they say about old dogs... If it's both accurate AND you think it's an insult, don't you think that refects badly on your beliefs? Do you complain if someone calls a spade a spade. It actually only reflects badly on you, as sundevil posted very well. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #55 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteDo you think Ted Bundy should have been allowed to make reparations and then get on with his life? No. That is a really crappy analogy. I think not. Why should a murderous organization be treated better than a murderous individual? If a corporation did the stuff the Roman church has done, it would be wound up.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #56 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You apparently have contempt for those that believe in God. Instead of saying explicitly that you think all believers are stupid (can't do that, it is a personal attack), you hide it behind a little ridicule about 'invisible friends'. Aren't there some very prominent scientists that believe in God? I'm not complaining really, it is a good thing that liberals are so hostile to those that believe in God, it ensures they will lose elections, so keep spreading the disdain... You are quite wrong. Anyone can believe whatever they like and it's fine with me. HOWEVER, when the voices they hear tell them to start interfering with others, that is when I have no tolerance. Whether it's the Inquisition, the Islamic jihad, or lobbying to legislate away abortion rights and birth control.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #57 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You apparently have contempt for those that believe in God. Instead of saying explicitly that you think all believers are stupid (can't do that, it is a personal attack), you hide it behind a little ridicule about 'invisible friends'. Aren't there some very prominent scientists that believe in God? I'm not complaining really, it is a good thing that liberals are so hostile to those that believe in God, it ensures they will lose elections, so keep spreading the disdain... You are quite wrong. Anyone can believe whatever they like and it's fine with me. HOWEVER, when the voices they hear tell them to start interfering with others, that is when I have no tolerance. Whether it's the Inquisition, the Islamic jihad, or lobbying to legislate away abortion rights and birth control. Did someone in this thread do such a thing to deserve the "invisible friends/I think you're stupid" insult? The ability to be "interfered with" by the laws of the nation where you live is not unusual and happens in all kinds of ways. Is it then OK to interfere with others if it is done for non-religious reasons?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #58 September 16, 2006 The problem w/ posts such as your original one is that it makes a blanket statement that equates Benedict w/ the Nazi's and completely ignores the whole story. And the snipets you posted here are far from the "whole" story. But it's convenient for you to believe such a thing, instead of really seeking the truth, so you do. And it makes a nice, juicy soundbite that keeps people steeped in predjudice. Yea for you. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #59 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You apparently have contempt for those that believe in God. Instead of saying explicitly that you think all believers are stupid (can't do that, it is a personal attack), you hide it behind a little ridicule about 'invisible friends'. Aren't there some very prominent scientists that believe in God? I'm not complaining really, it is a good thing that liberals are so hostile to those that believe in God, it ensures they will lose elections, so keep spreading the disdain... You are quite wrong. Anyone can believe whatever they like and it's fine with me. HOWEVER, when the voices they hear tell them to start interfering with others, that is when I have no tolerance. Whether it's the Inquisition, the Islamic jihad, or lobbying to legislate away abortion rights and birth control. Did someone in this thread do such a thing to deserve the "invisible friends/I think you're stupid" insult? The ability to be "interfered with" by the laws of the nation where you live is not unusual and happens in all kinds of ways. Is it then OK to interfere with others if it is done for non-religious reasons? "Invisible friend" is not an insult - it's a statement of fact. If you disagree, tell me which god is unfriendly to his/her believers, and which god is visible to the human eye. Claiming that you "see God daily" is yet another redefinition of a word in the English language to mean something other than its accepted meaning, a habit common among the religious in order to make their beliefs sound rational. I have not written that anyone is stupid, you added that. I also find it offensive when someone on dz.com claims that others cannot be "a good person" if they don't believe in the correct myth, regardless of behavior.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #60 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You apparently have contempt for those that believe in God. Instead of saying explicitly that you think all believers are stupid (can't do that, it is a personal attack), you hide it behind a little ridicule about 'invisible friends'. Aren't there some very prominent scientists that believe in God? I'm not complaining really, it is a good thing that liberals are so hostile to those that believe in God, it ensures they will lose elections, so keep spreading the disdain... You are quite wrong. Anyone can believe whatever they like and it's fine with me. HOWEVER, when the voices they hear tell them to start interfering with others, that is when I have no tolerance. Whether it's the Inquisition, the Islamic jihad, or lobbying to legislate away abortion rights and birth control. Did someone in this thread do such a thing to deserve the "invisible friends/I think you're stupid" insult? The ability to be "interfered with" by the laws of the nation where you live is not unusual and happens in all kinds of ways. Is it then OK to interfere with others if it is done for non-religious reasons? "Invisible friend" is not an insult - it's a statement of fact. If you disagree, tell me which god is unfriendly to his/her believers, and which god is visible to the human eye. Claiming that you "see God daily" is yet another redefinition of a word in the English language to mean something other than its accepted meaning, a habit common among the religious in order to make their beliefs sound rational. I have not written that anyone is stupid, you added that. I also find it offensive when someone on dz.com claims that others cannot be "a good person" if they don't believe in the correct myth, regardless of behavior. Who claims that you can't be a good person if you don't believe in a "correct myth" (sic)? You may not have outright called someone stupid, but the implication has been strongly, solidly there. As for the word "see," you're the one w/ the limited view of things, not me or Muenkel. The verb "to see" has several different meanings in the English language and it is not a bastardization at all to use them in any way. "See" my point? However, you didn't bother to ask HOW I or Muenkel see God everyday, you launched, once again, into antagonist mode and asked what color hair or eyes SHE had. But those sort of infantile barbs don't get me as they once did, John... I'm NOT the old dog in this fight. Finally, for you to continue to claim that you use the term "invisible friend" in any way other than as an antagonistic term, causes me to lose what little respect for you I had begun to muster. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #61 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuote Who claims that you can't be a good person if you don't believe in a "correct myth" (sic)? For a long time one of your buddies had a sig line that asked "Are you a good person?" It directed to a web site that made it very clear that belief in your particular God-myth (as opposed to, say, the Zeus myth or the Ganesh myth) was a requirement for being a good person. Quote Finally, for you to continue to claim that you use the term "invisible friend" in any way other than as an antagonistic term, causes me to lose what little respect for you I had begun to muster. That really bothers me.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #62 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You apparently have contempt for those that believe in God. Instead of saying explicitly that you think all believers are stupid (can't do that, it is a personal attack), you hide it behind a little ridicule about 'invisible friends'. Aren't there some very prominent scientists that believe in God? I'm not complaining really, it is a good thing that liberals are so hostile to those that believe in God, it ensures they will lose elections, so keep spreading the disdain... You are quite wrong. Anyone can believe whatever they like and it's fine with me. HOWEVER, when the voices they hear tell them to start interfering with others, that is when I have no tolerance. Whether it's the Inquisition, the Islamic jihad, or lobbying to legislate away abortion rights and birth control. Did someone in this thread do such a thing to deserve the "invisible friends/I think you're stupid" insult? The ability to be "interfered with" by the laws of the nation where you live is not unusual and happens in all kinds of ways. Is it then OK to interfere with others if it is done for non-religious reasons? "Invisible friend" is not an insult - it's a statement of fact. If you disagree, tell me which god is unfriendly to his/her believers, and which god is visible to the human eye. Claiming that you "see God daily" is yet another redefinition of a word in the English language to mean something other than its accepted meaning, a habit common among the religious in order to make their beliefs sound rational. I have not written that anyone is stupid, you added that. I also find it offensive when someone on dz.com claims that others cannot be "a good person" if they don't believe in the correct myth, regardless of behavior. Now that is a decent analogy. I think that certainly is an insult. If the person making that claim asserts that it was not an insult, will that change how you receive it? If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. Yes, I added the "you're stupid" part. I think you know very well that is how an "invisible friends" remark will be received by anyone that is faithful, as insulting ridicule. It is a clear expression of contempt. To deny that is not credible, in my opinion. You think it is just a statement of fact, but I think you know that others will not see it that way. I'm no biblical scholar, but I think the Old Testament says that God revealed himself to all at Mt. Sinai, not just Moses. Some argue that this claim is extremely important because they say there is no history of this claim being denied. I certainly don't want to discourage liberals from continuing their hostility toward those that believe in God.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #63 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuote If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. . The purpose is to draw a parallel between the beliefs in a deity beyond objective proof and beyond perception, with the belief common in young children that they have imaginary playmates. I am unable to see why the one belief is any more or less rational or more or less worthy of respect than the other, just because the believer is an adult rather than a child. If it upsets some to have this parallel drawn, then maybe they should ask themselves why they believe in the existence of something for which no objective proof exists.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #64 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. . The purpose is to draw a parallel between the beliefs in a deity beyond objective proof and beyond perception, with the belief common in young children that they have imaginary playmates. I am unable to see why the one belief is any more or less rational or more or less worthy of respect than the other, just because the believer is an adult rather than a child. If it upsets some to have this parallel drawn, then maybe they should ask themselves why they believe in the existence of something for which no objective proof exists. I understand that you don't get it. However, you should expect others to be offended by the "invisible friends" remark. Your "objective proof" reasoning will not matter to how it is received. If your intention is to insult, then you're doing it. If you had been living long ago, you might have the "objective proof" because you could have been a witness to the events of the time. Many famous scientists believe in God. Have they not heard your argument to set them straight?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #65 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. I'm left considering the following... If I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Does it matter if I meant it as a non-insult and/or a friendly greeting, or is it inherently insulting? Well, considering the fact that I've only done one of those, and I was 9 at the time, and it was indeed an honest mistake, I can say that yes, it's insulting whether or not I meant it to be. Belittling someone's faith by calling it an 'invisible friend' is the same principle. I was totally not surprised when opening this thread to see that I was the only non-catholic who understood Pope B's comment, and also not surprised to see the same old bullshit belittling of someone's faith. If those without faith cannot allow those with faith to be faithful in a peaceful manner, I see that as suppressive and oppressive. While it is currently de rigeur to condemn those who have faith (of whatever ilk it may be), and while it is popular to believe those who have faith as either poorly educated, superstitious, not-quite-as-smart as others, and so on, I think the opposite actually is true. Those who have faith, and who express it in a peaceful manner, have something over others who don't. They have an understanding of the numinous, the amazement at this universe and all it's inhabitants, that I find lacking in several of those who regularly post derogatory things towards those of faith. I think that the baiting of those with faith here is pretty dumb, and serves simply to demonstrate someone else's lack of something, rather than the illumination that others have. As always, prejudice exists in many forms. It is expressed here regularly against those of faith, and I find it disheartening to read/observe. And, as always, bigotry is based in an inferiority complex, and a need to feel better than or smarter than or bigger than. Nothing more than the school yard bully, only in words. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #66 September 16, 2006 QuoteComing from the head of an organization that is responsible for the inquisition and the crusades, his words are totally indefensible. Ahhh, the inquisition... 'IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, TO COMBAT THE RISING TIDE OF RELIGIOUS UNORTHODOXY, THE POPE GAVE CARDINAL XIMINEZ OF SPAIN LEAVE TO MOVE WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE THROUGHOUT THE LAND, IN A REIGN OF VIOLENCE, TERROR AND TORTURE THAT MAKES A SMASHING FILM. THIS WAS THE SPANISH INQUISITION...' I always liked that summary...People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rasmack 0 #67 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Does it matter if I meant it as a non-insult and/or a friendly greeting, or is it inherently insulting? So if the pope said something that made muslims feel insulted even though he didn't really mean to insult them, did he then in fact insult them? Missa confused... QuoteIf those without faith cannot allow those with faith to be faithful in a peaceful manner, I see that as suppressive and oppressive. Understandable. However, it seems to always be the other way around. Religions trying to dictate in a not too peaceful manner how other should live. From the Taliban public executions to the blowing up of abortion clinics. QuoteThose who have faith, and who express it in a peaceful manner, have something over others who don't. They have an understanding of the numinous, the amazement at this universe and all it's inhabitants... I disagree with your usage of that word as it implies a knowledge of something rather than a belief. And now the churches start burning. Will it never end... HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #68 September 16, 2006 Having read your transcript I feel that although the media has taken his remarks out of context it was either an act of gross niaveity or conivance to think that they wouldn't. Apart from which his text has some real inacuracies in it which I won't go into here as that would be sidetracking the thread into a long theological debate. I wonder why he felt the need to have to look to Islam though when wishing to discuss the rights and wrongs of spreading religion by violence considering the history of the Church of Rome. When it comes to spreading ones religion through vioence the Pope can't be Holier than thou.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #69 September 16, 2006 Quotehere's what I find ironic in all of this: First, that the quotes that have angered parts of the islamic world were taken out of context (no surpise there) and that even after the Vatican issued statements explaining the meaning behind Benedict's comments, it was not enough to quel the misunderstanding. Feeling maligned and slandered, a bunch of muslims are still demanding an apology for a perceived insult that the Pope didn't even make. Second, the nature of the protests, the marching in the streets, the burning of effigies, the stalwart demands for apologies, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the Pope is now above Salman Rushdie on the "People Muslims Must Kill" list. Third, and perhaps most poetic of all, you guys think us little Christians get OUR panties in a wad when our religion is "persecuted?" Take a look at these guys who are (IMO) almost murderously angry at the Pontiff! Not too many comments in this thread about that, just that the Pope used to be a Nazi (predjudicial and not at all accurate), is a bridge burner, and is ignorant of scripture. OK, lets look at your points. Firstly, how do you think all those pissed off Muslims heard the words that the Pope spoke? The media, Who was it that misquoted the Pope? The media, How would the aforementioned Muslims hear about the Vatican explaination? The media....His comments mad front page, the Vatican explaination which came late, where was that.? Not splashed over the front page and by which time the damage is done and the staement looks like a damage controll exercise (which is what it was) Secondly, Islamic extremists have targeted the Pope for years, this is partly due to the fact that alot of Muslims belive that Catholics worship three Gods (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy ghost) rather than explaining about Catholisim, building bridges between moderates all this sort of speech does is reinforce a negative image of the Church of Rome. Thirdly I have no wish to argue about the Catholic churchs decisions and the way it conducts its business so lets not go there.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #70 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteI had dinner the other night w/ a collegue from work who was your age, John. After dinner, he retired to his hotel room and died in his sleep, an apparent heart attack. Perhaps he met one of our "invisible friends." I don't think your turn is too far off, given average life span of the american male. You ready to take your chances? But what if YOU chose the wrong invisible friend? So many to choose from! You apparently have no problem taking your chance that you might meet Zeus or Woden. For Jews, Christians and Muslims there is only ONE invisable friend, we just fight about how to be his friend.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #71 September 16, 2006 QuoteUhm, popcorn and Becks... LMAOWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #72 September 16, 2006 QuoteA bunch of Muslim jerkoffs taking the Pope's comments completely out of context and using them to incite hatred against the west and Christianity - in this case Catholicism in particular. If such people cannot abide such innocuous remarks they are truly incapable of coexistence with Western culture. Skyrad, if you'd finish the Bible, perhaps you'd realize the salience of Benedict's point in a Biblical context. I've read and studied both the Old and New testament.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #73 September 16, 2006 QuoteW_o having read thru the driffle of all the posts that follow. As a certifiable agnostic, I still am getting tired of all the muslims feeling "violated" every inch of the way! If Western culture makes you sick to your stomach, please leave: the US, EU, Switzerland, all of the South American countries, South Africa, India and China, are probably not for you. I'm British and proud of it. So I'll be staying. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #74 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Would it be any less insulting if you precied it with I'm just quoting Snoopdoggydog and then said 'Hey Nigger!' When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #75 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteComing from the head of an organization that is responsible for the inquisition and the crusades, his words are totally indefensible. Ahhh, the inquisition... 'IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, TO COMBAT THE RISING TIDE OF RELIGIOUS UNORTHODOXY, THE POPE GAVE CARDINAL XIMINEZ OF SPAIN LEAVE TO MOVE WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE THROUGHOUT THE LAND, IN A REIGN OF VIOLENCE, TERROR AND TORTURE THAT MAKES A SMASHING FILM. THIS WAS THE SPANISH INQUISITION...' I always liked that summary... And nobody expected it! Fear and Suprise, Suprise and fear....When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 3 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
sundevil777 94 #57 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You apparently have contempt for those that believe in God. Instead of saying explicitly that you think all believers are stupid (can't do that, it is a personal attack), you hide it behind a little ridicule about 'invisible friends'. Aren't there some very prominent scientists that believe in God? I'm not complaining really, it is a good thing that liberals are so hostile to those that believe in God, it ensures they will lose elections, so keep spreading the disdain... You are quite wrong. Anyone can believe whatever they like and it's fine with me. HOWEVER, when the voices they hear tell them to start interfering with others, that is when I have no tolerance. Whether it's the Inquisition, the Islamic jihad, or lobbying to legislate away abortion rights and birth control. Did someone in this thread do such a thing to deserve the "invisible friends/I think you're stupid" insult? The ability to be "interfered with" by the laws of the nation where you live is not unusual and happens in all kinds of ways. Is it then OK to interfere with others if it is done for non-religious reasons?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #58 September 16, 2006 The problem w/ posts such as your original one is that it makes a blanket statement that equates Benedict w/ the Nazi's and completely ignores the whole story. And the snipets you posted here are far from the "whole" story. But it's convenient for you to believe such a thing, instead of really seeking the truth, so you do. And it makes a nice, juicy soundbite that keeps people steeped in predjudice. Yea for you. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #59 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You apparently have contempt for those that believe in God. Instead of saying explicitly that you think all believers are stupid (can't do that, it is a personal attack), you hide it behind a little ridicule about 'invisible friends'. Aren't there some very prominent scientists that believe in God? I'm not complaining really, it is a good thing that liberals are so hostile to those that believe in God, it ensures they will lose elections, so keep spreading the disdain... You are quite wrong. Anyone can believe whatever they like and it's fine with me. HOWEVER, when the voices they hear tell them to start interfering with others, that is when I have no tolerance. Whether it's the Inquisition, the Islamic jihad, or lobbying to legislate away abortion rights and birth control. Did someone in this thread do such a thing to deserve the "invisible friends/I think you're stupid" insult? The ability to be "interfered with" by the laws of the nation where you live is not unusual and happens in all kinds of ways. Is it then OK to interfere with others if it is done for non-religious reasons? "Invisible friend" is not an insult - it's a statement of fact. If you disagree, tell me which god is unfriendly to his/her believers, and which god is visible to the human eye. Claiming that you "see God daily" is yet another redefinition of a word in the English language to mean something other than its accepted meaning, a habit common among the religious in order to make their beliefs sound rational. I have not written that anyone is stupid, you added that. I also find it offensive when someone on dz.com claims that others cannot be "a good person" if they don't believe in the correct myth, regardless of behavior.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #60 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You apparently have contempt for those that believe in God. Instead of saying explicitly that you think all believers are stupid (can't do that, it is a personal attack), you hide it behind a little ridicule about 'invisible friends'. Aren't there some very prominent scientists that believe in God? I'm not complaining really, it is a good thing that liberals are so hostile to those that believe in God, it ensures they will lose elections, so keep spreading the disdain... You are quite wrong. Anyone can believe whatever they like and it's fine with me. HOWEVER, when the voices they hear tell them to start interfering with others, that is when I have no tolerance. Whether it's the Inquisition, the Islamic jihad, or lobbying to legislate away abortion rights and birth control. Did someone in this thread do such a thing to deserve the "invisible friends/I think you're stupid" insult? The ability to be "interfered with" by the laws of the nation where you live is not unusual and happens in all kinds of ways. Is it then OK to interfere with others if it is done for non-religious reasons? "Invisible friend" is not an insult - it's a statement of fact. If you disagree, tell me which god is unfriendly to his/her believers, and which god is visible to the human eye. Claiming that you "see God daily" is yet another redefinition of a word in the English language to mean something other than its accepted meaning, a habit common among the religious in order to make their beliefs sound rational. I have not written that anyone is stupid, you added that. I also find it offensive when someone on dz.com claims that others cannot be "a good person" if they don't believe in the correct myth, regardless of behavior. Who claims that you can't be a good person if you don't believe in a "correct myth" (sic)? You may not have outright called someone stupid, but the implication has been strongly, solidly there. As for the word "see," you're the one w/ the limited view of things, not me or Muenkel. The verb "to see" has several different meanings in the English language and it is not a bastardization at all to use them in any way. "See" my point? However, you didn't bother to ask HOW I or Muenkel see God everyday, you launched, once again, into antagonist mode and asked what color hair or eyes SHE had. But those sort of infantile barbs don't get me as they once did, John... I'm NOT the old dog in this fight. Finally, for you to continue to claim that you use the term "invisible friend" in any way other than as an antagonistic term, causes me to lose what little respect for you I had begun to muster. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #61 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuote Who claims that you can't be a good person if you don't believe in a "correct myth" (sic)? For a long time one of your buddies had a sig line that asked "Are you a good person?" It directed to a web site that made it very clear that belief in your particular God-myth (as opposed to, say, the Zeus myth or the Ganesh myth) was a requirement for being a good person. Quote Finally, for you to continue to claim that you use the term "invisible friend" in any way other than as an antagonistic term, causes me to lose what little respect for you I had begun to muster. That really bothers me.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #62 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You apparently have contempt for those that believe in God. Instead of saying explicitly that you think all believers are stupid (can't do that, it is a personal attack), you hide it behind a little ridicule about 'invisible friends'. Aren't there some very prominent scientists that believe in God? I'm not complaining really, it is a good thing that liberals are so hostile to those that believe in God, it ensures they will lose elections, so keep spreading the disdain... You are quite wrong. Anyone can believe whatever they like and it's fine with me. HOWEVER, when the voices they hear tell them to start interfering with others, that is when I have no tolerance. Whether it's the Inquisition, the Islamic jihad, or lobbying to legislate away abortion rights and birth control. Did someone in this thread do such a thing to deserve the "invisible friends/I think you're stupid" insult? The ability to be "interfered with" by the laws of the nation where you live is not unusual and happens in all kinds of ways. Is it then OK to interfere with others if it is done for non-religious reasons? "Invisible friend" is not an insult - it's a statement of fact. If you disagree, tell me which god is unfriendly to his/her believers, and which god is visible to the human eye. Claiming that you "see God daily" is yet another redefinition of a word in the English language to mean something other than its accepted meaning, a habit common among the religious in order to make their beliefs sound rational. I have not written that anyone is stupid, you added that. I also find it offensive when someone on dz.com claims that others cannot be "a good person" if they don't believe in the correct myth, regardless of behavior. Now that is a decent analogy. I think that certainly is an insult. If the person making that claim asserts that it was not an insult, will that change how you receive it? If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. Yes, I added the "you're stupid" part. I think you know very well that is how an "invisible friends" remark will be received by anyone that is faithful, as insulting ridicule. It is a clear expression of contempt. To deny that is not credible, in my opinion. You think it is just a statement of fact, but I think you know that others will not see it that way. I'm no biblical scholar, but I think the Old Testament says that God revealed himself to all at Mt. Sinai, not just Moses. Some argue that this claim is extremely important because they say there is no history of this claim being denied. I certainly don't want to discourage liberals from continuing their hostility toward those that believe in God.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #63 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuote If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. . The purpose is to draw a parallel between the beliefs in a deity beyond objective proof and beyond perception, with the belief common in young children that they have imaginary playmates. I am unable to see why the one belief is any more or less rational or more or less worthy of respect than the other, just because the believer is an adult rather than a child. If it upsets some to have this parallel drawn, then maybe they should ask themselves why they believe in the existence of something for which no objective proof exists.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #64 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. . The purpose is to draw a parallel between the beliefs in a deity beyond objective proof and beyond perception, with the belief common in young children that they have imaginary playmates. I am unable to see why the one belief is any more or less rational or more or less worthy of respect than the other, just because the believer is an adult rather than a child. If it upsets some to have this parallel drawn, then maybe they should ask themselves why they believe in the existence of something for which no objective proof exists. I understand that you don't get it. However, you should expect others to be offended by the "invisible friends" remark. Your "objective proof" reasoning will not matter to how it is received. If your intention is to insult, then you're doing it. If you had been living long ago, you might have the "objective proof" because you could have been a witness to the events of the time. Many famous scientists believe in God. Have they not heard your argument to set them straight?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #65 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. I'm left considering the following... If I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Does it matter if I meant it as a non-insult and/or a friendly greeting, or is it inherently insulting? Well, considering the fact that I've only done one of those, and I was 9 at the time, and it was indeed an honest mistake, I can say that yes, it's insulting whether or not I meant it to be. Belittling someone's faith by calling it an 'invisible friend' is the same principle. I was totally not surprised when opening this thread to see that I was the only non-catholic who understood Pope B's comment, and also not surprised to see the same old bullshit belittling of someone's faith. If those without faith cannot allow those with faith to be faithful in a peaceful manner, I see that as suppressive and oppressive. While it is currently de rigeur to condemn those who have faith (of whatever ilk it may be), and while it is popular to believe those who have faith as either poorly educated, superstitious, not-quite-as-smart as others, and so on, I think the opposite actually is true. Those who have faith, and who express it in a peaceful manner, have something over others who don't. They have an understanding of the numinous, the amazement at this universe and all it's inhabitants, that I find lacking in several of those who regularly post derogatory things towards those of faith. I think that the baiting of those with faith here is pretty dumb, and serves simply to demonstrate someone else's lack of something, rather than the illumination that others have. As always, prejudice exists in many forms. It is expressed here regularly against those of faith, and I find it disheartening to read/observe. And, as always, bigotry is based in an inferiority complex, and a need to feel better than or smarter than or bigger than. Nothing more than the school yard bully, only in words. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #66 September 16, 2006 QuoteComing from the head of an organization that is responsible for the inquisition and the crusades, his words are totally indefensible. Ahhh, the inquisition... 'IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, TO COMBAT THE RISING TIDE OF RELIGIOUS UNORTHODOXY, THE POPE GAVE CARDINAL XIMINEZ OF SPAIN LEAVE TO MOVE WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE THROUGHOUT THE LAND, IN A REIGN OF VIOLENCE, TERROR AND TORTURE THAT MAKES A SMASHING FILM. THIS WAS THE SPANISH INQUISITION...' I always liked that summary...People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rasmack 0 #67 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Does it matter if I meant it as a non-insult and/or a friendly greeting, or is it inherently insulting? So if the pope said something that made muslims feel insulted even though he didn't really mean to insult them, did he then in fact insult them? Missa confused... QuoteIf those without faith cannot allow those with faith to be faithful in a peaceful manner, I see that as suppressive and oppressive. Understandable. However, it seems to always be the other way around. Religions trying to dictate in a not too peaceful manner how other should live. From the Taliban public executions to the blowing up of abortion clinics. QuoteThose who have faith, and who express it in a peaceful manner, have something over others who don't. They have an understanding of the numinous, the amazement at this universe and all it's inhabitants... I disagree with your usage of that word as it implies a knowledge of something rather than a belief. And now the churches start burning. Will it never end... HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #68 September 16, 2006 Having read your transcript I feel that although the media has taken his remarks out of context it was either an act of gross niaveity or conivance to think that they wouldn't. Apart from which his text has some real inacuracies in it which I won't go into here as that would be sidetracking the thread into a long theological debate. I wonder why he felt the need to have to look to Islam though when wishing to discuss the rights and wrongs of spreading religion by violence considering the history of the Church of Rome. When it comes to spreading ones religion through vioence the Pope can't be Holier than thou.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #69 September 16, 2006 Quotehere's what I find ironic in all of this: First, that the quotes that have angered parts of the islamic world were taken out of context (no surpise there) and that even after the Vatican issued statements explaining the meaning behind Benedict's comments, it was not enough to quel the misunderstanding. Feeling maligned and slandered, a bunch of muslims are still demanding an apology for a perceived insult that the Pope didn't even make. Second, the nature of the protests, the marching in the streets, the burning of effigies, the stalwart demands for apologies, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the Pope is now above Salman Rushdie on the "People Muslims Must Kill" list. Third, and perhaps most poetic of all, you guys think us little Christians get OUR panties in a wad when our religion is "persecuted?" Take a look at these guys who are (IMO) almost murderously angry at the Pontiff! Not too many comments in this thread about that, just that the Pope used to be a Nazi (predjudicial and not at all accurate), is a bridge burner, and is ignorant of scripture. OK, lets look at your points. Firstly, how do you think all those pissed off Muslims heard the words that the Pope spoke? The media, Who was it that misquoted the Pope? The media, How would the aforementioned Muslims hear about the Vatican explaination? The media....His comments mad front page, the Vatican explaination which came late, where was that.? Not splashed over the front page and by which time the damage is done and the staement looks like a damage controll exercise (which is what it was) Secondly, Islamic extremists have targeted the Pope for years, this is partly due to the fact that alot of Muslims belive that Catholics worship three Gods (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy ghost) rather than explaining about Catholisim, building bridges between moderates all this sort of speech does is reinforce a negative image of the Church of Rome. Thirdly I have no wish to argue about the Catholic churchs decisions and the way it conducts its business so lets not go there.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #70 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteI had dinner the other night w/ a collegue from work who was your age, John. After dinner, he retired to his hotel room and died in his sleep, an apparent heart attack. Perhaps he met one of our "invisible friends." I don't think your turn is too far off, given average life span of the american male. You ready to take your chances? But what if YOU chose the wrong invisible friend? So many to choose from! You apparently have no problem taking your chance that you might meet Zeus or Woden. For Jews, Christians and Muslims there is only ONE invisable friend, we just fight about how to be his friend.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #71 September 16, 2006 QuoteUhm, popcorn and Becks... LMAOWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #72 September 16, 2006 QuoteA bunch of Muslim jerkoffs taking the Pope's comments completely out of context and using them to incite hatred against the west and Christianity - in this case Catholicism in particular. If such people cannot abide such innocuous remarks they are truly incapable of coexistence with Western culture. Skyrad, if you'd finish the Bible, perhaps you'd realize the salience of Benedict's point in a Biblical context. I've read and studied both the Old and New testament.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #73 September 16, 2006 QuoteW_o having read thru the driffle of all the posts that follow. As a certifiable agnostic, I still am getting tired of all the muslims feeling "violated" every inch of the way! If Western culture makes you sick to your stomach, please leave: the US, EU, Switzerland, all of the South American countries, South Africa, India and China, are probably not for you. I'm British and proud of it. So I'll be staying. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #74 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Would it be any less insulting if you precied it with I'm just quoting Snoopdoggydog and then said 'Hey Nigger!' When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #75 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteComing from the head of an organization that is responsible for the inquisition and the crusades, his words are totally indefensible. Ahhh, the inquisition... 'IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, TO COMBAT THE RISING TIDE OF RELIGIOUS UNORTHODOXY, THE POPE GAVE CARDINAL XIMINEZ OF SPAIN LEAVE TO MOVE WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE THROUGHOUT THE LAND, IN A REIGN OF VIOLENCE, TERROR AND TORTURE THAT MAKES A SMASHING FILM. THIS WAS THE SPANISH INQUISITION...' I always liked that summary... And nobody expected it! Fear and Suprise, Suprise and fear....When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 3 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
micro 0 #58 September 16, 2006 The problem w/ posts such as your original one is that it makes a blanket statement that equates Benedict w/ the Nazi's and completely ignores the whole story. And the snipets you posted here are far from the "whole" story. But it's convenient for you to believe such a thing, instead of really seeking the truth, so you do. And it makes a nice, juicy soundbite that keeps people steeped in predjudice. Yea for you. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #59 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You apparently have contempt for those that believe in God. Instead of saying explicitly that you think all believers are stupid (can't do that, it is a personal attack), you hide it behind a little ridicule about 'invisible friends'. Aren't there some very prominent scientists that believe in God? I'm not complaining really, it is a good thing that liberals are so hostile to those that believe in God, it ensures they will lose elections, so keep spreading the disdain... You are quite wrong. Anyone can believe whatever they like and it's fine with me. HOWEVER, when the voices they hear tell them to start interfering with others, that is when I have no tolerance. Whether it's the Inquisition, the Islamic jihad, or lobbying to legislate away abortion rights and birth control. Did someone in this thread do such a thing to deserve the "invisible friends/I think you're stupid" insult? The ability to be "interfered with" by the laws of the nation where you live is not unusual and happens in all kinds of ways. Is it then OK to interfere with others if it is done for non-religious reasons? "Invisible friend" is not an insult - it's a statement of fact. If you disagree, tell me which god is unfriendly to his/her believers, and which god is visible to the human eye. Claiming that you "see God daily" is yet another redefinition of a word in the English language to mean something other than its accepted meaning, a habit common among the religious in order to make their beliefs sound rational. I have not written that anyone is stupid, you added that. I also find it offensive when someone on dz.com claims that others cannot be "a good person" if they don't believe in the correct myth, regardless of behavior.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #60 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You apparently have contempt for those that believe in God. Instead of saying explicitly that you think all believers are stupid (can't do that, it is a personal attack), you hide it behind a little ridicule about 'invisible friends'. Aren't there some very prominent scientists that believe in God? I'm not complaining really, it is a good thing that liberals are so hostile to those that believe in God, it ensures they will lose elections, so keep spreading the disdain... You are quite wrong. Anyone can believe whatever they like and it's fine with me. HOWEVER, when the voices they hear tell them to start interfering with others, that is when I have no tolerance. Whether it's the Inquisition, the Islamic jihad, or lobbying to legislate away abortion rights and birth control. Did someone in this thread do such a thing to deserve the "invisible friends/I think you're stupid" insult? The ability to be "interfered with" by the laws of the nation where you live is not unusual and happens in all kinds of ways. Is it then OK to interfere with others if it is done for non-religious reasons? "Invisible friend" is not an insult - it's a statement of fact. If you disagree, tell me which god is unfriendly to his/her believers, and which god is visible to the human eye. Claiming that you "see God daily" is yet another redefinition of a word in the English language to mean something other than its accepted meaning, a habit common among the religious in order to make their beliefs sound rational. I have not written that anyone is stupid, you added that. I also find it offensive when someone on dz.com claims that others cannot be "a good person" if they don't believe in the correct myth, regardless of behavior. Who claims that you can't be a good person if you don't believe in a "correct myth" (sic)? You may not have outright called someone stupid, but the implication has been strongly, solidly there. As for the word "see," you're the one w/ the limited view of things, not me or Muenkel. The verb "to see" has several different meanings in the English language and it is not a bastardization at all to use them in any way. "See" my point? However, you didn't bother to ask HOW I or Muenkel see God everyday, you launched, once again, into antagonist mode and asked what color hair or eyes SHE had. But those sort of infantile barbs don't get me as they once did, John... I'm NOT the old dog in this fight. Finally, for you to continue to claim that you use the term "invisible friend" in any way other than as an antagonistic term, causes me to lose what little respect for you I had begun to muster. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #61 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuote Who claims that you can't be a good person if you don't believe in a "correct myth" (sic)? For a long time one of your buddies had a sig line that asked "Are you a good person?" It directed to a web site that made it very clear that belief in your particular God-myth (as opposed to, say, the Zeus myth or the Ganesh myth) was a requirement for being a good person. Quote Finally, for you to continue to claim that you use the term "invisible friend" in any way other than as an antagonistic term, causes me to lose what little respect for you I had begun to muster. That really bothers me.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #62 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You apparently have contempt for those that believe in God. Instead of saying explicitly that you think all believers are stupid (can't do that, it is a personal attack), you hide it behind a little ridicule about 'invisible friends'. Aren't there some very prominent scientists that believe in God? I'm not complaining really, it is a good thing that liberals are so hostile to those that believe in God, it ensures they will lose elections, so keep spreading the disdain... You are quite wrong. Anyone can believe whatever they like and it's fine with me. HOWEVER, when the voices they hear tell them to start interfering with others, that is when I have no tolerance. Whether it's the Inquisition, the Islamic jihad, or lobbying to legislate away abortion rights and birth control. Did someone in this thread do such a thing to deserve the "invisible friends/I think you're stupid" insult? The ability to be "interfered with" by the laws of the nation where you live is not unusual and happens in all kinds of ways. Is it then OK to interfere with others if it is done for non-religious reasons? "Invisible friend" is not an insult - it's a statement of fact. If you disagree, tell me which god is unfriendly to his/her believers, and which god is visible to the human eye. Claiming that you "see God daily" is yet another redefinition of a word in the English language to mean something other than its accepted meaning, a habit common among the religious in order to make their beliefs sound rational. I have not written that anyone is stupid, you added that. I also find it offensive when someone on dz.com claims that others cannot be "a good person" if they don't believe in the correct myth, regardless of behavior. Now that is a decent analogy. I think that certainly is an insult. If the person making that claim asserts that it was not an insult, will that change how you receive it? If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. Yes, I added the "you're stupid" part. I think you know very well that is how an "invisible friends" remark will be received by anyone that is faithful, as insulting ridicule. It is a clear expression of contempt. To deny that is not credible, in my opinion. You think it is just a statement of fact, but I think you know that others will not see it that way. I'm no biblical scholar, but I think the Old Testament says that God revealed himself to all at Mt. Sinai, not just Moses. Some argue that this claim is extremely important because they say there is no history of this claim being denied. I certainly don't want to discourage liberals from continuing their hostility toward those that believe in God.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #63 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuote If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. . The purpose is to draw a parallel between the beliefs in a deity beyond objective proof and beyond perception, with the belief common in young children that they have imaginary playmates. I am unable to see why the one belief is any more or less rational or more or less worthy of respect than the other, just because the believer is an adult rather than a child. If it upsets some to have this parallel drawn, then maybe they should ask themselves why they believe in the existence of something for which no objective proof exists.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #64 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. . The purpose is to draw a parallel between the beliefs in a deity beyond objective proof and beyond perception, with the belief common in young children that they have imaginary playmates. I am unable to see why the one belief is any more or less rational or more or less worthy of respect than the other, just because the believer is an adult rather than a child. If it upsets some to have this parallel drawn, then maybe they should ask themselves why they believe in the existence of something for which no objective proof exists. I understand that you don't get it. However, you should expect others to be offended by the "invisible friends" remark. Your "objective proof" reasoning will not matter to how it is received. If your intention is to insult, then you're doing it. If you had been living long ago, you might have the "objective proof" because you could have been a witness to the events of the time. Many famous scientists believe in God. Have they not heard your argument to set them straight?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #65 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. I'm left considering the following... If I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Does it matter if I meant it as a non-insult and/or a friendly greeting, or is it inherently insulting? Well, considering the fact that I've only done one of those, and I was 9 at the time, and it was indeed an honest mistake, I can say that yes, it's insulting whether or not I meant it to be. Belittling someone's faith by calling it an 'invisible friend' is the same principle. I was totally not surprised when opening this thread to see that I was the only non-catholic who understood Pope B's comment, and also not surprised to see the same old bullshit belittling of someone's faith. If those without faith cannot allow those with faith to be faithful in a peaceful manner, I see that as suppressive and oppressive. While it is currently de rigeur to condemn those who have faith (of whatever ilk it may be), and while it is popular to believe those who have faith as either poorly educated, superstitious, not-quite-as-smart as others, and so on, I think the opposite actually is true. Those who have faith, and who express it in a peaceful manner, have something over others who don't. They have an understanding of the numinous, the amazement at this universe and all it's inhabitants, that I find lacking in several of those who regularly post derogatory things towards those of faith. I think that the baiting of those with faith here is pretty dumb, and serves simply to demonstrate someone else's lack of something, rather than the illumination that others have. As always, prejudice exists in many forms. It is expressed here regularly against those of faith, and I find it disheartening to read/observe. And, as always, bigotry is based in an inferiority complex, and a need to feel better than or smarter than or bigger than. Nothing more than the school yard bully, only in words. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #66 September 16, 2006 QuoteComing from the head of an organization that is responsible for the inquisition and the crusades, his words are totally indefensible. Ahhh, the inquisition... 'IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, TO COMBAT THE RISING TIDE OF RELIGIOUS UNORTHODOXY, THE POPE GAVE CARDINAL XIMINEZ OF SPAIN LEAVE TO MOVE WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE THROUGHOUT THE LAND, IN A REIGN OF VIOLENCE, TERROR AND TORTURE THAT MAKES A SMASHING FILM. THIS WAS THE SPANISH INQUISITION...' I always liked that summary...People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rasmack 0 #67 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Does it matter if I meant it as a non-insult and/or a friendly greeting, or is it inherently insulting? So if the pope said something that made muslims feel insulted even though he didn't really mean to insult them, did he then in fact insult them? Missa confused... QuoteIf those without faith cannot allow those with faith to be faithful in a peaceful manner, I see that as suppressive and oppressive. Understandable. However, it seems to always be the other way around. Religions trying to dictate in a not too peaceful manner how other should live. From the Taliban public executions to the blowing up of abortion clinics. QuoteThose who have faith, and who express it in a peaceful manner, have something over others who don't. They have an understanding of the numinous, the amazement at this universe and all it's inhabitants... I disagree with your usage of that word as it implies a knowledge of something rather than a belief. And now the churches start burning. Will it never end... HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #68 September 16, 2006 Having read your transcript I feel that although the media has taken his remarks out of context it was either an act of gross niaveity or conivance to think that they wouldn't. Apart from which his text has some real inacuracies in it which I won't go into here as that would be sidetracking the thread into a long theological debate. I wonder why he felt the need to have to look to Islam though when wishing to discuss the rights and wrongs of spreading religion by violence considering the history of the Church of Rome. When it comes to spreading ones religion through vioence the Pope can't be Holier than thou.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #69 September 16, 2006 Quotehere's what I find ironic in all of this: First, that the quotes that have angered parts of the islamic world were taken out of context (no surpise there) and that even after the Vatican issued statements explaining the meaning behind Benedict's comments, it was not enough to quel the misunderstanding. Feeling maligned and slandered, a bunch of muslims are still demanding an apology for a perceived insult that the Pope didn't even make. Second, the nature of the protests, the marching in the streets, the burning of effigies, the stalwart demands for apologies, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the Pope is now above Salman Rushdie on the "People Muslims Must Kill" list. Third, and perhaps most poetic of all, you guys think us little Christians get OUR panties in a wad when our religion is "persecuted?" Take a look at these guys who are (IMO) almost murderously angry at the Pontiff! Not too many comments in this thread about that, just that the Pope used to be a Nazi (predjudicial and not at all accurate), is a bridge burner, and is ignorant of scripture. OK, lets look at your points. Firstly, how do you think all those pissed off Muslims heard the words that the Pope spoke? The media, Who was it that misquoted the Pope? The media, How would the aforementioned Muslims hear about the Vatican explaination? The media....His comments mad front page, the Vatican explaination which came late, where was that.? Not splashed over the front page and by which time the damage is done and the staement looks like a damage controll exercise (which is what it was) Secondly, Islamic extremists have targeted the Pope for years, this is partly due to the fact that alot of Muslims belive that Catholics worship three Gods (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy ghost) rather than explaining about Catholisim, building bridges between moderates all this sort of speech does is reinforce a negative image of the Church of Rome. Thirdly I have no wish to argue about the Catholic churchs decisions and the way it conducts its business so lets not go there.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #70 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteI had dinner the other night w/ a collegue from work who was your age, John. After dinner, he retired to his hotel room and died in his sleep, an apparent heart attack. Perhaps he met one of our "invisible friends." I don't think your turn is too far off, given average life span of the american male. You ready to take your chances? But what if YOU chose the wrong invisible friend? So many to choose from! You apparently have no problem taking your chance that you might meet Zeus or Woden. For Jews, Christians and Muslims there is only ONE invisable friend, we just fight about how to be his friend.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #71 September 16, 2006 QuoteUhm, popcorn and Becks... LMAOWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #72 September 16, 2006 QuoteA bunch of Muslim jerkoffs taking the Pope's comments completely out of context and using them to incite hatred against the west and Christianity - in this case Catholicism in particular. If such people cannot abide such innocuous remarks they are truly incapable of coexistence with Western culture. Skyrad, if you'd finish the Bible, perhaps you'd realize the salience of Benedict's point in a Biblical context. I've read and studied both the Old and New testament.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #73 September 16, 2006 QuoteW_o having read thru the driffle of all the posts that follow. As a certifiable agnostic, I still am getting tired of all the muslims feeling "violated" every inch of the way! If Western culture makes you sick to your stomach, please leave: the US, EU, Switzerland, all of the South American countries, South Africa, India and China, are probably not for you. I'm British and proud of it. So I'll be staying. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #74 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Would it be any less insulting if you precied it with I'm just quoting Snoopdoggydog and then said 'Hey Nigger!' When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #75 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteComing from the head of an organization that is responsible for the inquisition and the crusades, his words are totally indefensible. Ahhh, the inquisition... 'IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, TO COMBAT THE RISING TIDE OF RELIGIOUS UNORTHODOXY, THE POPE GAVE CARDINAL XIMINEZ OF SPAIN LEAVE TO MOVE WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE THROUGHOUT THE LAND, IN A REIGN OF VIOLENCE, TERROR AND TORTURE THAT MAKES A SMASHING FILM. THIS WAS THE SPANISH INQUISITION...' I always liked that summary... And nobody expected it! Fear and Suprise, Suprise and fear....When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 3 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
micro 0 #60 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You apparently have contempt for those that believe in God. Instead of saying explicitly that you think all believers are stupid (can't do that, it is a personal attack), you hide it behind a little ridicule about 'invisible friends'. Aren't there some very prominent scientists that believe in God? I'm not complaining really, it is a good thing that liberals are so hostile to those that believe in God, it ensures they will lose elections, so keep spreading the disdain... You are quite wrong. Anyone can believe whatever they like and it's fine with me. HOWEVER, when the voices they hear tell them to start interfering with others, that is when I have no tolerance. Whether it's the Inquisition, the Islamic jihad, or lobbying to legislate away abortion rights and birth control. Did someone in this thread do such a thing to deserve the "invisible friends/I think you're stupid" insult? The ability to be "interfered with" by the laws of the nation where you live is not unusual and happens in all kinds of ways. Is it then OK to interfere with others if it is done for non-religious reasons? "Invisible friend" is not an insult - it's a statement of fact. If you disagree, tell me which god is unfriendly to his/her believers, and which god is visible to the human eye. Claiming that you "see God daily" is yet another redefinition of a word in the English language to mean something other than its accepted meaning, a habit common among the religious in order to make their beliefs sound rational. I have not written that anyone is stupid, you added that. I also find it offensive when someone on dz.com claims that others cannot be "a good person" if they don't believe in the correct myth, regardless of behavior. Who claims that you can't be a good person if you don't believe in a "correct myth" (sic)? You may not have outright called someone stupid, but the implication has been strongly, solidly there. As for the word "see," you're the one w/ the limited view of things, not me or Muenkel. The verb "to see" has several different meanings in the English language and it is not a bastardization at all to use them in any way. "See" my point? However, you didn't bother to ask HOW I or Muenkel see God everyday, you launched, once again, into antagonist mode and asked what color hair or eyes SHE had. But those sort of infantile barbs don't get me as they once did, John... I'm NOT the old dog in this fight. Finally, for you to continue to claim that you use the term "invisible friend" in any way other than as an antagonistic term, causes me to lose what little respect for you I had begun to muster. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #61 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuote Who claims that you can't be a good person if you don't believe in a "correct myth" (sic)? For a long time one of your buddies had a sig line that asked "Are you a good person?" It directed to a web site that made it very clear that belief in your particular God-myth (as opposed to, say, the Zeus myth or the Ganesh myth) was a requirement for being a good person. Quote Finally, for you to continue to claim that you use the term "invisible friend" in any way other than as an antagonistic term, causes me to lose what little respect for you I had begun to muster. That really bothers me.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #62 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You apparently have contempt for those that believe in God. Instead of saying explicitly that you think all believers are stupid (can't do that, it is a personal attack), you hide it behind a little ridicule about 'invisible friends'. Aren't there some very prominent scientists that believe in God? I'm not complaining really, it is a good thing that liberals are so hostile to those that believe in God, it ensures they will lose elections, so keep spreading the disdain... You are quite wrong. Anyone can believe whatever they like and it's fine with me. HOWEVER, when the voices they hear tell them to start interfering with others, that is when I have no tolerance. Whether it's the Inquisition, the Islamic jihad, or lobbying to legislate away abortion rights and birth control. Did someone in this thread do such a thing to deserve the "invisible friends/I think you're stupid" insult? The ability to be "interfered with" by the laws of the nation where you live is not unusual and happens in all kinds of ways. Is it then OK to interfere with others if it is done for non-religious reasons? "Invisible friend" is not an insult - it's a statement of fact. If you disagree, tell me which god is unfriendly to his/her believers, and which god is visible to the human eye. Claiming that you "see God daily" is yet another redefinition of a word in the English language to mean something other than its accepted meaning, a habit common among the religious in order to make their beliefs sound rational. I have not written that anyone is stupid, you added that. I also find it offensive when someone on dz.com claims that others cannot be "a good person" if they don't believe in the correct myth, regardless of behavior. Now that is a decent analogy. I think that certainly is an insult. If the person making that claim asserts that it was not an insult, will that change how you receive it? If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. Yes, I added the "you're stupid" part. I think you know very well that is how an "invisible friends" remark will be received by anyone that is faithful, as insulting ridicule. It is a clear expression of contempt. To deny that is not credible, in my opinion. You think it is just a statement of fact, but I think you know that others will not see it that way. I'm no biblical scholar, but I think the Old Testament says that God revealed himself to all at Mt. Sinai, not just Moses. Some argue that this claim is extremely important because they say there is no history of this claim being denied. I certainly don't want to discourage liberals from continuing their hostility toward those that believe in God.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #63 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuote If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. . The purpose is to draw a parallel between the beliefs in a deity beyond objective proof and beyond perception, with the belief common in young children that they have imaginary playmates. I am unable to see why the one belief is any more or less rational or more or less worthy of respect than the other, just because the believer is an adult rather than a child. If it upsets some to have this parallel drawn, then maybe they should ask themselves why they believe in the existence of something for which no objective proof exists.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #64 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. . The purpose is to draw a parallel between the beliefs in a deity beyond objective proof and beyond perception, with the belief common in young children that they have imaginary playmates. I am unable to see why the one belief is any more or less rational or more or less worthy of respect than the other, just because the believer is an adult rather than a child. If it upsets some to have this parallel drawn, then maybe they should ask themselves why they believe in the existence of something for which no objective proof exists. I understand that you don't get it. However, you should expect others to be offended by the "invisible friends" remark. Your "objective proof" reasoning will not matter to how it is received. If your intention is to insult, then you're doing it. If you had been living long ago, you might have the "objective proof" because you could have been a witness to the events of the time. Many famous scientists believe in God. Have they not heard your argument to set them straight?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #65 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. I'm left considering the following... If I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Does it matter if I meant it as a non-insult and/or a friendly greeting, or is it inherently insulting? Well, considering the fact that I've only done one of those, and I was 9 at the time, and it was indeed an honest mistake, I can say that yes, it's insulting whether or not I meant it to be. Belittling someone's faith by calling it an 'invisible friend' is the same principle. I was totally not surprised when opening this thread to see that I was the only non-catholic who understood Pope B's comment, and also not surprised to see the same old bullshit belittling of someone's faith. If those without faith cannot allow those with faith to be faithful in a peaceful manner, I see that as suppressive and oppressive. While it is currently de rigeur to condemn those who have faith (of whatever ilk it may be), and while it is popular to believe those who have faith as either poorly educated, superstitious, not-quite-as-smart as others, and so on, I think the opposite actually is true. Those who have faith, and who express it in a peaceful manner, have something over others who don't. They have an understanding of the numinous, the amazement at this universe and all it's inhabitants, that I find lacking in several of those who regularly post derogatory things towards those of faith. I think that the baiting of those with faith here is pretty dumb, and serves simply to demonstrate someone else's lack of something, rather than the illumination that others have. As always, prejudice exists in many forms. It is expressed here regularly against those of faith, and I find it disheartening to read/observe. And, as always, bigotry is based in an inferiority complex, and a need to feel better than or smarter than or bigger than. Nothing more than the school yard bully, only in words. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #66 September 16, 2006 QuoteComing from the head of an organization that is responsible for the inquisition and the crusades, his words are totally indefensible. Ahhh, the inquisition... 'IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, TO COMBAT THE RISING TIDE OF RELIGIOUS UNORTHODOXY, THE POPE GAVE CARDINAL XIMINEZ OF SPAIN LEAVE TO MOVE WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE THROUGHOUT THE LAND, IN A REIGN OF VIOLENCE, TERROR AND TORTURE THAT MAKES A SMASHING FILM. THIS WAS THE SPANISH INQUISITION...' I always liked that summary...People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rasmack 0 #67 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Does it matter if I meant it as a non-insult and/or a friendly greeting, or is it inherently insulting? So if the pope said something that made muslims feel insulted even though he didn't really mean to insult them, did he then in fact insult them? Missa confused... QuoteIf those without faith cannot allow those with faith to be faithful in a peaceful manner, I see that as suppressive and oppressive. Understandable. However, it seems to always be the other way around. Religions trying to dictate in a not too peaceful manner how other should live. From the Taliban public executions to the blowing up of abortion clinics. QuoteThose who have faith, and who express it in a peaceful manner, have something over others who don't. They have an understanding of the numinous, the amazement at this universe and all it's inhabitants... I disagree with your usage of that word as it implies a knowledge of something rather than a belief. And now the churches start burning. Will it never end... HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #68 September 16, 2006 Having read your transcript I feel that although the media has taken his remarks out of context it was either an act of gross niaveity or conivance to think that they wouldn't. Apart from which his text has some real inacuracies in it which I won't go into here as that would be sidetracking the thread into a long theological debate. I wonder why he felt the need to have to look to Islam though when wishing to discuss the rights and wrongs of spreading religion by violence considering the history of the Church of Rome. When it comes to spreading ones religion through vioence the Pope can't be Holier than thou.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #69 September 16, 2006 Quotehere's what I find ironic in all of this: First, that the quotes that have angered parts of the islamic world were taken out of context (no surpise there) and that even after the Vatican issued statements explaining the meaning behind Benedict's comments, it was not enough to quel the misunderstanding. Feeling maligned and slandered, a bunch of muslims are still demanding an apology for a perceived insult that the Pope didn't even make. Second, the nature of the protests, the marching in the streets, the burning of effigies, the stalwart demands for apologies, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the Pope is now above Salman Rushdie on the "People Muslims Must Kill" list. Third, and perhaps most poetic of all, you guys think us little Christians get OUR panties in a wad when our religion is "persecuted?" Take a look at these guys who are (IMO) almost murderously angry at the Pontiff! Not too many comments in this thread about that, just that the Pope used to be a Nazi (predjudicial and not at all accurate), is a bridge burner, and is ignorant of scripture. OK, lets look at your points. Firstly, how do you think all those pissed off Muslims heard the words that the Pope spoke? The media, Who was it that misquoted the Pope? The media, How would the aforementioned Muslims hear about the Vatican explaination? The media....His comments mad front page, the Vatican explaination which came late, where was that.? Not splashed over the front page and by which time the damage is done and the staement looks like a damage controll exercise (which is what it was) Secondly, Islamic extremists have targeted the Pope for years, this is partly due to the fact that alot of Muslims belive that Catholics worship three Gods (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy ghost) rather than explaining about Catholisim, building bridges between moderates all this sort of speech does is reinforce a negative image of the Church of Rome. Thirdly I have no wish to argue about the Catholic churchs decisions and the way it conducts its business so lets not go there.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #70 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteI had dinner the other night w/ a collegue from work who was your age, John. After dinner, he retired to his hotel room and died in his sleep, an apparent heart attack. Perhaps he met one of our "invisible friends." I don't think your turn is too far off, given average life span of the american male. You ready to take your chances? But what if YOU chose the wrong invisible friend? So many to choose from! You apparently have no problem taking your chance that you might meet Zeus or Woden. For Jews, Christians and Muslims there is only ONE invisable friend, we just fight about how to be his friend.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #71 September 16, 2006 QuoteUhm, popcorn and Becks... LMAOWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #72 September 16, 2006 QuoteA bunch of Muslim jerkoffs taking the Pope's comments completely out of context and using them to incite hatred against the west and Christianity - in this case Catholicism in particular. If such people cannot abide such innocuous remarks they are truly incapable of coexistence with Western culture. Skyrad, if you'd finish the Bible, perhaps you'd realize the salience of Benedict's point in a Biblical context. I've read and studied both the Old and New testament.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #73 September 16, 2006 QuoteW_o having read thru the driffle of all the posts that follow. As a certifiable agnostic, I still am getting tired of all the muslims feeling "violated" every inch of the way! If Western culture makes you sick to your stomach, please leave: the US, EU, Switzerland, all of the South American countries, South Africa, India and China, are probably not for you. I'm British and proud of it. So I'll be staying. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #74 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Would it be any less insulting if you precied it with I'm just quoting Snoopdoggydog and then said 'Hey Nigger!' When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #75 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteComing from the head of an organization that is responsible for the inquisition and the crusades, his words are totally indefensible. Ahhh, the inquisition... 'IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, TO COMBAT THE RISING TIDE OF RELIGIOUS UNORTHODOXY, THE POPE GAVE CARDINAL XIMINEZ OF SPAIN LEAVE TO MOVE WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE THROUGHOUT THE LAND, IN A REIGN OF VIOLENCE, TERROR AND TORTURE THAT MAKES A SMASHING FILM. THIS WAS THE SPANISH INQUISITION...' I always liked that summary... And nobody expected it! Fear and Suprise, Suprise and fear....When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 3 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
kallend 1,647 #61 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuote Who claims that you can't be a good person if you don't believe in a "correct myth" (sic)? For a long time one of your buddies had a sig line that asked "Are you a good person?" It directed to a web site that made it very clear that belief in your particular God-myth (as opposed to, say, the Zeus myth or the Ganesh myth) was a requirement for being a good person. Quote Finally, for you to continue to claim that you use the term "invisible friend" in any way other than as an antagonistic term, causes me to lose what little respect for you I had begun to muster. That really bothers me.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #62 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You apparently have contempt for those that believe in God. Instead of saying explicitly that you think all believers are stupid (can't do that, it is a personal attack), you hide it behind a little ridicule about 'invisible friends'. Aren't there some very prominent scientists that believe in God? I'm not complaining really, it is a good thing that liberals are so hostile to those that believe in God, it ensures they will lose elections, so keep spreading the disdain... You are quite wrong. Anyone can believe whatever they like and it's fine with me. HOWEVER, when the voices they hear tell them to start interfering with others, that is when I have no tolerance. Whether it's the Inquisition, the Islamic jihad, or lobbying to legislate away abortion rights and birth control. Did someone in this thread do such a thing to deserve the "invisible friends/I think you're stupid" insult? The ability to be "interfered with" by the laws of the nation where you live is not unusual and happens in all kinds of ways. Is it then OK to interfere with others if it is done for non-religious reasons? "Invisible friend" is not an insult - it's a statement of fact. If you disagree, tell me which god is unfriendly to his/her believers, and which god is visible to the human eye. Claiming that you "see God daily" is yet another redefinition of a word in the English language to mean something other than its accepted meaning, a habit common among the religious in order to make their beliefs sound rational. I have not written that anyone is stupid, you added that. I also find it offensive when someone on dz.com claims that others cannot be "a good person" if they don't believe in the correct myth, regardless of behavior. Now that is a decent analogy. I think that certainly is an insult. If the person making that claim asserts that it was not an insult, will that change how you receive it? If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. Yes, I added the "you're stupid" part. I think you know very well that is how an "invisible friends" remark will be received by anyone that is faithful, as insulting ridicule. It is a clear expression of contempt. To deny that is not credible, in my opinion. You think it is just a statement of fact, but I think you know that others will not see it that way. I'm no biblical scholar, but I think the Old Testament says that God revealed himself to all at Mt. Sinai, not just Moses. Some argue that this claim is extremely important because they say there is no history of this claim being denied. I certainly don't want to discourage liberals from continuing their hostility toward those that believe in God.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #63 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuote If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. . The purpose is to draw a parallel between the beliefs in a deity beyond objective proof and beyond perception, with the belief common in young children that they have imaginary playmates. I am unable to see why the one belief is any more or less rational or more or less worthy of respect than the other, just because the believer is an adult rather than a child. If it upsets some to have this parallel drawn, then maybe they should ask themselves why they believe in the existence of something for which no objective proof exists.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #64 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. . The purpose is to draw a parallel between the beliefs in a deity beyond objective proof and beyond perception, with the belief common in young children that they have imaginary playmates. I am unable to see why the one belief is any more or less rational or more or less worthy of respect than the other, just because the believer is an adult rather than a child. If it upsets some to have this parallel drawn, then maybe they should ask themselves why they believe in the existence of something for which no objective proof exists. I understand that you don't get it. However, you should expect others to be offended by the "invisible friends" remark. Your "objective proof" reasoning will not matter to how it is received. If your intention is to insult, then you're doing it. If you had been living long ago, you might have the "objective proof" because you could have been a witness to the events of the time. Many famous scientists believe in God. Have they not heard your argument to set them straight?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #65 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. I'm left considering the following... If I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Does it matter if I meant it as a non-insult and/or a friendly greeting, or is it inherently insulting? Well, considering the fact that I've only done one of those, and I was 9 at the time, and it was indeed an honest mistake, I can say that yes, it's insulting whether or not I meant it to be. Belittling someone's faith by calling it an 'invisible friend' is the same principle. I was totally not surprised when opening this thread to see that I was the only non-catholic who understood Pope B's comment, and also not surprised to see the same old bullshit belittling of someone's faith. If those without faith cannot allow those with faith to be faithful in a peaceful manner, I see that as suppressive and oppressive. While it is currently de rigeur to condemn those who have faith (of whatever ilk it may be), and while it is popular to believe those who have faith as either poorly educated, superstitious, not-quite-as-smart as others, and so on, I think the opposite actually is true. Those who have faith, and who express it in a peaceful manner, have something over others who don't. They have an understanding of the numinous, the amazement at this universe and all it's inhabitants, that I find lacking in several of those who regularly post derogatory things towards those of faith. I think that the baiting of those with faith here is pretty dumb, and serves simply to demonstrate someone else's lack of something, rather than the illumination that others have. As always, prejudice exists in many forms. It is expressed here regularly against those of faith, and I find it disheartening to read/observe. And, as always, bigotry is based in an inferiority complex, and a need to feel better than or smarter than or bigger than. Nothing more than the school yard bully, only in words. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #66 September 16, 2006 QuoteComing from the head of an organization that is responsible for the inquisition and the crusades, his words are totally indefensible. Ahhh, the inquisition... 'IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, TO COMBAT THE RISING TIDE OF RELIGIOUS UNORTHODOXY, THE POPE GAVE CARDINAL XIMINEZ OF SPAIN LEAVE TO MOVE WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE THROUGHOUT THE LAND, IN A REIGN OF VIOLENCE, TERROR AND TORTURE THAT MAKES A SMASHING FILM. THIS WAS THE SPANISH INQUISITION...' I always liked that summary...People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rasmack 0 #67 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Does it matter if I meant it as a non-insult and/or a friendly greeting, or is it inherently insulting? So if the pope said something that made muslims feel insulted even though he didn't really mean to insult them, did he then in fact insult them? Missa confused... QuoteIf those without faith cannot allow those with faith to be faithful in a peaceful manner, I see that as suppressive and oppressive. Understandable. However, it seems to always be the other way around. Religions trying to dictate in a not too peaceful manner how other should live. From the Taliban public executions to the blowing up of abortion clinics. QuoteThose who have faith, and who express it in a peaceful manner, have something over others who don't. They have an understanding of the numinous, the amazement at this universe and all it's inhabitants... I disagree with your usage of that word as it implies a knowledge of something rather than a belief. And now the churches start burning. Will it never end... HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #68 September 16, 2006 Having read your transcript I feel that although the media has taken his remarks out of context it was either an act of gross niaveity or conivance to think that they wouldn't. Apart from which his text has some real inacuracies in it which I won't go into here as that would be sidetracking the thread into a long theological debate. I wonder why he felt the need to have to look to Islam though when wishing to discuss the rights and wrongs of spreading religion by violence considering the history of the Church of Rome. When it comes to spreading ones religion through vioence the Pope can't be Holier than thou.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #69 September 16, 2006 Quotehere's what I find ironic in all of this: First, that the quotes that have angered parts of the islamic world were taken out of context (no surpise there) and that even after the Vatican issued statements explaining the meaning behind Benedict's comments, it was not enough to quel the misunderstanding. Feeling maligned and slandered, a bunch of muslims are still demanding an apology for a perceived insult that the Pope didn't even make. Second, the nature of the protests, the marching in the streets, the burning of effigies, the stalwart demands for apologies, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the Pope is now above Salman Rushdie on the "People Muslims Must Kill" list. Third, and perhaps most poetic of all, you guys think us little Christians get OUR panties in a wad when our religion is "persecuted?" Take a look at these guys who are (IMO) almost murderously angry at the Pontiff! Not too many comments in this thread about that, just that the Pope used to be a Nazi (predjudicial and not at all accurate), is a bridge burner, and is ignorant of scripture. OK, lets look at your points. Firstly, how do you think all those pissed off Muslims heard the words that the Pope spoke? The media, Who was it that misquoted the Pope? The media, How would the aforementioned Muslims hear about the Vatican explaination? The media....His comments mad front page, the Vatican explaination which came late, where was that.? Not splashed over the front page and by which time the damage is done and the staement looks like a damage controll exercise (which is what it was) Secondly, Islamic extremists have targeted the Pope for years, this is partly due to the fact that alot of Muslims belive that Catholics worship three Gods (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy ghost) rather than explaining about Catholisim, building bridges between moderates all this sort of speech does is reinforce a negative image of the Church of Rome. Thirdly I have no wish to argue about the Catholic churchs decisions and the way it conducts its business so lets not go there.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #70 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteI had dinner the other night w/ a collegue from work who was your age, John. After dinner, he retired to his hotel room and died in his sleep, an apparent heart attack. Perhaps he met one of our "invisible friends." I don't think your turn is too far off, given average life span of the american male. You ready to take your chances? But what if YOU chose the wrong invisible friend? So many to choose from! You apparently have no problem taking your chance that you might meet Zeus or Woden. For Jews, Christians and Muslims there is only ONE invisable friend, we just fight about how to be his friend.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #71 September 16, 2006 QuoteUhm, popcorn and Becks... LMAOWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #72 September 16, 2006 QuoteA bunch of Muslim jerkoffs taking the Pope's comments completely out of context and using them to incite hatred against the west and Christianity - in this case Catholicism in particular. If such people cannot abide such innocuous remarks they are truly incapable of coexistence with Western culture. Skyrad, if you'd finish the Bible, perhaps you'd realize the salience of Benedict's point in a Biblical context. I've read and studied both the Old and New testament.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #73 September 16, 2006 QuoteW_o having read thru the driffle of all the posts that follow. As a certifiable agnostic, I still am getting tired of all the muslims feeling "violated" every inch of the way! If Western culture makes you sick to your stomach, please leave: the US, EU, Switzerland, all of the South American countries, South Africa, India and China, are probably not for you. I'm British and proud of it. So I'll be staying. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #74 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Would it be any less insulting if you precied it with I'm just quoting Snoopdoggydog and then said 'Hey Nigger!' When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #75 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteComing from the head of an organization that is responsible for the inquisition and the crusades, his words are totally indefensible. Ahhh, the inquisition... 'IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, TO COMBAT THE RISING TIDE OF RELIGIOUS UNORTHODOXY, THE POPE GAVE CARDINAL XIMINEZ OF SPAIN LEAVE TO MOVE WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE THROUGHOUT THE LAND, IN A REIGN OF VIOLENCE, TERROR AND TORTURE THAT MAKES A SMASHING FILM. THIS WAS THE SPANISH INQUISITION...' I always liked that summary... And nobody expected it! Fear and Suprise, Suprise and fear....When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 3 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
sundevil777 94 #62 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You apparently have contempt for those that believe in God. Instead of saying explicitly that you think all believers are stupid (can't do that, it is a personal attack), you hide it behind a little ridicule about 'invisible friends'. Aren't there some very prominent scientists that believe in God? I'm not complaining really, it is a good thing that liberals are so hostile to those that believe in God, it ensures they will lose elections, so keep spreading the disdain... You are quite wrong. Anyone can believe whatever they like and it's fine with me. HOWEVER, when the voices they hear tell them to start interfering with others, that is when I have no tolerance. Whether it's the Inquisition, the Islamic jihad, or lobbying to legislate away abortion rights and birth control. Did someone in this thread do such a thing to deserve the "invisible friends/I think you're stupid" insult? The ability to be "interfered with" by the laws of the nation where you live is not unusual and happens in all kinds of ways. Is it then OK to interfere with others if it is done for non-religious reasons? "Invisible friend" is not an insult - it's a statement of fact. If you disagree, tell me which god is unfriendly to his/her believers, and which god is visible to the human eye. Claiming that you "see God daily" is yet another redefinition of a word in the English language to mean something other than its accepted meaning, a habit common among the religious in order to make their beliefs sound rational. I have not written that anyone is stupid, you added that. I also find it offensive when someone on dz.com claims that others cannot be "a good person" if they don't believe in the correct myth, regardless of behavior. Now that is a decent analogy. I think that certainly is an insult. If the person making that claim asserts that it was not an insult, will that change how you receive it? If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. Yes, I added the "you're stupid" part. I think you know very well that is how an "invisible friends" remark will be received by anyone that is faithful, as insulting ridicule. It is a clear expression of contempt. To deny that is not credible, in my opinion. You think it is just a statement of fact, but I think you know that others will not see it that way. I'm no biblical scholar, but I think the Old Testament says that God revealed himself to all at Mt. Sinai, not just Moses. Some argue that this claim is extremely important because they say there is no history of this claim being denied. I certainly don't want to discourage liberals from continuing their hostility toward those that believe in God.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #63 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuote If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. . The purpose is to draw a parallel between the beliefs in a deity beyond objective proof and beyond perception, with the belief common in young children that they have imaginary playmates. I am unable to see why the one belief is any more or less rational or more or less worthy of respect than the other, just because the believer is an adult rather than a child. If it upsets some to have this parallel drawn, then maybe they should ask themselves why they believe in the existence of something for which no objective proof exists.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #64 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. . The purpose is to draw a parallel between the beliefs in a deity beyond objective proof and beyond perception, with the belief common in young children that they have imaginary playmates. I am unable to see why the one belief is any more or less rational or more or less worthy of respect than the other, just because the believer is an adult rather than a child. If it upsets some to have this parallel drawn, then maybe they should ask themselves why they believe in the existence of something for which no objective proof exists. I understand that you don't get it. However, you should expect others to be offended by the "invisible friends" remark. Your "objective proof" reasoning will not matter to how it is received. If your intention is to insult, then you're doing it. If you had been living long ago, you might have the "objective proof" because you could have been a witness to the events of the time. Many famous scientists believe in God. Have they not heard your argument to set them straight?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #65 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. I'm left considering the following... If I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Does it matter if I meant it as a non-insult and/or a friendly greeting, or is it inherently insulting? Well, considering the fact that I've only done one of those, and I was 9 at the time, and it was indeed an honest mistake, I can say that yes, it's insulting whether or not I meant it to be. Belittling someone's faith by calling it an 'invisible friend' is the same principle. I was totally not surprised when opening this thread to see that I was the only non-catholic who understood Pope B's comment, and also not surprised to see the same old bullshit belittling of someone's faith. If those without faith cannot allow those with faith to be faithful in a peaceful manner, I see that as suppressive and oppressive. While it is currently de rigeur to condemn those who have faith (of whatever ilk it may be), and while it is popular to believe those who have faith as either poorly educated, superstitious, not-quite-as-smart as others, and so on, I think the opposite actually is true. Those who have faith, and who express it in a peaceful manner, have something over others who don't. They have an understanding of the numinous, the amazement at this universe and all it's inhabitants, that I find lacking in several of those who regularly post derogatory things towards those of faith. I think that the baiting of those with faith here is pretty dumb, and serves simply to demonstrate someone else's lack of something, rather than the illumination that others have. As always, prejudice exists in many forms. It is expressed here regularly against those of faith, and I find it disheartening to read/observe. And, as always, bigotry is based in an inferiority complex, and a need to feel better than or smarter than or bigger than. Nothing more than the school yard bully, only in words. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #66 September 16, 2006 QuoteComing from the head of an organization that is responsible for the inquisition and the crusades, his words are totally indefensible. Ahhh, the inquisition... 'IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, TO COMBAT THE RISING TIDE OF RELIGIOUS UNORTHODOXY, THE POPE GAVE CARDINAL XIMINEZ OF SPAIN LEAVE TO MOVE WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE THROUGHOUT THE LAND, IN A REIGN OF VIOLENCE, TERROR AND TORTURE THAT MAKES A SMASHING FILM. THIS WAS THE SPANISH INQUISITION...' I always liked that summary...People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rasmack 0 #67 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Does it matter if I meant it as a non-insult and/or a friendly greeting, or is it inherently insulting? So if the pope said something that made muslims feel insulted even though he didn't really mean to insult them, did he then in fact insult them? Missa confused... QuoteIf those without faith cannot allow those with faith to be faithful in a peaceful manner, I see that as suppressive and oppressive. Understandable. However, it seems to always be the other way around. Religions trying to dictate in a not too peaceful manner how other should live. From the Taliban public executions to the blowing up of abortion clinics. QuoteThose who have faith, and who express it in a peaceful manner, have something over others who don't. They have an understanding of the numinous, the amazement at this universe and all it's inhabitants... I disagree with your usage of that word as it implies a knowledge of something rather than a belief. And now the churches start burning. Will it never end... HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #68 September 16, 2006 Having read your transcript I feel that although the media has taken his remarks out of context it was either an act of gross niaveity or conivance to think that they wouldn't. Apart from which his text has some real inacuracies in it which I won't go into here as that would be sidetracking the thread into a long theological debate. I wonder why he felt the need to have to look to Islam though when wishing to discuss the rights and wrongs of spreading religion by violence considering the history of the Church of Rome. When it comes to spreading ones religion through vioence the Pope can't be Holier than thou.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #69 September 16, 2006 Quotehere's what I find ironic in all of this: First, that the quotes that have angered parts of the islamic world were taken out of context (no surpise there) and that even after the Vatican issued statements explaining the meaning behind Benedict's comments, it was not enough to quel the misunderstanding. Feeling maligned and slandered, a bunch of muslims are still demanding an apology for a perceived insult that the Pope didn't even make. Second, the nature of the protests, the marching in the streets, the burning of effigies, the stalwart demands for apologies, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the Pope is now above Salman Rushdie on the "People Muslims Must Kill" list. Third, and perhaps most poetic of all, you guys think us little Christians get OUR panties in a wad when our religion is "persecuted?" Take a look at these guys who are (IMO) almost murderously angry at the Pontiff! Not too many comments in this thread about that, just that the Pope used to be a Nazi (predjudicial and not at all accurate), is a bridge burner, and is ignorant of scripture. OK, lets look at your points. Firstly, how do you think all those pissed off Muslims heard the words that the Pope spoke? The media, Who was it that misquoted the Pope? The media, How would the aforementioned Muslims hear about the Vatican explaination? The media....His comments mad front page, the Vatican explaination which came late, where was that.? Not splashed over the front page and by which time the damage is done and the staement looks like a damage controll exercise (which is what it was) Secondly, Islamic extremists have targeted the Pope for years, this is partly due to the fact that alot of Muslims belive that Catholics worship three Gods (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy ghost) rather than explaining about Catholisim, building bridges between moderates all this sort of speech does is reinforce a negative image of the Church of Rome. Thirdly I have no wish to argue about the Catholic churchs decisions and the way it conducts its business so lets not go there.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #70 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteI had dinner the other night w/ a collegue from work who was your age, John. After dinner, he retired to his hotel room and died in his sleep, an apparent heart attack. Perhaps he met one of our "invisible friends." I don't think your turn is too far off, given average life span of the american male. You ready to take your chances? But what if YOU chose the wrong invisible friend? So many to choose from! You apparently have no problem taking your chance that you might meet Zeus or Woden. For Jews, Christians and Muslims there is only ONE invisable friend, we just fight about how to be his friend.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #71 September 16, 2006 QuoteUhm, popcorn and Becks... LMAOWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #72 September 16, 2006 QuoteA bunch of Muslim jerkoffs taking the Pope's comments completely out of context and using them to incite hatred against the west and Christianity - in this case Catholicism in particular. If such people cannot abide such innocuous remarks they are truly incapable of coexistence with Western culture. Skyrad, if you'd finish the Bible, perhaps you'd realize the salience of Benedict's point in a Biblical context. I've read and studied both the Old and New testament.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #73 September 16, 2006 QuoteW_o having read thru the driffle of all the posts that follow. As a certifiable agnostic, I still am getting tired of all the muslims feeling "violated" every inch of the way! If Western culture makes you sick to your stomach, please leave: the US, EU, Switzerland, all of the South American countries, South Africa, India and China, are probably not for you. I'm British and proud of it. So I'll be staying. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #74 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Would it be any less insulting if you precied it with I'm just quoting Snoopdoggydog and then said 'Hey Nigger!' When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #75 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteComing from the head of an organization that is responsible for the inquisition and the crusades, his words are totally indefensible. Ahhh, the inquisition... 'IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, TO COMBAT THE RISING TIDE OF RELIGIOUS UNORTHODOXY, THE POPE GAVE CARDINAL XIMINEZ OF SPAIN LEAVE TO MOVE WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE THROUGHOUT THE LAND, IN A REIGN OF VIOLENCE, TERROR AND TORTURE THAT MAKES A SMASHING FILM. THIS WAS THE SPANISH INQUISITION...' I always liked that summary... And nobody expected it! Fear and Suprise, Suprise and fear....When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 3 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 1,647 #63 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuote If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. . The purpose is to draw a parallel between the beliefs in a deity beyond objective proof and beyond perception, with the belief common in young children that they have imaginary playmates. I am unable to see why the one belief is any more or less rational or more or less worthy of respect than the other, just because the believer is an adult rather than a child. If it upsets some to have this parallel drawn, then maybe they should ask themselves why they believe in the existence of something for which no objective proof exists.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #64 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. . The purpose is to draw a parallel between the beliefs in a deity beyond objective proof and beyond perception, with the belief common in young children that they have imaginary playmates. I am unable to see why the one belief is any more or less rational or more or less worthy of respect than the other, just because the believer is an adult rather than a child. If it upsets some to have this parallel drawn, then maybe they should ask themselves why they believe in the existence of something for which no objective proof exists. I understand that you don't get it. However, you should expect others to be offended by the "invisible friends" remark. Your "objective proof" reasoning will not matter to how it is received. If your intention is to insult, then you're doing it. If you had been living long ago, you might have the "objective proof" because you could have been a witness to the events of the time. Many famous scientists believe in God. Have they not heard your argument to set them straight?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #65 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. I'm left considering the following... If I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Does it matter if I meant it as a non-insult and/or a friendly greeting, or is it inherently insulting? Well, considering the fact that I've only done one of those, and I was 9 at the time, and it was indeed an honest mistake, I can say that yes, it's insulting whether or not I meant it to be. Belittling someone's faith by calling it an 'invisible friend' is the same principle. I was totally not surprised when opening this thread to see that I was the only non-catholic who understood Pope B's comment, and also not surprised to see the same old bullshit belittling of someone's faith. If those without faith cannot allow those with faith to be faithful in a peaceful manner, I see that as suppressive and oppressive. While it is currently de rigeur to condemn those who have faith (of whatever ilk it may be), and while it is popular to believe those who have faith as either poorly educated, superstitious, not-quite-as-smart as others, and so on, I think the opposite actually is true. Those who have faith, and who express it in a peaceful manner, have something over others who don't. They have an understanding of the numinous, the amazement at this universe and all it's inhabitants, that I find lacking in several of those who regularly post derogatory things towards those of faith. I think that the baiting of those with faith here is pretty dumb, and serves simply to demonstrate someone else's lack of something, rather than the illumination that others have. As always, prejudice exists in many forms. It is expressed here regularly against those of faith, and I find it disheartening to read/observe. And, as always, bigotry is based in an inferiority complex, and a need to feel better than or smarter than or bigger than. Nothing more than the school yard bully, only in words. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #66 September 16, 2006 QuoteComing from the head of an organization that is responsible for the inquisition and the crusades, his words are totally indefensible. Ahhh, the inquisition... 'IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, TO COMBAT THE RISING TIDE OF RELIGIOUS UNORTHODOXY, THE POPE GAVE CARDINAL XIMINEZ OF SPAIN LEAVE TO MOVE WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE THROUGHOUT THE LAND, IN A REIGN OF VIOLENCE, TERROR AND TORTURE THAT MAKES A SMASHING FILM. THIS WAS THE SPANISH INQUISITION...' I always liked that summary...People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rasmack 0 #67 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Does it matter if I meant it as a non-insult and/or a friendly greeting, or is it inherently insulting? So if the pope said something that made muslims feel insulted even though he didn't really mean to insult them, did he then in fact insult them? Missa confused... QuoteIf those without faith cannot allow those with faith to be faithful in a peaceful manner, I see that as suppressive and oppressive. Understandable. However, it seems to always be the other way around. Religions trying to dictate in a not too peaceful manner how other should live. From the Taliban public executions to the blowing up of abortion clinics. QuoteThose who have faith, and who express it in a peaceful manner, have something over others who don't. They have an understanding of the numinous, the amazement at this universe and all it's inhabitants... I disagree with your usage of that word as it implies a knowledge of something rather than a belief. And now the churches start burning. Will it never end... HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #68 September 16, 2006 Having read your transcript I feel that although the media has taken his remarks out of context it was either an act of gross niaveity or conivance to think that they wouldn't. Apart from which his text has some real inacuracies in it which I won't go into here as that would be sidetracking the thread into a long theological debate. I wonder why he felt the need to have to look to Islam though when wishing to discuss the rights and wrongs of spreading religion by violence considering the history of the Church of Rome. When it comes to spreading ones religion through vioence the Pope can't be Holier than thou.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #69 September 16, 2006 Quotehere's what I find ironic in all of this: First, that the quotes that have angered parts of the islamic world were taken out of context (no surpise there) and that even after the Vatican issued statements explaining the meaning behind Benedict's comments, it was not enough to quel the misunderstanding. Feeling maligned and slandered, a bunch of muslims are still demanding an apology for a perceived insult that the Pope didn't even make. Second, the nature of the protests, the marching in the streets, the burning of effigies, the stalwart demands for apologies, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the Pope is now above Salman Rushdie on the "People Muslims Must Kill" list. Third, and perhaps most poetic of all, you guys think us little Christians get OUR panties in a wad when our religion is "persecuted?" Take a look at these guys who are (IMO) almost murderously angry at the Pontiff! Not too many comments in this thread about that, just that the Pope used to be a Nazi (predjudicial and not at all accurate), is a bridge burner, and is ignorant of scripture. OK, lets look at your points. Firstly, how do you think all those pissed off Muslims heard the words that the Pope spoke? The media, Who was it that misquoted the Pope? The media, How would the aforementioned Muslims hear about the Vatican explaination? The media....His comments mad front page, the Vatican explaination which came late, where was that.? Not splashed over the front page and by which time the damage is done and the staement looks like a damage controll exercise (which is what it was) Secondly, Islamic extremists have targeted the Pope for years, this is partly due to the fact that alot of Muslims belive that Catholics worship three Gods (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy ghost) rather than explaining about Catholisim, building bridges between moderates all this sort of speech does is reinforce a negative image of the Church of Rome. Thirdly I have no wish to argue about the Catholic churchs decisions and the way it conducts its business so lets not go there.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #70 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteI had dinner the other night w/ a collegue from work who was your age, John. After dinner, he retired to his hotel room and died in his sleep, an apparent heart attack. Perhaps he met one of our "invisible friends." I don't think your turn is too far off, given average life span of the american male. You ready to take your chances? But what if YOU chose the wrong invisible friend? So many to choose from! You apparently have no problem taking your chance that you might meet Zeus or Woden. For Jews, Christians and Muslims there is only ONE invisable friend, we just fight about how to be his friend.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #71 September 16, 2006 QuoteUhm, popcorn and Becks... LMAOWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #72 September 16, 2006 QuoteA bunch of Muslim jerkoffs taking the Pope's comments completely out of context and using them to incite hatred against the west and Christianity - in this case Catholicism in particular. If such people cannot abide such innocuous remarks they are truly incapable of coexistence with Western culture. Skyrad, if you'd finish the Bible, perhaps you'd realize the salience of Benedict's point in a Biblical context. I've read and studied both the Old and New testament.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #73 September 16, 2006 QuoteW_o having read thru the driffle of all the posts that follow. As a certifiable agnostic, I still am getting tired of all the muslims feeling "violated" every inch of the way! If Western culture makes you sick to your stomach, please leave: the US, EU, Switzerland, all of the South American countries, South Africa, India and China, are probably not for you. I'm British and proud of it. So I'll be staying. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #74 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Would it be any less insulting if you precied it with I'm just quoting Snoopdoggydog and then said 'Hey Nigger!' When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #75 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteComing from the head of an organization that is responsible for the inquisition and the crusades, his words are totally indefensible. Ahhh, the inquisition... 'IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, TO COMBAT THE RISING TIDE OF RELIGIOUS UNORTHODOXY, THE POPE GAVE CARDINAL XIMINEZ OF SPAIN LEAVE TO MOVE WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE THROUGHOUT THE LAND, IN A REIGN OF VIOLENCE, TERROR AND TORTURE THAT MAKES A SMASHING FILM. THIS WAS THE SPANISH INQUISITION...' I always liked that summary... And nobody expected it! Fear and Suprise, Suprise and fear....When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 3 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
sundevil777 94 #64 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote If a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. . The purpose is to draw a parallel between the beliefs in a deity beyond objective proof and beyond perception, with the belief common in young children that they have imaginary playmates. I am unable to see why the one belief is any more or less rational or more or less worthy of respect than the other, just because the believer is an adult rather than a child. If it upsets some to have this parallel drawn, then maybe they should ask themselves why they believe in the existence of something for which no objective proof exists. I understand that you don't get it. However, you should expect others to be offended by the "invisible friends" remark. Your "objective proof" reasoning will not matter to how it is received. If your intention is to insult, then you're doing it. If you had been living long ago, you might have the "objective proof" because you could have been a witness to the events of the time. Many famous scientists believe in God. Have they not heard your argument to set them straight?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #65 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. I'm left considering the following... If I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Does it matter if I meant it as a non-insult and/or a friendly greeting, or is it inherently insulting? Well, considering the fact that I've only done one of those, and I was 9 at the time, and it was indeed an honest mistake, I can say that yes, it's insulting whether or not I meant it to be. Belittling someone's faith by calling it an 'invisible friend' is the same principle. I was totally not surprised when opening this thread to see that I was the only non-catholic who understood Pope B's comment, and also not surprised to see the same old bullshit belittling of someone's faith. If those without faith cannot allow those with faith to be faithful in a peaceful manner, I see that as suppressive and oppressive. While it is currently de rigeur to condemn those who have faith (of whatever ilk it may be), and while it is popular to believe those who have faith as either poorly educated, superstitious, not-quite-as-smart as others, and so on, I think the opposite actually is true. Those who have faith, and who express it in a peaceful manner, have something over others who don't. They have an understanding of the numinous, the amazement at this universe and all it's inhabitants, that I find lacking in several of those who regularly post derogatory things towards those of faith. I think that the baiting of those with faith here is pretty dumb, and serves simply to demonstrate someone else's lack of something, rather than the illumination that others have. As always, prejudice exists in many forms. It is expressed here regularly against those of faith, and I find it disheartening to read/observe. And, as always, bigotry is based in an inferiority complex, and a need to feel better than or smarter than or bigger than. Nothing more than the school yard bully, only in words. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 94 #66 September 16, 2006 QuoteComing from the head of an organization that is responsible for the inquisition and the crusades, his words are totally indefensible. Ahhh, the inquisition... 'IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, TO COMBAT THE RISING TIDE OF RELIGIOUS UNORTHODOXY, THE POPE GAVE CARDINAL XIMINEZ OF SPAIN LEAVE TO MOVE WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE THROUGHOUT THE LAND, IN A REIGN OF VIOLENCE, TERROR AND TORTURE THAT MAKES A SMASHING FILM. THIS WAS THE SPANISH INQUISITION...' I always liked that summary...People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rasmack 0 #67 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Does it matter if I meant it as a non-insult and/or a friendly greeting, or is it inherently insulting? So if the pope said something that made muslims feel insulted even though he didn't really mean to insult them, did he then in fact insult them? Missa confused... QuoteIf those without faith cannot allow those with faith to be faithful in a peaceful manner, I see that as suppressive and oppressive. Understandable. However, it seems to always be the other way around. Religions trying to dictate in a not too peaceful manner how other should live. From the Taliban public executions to the blowing up of abortion clinics. QuoteThose who have faith, and who express it in a peaceful manner, have something over others who don't. They have an understanding of the numinous, the amazement at this universe and all it's inhabitants... I disagree with your usage of that word as it implies a knowledge of something rather than a belief. And now the churches start burning. Will it never end... HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #68 September 16, 2006 Having read your transcript I feel that although the media has taken his remarks out of context it was either an act of gross niaveity or conivance to think that they wouldn't. Apart from which his text has some real inacuracies in it which I won't go into here as that would be sidetracking the thread into a long theological debate. I wonder why he felt the need to have to look to Islam though when wishing to discuss the rights and wrongs of spreading religion by violence considering the history of the Church of Rome. When it comes to spreading ones religion through vioence the Pope can't be Holier than thou.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #69 September 16, 2006 Quotehere's what I find ironic in all of this: First, that the quotes that have angered parts of the islamic world were taken out of context (no surpise there) and that even after the Vatican issued statements explaining the meaning behind Benedict's comments, it was not enough to quel the misunderstanding. Feeling maligned and slandered, a bunch of muslims are still demanding an apology for a perceived insult that the Pope didn't even make. Second, the nature of the protests, the marching in the streets, the burning of effigies, the stalwart demands for apologies, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the Pope is now above Salman Rushdie on the "People Muslims Must Kill" list. Third, and perhaps most poetic of all, you guys think us little Christians get OUR panties in a wad when our religion is "persecuted?" Take a look at these guys who are (IMO) almost murderously angry at the Pontiff! Not too many comments in this thread about that, just that the Pope used to be a Nazi (predjudicial and not at all accurate), is a bridge burner, and is ignorant of scripture. OK, lets look at your points. Firstly, how do you think all those pissed off Muslims heard the words that the Pope spoke? The media, Who was it that misquoted the Pope? The media, How would the aforementioned Muslims hear about the Vatican explaination? The media....His comments mad front page, the Vatican explaination which came late, where was that.? Not splashed over the front page and by which time the damage is done and the staement looks like a damage controll exercise (which is what it was) Secondly, Islamic extremists have targeted the Pope for years, this is partly due to the fact that alot of Muslims belive that Catholics worship three Gods (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy ghost) rather than explaining about Catholisim, building bridges between moderates all this sort of speech does is reinforce a negative image of the Church of Rome. Thirdly I have no wish to argue about the Catholic churchs decisions and the way it conducts its business so lets not go there.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #70 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteI had dinner the other night w/ a collegue from work who was your age, John. After dinner, he retired to his hotel room and died in his sleep, an apparent heart attack. Perhaps he met one of our "invisible friends." I don't think your turn is too far off, given average life span of the american male. You ready to take your chances? But what if YOU chose the wrong invisible friend? So many to choose from! You apparently have no problem taking your chance that you might meet Zeus or Woden. For Jews, Christians and Muslims there is only ONE invisable friend, we just fight about how to be his friend.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #71 September 16, 2006 QuoteUhm, popcorn and Becks... LMAOWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #72 September 16, 2006 QuoteA bunch of Muslim jerkoffs taking the Pope's comments completely out of context and using them to incite hatred against the west and Christianity - in this case Catholicism in particular. If such people cannot abide such innocuous remarks they are truly incapable of coexistence with Western culture. Skyrad, if you'd finish the Bible, perhaps you'd realize the salience of Benedict's point in a Biblical context. I've read and studied both the Old and New testament.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #73 September 16, 2006 QuoteW_o having read thru the driffle of all the posts that follow. As a certifiable agnostic, I still am getting tired of all the muslims feeling "violated" every inch of the way! If Western culture makes you sick to your stomach, please leave: the US, EU, Switzerland, all of the South American countries, South Africa, India and China, are probably not for you. I'm British and proud of it. So I'll be staying. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #74 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Would it be any less insulting if you precied it with I'm just quoting Snoopdoggydog and then said 'Hey Nigger!' When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #75 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteComing from the head of an organization that is responsible for the inquisition and the crusades, his words are totally indefensible. Ahhh, the inquisition... 'IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, TO COMBAT THE RISING TIDE OF RELIGIOUS UNORTHODOXY, THE POPE GAVE CARDINAL XIMINEZ OF SPAIN LEAVE TO MOVE WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE THROUGHOUT THE LAND, IN A REIGN OF VIOLENCE, TERROR AND TORTURE THAT MAKES A SMASHING FILM. THIS WAS THE SPANISH INQUISITION...' I always liked that summary... And nobody expected it! Fear and Suprise, Suprise and fear....When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 3 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Michele 1 #65 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf a person is offended by your "invisible friends" remark, I don't think that your assertion that it is not an insult will change how they receive it. You can say it wasn't your intention to insult (however I do believe it was your intention to insult), but I don't think you can change the fact that it was insulting to others, and I think many would also think that it would be considered so. I'm left considering the following... If I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Does it matter if I meant it as a non-insult and/or a friendly greeting, or is it inherently insulting? Well, considering the fact that I've only done one of those, and I was 9 at the time, and it was indeed an honest mistake, I can say that yes, it's insulting whether or not I meant it to be. Belittling someone's faith by calling it an 'invisible friend' is the same principle. I was totally not surprised when opening this thread to see that I was the only non-catholic who understood Pope B's comment, and also not surprised to see the same old bullshit belittling of someone's faith. If those without faith cannot allow those with faith to be faithful in a peaceful manner, I see that as suppressive and oppressive. While it is currently de rigeur to condemn those who have faith (of whatever ilk it may be), and while it is popular to believe those who have faith as either poorly educated, superstitious, not-quite-as-smart as others, and so on, I think the opposite actually is true. Those who have faith, and who express it in a peaceful manner, have something over others who don't. They have an understanding of the numinous, the amazement at this universe and all it's inhabitants, that I find lacking in several of those who regularly post derogatory things towards those of faith. I think that the baiting of those with faith here is pretty dumb, and serves simply to demonstrate someone else's lack of something, rather than the illumination that others have. As always, prejudice exists in many forms. It is expressed here regularly against those of faith, and I find it disheartening to read/observe. And, as always, bigotry is based in an inferiority complex, and a need to feel better than or smarter than or bigger than. Nothing more than the school yard bully, only in words. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #66 September 16, 2006 QuoteComing from the head of an organization that is responsible for the inquisition and the crusades, his words are totally indefensible. Ahhh, the inquisition... 'IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, TO COMBAT THE RISING TIDE OF RELIGIOUS UNORTHODOXY, THE POPE GAVE CARDINAL XIMINEZ OF SPAIN LEAVE TO MOVE WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE THROUGHOUT THE LAND, IN A REIGN OF VIOLENCE, TERROR AND TORTURE THAT MAKES A SMASHING FILM. THIS WAS THE SPANISH INQUISITION...' I always liked that summary...People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #67 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Does it matter if I meant it as a non-insult and/or a friendly greeting, or is it inherently insulting? So if the pope said something that made muslims feel insulted even though he didn't really mean to insult them, did he then in fact insult them? Missa confused... QuoteIf those without faith cannot allow those with faith to be faithful in a peaceful manner, I see that as suppressive and oppressive. Understandable. However, it seems to always be the other way around. Religions trying to dictate in a not too peaceful manner how other should live. From the Taliban public executions to the blowing up of abortion clinics. QuoteThose who have faith, and who express it in a peaceful manner, have something over others who don't. They have an understanding of the numinous, the amazement at this universe and all it's inhabitants... I disagree with your usage of that word as it implies a knowledge of something rather than a belief. And now the churches start burning. Will it never end... HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #68 September 16, 2006 Having read your transcript I feel that although the media has taken his remarks out of context it was either an act of gross niaveity or conivance to think that they wouldn't. Apart from which his text has some real inacuracies in it which I won't go into here as that would be sidetracking the thread into a long theological debate. I wonder why he felt the need to have to look to Islam though when wishing to discuss the rights and wrongs of spreading religion by violence considering the history of the Church of Rome. When it comes to spreading ones religion through vioence the Pope can't be Holier than thou.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #69 September 16, 2006 Quotehere's what I find ironic in all of this: First, that the quotes that have angered parts of the islamic world were taken out of context (no surpise there) and that even after the Vatican issued statements explaining the meaning behind Benedict's comments, it was not enough to quel the misunderstanding. Feeling maligned and slandered, a bunch of muslims are still demanding an apology for a perceived insult that the Pope didn't even make. Second, the nature of the protests, the marching in the streets, the burning of effigies, the stalwart demands for apologies, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the Pope is now above Salman Rushdie on the "People Muslims Must Kill" list. Third, and perhaps most poetic of all, you guys think us little Christians get OUR panties in a wad when our religion is "persecuted?" Take a look at these guys who are (IMO) almost murderously angry at the Pontiff! Not too many comments in this thread about that, just that the Pope used to be a Nazi (predjudicial and not at all accurate), is a bridge burner, and is ignorant of scripture. OK, lets look at your points. Firstly, how do you think all those pissed off Muslims heard the words that the Pope spoke? The media, Who was it that misquoted the Pope? The media, How would the aforementioned Muslims hear about the Vatican explaination? The media....His comments mad front page, the Vatican explaination which came late, where was that.? Not splashed over the front page and by which time the damage is done and the staement looks like a damage controll exercise (which is what it was) Secondly, Islamic extremists have targeted the Pope for years, this is partly due to the fact that alot of Muslims belive that Catholics worship three Gods (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy ghost) rather than explaining about Catholisim, building bridges between moderates all this sort of speech does is reinforce a negative image of the Church of Rome. Thirdly I have no wish to argue about the Catholic churchs decisions and the way it conducts its business so lets not go there.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #70 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteI had dinner the other night w/ a collegue from work who was your age, John. After dinner, he retired to his hotel room and died in his sleep, an apparent heart attack. Perhaps he met one of our "invisible friends." I don't think your turn is too far off, given average life span of the american male. You ready to take your chances? But what if YOU chose the wrong invisible friend? So many to choose from! You apparently have no problem taking your chance that you might meet Zeus or Woden. For Jews, Christians and Muslims there is only ONE invisable friend, we just fight about how to be his friend.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #71 September 16, 2006 QuoteUhm, popcorn and Becks... LMAOWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #72 September 16, 2006 QuoteA bunch of Muslim jerkoffs taking the Pope's comments completely out of context and using them to incite hatred against the west and Christianity - in this case Catholicism in particular. If such people cannot abide such innocuous remarks they are truly incapable of coexistence with Western culture. Skyrad, if you'd finish the Bible, perhaps you'd realize the salience of Benedict's point in a Biblical context. I've read and studied both the Old and New testament.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #73 September 16, 2006 QuoteW_o having read thru the driffle of all the posts that follow. As a certifiable agnostic, I still am getting tired of all the muslims feeling "violated" every inch of the way! If Western culture makes you sick to your stomach, please leave: the US, EU, Switzerland, all of the South American countries, South Africa, India and China, are probably not for you. I'm British and proud of it. So I'll be staying. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #74 September 16, 2006 QuoteIf I walked up to an african american friend of mine, and said "hey, Nigger!", would that be insulting irrespective of if I meant it as such? What if I walked up to an arab friend and said "hey, towel head!" Or a jew and said "hey, kike!" Or an asian and said "hey, slant eyed gook!" Would it be any less insulting if you precied it with I'm just quoting Snoopdoggydog and then said 'Hey Nigger!' When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #75 September 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteComing from the head of an organization that is responsible for the inquisition and the crusades, his words are totally indefensible. Ahhh, the inquisition... 'IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, TO COMBAT THE RISING TIDE OF RELIGIOUS UNORTHODOXY, THE POPE GAVE CARDINAL XIMINEZ OF SPAIN LEAVE TO MOVE WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE THROUGHOUT THE LAND, IN A REIGN OF VIOLENCE, TERROR AND TORTURE THAT MAKES A SMASHING FILM. THIS WAS THE SPANISH INQUISITION...' I always liked that summary... And nobody expected it! Fear and Suprise, Suprise and fear....When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
