We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Personal messages
Replies
-
Now of course, most enlightened christians nowadays will see something horrible done by a christian and claim they weren't real christians or a false prophet, and a few have even made the leap of excusing the old testament as parables and hyperbole. But what you can't get any of them to excuse is the atrocities described in their man made, man written, man inspired bible. Suddenly war crimes like murdering children and raping young girls has to be viewed "in context".
Is it safe to come out now? Adrian, I enjoy your posts, and those of MacPatti, and I'm sorry that your viewpoints are so utterly incompatible. Sometimes I agree with one of you, sometimes with the other, and occasionally with neither.
You know that I'm not a religious zealot, though I do have a strong faith. I'm also not inclined to take offence, especially not in heated debate, believing that people are entitled to their own viewpoints, and agreeing with Hall (often attributed to Voltaire) when she says "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Nonetheless, I winced reading the paragraph quoted above.
I do wish you could both agree to respect each others' viewpoints - debate them, fine - but posts like this don't help. I understand that you're angry at a particular behaviour/event in these forums, but speaking generally of any group in such a scornful and antagonistic way is not reasonable, nor should those of us who fall into that group be expected to tolerate it endlessly. I have never, and would never say or imply that someone is intolerably gullible, weak-minded or morally corrupt, simply because they believe something other than I do. I'd really appreciate the same courtesy being shown in return. I'm happy to debate civilly, knowing that there are things we will never agree on, but please could the attacks on people's beliefs be toned down a little? I do realise also that you are not the only culprit in this regard, so this is really addressed to all, but I'm afraid this quote went a bit too far for me not to say something.
Now, shall I start a new topic about whether context is important or irrelevant in assessing historically-significant documents in general? Now there's a debate I could enjoy! (Ducks below parapet!)0 -
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. "
Mahatma Gandhi0 -
Now of course, most enlightened christians nowadays will see something horrible done by a christian and claim they weren't real christians or a false prophet, and a few have even made the leap of excusing the old testament as parables and hyperbole. But what you can't get any of them to excuse is the atrocities described in their man made, man written, man inspired bible. Suddenly war crimes like murdering children and raping young girls has to be viewed "in context".
Is it safe to come out now? Adrian, I enjoy your posts, and those of MacPatti, and I'm sorry that your viewpoints are so utterly incompatible. Sometimes I agree with one of you, sometimes with the other, and occasionally with neither.
You know that I'm not a religious zealot, though I do have a strong faith. I'm also not inclined to take offence, especially not in heated debate, believing that people are entitled to their own viewpoints, and agreeing with Hall (often attributed to Voltaire) when she says "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Nonetheless, I winced reading the paragraph quoted above.
I do wish you could both agree to respect each others' viewpoints - debate them, fine - but posts like this don't help. I understand that you're angry at a particular behaviour/event in these forums, but speaking generally of any group in such a scornful and antagonistic way is not reasonable, nor should those of us who fall into that group be expected to tolerate it endlessly. I have never, and would never say or imply that someone is intolerably gullible, weak-minded or morally corrupt, simply because they believe something other than I do. I'd really appreciate the same courtesy being shown in return. I'm happy to debate civilly, knowing that there are things we will never agree on, but please could the attacks on people's beliefs be toned down a little? I do realise also that you are not the only culprit in this regard, so this is really addressed to all, but I'm afraid this quote went a bit too far for me not to say something.
Now, shall I start a new topic about whether context is important or irrelevant in assessing historically-significant documents in general? Now there's a debate I could enjoy! (Ducks below parapet!)
I'm sorry, but those are my opinions on the matter. If they don't apply to you, then they weren't meant about you. And I don't want ot rehash the all of the old debates where "god" killing the first born of Egypt or ordering Moses and his troops to stomp on caananite baby heads was ok because he is god (hint hint, if those events did happen, no god told them to do it) But these defenses of abhorent behavior cannot be tolerarted and should not be tolerated. If people are offended.....so? Is it not offensive to tell a KKK member they are ignorant to the Klansmen? How about the neo-nazi who is saying anti-semtic things? Everyone gets offended in these debates at what point or another, but the religious seem to think because they view their beilefs as sacred, everyone else should.....well I don't. You want to be spiritual. Fine. You want to be religious. Fine by me. If you want to cherry pick the bible and other religions of all the things you like and explain away or supress the genocides and the rape...ok, but I will call people out on it.0 -
I'm sorry, but those are my opinions on the matter....
But these defenses of abhorent behavior cannot be tolerarted and should not be tolerated. If people are offended.....so? Is it not offensive to tell a KKK member they are ignorant to the Klansmen? How about the neo-nazi who is saying anti-semtic things? Everyone gets offended in these debates at what point or another, but the religious seem to think because they view their beilefs as sacred, everyone else should.....well I don't....
If you want to cherry pick the bible and other religions of all the things you like and explain away or supress the genocides and the rape...ok, but I will call people out on it.
As I said, I'm perfectly happy for you to have an opinion on the subject, and to express it. I don't expect you to view my beliefs as sacred (and I'd guess that most rational people of faith would feel the same), I'd just appreciate it if you would grant my beliefs the same tolerance and respect I afford to yours. I may debate them, but I would never denigrate them or those who hold them.
Personally, I think it's rather rich to equate modern, moderate Christianity (or Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism etc), which does not generally get involved in hate crimes, to the KKK or neo-Nazis, who are, let's be honest, extremists. You are entirely entitled, however, to make, and defend, that equivalency if that's your belief.
As for defences of historic actions, one could well argue that, by that standard, the USA, or the UK, with their histories of rape, pillage, destruction and mass-murder of indigenous populations, not to mention slavery, are institutions as corrupt and evil as you would hold the Church to be, and should be excoriated and destroyed. What has happened before is not necessarily a reflection of what is now.0 -
I'm sorry, but those are my opinions on the matter....
But these defenses of abhorent behavior cannot be tolerarted and should not be tolerated. If people are offended.....so? Is it not offensive to tell a KKK member they are ignorant to the Klansmen? How about the neo-nazi who is saying anti-semtic things? Everyone gets offended in these debates at what point or another, but the religious seem to think because they view their beilefs as sacred, everyone else should.....well I don't....
If you want to cherry pick the bible and other religions of all the things you like and explain away or supress the genocides and the rape...ok, but I will call people out on it.
As I said, I'm perfectly happy for you to have an opinion on the subject, and to express it. I don't expect you to view my beliefs as sacred (and I'd guess that most rational people of faith would feel the same), I'd just appreciate it if you would grant my beliefs the same tolerance and respect I afford to yours. I may debate them, but I would never denigrate them or those who hold them.
Personally, I think it's rather rich to equate modern, moderate Christianity (or Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism etc), which does not generally get involved in hate crimes, to the KKK or neo-Nazis, who are, let's be honest, extremists. You are entirely entitled, however, to make, and defend, that equivalency if that's your belief.
As for defences of historic actions, one could well argue that, by that standard, the USA, or the UK, with their histories of rape, pillage, destruction and mass-murder of indigenous populations, not to mention slavery, are institutions as corrupt and evil as you would hold the Church to be, and should be excoriated and destroyed. What has happened before is not necessarily a reflection of what is now.
My point about the KKK or the Nazis wasn't that I hold them comparable to the church ( although in some ways I do), I was simply pointing out that if you were to call them ignorant, THEY would be offended. But the PC police and the religious would more than likely stay quiet and not come to the defense of the racist because they would be in agreement when I called them scumbags.
As far as holding the UK or the USA accountable for their past crimes, you will notice that I often lump blindly faithful people in with the blind nationalist. I'll pick on the Catholics for a moment. In all of these debates, unless talking in a historical context, have I ever held a person belonging to that that church for the crimes of the Crusades or the Inquisition. Not once. I do not believe in persecuting people for the crimes of their ancestors.
But in every case where I have come out swinging, it is because a person of fatih has always claimed that we should view any atrocity in question "in context", a context they only apply to their own religion, the same "context" the blind nationlist extends to his nation. So no, do I hold all Americans or Brits accountable for slavery, rape, genocide and murder. No, no more than I hold the modern german responsible for the Nazis......unless they cannot bring themelves to admit the evil nature of their nations past crimes. You see this all the time with the "My country right or wrong" crowds who view the history we teach about the slaughter of the Native Americans as "liberal propoganda" and anti-american.
So in in the spirit of honesty and truth, if you, Orpheus_chick look at the Old Testament and view it as the archaic writings of man, and your god would never commit those crimes, then although I still believe you to be wrong about the existance of a god, I can show you all kinds of respect. But if you think God must have had his reasons to kill all those innocent living children and order his troops to commit war rape against the caananites, I can not respect that....at all.0 -
Adrian, I'm sorry that you carry around so much anger and pride yourself on being disrespectful in your language and attitude. I do hope that one day you seek out professional help and get to the root of your anger before it's too late. Carrying around that much aggrivation is not healthy for your heart at the very least.0
-
Adrian, I'm sorry that you carry around so much anger and pride yourself on being disrespectful in your language and attitude. I do hope that one day you seek out professional help and get to the root of your anger before it's too late. Carrying around that much aggrivation is not healthy for your heart at the very least.
You know, when I am being insulting or offensive with my views, at least I am honest and upfront with it instead of the "christian" way you just insinuated I need "help".0 -
No, seriously, this is a site dedicated to getting healthy, and there is plenty of research about the connection of anger to heart issues. I am concerned for your health because there are plenty of people in your life who love you and would hate to lose you early to heart disease. http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Anger_how_it_affects_people?openAdrian, I'm sorry that you carry around so much anger and pride yourself on being disrespectful in your language and attitude. I do hope that one day you seek out professional help and get to the root of your anger before it's too late. Carrying around that much aggrivation is not healthy for your heart at the very least.
You know, when I am being insulting or offensive with my views, at least I am honest and upfront with it instead of the "christian" way you just insinuated I need "help".0 -
No, seriously, this is a site dedicated to getting healthy, and there is plenty of research about the connection of anger to heart issues. I am concerned for your health because there are plenty of people in your life who love you and would hate to lose you early to heart disease. http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Anger_how_it_affects_people?openAdrian, I'm sorry that you carry around so much anger and pride yourself on being disrespectful in your language and attitude. I do hope that one day you seek out professional help and get to the root of your anger before it's too late. Carrying around that much aggrivation is not healthy for your heart at the very least.
You know, when I am being insulting or offensive with my views, at least I am honest and upfront with it instead of the "christian" way you just insinuated I need "help".
Oh, sorry. I thought you were just being sarcastic and rude, but now I see you are a good hearted person just trying to help. And in this spirit of helping eachother, since you have stated you have heard an invisible man and that ghosts and spritits wander your house, here is a link about schizophrenia you might want to check out. I'm really worrried about you.
http://www.justanswer.com/sip/schizophrenia?r=ppc|ms|4|Health+%2D+Search+Partners|Schizophrenia&JPRC=1&JPKD=5898272007&JPDC=e&JPAD=810525176&JPKW=schizophrenia%20with&JPRQ=schizophrenia&JPAF=txt&JPCD=201109130 -
oh man...0
-
I have to say, there are a few boards I have spent time on in the last 8 years and I can tell you all that at some point you will find something to agree on. Someday you might be laughing about how much you used to get on each others nerves. *cheers*0
-
I'm sorry, but those are my opinions on the matter....
But these defenses of abhorent behavior cannot be tolerarted and should not be tolerated. If people are offended.....so? Is it not offensive to tell a KKK member they are ignorant to the Klansmen? How about the neo-nazi who is saying anti-semtic things? Everyone gets offended in these debates at what point or another, but the religious seem to think because they view their beilefs as sacred, everyone else should.....well I don't....
If you want to cherry pick the bible and other religions of all the things you like and explain away or supress the genocides and the rape...ok, but I will call people out on it.
As I said, I'm perfectly happy for you to have an opinion on the subject, and to express it. I don't expect you to view my beliefs as sacred (and I'd guess that most rational people of faith would feel the same), I'd just appreciate it if you would grant my beliefs the same tolerance and respect I afford to yours. I may debate them, but I would never denigrate them or those who hold them.
Personally, I think it's rather rich to equate modern, moderate Christianity (or Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism etc), which does not generally get involved in hate crimes, to the KKK or neo-Nazis, who are, let's be honest, extremists. You are entirely entitled, however, to make, and defend, that equivalency if that's your belief.
As for defences of historic actions, one could well argue that, by that standard, the USA, or the UK, with their histories of rape, pillage, destruction and mass-murder of indigenous populations, not to mention slavery, are institutions as corrupt and evil as you would hold the Church to be, and should be excoriated and destroyed. What has happened before is not necessarily a reflection of what is now.
My point about the KKK or the Nazis wasn't that I hold them comparable to the church ( although in some ways I do), I was simply pointing out that if you were to call them ignorant, THEY would be offended. But the PC police and the religious would more than likely stay quiet and not come to the defense of the racist because they would be in agreement when I called them scumbags.
As far as holding the UK or the USA accountable for their past crimes, you will notice that I often lump blindly faithful people in with the blind nationalist. I'll pick on the Catholics for a moment. In all of these debates, unless talking in a historical context, have I ever held a person belonging to that that church for the crimes of the Crusades or the Inquisition. Not once. I do not believe in persecuting people for the crimes of their ancestors.
But in every case where I have come out swinging, it is because a person of fatih has always claimed that we should view any atrocity in question "in context", a context they only apply to their own religion, the same "context" the blind nationlist extends to his nation. So no, do I hold all Americans or Brits accountable for slavery, rape, genocide and murder. No, no more than I hold the modern german responsible for the Nazis......unless they cannot bring themelves to admit the evil nature of their nations past crimes. You see this all the time with the "My country right or wrong" crowds who view the history we teach about the slaughter of the Native Americans as "liberal propoganda" and anti-american.
So in in the spirit of honesty and truth, if you, Orpheus_chick look at the Old Testament and view it as the archaic writings of man, and your god would never commit those crimes, then although I still believe you to be wrong about the existance of a god, I can show you all kinds of respect. But if you think God must have had his reasons to kill all those innocent living children and order his troops to commit war rape against the caananites, I can not respect that....at all.
OK, I can handle that. I did misunderstand your reference to the KKK/neo-nazis, and appreciate the clarification. I do think context is crucial to historical events and literature, and viewing through modern eyes is not going to produce a reasonable understanding of those events, but context must be applied to everything, it can't be used selectively or it becomes risible.
Like many moderate, intelligent Christians (we do exist
), I will happily agree that the events of the Old Testament, often only written down many hundreds of years after the 'fact' - as far as 'fact' can be determined at such distance - are the attempts of archaic man to rationalise and codify things they did not understand or could not explain in any other way. I believe that much of the Old Testament, in particular, is parable and the result of thousands of years of oral history, which inevitably changes along the way. I don't believe in a vengeful God - man makes man suffer - but I understand that attributing such acts to the 'Will of God' was a way of excusing and explaining historical acts that were politically or militarily expedient at the time, or simply explaining the unexplainable - acts that occur throughout history in all cultures and creeds.
In actual fact, beyond the tenets laid out in the Ten Commandments (of which the first two are, for me, the two that really matter), I don't think the Old Testament has much to do with Christianity at all - the clue is in the name, and Christ does not appear until the New Testament. The old stories are included in the BIble as a form of history, and a way of saying "This is what came before now, which is past. Do you not see that this new way, this gentler, loving way, is better?" Understanding these things and acknowledging them does not negate my belief in a higher being, which we tend to call God. What is reinforced for me is the eternal fallibility of Man, and the immensity of an omniscient, omnipotent God who allows us to make mistakes and live with free will, yet continues to love and forgive all. Yes, words, ideas and philosophies can, are and frequently have been corrupted and misused, but if I were to reject everything that had been so used, I would have nothing left to believe in at all - spiritual, emotional, intellectual.
Thank you for entering into this dialogue with me - it's always valuable to understand more of how someone else thinks. I'm glad to have clarified both our positions.0 -
Yeah, I have a brother-in-law who is schizophrenic. I know what it is and what it looks like. You may not believe me about my experiences and that is fine, but trust me, I am of sound mind, but thank you for your concern. I too would be skeptical of anyone talking about things in which I didn't understand or believe.
No, seriously, this is a site dedicated to getting healthy, and there is plenty of research about the connection of anger to heart issues. I am concerned for your health because there are plenty of people in your life who love you and would hate to lose you early to heart disease. http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Anger_how_it_affects_people?openAdrian, I'm sorry that you carry around so much anger and pride yourself on being disrespectful in your language and attitude. I do hope that one day you seek out professional help and get to the root of your anger before it's too late. Carrying around that much aggrivation is not healthy for your heart at the very least.
You know, when I am being insulting or offensive with my views, at least I am honest and upfront with it instead of the "christian" way you just insinuated I need "help".
Oh, sorry. I thought you were just being sarcastic and rude, but now I see you are a good hearted person just trying to help. And in this spirit of helping eachother, since you have stated you have heard an invisible man and that ghosts and spritits wander your house, here is a link about schizophrenia you might want to check out. I'm really worrried about you.
http://www.justanswer.com/sip/schizophrenia?r=ppc|ms|4|Health+%2D+Search+Partners|Schizophrenia&JPRC=1&JPKD=5898272007&JPDC=e&JPAD=810525176&JPKW=schizophrenia%20with&JPRQ=schizophrenia&JPAF=txt&JPCD=201109130 -
I'm sorry, but those are my opinions on the matter....
But these defenses of abhorent behavior cannot be tolerarted and should not be tolerated. If people are offended.....so? Is it not offensive to tell a KKK member they are ignorant to the Klansmen? How about the neo-nazi who is saying anti-semtic things? Everyone gets offended in these debates at what point or another, but the religious seem to think because they view their beilefs as sacred, everyone else should.....well I don't....
If you want to cherry pick the bible and other religions of all the things you like and explain away or supress the genocides and the rape...ok, but I will call people out on it.
As I said, I'm perfectly happy for you to have an opinion on the subject, and to express it. I don't expect you to view my beliefs as sacred (and I'd guess that most rational people of faith would feel the same), I'd just appreciate it if you would grant my beliefs the same tolerance and respect I afford to yours. I may debate them, but I would never denigrate them or those who hold them.
Personally, I think it's rather rich to equate modern, moderate Christianity (or Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism etc), which does not generally get involved in hate crimes, to the KKK or neo-Nazis, who are, let's be honest, extremists. You are entirely entitled, however, to make, and defend, that equivalency if that's your belief.
As for defences of historic actions, one could well argue that, by that standard, the USA, or the UK, with their histories of rape, pillage, destruction and mass-murder of indigenous populations, not to mention slavery, are institutions as corrupt and evil as you would hold the Church to be, and should be excoriated and destroyed. What has happened before is not necessarily a reflection of what is now.
My point about the KKK or the Nazis wasn't that I hold them comparable to the church ( although in some ways I do), I was simply pointing out that if you were to call them ignorant, THEY would be offended. But the PC police and the religious would more than likely stay quiet and not come to the defense of the racist because they would be in agreement when I called them scumbags.
As far as holding the UK or the USA accountable for their past crimes, you will notice that I often lump blindly faithful people in with the blind nationalist. I'll pick on the Catholics for a moment. In all of these debates, unless talking in a historical context, have I ever held a person belonging to that that church for the crimes of the Crusades or the Inquisition. Not once. I do not believe in persecuting people for the crimes of their ancestors.
But in every case where I have come out swinging, it is because a person of fatih has always claimed that we should view any atrocity in question "in context", a context they only apply to their own religion, the same "context" the blind nationlist extends to his nation. So no, do I hold all Americans or Brits accountable for slavery, rape, genocide and murder. No, no more than I hold the modern german responsible for the Nazis......unless they cannot bring themelves to admit the evil nature of their nations past crimes. You see this all the time with the "My country right or wrong" crowds who view the history we teach about the slaughter of the Native Americans as "liberal propoganda" and anti-american.
So in in the spirit of honesty and truth, if you, Orpheus_chick look at the Old Testament and view it as the archaic writings of man, and your god would never commit those crimes, then although I still believe you to be wrong about the existance of a god, I can show you all kinds of respect. But if you think God must have had his reasons to kill all those innocent living children and order his troops to commit war rape against the caananites, I can not respect that....at all.
OK, I can handle that. I did misunderstand your reference to the KKK/neo-nazis, and appreciate the clarification. I do think context is crucial to historical events and literature, and viewing through modern eyes is not going to produce a reasonable understanding of those events, but context must be applied to everything, it can't be used selectively or it becomes risible.
Like many moderate, intelligent Christians (we do exist ), I will happily agree that the events of the Old Testament, often only written down many hundreds of years after the 'fact' - as far as 'fact' can be determined at such distance - are the attempts of archaic man to rationalise and codify things they did not understand or could not explain in any other way. I believe that much of the Old Testament, in particular, is parable and the result of thousands of years of oral history, which inevitably changes along the way. I don't believe in a vengeful God - man makes man suffer - but I understand that attributing such acts to the 'Will of God' was a way of excusing and explaining historical acts that were politically or militarily expedient at the time, or simply explaining the unexplainable - acts that occur throughout history in all cultures and creeds.
In actual fact, beyond the tenets laid out in the Ten Commandments (of which the first two are, for me, the two that really matter), I don't think the Old Testament has much to do with Christianity at all - the clue is in the name, and Christ does not appear until the New Testament. The old stories are included in the BIble as a form of history, and a way of saying "This is what came before now, which is past. Do you not see that this new way, this gentler, loving way, is better?" Understanding these things and acknowledging them does not negate my belief in a higher being, which we tend to call God. What is reinforced for me is the eternal fallibility of Man, and the immensity of an omniscient, omnipotent God who allows us to make mistakes and live with free will, yet continues to love and forgive all. Yes, words, ideas and philosophies can, are and frequently have been corrupted and misused, but if I were to reject everything that had been so used, I would have nothing left to believe in at all - spiritual, emotional, intellectual.
Thank you for entering into this dialogue with me - it's always valuable to understand more of how someone else thinks. I'm glad to have clarified both our positions.
I have very little things here and there that bother me about the New Testament, but I'm not going into those now for the sake of brevity and not going off topic. And while I understand the contextual arguments made in some cases, I can not excuse it in others. I do not think that the victims of those crimes, whether it be commited by a nation or religion, felt as if they weren't viewing it in the right context. I think it comes from group thinking. I have said it before, sorry if it bores you, but imagine if I, as an atheist, said this.
"Of course genocide is bad and there is no excuse for murder.....but what you have to realize about the Soviets butchering the Jews and Christians in the way they did is that the religions of that part of the world had so harmed the nation they had little choice but to outlaw religion and kill the faithful".
That is disgusting. I know no atheist that makes such claim (if there is, I would light in to him/her the same as I sould the faithful). People tend to lump themselves into groups and then feel he actions of their group becomes a reflection of them, and most people cannot bear to be affiliated with that kind of horror so they explain it away. Religioun or faith just adds the extra layer of an infallible god who is never wrong.0 -
I'm trying to think of something more passive aggressive than saying you're sorry because you feel that someone else is filled with hate simply because they take offense at something they...*gasp*..find offensive, but it's just not coming to mind.
In the event that any such health concerns are genuine, please rest assured that medical conclusions and especially any sort of psychological diagnosis can't and probably shouldn't be administered based on an online forum discussion.
In my own tiny attempt at further thread derailment, and going back to the KKK references, does anyone else find the US's propensity for using the term "Muslim terrorists" a little odd given that we never refer to our own, home-grown terrorists as "Christian terrorists" even though they frequently cite their beliefs in a Christian God as justification for their actions?0 -
Yeah, I have a brother-in-law who is schizophrenic. I know what it is and what it looks like. You may not believe me about my experiences and that is fine, but trust me, I am of sound mind, but thank you for your concern. I too would be skeptical of anyone talking about things in which I didn't understand or believe.
No, seriously, this is a site dedicated to getting healthy, and there is plenty of research about the connection of anger to heart issues. I am concerned for your health because there are plenty of people in your life who love you and would hate to lose you early to heart disease. http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Anger_how_it_affects_people?openAdrian, I'm sorry that you carry around so much anger and pride yourself on being disrespectful in your language and attitude. I do hope that one day you seek out professional help and get to the root of your anger before it's too late. Carrying around that much aggrivation is not healthy for your heart at the very least.
You know, when I am being insulting or offensive with my views, at least I am honest and upfront with it instead of the "christian" way you just insinuated I need "help".
Oh, sorry. I thought you were just being sarcastic and rude, but now I see you are a good hearted person just trying to help. And in this spirit of helping eachother, since you have stated you have heard an invisible man and that ghosts and spritits wander your house, here is a link about schizophrenia you might want to check out. I'm really worrried about you.
http://www.justanswer.com/sip/schizophrenia?r=ppc|ms|4|Health+%2D+Search+Partners|Schizophrenia&JPRC=1&JPKD=5898272007&JPDC=e&JPAD=810525176&JPKW=schizophrenia%20with&JPRQ=schizophrenia&JPAF=txt&JPCD=20110913
Well, maybe you and your brother-in-law will luck out and one of the ghosts in your house is a Psychiatrist. You could save a lot of money, although getting your prescriptions filled might be tough.0 -
Yep. I don't know the media's point with that, a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. Look at the official teachings of the belief systems that are espoused and see if the individual is in alignment with that official teachingIn my own tiny attempt at further thread derailment, and going back to the KKK references, does anyone else find the US's propensity for using the term "Muslim terrorists" a little odd given that we never refer to our own, home-grown terrorists as "Christian terrorists" even though they frequently cite their beliefs in a Christian God as justification for their actions?0 -
Oh, so do I!
I have very little things here and there that bother me about the New Testament, but I'm not going into those now for the sake of brevity and not going off topic.
I'd be demanding an explanation as to how exactly those religions had harmed the nation, and why the Soviet's perceived that, to start with! I think the word 'context' is often misused, and I agree that context is hardly comforting for the victims of atrocity, but then, history tends to be written by the victors, for good or evil. While I understand your viewpoint, and context should not be an excuse, I don't see much point in judging history solely from a modern standpoint. Many things that seem illogical, or downright evil, now, are understandable, if not excusable, when looked at in the proper context. It doesn't make them right, but context makes it easier to understand why people thought/felt/acted as they did. If one understands where evil springs from, and the thought processes through which it is justified, it is easier to prevent a recurrence, and to spot the signs earlier.And while I understand the contextual arguments made in some cases, I can not excuse it in others. I do not think that the victims of those crimes, whether it be commited by a nation or religion, felt as if they weren't viewing it in the right context. I think it comes from group thinking. I have said it before, sorry if it bores you, but imagine if I, as an atheist, said this.
"Of course genocide is bad and there is no excuse for murder.....but what you have to realize about the Soviets butchering the Jews and Christians in the way they did is that the religions of that part of the world had so harmed the nation they had little choice but to outlaw religion and kill the faithful".
That is disgusting. I know no atheist that makes such claim (if there is, I would light in to him/her the same as I sould the faithful).
Many people like to belong to groups, because numbers lend strength to their convictions. There are apologists and rationalisers in all groups - as you say, no-one wants to be affiliated with something perceived by others as horrific. It's not easy to stand alone and we usually make those who do suffer for their actions - among others, Jesus, Copernicus, Galileo come immediately to mind. I have little time for those who fail to think for themselves, or at least to question what they are told before believing. Nonetheless, that is the default of the majority in our society, and I think we are becoming more and more distrustful of the individual, and more embracing of the herd mentality, albeit with many more 'herds' than previously, by the day. It's a major concern.People tend to lump themselves into groups and then feel he actions of their group becomes a reflection of them, and most people cannot bear to be affiliated with that kind of horror so they explain it away. Religioun or faith just adds the extra layer of an infallible god who is never wrong.
Off to rehearsal now, so no more from me tonight. Thanks for an interesting discussion.0 -
I don't think some people realize when a "friend' posts in a topic, it MAY be in a group and not the public boards.
Maybe as the creator or a mod to make that group activity private. I am in a group that isn't searchable(invite only) and no posts or forum activity can't be seen by another person. 0 -
Adrian, I'm sorry that you carry around so much anger and pride yourself on being disrespectful in your language and attitude. I do hope that one day you seek out professional help and get to the root of your anger before it's too late. Carrying around that much aggrivation is not healthy for your heart at the very least.
Wow.
I cannot imagine the mindset that would think this is something appropriate to say in a public forum.
That's a whole new level of hubris.0 -
I'm trying to think of something more passive aggressive than saying you're sorry because you feel that someone else is filled with hate simply because they take offense at something they...*gasp*..find offensive, but it's just not coming to mind.
In the event that any such health concerns are genuine, please rest assured that medical conclusions and especially any sort of psychological diagnosis can't and probably shouldn't be administered based on an online forum discussion.
In my own tiny attempt at further thread derailment, and going back to the KKK references, does anyone else find the US's propensity for using the term "Muslim terrorists" a little odd given that we never refer to our own, home-grown terrorists as "Christian terrorists" even though they frequently cite their beliefs in a Christian God as justification for their actions?
Just thought this deserved to be repeated. ESPECIALLY the first 2 paragraphs.0 -
I'm trying to think of something more passive aggressive than saying you're sorry because you feel that someone else is filled with hate simply because they take offense at something they...*gasp*..find offensive, but it's just not coming to mind.
In the event that any such health concerns are genuine, please rest assured that medical conclusions and especially any sort of psychological diagnosis can't and probably shouldn't be administered based on an online forum discussion.
In my own tiny attempt at further thread derailment, and going back to the KKK references, does anyone else find the US's propensity for using the term "Muslim terrorists" a little odd given that we never refer to our own, home-grown terrorists as "Christian terrorists" even though they frequently cite their beliefs in a Christian God as justification for their actions?
I hate the word terrorist. I understand why it was concieved, but they are nothing more than glorified criminals with a purpose. I guess that the reason home grown criminals like this aren't categorized in this manner is because most terrorism in the US was done to blacks long before this word became a norm. I don't think there is a lot of hypocrisy on the basis of only calling muslim terrorists since I do rememver the bombings in Ireland back when the protestans and catholics were duking it out to be called acts of terrorism.
My problem with modern terrorism and how we defined it is the whole "war on terror" mind set. How are we going to win a war against terror? It's a weird phenomenon that our nation wants to declare war on abstract concepts like drugs, crime, terror, ect ect, when it's a war that can't be won. Warfare should only be used as terminolgy for soldier fighting soldiers. In a sense, we won the war in Iraq, hands down. Completely routed their military, deposed their leaders, occupied their nation. Same with Afghanistan. But then we had to keep calling this a war on terror, and it confuses the whole matter because as long a single terrorist on this planet draws breath, we can't win. We really set ourself up for failure with our terminology.0
This discussion has been closed.