the lady made it sound like it was very common for this sort of thing to happen...
(link is safe for work)
This once again shows you that if you think throwing food at people for kicks requires some seriously dumb people, there are always those willing to take that stupidity one step further.
After a couple of his victims beat the hell out of him, I doubt he will feel like doing it again.
Looks like theh parents are trying to inculcate a sense of morality into the young man, and he just needs a little encouragement to not do bad things to people just for nyuks.
Everyone knows spinach is awful.
Show
I kid. Put hot spinach down the kid's pants
It's the parents fault for making him hot spinach for dinner.
Everyone knows spinach is awful.ShowI kid. Put hot spinach down the kid's pants
They are much to big and often too salty. And the mayonaise is sour
mmmm spinach pizza.
Belgium fries are bad
They are much to big and often too salty. And the mayonaise is sour
THIS MEANS WAR NETHERLANDS!! WAR!!!!
NO ONE DISSES OUR FRIES!!!
Actually, there are many different sizes of fries here, and they vary from frietkot to frietkot. (frietkot = frie-stand? Frie-kiosk?) People here always have a preferred place to eat them, usually because of the size of the fries there. Some like them thin and crispy, others thick and potato...y...
There's over a dozen different sauces to go with fries of which mayonaise is only one. Then of course there's egg-mayonaise and lemon-mayonaise.
I'm guessing you should try a different frietkot next time.
AND MAYONAISE TRUMPS DISGUSTING DUTCH PEANUT SAUCE ANY TIME!!!
EDIT: Also, do you know 'steppegras'? It's fries almost as thin as rasped carrots. Maybe that's too thin, or maybe you'll like it, but it's only found in a handful of places. There's one place here in Turnhout where they serve them, and that's only just across the border from the Netherlands.
It's the parents fault for making him hot spinach for dinner.
Everyone knows spinach is awful.ShowI kid. Put hot spinach down the kid's pants
Also I've tried a few Belgian frietkotten and most of them had really thick fries and really sour mayonaise.
As for the peanut-sauce... it depends. The liquid version that many of the big snack-chains have is pretty poor but the good stuff from the smaller snackbars that's really thick and dark is usually really good.
Belgium fries are bad
They are much to big and often too salty. And the mayonaise is sour
Are you talking about the stuff we called Flemish fries in Amsterdam? Thick fries with mayo? Those are delicious!
Belgium fries are bad
They are much to big and often too salty. And the mayonaise is sour
Those weren't fries...
.... and that wasn't mayo.
I think I know about fries as thin as rasped carrot, but in the Netherlands they are sold as a variant of potato-chips and eaten cold, so maybe it's different.
Also I've tried a few Belgian frietkotten and most of them had really thick fries and really sour mayonaise.
As for the peanut-sauce... it depends. The liquid version that many of the big snack-chains have is pretty poor but the good stuff from the smaller snackbars that's really thick and dark is usually really good.
Those crisps/potato-chips you're talking about exist here as well. Steppegras is about the same size (again varies from place to place) but warm and normally less crispy (like fries).
As for the second part, I can't really comment as I've never been to the Netherlands, so I don't know what the fries are like there. I suppose it's possible our sweetest mayonaise is more sour than yours. I'd have to test it out if I ever go there. I plan to but at the moment I'm stuck with a two month old baby, and we're planning on more. Actually I've been there quite a few times but always to the same place: the Efteling
(for those who don't know, it's a theme park with a fairytale theme)Try chocolate fondue hmmm....
On the peanut sauce thing: I've honestly never tried it. I AM one of the few Belgians who eat peanutbutter though. Or ate. I grew tired of the taste. I was the only one at home who liked it (no one else could stand the smell when I opened a jar), so my mom bought it every now and then and I had to eat it almost every day because she was afraid it might otherwise spoil. (Which I knew it wouldn't) Good taste but makes my mouth dry.
When I was for a week in Belgium a few years ago I didn't have any of those frietkotten. Or mussels. I'm not even sure I had chocolate...
Did you have a few beers? The quality ones, not what they call pils (if I remember correctly).
I was underage at the time and I was always a good boy. And I don't like beer today.
I suppose it's possible our sweetest mayonaise is more sour than yours
If Dutch mayo is sour that's because it's spoilt. Dutch mayo is always sweet (as it should be
) Also, the Efteling rocks. My dad works there, when I was young I could go for free. It's also great for me, as I'm allergic to rollercoasters and the Efteling is one of the few parks that are great even when you don't like them!
Next time you go there, order some fries with mayo and you'll find out xD
Also no, nothing special required. Just use mayonaisse and fries. Might take some getting used to though. I have the same thing with ketchup (which tastes too tomato-y to me), you really need to get used to it.
Do you guys have tomato-curry as well? It's a sort of ketchup but with lots of herbs and spices added. I find that to taste a lot better.
Yes but I haven't heard it called that, I just know it as ketchup with lots of stuff in it. Also here we tend to say it like man-aze or mayo-naze.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Golden Rule, paraphrased).
"An eye for an eye" – Leviticus 24:19–21, Exodus 21:22–25, and Deuteronomy 19:16-21
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Golden Rule, paraphrased)."An eye for an eye" – Leviticus 24:19–21, Exodus 21:22–25, and Deuteronomy 19:16-21
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." —Matthew 5:38-42, NIV
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Golden Rule, paraphrased)."An eye for an eye" – Leviticus 24:19–21, Exodus 21:22–25, and Deuteronomy 19:16-21
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." —Matthew 5:38-42, NIV
I fail to see how this in any way applies to scalding hot spinach.
I fail to see how this in any way applies.
First thing that came to my mind.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Golden Rule, paraphrased)."An eye for an eye" – Leviticus 24:19–21, Exodus 21:22–25, and Deuteronomy 19:16-21
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." —Matthew 5:38-42, NIV
I fail to see how this in any way applies to scalding hot spinach.
retribution. idk...
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Golden Rule, paraphrased)."An eye for an eye" – Leviticus 24:19–21, Exodus 21:22–25, and Deuteronomy 19:16-21
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." —Matthew 5:38-42, NIV
Ahhh...
One of the differences between the Old and New Testaments.
Good job!
Yeah, Jesus is like the errata for the Bible. Bible 2.0.
Ashame not a lot of people follow this doctrine. I wonder if just the New Testament could be used for the basis of Christianity.
I would assume that what God said supercedes what Jesus said. (Assuming the old testament was written by God himself (itself?) through man and thus contains no errors.)
As for Jesus being God: I don't think it's meant as them being one and the same. Among other things, I remember Jesus speaking to God several times.
The Illuminati is the oldest order. They are everywhere and control everything. History is their making.
The great spaghetti monster wipes His bum with Illuminati.
As for Jesus being God: I don't think it's meant as them being one and the same. Among other things, I remember Jesus speaking to God several times.
They are the Trinity and are the same. Each can appear independantly but all are of the same being. Jesus is the Son of God and yet is God. It's the Trinity thing.
As for Jesus being God: I don't think it's meant as them being one and the same. Among other things, I remember Jesus speaking to God several times.
They are the Trinity and are the same. Each can appear independantly but all are of the same being. Jesus is the Son of God and yet is God. It's the Trinity thing.
Exactly.
It's confusing, but religion usually is.
I like to think that Jesus was sent down on Earth to point out to everyone how wrong they were. ;)
I think I've stated my opinion on interpreting Old Testament (especially the oldest parts) literally before.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Golden Rule, paraphrased)."An eye for an eye" – Leviticus 24:19–21, Exodus 21:22–25, and Deuteronomy 19:16-21
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." —Matthew 5:38-42, NIV
"I come not to overturn the laws of old, but to enforce them." --Matthew 5:17
"I came not to send peace, but a sword. I have come to send son against father, daughter against mother, and daughter in law against mother in law. A man's foes shall overtake his household." --Matthew 10:34-36
But just for the sake of making an actual point, what kind of moral compass is letting people walk all over you? If someone steals from you, let them take more? If someone slaps you, invite them to do it again? If someone puts you through tedium, go through double that? Why? You're just punishing yourself for someone else's crummy behavior. And what lesson does that teach to you or the other party involved?
But just for the sake of making an actual point, what kind of moral compass is letting people walk all over you?
One clearly written by those intending to do the walking. The whole "take it and don't fight back" is clearly a handbook for oppressed, written by the oppressors.
Or the opposite. That the oppressed invented this doctrine to stop oppression.
Yeah, but how does saying "oppress me more" stop oppression? And how did this book stop oppression in the first place? Because for almost 2000 years, both church and state (sometimes in unison, sometimes not) were using it to justify all manner of oppression and tyranny.
Well the message got twisted by the messengers and who said the message got through in the first place?
Yeah, but how does that fix things? All you'd be saying here is that you agree, it says "when you're oppressed, say 'oppress me more,'" but that somehow the message was twisted.
I don't disagree with the fact that there is tampering in the bible, sections that were clearly added by church fathers, such as the end of the Gospel of Mark, and story of the adulterer brought to Jebus ("let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"), which aren't found anywhere in the earliest, most reliable transcripts of the bible. There are whole epistles which are believed to be pseudoepigraphed (penned by someone, accredited to someone else to push a personal agenda or idea).
As for oppression, I think guilt is supposed to stop oppression. It is easier to hate and steal from someone who fights back and hates you in return than someone who remains peaceful and still says I love you after you "****" him. In theory at least.
Yeah, but that doesn't work. Guilt didn't stop the Holocaust from happening, the end of the war did. Decades long abandonment from the scientific community is what brought about the end of the American eugenics movement, which in turn inspired Hitler's eugenics movement. Slavery wasn't brought to an end until the Industrial Revolution kicked up, and guilt over it conveniently didn't kick in until said time. Guilt also didn't stop the American settlers from taking land from and taking the lives of native American indians, and then pushing them into Indian reserves.
But love your neighbore is far more efficiant. We should just isolate quotes, even if this is what most religious leaders do.
Actually, its not. Anyone can care about and feel altruistic towards "a neighbor," but once a line is drawn in the sand about someone, or a particular demographic, typically, that creates all manner of hostility, which also is found in the bible. Even if its not openly stated, its there every time "us vs. them" thinking is invoked. And if its a message that can be easilly warped and misinterpreted, isn't that ineffective?
I like to think that Jesus was sent down on Earth to point out to everyone how wrong they were. ;)
I'm Jesus?
Not by a long shot...
I agree, the message of Jesus failed.
For you, obviously.
But, thankfully, not for all.
I agree, the message of Jesus failed.
For you, obviously.
But, thankfully, not for all.
So when do you present the other cheek?
When do you?
I do not pretend to follow the messages held in the Bible. But if I understand them, Christians are supposed to always obey them, even with infidels like me.
"Supposed to" being the operative word...
I never claimed to be a good Christian...
Quite the contrary, on many occasions I have stated that I am a poor Christian.
But I try...
And my God is a forgiving God...
Yeah, but how does that fix things? All you'd be saying here is that you agree, it says "when you're oppressed, say 'oppress me more,'" but that somehow the message was twisted.
I don't disagree with the fact that there is tampering in the bible, sections that were clearly added by church fathers, such as the end of the Gospel of Mark, and story of the adulterer brought to Jebus ("let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"), which aren't found anywhere in the earliest, most reliable transcripts of the bible. There are whole epistles which are believed to be pseudoepigraphed (penned by someone, accredited to someone else to push a personal agenda or idea).
First, it makes it harder for the oppressors to claim to be the good guys, which is fairly important for most people. Secondly, I believe it's supposed to apply to the whole world. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind and all that. Violence has to stop somewhere, and perhaps this paragraph is Jesus trying to tell his followers to be the ones to stop it. It's not practical when taken to extremes, but in moderate amounts, forgiving people instead of insisting on punishment can have a positive effect in the long run.
Yeah, I was joking. Conspiracies are inventions, superstitions of people who do not understand how the world works and need to be reassured.
Oh? What if I were to tell you about a conspiracy of well-placed people that hold the confidence of senators, congressmen and, about half the time, the president? They have the power to influence elections, pass laws and shape public opinion. They use these powers of persuassion to oppress those they feel morally superior to while ignoring the hypocrisy in their own actions. When threatened, they circle the wagons and fire back, using twisted words and science as their salvos. These are real people collection far too much money from otherwise-good people who are, for the most part, misguided. But as a result of their actions, people are treated awfully, beaten, and occasionally killed. They battle to enshrine their position into law, to be able to oppress in all manners of places legally and without recourse.
Sounds like a helluva conspiracy, don't it?
Sadly, it's not my imagination. It's real.
I do not pretend to follow the messages held in the Bible. But if I understand them, Christians are supposed to always obey them, even with infidels like me.
"Supposed to" being the operative word...
I never claimed to be a good Christian...
Quite the contrary, on many occasions I have stated that I am a poor Christian.
But I try...
And my God is a forgiving God...
Well you could try to become a better Christian.
I do try.
I simply fail more often than I succeed.
I agree, the message of Jesus failed.
Unless you believe the message was something else?
Actually, there's evidence that Jesus never actually existed in the fist place, that the whole thing is a myth (contradictions in the bible, dates for when the gospels and writings of Paul were approximately written, common themes with other stories in the Old Testament as well as other life-death-rebirth deities, etc). Even if there was a historical Jesus, or at least someone upon whom the gospels are based on, I don't believe that there was ever a cosmic, Jewish zombie who performed miracles and rose from the dead. I think it was all someone else's story or message alltogether. I also feel that way about Zeus, Appollo, Oden, Mithras, Sosano-wo, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Allah...
If that's what you choose to believe, I won't contest that, but I think the story is a bit too far fetched. To answer your question, I'm an agnostic-atheist/scientific naturalist, so I don't think he had a message to begin with.
I agree, the message of Jesus failed.
Unless you believe the message was something else?
Actually, there's evidence that Jesus never actually existed in the fist place, that the whole thing is a myth (contradictions in the bible, dates for when the gospels and writings of Paul were approximately written, common themes with other stories in the Old Testament as well as other life-death-rebirth deities, etc). Even if there was a historical Jesus, or at least someone upon whom the gospels are based on, I don't believe that there was ever a cosmic, Jewish zombie who performed miracles and rose from the dead. I think it was all someone else's story or message alltogether. I also feel that way about Zeus, Appollo, Oden, Mithras, Sosano-wo, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Allah...
If that's what you choose to believe, I won't contest that, but I think the story is a bit too far fetched. To answer your question, I'm an agnostic-atheist/scientific naturalist, so I don't think he had a message to begin with.
Actually, there is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Julius Ceasar, William Shakespeare, or Christopher Columbus. The basic message is that we are imperfect sinners and need help to reconnect with God. Jesus is God in the Flesh come to help us reconnect. Most of the "contradictions" come from so-called "scholars" who do not use the due diligence expected of real scholars, and a misunderstanding of the culture of the times of the writings of the various books of the Bible.
I agree, the message of Jesus failed.
Unless you believe the message was something else?
Actually, there's evidence that Jesus never actually existed in the fist place, that the whole thing is a myth (contradictions in the bible, dates for when the gospels and writings of Paul were approximately written, common themes with other stories in the Old Testament as well as other life-death-rebirth deities, etc). Even if there was a historical Jesus, or at least someone upon whom the gospels are based on, I don't believe that there was ever a cosmic, Jewish zombie who performed miracles and rose from the dead. I think it was all someone else's story or message alltogether. I also feel that way about Zeus, Appollo, Oden, Mithras, Sosano-wo, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Allah...
If that's what you choose to believe, I won't contest that, but I think the story is a bit too far fetched. To answer your question, I'm an agnostic-atheist/scientific naturalist, so I don't think he had a message to begin with.
Oh for ****s sake people!
Lady, mabey you do not know, you are new here, but this is fair warning. Stop this. Religion is a banned topic here and if you keep going on like this you will get threads locked and probably your account banned.
The rest of you: You know the ****ign rules, you have no excuse, cut it out.
I agree, the message of Jesus failed.
Unless you believe the message was something else?
Actually, there's evidence that Jesus never actually existed in the fist place, that the whole thing is a myth (contradictions in the bible, dates for when the gospels and writings of Paul were approximately written, common themes with other stories in the Old Testament as well as other life-death-rebirth deities, etc). Even if there was a historical Jesus, or at least someone upon whom the gospels are based on, I don't believe that there was ever a cosmic, Jewish zombie who performed miracles and rose from the dead. I think it was all someone else's story or message alltogether. I also feel that way about Zeus, Appollo, Oden, Mithras, Sosano-wo, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Allah...
If that's what you choose to believe, I won't contest that, but I think the story is a bit too far fetched. To answer your question, I'm an agnostic-atheist/scientific naturalist, so I don't think he had a message to begin with.
I am an Atheist. It is jsut a lot simpler to say Jesus messages when you are talking with theists.I agree, the message of Jesus failed.
Unless you believe the message was something else?
Actually, there's evidence that Jesus never actually existed in the fist place, that the whole thing is a myth (contradictions in the bible, dates for when the gospels and writings of Paul were approximately written, common themes with other stories in the Old Testament as well as other life-death-rebirth deities, etc). Even if there was a historical Jesus, or at least someone upon whom the gospels are based on, I don't believe that there was ever a cosmic, Jewish zombie who performed miracles and rose from the dead. I think it was all someone else's story or message alltogether. I also feel that way about Zeus, Appollo, Oden, Mithras, Sosano-wo, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Allah...
If that's what you choose to believe, I won't contest that, but I think the story is a bit too far fetched. To answer your question, I'm an agnostic-atheist/scientific naturalist, so I don't think he had a message to begin with.
Oh for ****s sake people!
Lady, mabey you do not know, you are new here, but this is fair warning. Stop this. Religion is a banned topic here and if you keep going on like this you will get threads locked and probably your account banned.
The rest of you: You know the ****ign rules, you have no excuse, cut it out.
So you are the reporter? Who made you police officer? If you aren't happy you can always leave. No need to bully people or make threats.
Look, my apologies. I forgot. I've actually read the list of banned topics, and it skipped my mind just now, I typed what I said without thinking. So what he's saying is legit, Goldo. I'd love to continue this, believe me, I have rebuttals, but here isn't the place.
I don't want any trouble, so I'm walking away from this one.
Yeah, censoreship wins again!
It's not censorship, its an incendiary topic that gets people upset more than usual. The trouble isn't worth the effort.
But posting religious (or anti-religious) stuff is sure to piss somebody off at some point, me included.
It was neither religious or anti-religious, it was a discussion on religion.
In which some people have negative opinions of religion, and of people who believe.
And that is going to piss people off, me included.
I take religion a bit more seriously than I do politics.
After all, once I die, what matter is politics?;)
And I wouldn't bait TA if I were you.
I did not report anything. Seeing a group of people smokcing crack infront of the police station and pointing out that it is a bad idea that is likely to get them in trouble or cause problems is not a threat.
Say whatever you want, but you should take it elsewhere, there are other conversations going on in this thread and there is no reason for it to get closed or for a new poster to find trouble unawares.
And I wouldn't bait TA if I were you.
If RH was Goldy he wouldn't bait TA? WTF. 'Being Goldy' fail anyone?
And I wouldn't bait TA if I were you.
If RH was Goldy he wouldn't bait TA? WTF. 'Being Goldy' fail anyone?
err... what?
Have I baited you?
[Mostly I'm just mocking the absurdity of that turn of phrase, or perhapes drawing attention to my ignorance of its origins or rather in what way it is supposed to mean anything.]
I thought it might be baiting, what with him calling you "the police officer", "the reporter", and a hypocrite.
Oh well, forget about it...
The difference between the real conspiracies and the perceived ones is intend. The perceived conspiracies are done with malicious intend, to actually cause evil to the general public or promote evil for evil's sake (in the mind of the conspirationist). The real ones have far more rational, at least to the those doing it, motives.
Wait, so a conspiracy theorist isn't doing their job right if they ascribe human motivations to their perceived enemies?
It was neither religious or anti-religious, it was a discussion on religion.
Door #Chair
Dude, there have been schisms over discussions of religion.
Is Evil a credible motivation of a group of sane people?
In the past week I've heard evil ascribed to... socialists, capitalists, doctors, lawyers, police men, sodomites, virgins, atheists, theists, politicians, "common" folk, Sarah Palin, Barrack Obama, soldiers, criminals, priests, children, and probably every one in-between and beyond.
So based on my observational experience of what people describe as "evil"... yep.
Is this suppose to make me laugh?
Kind of. I think the point though is that "evil" is subjective. It means whatever you define it to mean.
Yes, but lets go Godwin here.
Let say a reasonnable guy says the Nazis wanted to kill the Jews to purefy Germany. The guy understand that Germans were not doing evil things in their mind.
Now the conspirationist will say that the Nazis killed Jews because they were evil. He will say that cancers are spread in vaccins because the vaccins manifacturers are evil. The government doesn't want you to eat what you want to eat, because governments are evil.
My problem is not the subjectivity of the word, but more of an inhability to explain myself.
While, the part of the vaccines is factually incorrect, yeah, in a nut shell, that's how subjective the term "evil" is.
But then it goes back to your original statement. How do we differentiate the real conspiracies from the fake? Or how do we differentiate the conspiracy theoriest from just a normal guy who is talking about the plots to assassinate Castro?
Because the terms "conspiracist"/"conspiracy" and "evil" aren't interchangeable. But how you define or judge one's actions is up to you really.
I know they aren't. But how do you differentiate from the paranoid conspirationist and someone more rational? What seperates the two? If it is not the intentions they give the conspirators, what is it?
Well, that's simple. Conspiracist=paranoid crack pot. There's no such thing as a rational conspiracist, because their ideas, almost invariably, are based on personal conviction that government/science/big business are out to get them, often without basis, or with flawed basis at the absolute best. And chances are that you won't be able to talk them out of their conspiracist views no matter what you tell them.
A person who believes transgenic crops are part of the government and "Monsanto's" conspiracy to destroy them, poison them for the sake of making money, are unregulated, etc. are crack pots, and no matter what reasoning you bring up, even if you correct them or walk them through the science, or explain the background on where they draw their accusations from, chances are it won't get through to them. The same goes for anti-vaxxers (people who are anti-vaccine), medical denialists, homeopaths, germ theory denialists, 9/11 truthers, etc. They're having too much fun pretending they're in that movie "Enemy of the State."
In the end, it depends on how much valid information they have backing them up, and the reliability of that information.
See Plushy? This is why the mothers tale in option C is largely irrelevant.
If the **** is going to hit the fan at any rate, I'd rather have true **** it.
Also note that if there are no lies, there can be no conspiracies either. It's very hard to conspire against someone has never in his life told a lie, as it requires a far larger leap of the imagination.
Also, someone who accepts that he fails more then he succeeds and accepts this, imho, simply isn't trying hard enough. Sometimes I think that the christian god is too forgiving, accepting anyone who calls himself a christian even if they suck at it, and refusing anyone who is a christian except for calling themselves one.
I'm not a christian, but I think I'm still more of a christian then R_H on occasion.
See where I'm going with that?Italics was something I edited.
I don't feel like a Christian (nor a Dutchy), though. And the simple fact that I technically am one and simply feeling like one would be enough to be one, makes it a very very very useless lable to apply to anything. But hey; whatever makes it easier to identify people I guess
Just saying that if R_H really wants to be considered a christian perhaps he should try harder.
Just saying that if R_H really wants to be considered a christian perhaps he should try harder.
I don't have to be "considered" a Christian.
I am one, from my own mouth.
Just because someone is a Christian doesn't mean they are without fault or sin.
And I try every day to be a good Christian, but I am not arrogant enough to think I am perfect.
*shrug*
you judge ALOT plu...are you having problems? Like are you a little racist?
I like being provocative. You can consider that a problem if you like
I try not to be racist though. Fighting prejudice is hard, even your own. Stereotyping is a dangerous thing and something you should resist yourself from doing as much as possible
(And yeah, I do it on these forums; like I said, I like being provocative. It's part of my online personality)
And I try every day to be a good Christian, but I am not arrogant enough to think I am perfect.
It's not really showing, but hey whatever, as long as you try (or act like it) your god will forgive you, right?
He's merciful like that.Obviously I'm still going to burn in hell, because even though I do most of the stuff in the bible (except for, you know, believing in god) that's much worse then believing in god and not doing any of the other stuff in the bible, right?
you judge ALOT plu...are you having problems? Like are you a little racist?
I like being provocative. You can consider that a problem if you like
I try not to be racist though. Fighting prejudice is hard, even your own. Stereotyping is a dangerous thing and something you should resist yourself from doing as much as possible
(And yeah, I do it on these forums; like I said, I like being provocative. It's part of my online personality)And I try every day to be a good Christian, but I am not arrogant enough to think I am perfect.
It's not really showing, but hey whatever, as long as you try (or act like it) your god will forgive you, right?
Obviously I'm still going to burn in hell, because even though I do most of the stuff in the bible (except for, you know, believing in god) that's much worse then believing in god and not doing any of the other stuff in the bible, right?
Well then your "online personality" is a fluffer.
And in terms of christianity, yes you would burn. Its gods kingdom and you can't spend your whole life not believing in him then want to live in his paradise.
I am not trying to convert anybody.
And it is not for me to judge if you are going to hell or not.
That's between you and God.
And you don't know me well enough to say "It's not really showing".
You have no idea how or who I am in the Real WorldTM.
*shrug*
Well then your "online personality" is a fluffer.
I... don't see the connection. But anyway; it's not designed to be nice and likeable, no.
And in terms of christianity, yes you would burn. Its gods kingdom and you can't spend your whole life not believing in him then want to live in his paradise.
Wasn't it you that said that "people aren't placed on earth to cater to another's whims"?
I find that viewpoint to be... interesting... considering what you believe.
And it is not for me to judge if you are going to hell or not.
That's between you and God.
Yeah I've taken my stance on this already. If God is good, he'll accept me for being a good person, despite being skeptical (since he made me so)
If God doesn't want me despite being a good person, even though he made me so, he's not Good and he and his "paradise" can go stuff it.
We'll see what happens after I die...
So you are the reporter? Who made you police officer? If you aren't happy you can always leave. No need to bully people or make threats.
First, there is nothing at all wrong with reporting posts that violate the CoC.
Second, following the CoC does not make one a "police officer".
Third, when some choose to make the place unpleasant it is they who should be made to leave.
Four, reminding people they are violating the rules to which they agreed is not "making threats".
And it is not for me to judge if you are going to hell or not.
That's between you and God.
Yeah I've taken my stance on this already. If God is good, he'll accept me for being a good person, despite being skeptical (since he made me so)
If God doesn't want me despite being a good person, even though he made me so, he's not Good and he and his "paradise" can go stuff it.
We'll see what happens after I die...
Being "good" doesn't get you into Heaven.
Believing in Christ and accepting Him as your Savior does.
Well then your "online personality" is a fluffer.
I... don't see the connection. But anyway; it's not designed to be nice and likeable, no.And in terms of christianity, yes you would burn. Its gods kingdom and you can't spend your whole life not believing in him then want to live in his paradise.
Wasn't it you that said that "people aren't placed on earth to cater to another's whims"?
I find that viewpoint to be... interesting... considering what you believe.
See a fluffer is someone on a porn set that...well...."prepares" the men.
and you don't cater to god's whims. Not in the way I used the phrase.
And it is not for me to judge if you are going to hell or not.
That's between you and God.
Yeah I've taken my stance on this already. If God is good, he'll accept me for being a good person, despite being skeptical (since he made me so)
If God doesn't want me despite being a good person, even though he made me so, he's not Good and he and his "paradise" can go stuff it.
We'll see what happens after I die...
Being "good" doesn't get you into Heaven.
Believing in Christ and accepting Him as your Savior does.
Yes, exactly. That is one of the major reasons why I'm not a christian.
and you don't cater to god's whims. Not in the way I used the phrase.
I'm curious to know how you used the phrase then, as he seems to require you to dance like a puppet to please him.
Well then your "online personality" is a fluffer.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
nope lol look back thats exactly what I meant ;D
and plu I was using that to refer to human-to-human interaction. But yeah MY god never requires any of that. I'm sure that some might.
Simply put, no. But he won't make you burn in hell for it. I could help you become jewish if you like :] I doubt you would though. See...jews don't really have a "hell" its more like purgatory.
Being "good" doesn't get you into Heaven.
Believing in Christ and accepting Him as your Savior does.
Who said "one that says 'I know God' but doesn't follow His teachings is a liar"? Slipped my mind.
Simply put, no. But he won't make you burn in hell for it. I could help you become jewish if you like :] I doubt you would though. See...jews don't really have a "hell" its more like purgatory.
Nah, if believing certain unprovable and ultimately irrelevant things are a requirement to be considered "good" then you can count me out.
I'll be considered good on my own actions, or I'll accept the "punishment" for it.
But how do you differentiate from the paranoid conspirationist and someone more rational? What seperates the two? If it is not the intentions they give the conspirators, what is it?
The rational basis for their theories, I would imagine.
Being "good" doesn't get you into Heaven.
Believing in Christ and accepting Him as your Savior does.
Yes, that is a bit of a point of contention for some dirty heathens (like me). If God is just, and God only lets people through the pearly gates that believe in him, but religion is something that must betaught, then why does God put people in places where their chances to be taught the one-true-religion are rather slim? It's a bit like stacking the deck, no? Doesn't seem very just or fair or, in fact, "good"
Being "good" doesn't get you into Heaven.
Believing in Christ and accepting Him as your Savior does.
Who said "one that says 'I know God' but doesn't follow His teachings is a liar"? Slipped my mind.
I can see the truth in that.
But can one really "know" God?
And NO ONE is perfect, and God knows this.
That's why he accepts prayer and forgives.
*shrug*
People, I am not trying to convert anybody or get in a religious debate (regardless of the current conversation), but I cannot sit back and let my belief and religion get ridiculed and debased.
. If God is just, and God only lets people through the pearly gates that believe in him, but religion is something that must betaught, then why does God put people in places where their chances to be taught the one-true-religion are rather slim?
I have asked the very same thing.
I don't know.
That is not what I was taught. I learned that God loves us and that Jesus died for our sins (even the sin of not obeying or believing in God).
Yes, God loves you. And yes Jesus died for all our sins. But if you do not believe it (accept Christ), then you don't reap the benefit.
I was taught that Revelations was just code used by Christian in Rome when they were persecuted.
No. It was meant to depict "the end times," but its possible, given that it can be dated to around 90 CE, that it was a guy upset about the Roman-Jewish War. There's a lot of symbolism and portraying a re-enactment of the war, with the Romans losing and the Jews winning instead. For example, the seven headed dragon can represent seven emperors in a row with whom the Jews and early Christians felt were blasphemous or tyrannical. The mark of the beast ("666" or "616," depending on your interpretation, can be said to be a numerical code for Nero Ceasar, perhaps the worst in his line of seven emperors).
Although, there are also portrayals of heaven, the lake of fire, the souls kept in Sheol, etc., so it can also perhaps be seen as an attempt to answer certain theological questions, like "what does this look like," or "what's supposed to happen when Jebus comes back."
As a historical note, the Jews not only lost the Roman-Jewish war, but Jerusalem was ran-sacked and the temple within the city was destroyed, all but levelled to the ground. A lot of Jewish soldiers died in the war, and afterwards followed the Diaspora.
Oh well. It's not like a believe that stuff.
Same here. But I've heard that there are even christian denominations that believe Revelations is drivel.
Being "good" doesn't get you into Heaven.
Believing in Christ and accepting Him as your Savior does.
So it's not what you know but who you know? Nice.
Still go to heaven. You're not supposed to kill someone because God said it's bad, but after Jesus died, everyone gets to go to heaven, no matter what. So Hitler is waiting over there.
Not exactly, no. You have to ask for forgiveness, in earnest, to be forgiven. It doesn't just happen, you see. But if you do, yes, you will be saved even though you may have been a child rapin', chicken ****in' murderous psycopath. Another knock against this oft portrayed version of Heaven if you ask me.
Hitler, though, likely didn't ask to be forgiven. And he was a suicide - which carries with it its own special rules and penalties.
So it's not what you know but who you know? Nice.
More like it's not what you've done but in who's name you've done it.
You have to ask for forgiveness, in earnest, to be forgiven.
What about people who are incapable of such? Such as... small children. Babies. Some mentally-handicapped people. They can't grasp the concept, and so can't, in earnest, ask to be forgiven. What happens to them?
What about people who are incapable of such? Such as... small children. Babies. Some mentally-handicapped people. They can't grasp the concept, and so can't, in earnest, ask to be forgiven. What happens to them?
Dood, don't ask me. I was jus' tryin' to drop what li'l remains of my knowledge on ya'all. I ain't supportin' nothin' so I ain't gonna defend nothin'.
I do think, though, that baptism has something to do with this. Oh, and they teach Confession very early in life. I think my first was in 2nd grade. But hey, the rules for this stuff ain't exactly clear. ;)
________
1Which wouldn't be as much of an issue if they didn't also say that ensoulment happens before birth2.
2Which they first started saying as an attempt to stop abortions.
Hitler, though, likely didn't ask to be forgiven. And he was a suicide - which carries with it its own special rules and penalties.
Accoriding to the priests who did the excorcisms, one of the demons that possessed Anneliese Michel was, in fact, Hitler.
Accoriding to the priests who did the excorcisms, one of the demons that possessed Anneliese Michel was, in fact, Hitler.
Well then, this certainly confirms that Hitler was not forgiven.
I actually think it is a fair question.
If you say so. I'd say it's unfair of me to jump on you trying to explain a major point of the religion with a tangentally related question that I know is a tough one for anyone. It'd be like going into an elementary school math class and asking a question about calculus. Sure, the teacher might know the answer, but it's not really a fair question to pitch at 'em in that situation, y'know?
Hitler, though, likely didn't ask to be forgiven. And he was a suicide - which carries with it its own special rules and penalties.
Accoriding to the priests who did the excorcisms, one of the demons that possessed Anneliese Michel was, in fact, Hitler.
Actually, she was just crazy. Really crazy. She had multiple personality disorder, dispersonality disorder (where you feel like a spectator in your own body), schizophrenia, and a number of others. She was a new convert to Catholicism, so when she started having symptoms, she was absolutely convinced that her ailments were spiritual in nature. At some point, she stopped taking her meds and things went to hell from there (no pun intended).
After about a year of exorcism, she eventually died of starvation. She was so malnourished that when her organs started swelling, her throat had closed up so much that she couldn't eat or drink anything. Her gums were bloody, and her sinuses were so full of blood, that her eyes were always black and blue. The catholic church has been kind of wishy-washy about their stance on her exorcism. They started agreeing with psychologists after she died, and the brief criminal neglect trial that followed, that she was just mentally ill. The second confirmation came when, a little while after her death, one of the parishioners at her old church prophecied that when they dug up her body, she wouldn't have any decay on her. Unfortunately, the body had decomposed as expected. However, her home in Bavaria IS still a tourist attraction, because the tourists, for the most part, believe that her exorcism was real. There's also a kind of quasi-religious following that believes she suffered for people in purgatory, or she helps people in purgatory (I forget precisely). So, if it keeps people believing, I believe the catholic church's stance is "well, it's not really broken, so let's not fix it." I believe it's not one of the things that the catholic church keeps a strong stance on or enforces, anyway.
If you say so. I'd say it's unfair of me to jump on you trying to explain a major point of the religion with a tangentally related question that I know is a tough one for anyone. It'd be like going into an elementary school math class and asking a question about calculus. Sure, the teacher might know the answer, but it's not really a fair question to pitch at 'em in that situation, y'know?
Like I said, fair but not to me.
It's all good. That stuff does need to be asked. There's major issues there with what people decide to think about and what they decide to simply ignore. Bringing that to the fore is important, IMO.multiple personality disorder
Just to be nitpicky, but I believe that MPD has been renamed Dissociative Identity Disorder. Then again, it has been quite some time since I've opened a DSM.
multiple personality disorder
Just to be nitpicky, but I believe that MPD has been renamed Dissociative Identity Disorder. Then again, it has been quite some time since I've opened a DSM.
I took psychology back in high school, but if that's what they've changed it to, thanks for the update.
You just seem like the type that likes to know the proper, current name for stuff and so I thought you may appreciate it. EDIT: Just looked it up to confirm and it seems both are used. Heh.
Not a problem. Hope I didn't come off as too much of a prick.
Not at all.
You just seem like the type that likes to know the proper, current name for stuff and so I thought you may appreciate it.
I do. Thanks.
If I'm wrong, I like to know about it. Better to correct oneself and acknowledge a mistake than not notice and look like an ass. That's my philosophy anyway.
But how do you differentiate from the paranoid conspirationist and someone more rational?
How about rationality?
Well, that's simple. Conspiracist=paranoid crack pot. There's no such thing as a rational conspiracist, because their ideas, almost invariably, are based on personal conviction that government/science/big business are out to get them, often without basis, or with flawed basis at the absolute best. And chances are that you won't be able to talk them out of their conspiracist views no matter what you tell them... In the end, it depends on how much valid information they have backing them up, and the reliability of that information.
Also: Atheists, Agnostics, All Religions, Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, Communists, Socialists, Right Wing, Left Wing, Populists ect.
You are all a bunch of fanatical loons, and it is halariously delicious, and we are all doomed.
If the **** is going to hit the fan at any rate, I'd rather have true **** it.
If they are indestinguishable then they are functionally identical.
Also note that if there are no lies
This is not fantasy land we are discussing.
It's very hard to conspire against someone has never in his life told a lie, as it requires a far larger leap of the imagination.
Not half so large a one as believing that a human over the age of 6 has never told a lie.
Well, that's simple. Conspiracist=paranoid crack pot. There's no such thing as a rational conspiracist, because their ideas, almost invariably, are based on personal conviction that government/science/big business are out to get them, often without basis, or with flawed basis at the absolute best. And chances are that you won't be able to talk them out of their conspiracist views no matter what you tell them... In the end, it depends on how much valid information they have backing them up, and the reliability of that information.
Also: Atheists, Agnostics, All Religions, Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, Communists, Socialists, Right Wing, Left Wing, Populists ect.
You are all a bunch of fanatical loons, and it is halariously delicious, and we are all doomed.
So.... everyone is crazy?
Well, yeah, everyone's a little bit crazy. In fact, here's the model to show why.
Sheffield's Theory of Crazyness vs. Corporate Toolism
Sheffield's First Law: It's not necessary to be crazy to get through life, but it definitely helps.
Sheffield's Second Law: The people who aren't driven at least a little crazy by life don't last long, or become part of an amorphous blob of office and factory workers known as "Mainstream Society," or more properly by its species name, "Mainstreamus societus."
Sheffield's Second-and-a-halfth Law: This amorphous blob is capable of dividing into smaller blobs, distinguishable from the main blob, but always capable of rejoining with it. The constituents of this blob are capable of assuming individual human form, but are unable to think independently and are stripped of humanity and individuality, no longer Homo sapiens sapiens. This species of amorphous blob known as "Mainstreamus societus" is carnivorous and eats other people to continue building its mass and dividing.
Sheffield's Third Law: The only way to restore humanity and individuality to constituent parts of Mainstreamus societus is to introduce "crazy" or "chaos," typically administered through mind altering substances, such as drugs and/or alcohol (pot, beer, wine, liquor, mushrooms, LSD, etc).
when some choose to make the place unpleasant it is they who should be made to leave.
Bye! You won't be miss.
/waves at Boraxe
I'll miss ya, Boraxe! I think your a pompous asshat, but I still like having you around.
Wow, this thread is trying really really hard to keep off the 'religion free' bandwaggon, ain't it?
Well, its feasible to discuss certain aspects of religion, without it turning into "you're going to hell" vs. "there's no god, bite me." But define "not allowed to discuss religion." Does that also include interpretation of certain holy texts, history (not necessarilly religious historical claims), or claims of something like demon possession? Does it include claims/ideas/positions/points/opinions/views that are often held to or rejected due to religion or lack thereof (which mind you is often irrelevant of their being true or not), such as abortion, evolution, global warming, stem cell research, etc?
Because if it does, being the n00b here, I'll be the first to apologize and back out. But if all or most of that is included, and the rules really are that strict, then this already doesn't sound like a fun forum to be in.
So.... everyone is crazy?
More specifically, anyone who cares, or rather, thinks there is a right way is crazy. Anyone who fails to see that the critical mass of humanity has been reached and that it is now impossible to sway it in a meaningful way without the use of drastic and unurthodox and (most likely) highly immoral means.
Just because I'm a pessimist doesn't mean I don't think I'm right.
Wow, this thread is trying really really hard to keep off the 'religion free' bandwaggon, ain't it?
Well, its feasible to discuss certain aspects of religion, without it turning into "you're going to hell" vs. "there's no god, bite me." But define "not allowed to discuss religion." Does that also include interpretation of certain holy texts, history (not necessarilly religious historical claims), or claims of something like demon possession?
Because if it does, being the n00b here, I'll be the first to apologize and back out.
In theory? I couldn't say. The Modderation here is notoriously loath to explain itself.
In practice? Don't say anything in a spot that will be seen enough for someone to get offended or annoyed enough to report it.
Wow, this thread is trying really really hard to keep off the 'religion free' bandwaggon, ain't it?
Well, its feasible to discuss certain aspects of religion, without it turning into "you're going to hell" vs. "there's no god, bite me." But define "not allowed to discuss religion." Does that also include interpretation of certain holy texts, history (not necessarilly religious historical claims), or claims of something like demon possession?
Because if it does, being the n00b here, I'll be the first to apologize and back out.
In theory? I couldn't say. The Modderation here is notoriously loath to explain itself.
In practice? Don't say anything in a spot that will be seen enough for someone to get offended or annoyed enough to report it.
So then, pretty much any opinion held with any amount of conviction... Or something other than the weather report. That seems a bit overly paranoid, because you'll get that anywhere.
Avoiding the vague rule on that is almost impossible, so the best policy is to avoid causing trouble about it. Politics and religion are tolerated in small doses as long as you keep the noise down. Cause a ruckus though, and the mods will descend and arrest everyone for public drunkenness.
If the **** is going to hit the fan at any rate, I'd rather have true **** it.
If they are indestinguishable then they are functionally identical.Also note that if there are no lies
This is not fantasy land we are discussing.It's very hard to conspire against someone has never in his life told a lie, as it requires a far larger leap of the imagination.
Not half so large a one as believing that a human over the age of 6 has never told a lie.
Sorry, I'm still living in fairyland. It's the only place that allows me to maintain my sanity
Bye! You won't be miss.
/waves at Boraxe
That's either really rude or a really lame joke. It's so hard to tell which with you.
...It's so hard to tell which with you.
Nah, it's easy to tell...
It's both.
You have to ask for forgiveness, in earnest, to be forgiven.
What about people who are incapable of such? Such as... small children. Babies. Some mentally-handicapped people. They can't grasp the concept, and so can't, in earnest, ask to be forgiven. What happens to them?
What about people who are incapable of such? Such as... small children. Babies. Some mentally-handicapped people. They can't grasp the concept, and so can't, in earnest, ask to be forgiven. What happens to them?
Dood, don't ask me. I was jus' tryin' to drop what li'l remains of my knowledge on ya'all. I ain't supportin' nothin' so I ain't gonna defend nothin'.
I do think, though, that baptism has something to do with this. Oh, and they teach Confession very early in life. I think my first was in 2nd grade. But hey, the rules for this stuff ain't exactly clear. ;)
________
1Which wouldn't be as much of an issue if they didn't also say that ensoulment happens before birth2.
2Which they first started saying as an attempt to stop abortions.
Hitler, though, likely didn't ask to be forgiven. And he was a suicide - which carries with it its own special rules and penalties.
Accoriding to the priests who did the excorcisms, one of the demons that possessed Anneliese Michel was, in fact, Hitler.
Accoriding to the priests who did the excorcisms, one of the demons that possessed Anneliese Michel was, in fact, Hitler.
Well then, this certainly confirms that Hitler was not forgiven.
I actually think it is a fair question.
If you say so. I'd say it's unfair of me to jump on you trying to explain a major point of the religion with a tangentally related question that I know is a tough one for anyone. It'd be like going into an elementary school math class and asking a question about calculus. Sure, the teacher might know the answer, but it's not really a fair question to pitch at 'em in that situation, y'know?
Hitler, though, likely didn't ask to be forgiven. And he was a suicide - which carries with it its own special rules and penalties.
Accoriding to the priests who did the excorcisms, one of the demons that possessed Anneliese Michel was, in fact, Hitler.
Actually, she was just crazy. Really crazy. She had multiple personality disorder, dispersonality disorder (where you feel like a spectator in your own body), schizophrenia, and a number of others. She was a new convert to Catholicism, so when she started having symptoms, she was absolutely convinced that her ailments were spiritual in nature. At some point, she stopped taking her meds and things went to hell from there (no pun intended).
After about a year of exorcism, she eventually died of starvation. She was so malnourished that when her organs started swelling, her throat had closed up so much that she couldn't eat or drink anything. Her gums were bloody, and her sinuses were so full of blood, that her eyes were always black and blue. The catholic church has been kind of wishy-washy about their stance on her exorcism. They started agreeing with psychologists after she died, and the brief criminal neglect trial that followed, that she was just mentally ill. The second confirmation came when, a little while after her death, one of the parishioners at her old church prophecied that when they dug up her body, she wouldn't have any decay on her. Unfortunately, the body had decomposed as expected. However, her home in Bavaria IS still a tourist attraction, because the tourists, for the most part, believe that her exorcism was real. There's also a kind of quasi-religious following that believes she suffered for people in purgatory, or she helps people in purgatory (I forget precisely). So, if it keeps people believing, I believe the catholic church's stance is "well, it's not really broken, so let's not fix it." I believe it's not one of the things that the catholic church keeps a strong stance on or enforces, anyway.
If you say so. I'd say it's unfair of me to jump on you trying to explain a major point of the religion with a tangentally related question that I know is a tough one for anyone. It'd be like going into an elementary school math class and asking a question about calculus. Sure, the teacher might know the answer, but it's not really a fair question to pitch at 'em in that situation, y'know?
Like I said, fair but not to me.
It's all good. That stuff does need to be asked. There's major issues there with what people decide to think about and what they decide to simply ignore. Bringing that to the fore is important, IMO.multiple personality disorder
Just to be nitpicky, but I believe that MPD has been renamed Dissociative Identity Disorder. Then again, it has been quite some time since I've opened a DSM.
multiple personality disorder
Just to be nitpicky, but I believe that MPD has been renamed Dissociative Identity Disorder. Then again, it has been quite some time since I've opened a DSM.
I took psychology back in high school, but if that's what they've changed it to, thanks for the update.
You just seem like the type that likes to know the proper, current name for stuff and so I thought you may appreciate it. EDIT: Just looked it up to confirm and it seems both are used. Heh.
Not a problem. Hope I didn't come off as too much of a prick.
Not at all.
You just seem like the type that likes to know the proper, current name for stuff and so I thought you may appreciate it.
I do. Thanks.
If I'm wrong, I like to know about it. Better to correct oneself and acknowledge a mistake than not notice and look like an ass. That's my philosophy anyway.
But how do you differentiate from the paranoid conspirationist and someone more rational?
How about rationality?
Well, that's simple. Conspiracist=paranoid crack pot. There's no such thing as a rational conspiracist, because their ideas, almost invariably, are based on personal conviction that government/science/big business are out to get them, often without basis, or with flawed basis at the absolute best. And chances are that you won't be able to talk them out of their conspiracist views no matter what you tell them... In the end, it depends on how much valid information they have backing them up, and the reliability of that information.
Also: Atheists, Agnostics, All Religions, Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, Communists, Socialists, Right Wing, Left Wing, Populists ect.
You are all a bunch of fanatical loons, and it is halariously delicious, and we are all doomed.
If the **** is going to hit the fan at any rate, I'd rather have true **** it.
If they are indestinguishable then they are functionally identical.
Also note that if there are no lies
This is not fantasy land we are discussing.
It's very hard to conspire against someone has never in his life told a lie, as it requires a far larger leap of the imagination.
Not half so large a one as believing that a human over the age of 6 has never told a lie.
Well, that's simple. Conspiracist=paranoid crack pot. There's no such thing as a rational conspiracist, because their ideas, almost invariably, are based on personal conviction that government/science/big business are out to get them, often without basis, or with flawed basis at the absolute best. And chances are that you won't be able to talk them out of their conspiracist views no matter what you tell them... In the end, it depends on how much valid information they have backing them up, and the reliability of that information.
Also: Atheists, Agnostics, All Religions, Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, Communists, Socialists, Right Wing, Left Wing, Populists ect.
You are all a bunch of fanatical loons, and it is halariously delicious, and we are all doomed.
So.... everyone is crazy?
Well, yeah, everyone's a little bit crazy. In fact, here's the model to show why.
Sheffield's Theory of Crazyness vs. Corporate Toolism
Sheffield's First Law: It's not necessary to be crazy to get through life, but it definitely helps.
Sheffield's Second Law: The people who aren't driven at least a little crazy by life don't last long, or become part of an amorphous blob of office and factory workers known as "Mainstream Society," or more properly by its species name, "Mainstreamus societus."
Sheffield's Second-and-a-halfth Law: This amorphous blob is capable of dividing into smaller blobs, distinguishable from the main blob, but always capable of rejoining with it. The constituents of this blob are capable of assuming individual human form, but are unable to think independently and are stripped of humanity and individuality, no longer Homo sapiens sapiens. This species of amorphous blob known as "Mainstreamus societus" is carnivorous and eats other people to continue building its mass and dividing.
Sheffield's Third Law: The only way to restore humanity and individuality to constituent parts of Mainstreamus societus is to introduce "crazy" or "chaos," typically administered through mind altering substances, such as drugs and/or alcohol (pot, beer, wine, liquor, mushrooms, LSD, etc).
when some choose to make the place unpleasant it is they who should be made to leave.
Bye! You won't be miss.
/waves at Boraxe
I'll miss ya, Boraxe! I think your a pompous asshat, but I still like having you around.
Wow, this thread is trying really really hard to keep off the 'religion free' bandwaggon, ain't it?
Well, its feasible to discuss certain aspects of religion, without it turning into "you're going to hell" vs. "there's no god, bite me." But define "not allowed to discuss religion." Does that also include interpretation of certain holy texts, history (not necessarilly religious historical claims), or claims of something like demon possession? Does it include claims/ideas/positions/points/opinions/views that are often held to or rejected due to religion or lack thereof (which mind you is often irrelevant of their being true or not), such as abortion, evolution, global warming, stem cell research, etc?
Because if it does, being the n00b here, I'll be the first to apologize and back out. But if all or most of that is included, and the rules really are that strict, then this already doesn't sound like a fun forum to be in.
So.... everyone is crazy?
More specifically, anyone who cares, or rather, thinks there is a right way is crazy. Anyone who fails to see that the critical mass of humanity has been reached and that it is now impossible to sway it in a meaningful way without the use of drastic and unurthodox and (most likely) highly immoral means.
Just because I'm a pessimist doesn't mean I don't think I'm right.
Wow, this thread is trying really really hard to keep off the 'religion free' bandwaggon, ain't it?
Well, its feasible to discuss certain aspects of religion, without it turning into "you're going to hell" vs. "there's no god, bite me." But define "not allowed to discuss religion." Does that also include interpretation of certain holy texts, history (not necessarilly religious historical claims), or claims of something like demon possession?
Because if it does, being the n00b here, I'll be the first to apologize and back out.
In theory? I couldn't say. The Modderation here is notoriously loath to explain itself.
In practice? Don't say anything in a spot that will be seen enough for someone to get offended or annoyed enough to report it.
Wow, this thread is trying really really hard to keep off the 'religion free' bandwaggon, ain't it?
Well, its feasible to discuss certain aspects of religion, without it turning into "you're going to hell" vs. "there's no god, bite me." But define "not allowed to discuss religion." Does that also include interpretation of certain holy texts, history (not necessarilly religious historical claims), or claims of something like demon possession?
Because if it does, being the n00b here, I'll be the first to apologize and back out.
In theory? I couldn't say. The Modderation here is notoriously loath to explain itself.
In practice? Don't say anything in a spot that will be seen enough for someone to get offended or annoyed enough to report it.
So then, pretty much any opinion held with any amount of conviction... Or something other than the weather report. That seems a bit overly paranoid, because you'll get that anywhere.
Avoiding the vague rule on that is almost impossible, so the best policy is to avoid causing trouble about it. Politics and religion are tolerated in small doses as long as you keep the noise down. Cause a ruckus though, and the mods will descend and arrest everyone for public drunkenness.
If the **** is going to hit the fan at any rate, I'd rather have true **** it.
If they are indestinguishable then they are functionally identical.Also note that if there are no lies
This is not fantasy land we are discussing.It's very hard to conspire against someone has never in his life told a lie, as it requires a far larger leap of the imagination.
Not half so large a one as believing that a human over the age of 6 has never told a lie.
Sorry, I'm still living in fairyland. It's the only place that allows me to maintain my sanity
Bye! You won't be miss.
/waves at Boraxe
That's either really rude or a really lame joke. It's so hard to tell which with you.
...It's so hard to tell which with you.
Nah, it's easy to tell...
It's both.