Disobeying Jesus

Originally posted by Starrman

Starrman: Do you think being told that you will burn in the fires of hell for eternity is offensive? Answer the question please.

One or two Christians on this site also told me I was going to hell.

I didn't find this offensive at all. They stated their opinion and I did not agree. I found this laughable.
If you are a convinced atheist who doesn't believe in God, in an afterlife or in hell, such a statement must be even more ridiculous in your eyes than in mine.

The only way I could imagine such a statement to be offensive for someone is, if that someone is uncertain about his own belief.

If you believe heaven and hell are notions out of a story book made up to frighten or to manipulate you, than these predictions must seem laughable to you. Then why don't you laugh ?

Originally posted by Starrman
[

Starrman: "You are attempting to suggest that what you find offensive is offensive, but what others find offensive is not. It is that simple.

They tell the same story about you.

Ivanhoe: "This is a undemocratic and very intolerant course of action to take and as I have said earlier, and I am sorry to say but I am being honest, this political tactic reminds me of the intimidating and insulting manner the SA hoards roamed the streets of German cities in the thirties to attack their political opponents whose opinions were offensive to them and not just their opinions but their sheer existence."

Starrman: "It has nothing to do with democracy, or in fact politics of any sort."

I do not agree.

Starmann: " An appeal to the idea that what you call 'the wolfpack' are operating the sort of tactics that lead to Nazi Germany is not only crass, it is offensive and ridiculously misplaced. "

Their tactics remind me of the tactics used by the SA hordes. These tactics show simularities ...... and if you dare to look at it with objectivity and courage you would also find these simularities. They are there to see for those who want to see them.

Not the messenger of the news is offensive, but those who use these tactics.

Starrman: "Once again you resort to insults instead of debate, or are you not culpable here either?

If you read my posts carefully you'll find that my observations concerning the tactics in question are well described. Nobody ever refuted my claim other than just labelling it as an "insult". I do not call that an open debate.

If, in my view, someone uses SA methods in "debates" I have a right to expose this.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
One or two Christians on this site also told me I was going to hell. I didn't find this offensive at all. They stated their opinion and I did not agree. I found this laughable. If you are a convinced atheist who doesn't believe in God, in an afterlife or in hell, such a statement must be even more ridiculous in your eyes than in mine.

So now you are telling me what I should and shouldn't find offensive? This is the problem, we differ on what is offensive and what is not. How can we both be right?

The only way I could imagine such a statement to be offensive for someone is, if that someone is uncertain about his own belief.

Regardless of my own view, I can still see alternative reasons to this.

If you believe heaven and hell are notions out of a story book made up to frighten or to manipulate you, than these predictions must seem laughable to you. Then why don't you laugh ?

It's not the story which is offensive, it's the threat of violence. Whatever my personal belief (or lack thereof), the person throwing this at me is doing so because they believe it to be true. You talked about the responsibility of the abuser and now you are ignoring it. Once again I ask you to define abuse. And this time, do not just say 'read the ToS' it is already plainly evident that we differ on interpretation.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
They tell the same story about you.

Indeed they do, but I am not on my soapbox about abuse and as I have already mentioned, I see it as a part of the community
interaction.

Their tactics remind me of the tactics used by the SA hordes. These tactics show simularities ...... and if you dare to look at it with objectivity and courage you would also find these simularities. They are there to see for those who want to see them.

More mountain out of molehill ivan, I could go back to the very first post you ever made and the debate which followed and we could look at every action and reaction and I guarantee that there would be sufficient arguement on both sides to label everyone of using these tactics, yourself included. I can recall you bolstering other Christians on the site with snide comments and retorts to the same ends.

If you read my posts carefully you'll find that my observations concerning the tactics in question are well described. Nobody ever refuted my claim other than just labelling it as an "insult". I do not call that an open debate.

I do not call accusing people debating on a web forum of Nazi Stormtrooper tactics a subject to debate, perhaps that is why you met with no other rebuttal.

If, in my view, someone uses SA methods in "debates" I have a right to expose this.

Yes, next time someone threatens you with physical violence, or begins a zusammenstösse, or has your brother beaten up in a back alley and left for dead, or marches through the street you live on to intimidate you, you go right ahead. Until then get some perspective.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
No, I did not accuse No1 of using multiple accounts. If I were doing this at that time, don't you think the marauder would have jumped on me ?

So you weren't suggesting he was going to come back at all?

If you present this as an instance where I went overboard then how on earth can you state that there is no problem ? What I said in this instance is very very innocuous in comparison to the abusive and insulting texts adressed to Christians which are flying all over the forums. You are not being fair. You are using different measuring sticks.

Not at all, I am attempting to show you that you are in no position to claim that others abuse, if anyhting I am using the same measuring stick for you that I use for myself.

The ToS are in English. Please, read them. The "definitions" are all there.

Don't refer me to the ToS again, I'm entitled to your own perception of how the ToS should be interpreted, examples etc. If you again refuse to offer this to the conversation I shall refuse to take any of your claims that the ToS is being broken seriously.

Thank you for supporting my view. That is exactly the problem I am adressing and you are trying to deny.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, are you saying you are the only person suffering abuse? Or that all people are suffering abuse?

As I said, read the ToS

Please refer to the above, I am not asking for the ToS, but your interpretation of it.

Are you for real ? Read the forums and get informed.

If you claim that you are being harrassed, then provide an example which we may examine. If you prefer to talk in generalisations this conversation will not amount to anything. Continually expecting me to do the research on points you are raising is getting us nowhere.

Exactly, but you adress me as if I would indeed have lost certain rights. In your eyes I do not have the right to refer to the ToS. This is the crux of your reasoning.

Not at all, you have a right to refer to the ToS, but you have yet to detail your interpretation of it. If you could do so, we could discuss what it is about it that we disagree on and look at examples where that disagreement influences the course of debates.

I read your posts !!

And you continually misunderstand them, I hold absolutely no ill will towards you as a person. Your debating methods and actions in these forums are another matter.

Tell me, do I have a right to refer to the ToS, to make an appeal to implement the ToS for EVERYBODY including myself ?

That depends on whether EVERYBODY wishes you to speak for them, I would guess that this is not the case. Perhaps before you claim to have the best interests of the entire site at heart, you should find out what those interests are.

I have just spent the better part of the last two hours formulating responses to yu over this. It seems unlikely we are ever going to gain ground, either in definition or perception and I cannot continue to invest so much time in this. I have made my points, you yours, feel free to rebut, but I may not reply as I doubt anything further can be brought to the table.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]sell your riches and give the money to the poor.

Yeeeeessss.

socialist as in the means of production owned by the ship?

Yes.

might even be the best way to keep the captain from being bribed to alter course by one of the Luxury Cabins.

Now you've p!ssed off all the capitalists on the boat and they want to start a mutiny.

Btw, where is this Luxory Liner headed?[/b]

Lol muntiny for profit?
What does it profit if you gain the whole ship ......
The Luxury Liner would set a course to a very HOT zone indeed

A tolerance towards each other, and not a demand to or a command, just an understanding, that each of us think different, whether we believe in God or not.

Jesus came in Peace and Love....to show us Love and Compassion, with his words and works.....

whether one believes he is the Son of God or a prophet or just a man, his words give us peace and quietude.

gil


5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.