Originally posted by SuzianneTo be clear, you are not under any obligation to take the thought experiment seriously. Take it or leave it, that's up to you. But let's refrain from misrepresenting it and the motivations of those who offer it up beyond all get out, mmmkay?
So, pared down to its essence your post says "I am offended that you do not take vivify seriously, and I'm going to call you a bigot for it, and yet I am under no obligation to take you seriously, and therefore I'm also going to call you daft and laughable."
Right. Got it. Not surprised.
Originally posted by moonbusI really don't get offended by much; however, I take offense at numbnuts.
Honestly, I do not deliberately try to offend you. It repeatedly surprises me what things you take offense at. Maybe you should consider avoiding public forums and starting a private forum instead. You could institute your own level of offenselessness and never have to read anything which might trouble your waters.
Originally posted by moonbusAs I pointed out to another here, your wishing to cause an offense does not
Some people take offense where none is given. If everyone were to abide by RJH's criteria of offensiveness here, it would be a soliloquy, not a forum.
at all mean that an offense cannot be made. It is always going to be the
one receiving something intended or not that is going to be offended. So to
hear what you are doing and saying is being taken as an offense leaves you
with just two options either continue and make it worse or stop. You have
chosen to pile it on, and that you did with your eyes wide open!
Originally posted by LemonJelloI didn't think I was going to get an apology from you, I had written that off.
I do care, but you'll get no apology from me. If there was a "real jerk" here, it was Suzianne. The thread initiator, vivify, presented a simple hypothetical question. And right from the gate, Suzianne did nothing but malign and misrepresent the underlying motivations behind it. She clearly does not understand the point of a hypothetical and is frankl ...[text shortened]... er up such a thought experiment, especially when we have subsequent clarification on the matter.
She gets offended and she is the jerk, okay we can leave it there the rest
is just justification for that nothing more.
Originally posted by KellyJayDo you think she is trying to facilitate and encourage debate and discussion between people with different beliefs on this debate and discussion forum, including participation in a thought exercise like this one, or do you think she is trying to inhibit debate and discussion by browbeating people with different beliefs from her, deflecting by projecting motivations onto them, and by trying to change the topic into her own 'manufactured outrage' rather than the hypothetical in hand?
[Suzianne] gets offended and she is the jerk, okay we can leave it there the rest is just justification for that nothing more.
Originally posted by SuzianneIf the hypothetical were 'Imagine if the U.S. had completely lost its capacity to project military power outside its own hemisphere over the last 20 years, what impact would it have had on the world we live in today?', as a proud and patriotic American, would you be genuinely offended?
The irony here is easy to see. They see our offense as meaningless because they don't think God exists at all, and therefore, according to them, our "offense" is fake. But they think they are perfectly reasonable in feeling offense themselves simply because we are "falsely" offended.
Originally posted by FMFYou need to start another thread on that one. This thread is about the proof of God and I believe we have proven that God must exist as sonship stated. So it appears to me that this thread subject has been discredited. 😏
If the hypothetical were 'Imagine if the U.S. had completely lost its capacity to project military power outside its own hemisphere over the last 20 years, what impact would it have had on the world we live in today?', as a proud and patriotic American, would you be genuinely offended?
The Near Genius
Originally posted by RJHindsMy question addresses Suzianne's manufactured outrage in the face of a hypothetical/thought exercise.
You need to start another thread on that one. This thread is about the proof of God and I believe we have proven that God must exist as sonship stated. So it appears to me that this thread subject has been discredited.
2 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneSix years ago my wife and I adopted two severely traumatized girls from Haiti. I gave up my career to raise them (my wife works full-time to support us). I am learning to cope with two galloping cases of post-traumatic stress syndrome, although I have no technical training in child psychiatry. We are giving the gift of an enriched life to two people who, if they had stayed in Haiti, might very well be dead now of HIV, hep. c, typhoid, or just plain brutality. That's my 'faith building' exercise, not once but every day for the rest of my life.
You guys are always willing to "test the faith" of others. Jesus called this "tempting the Lord thy God". I'm perfectly okay with my faith, it has been tested already and requires no further tests ..... i "faith building" exercise? No, probably not, LJ either, I assume. Right, then.
Originally posted by moonbusApples and oranges, mate. Suzianne has to decide whether to answer, or not answer, the question "If it could actually be proven that the Christian god doesn't exist, how would that change your life, if you're a Christian?" Unless this question formed part of the aftermath of the humanitarian disaster in Haiti, you don't necessarily know what it's like to walk a mile in Suzianne's forum bovver boots.
Six years ago my wife and I adopted two severely traumatized girls from Haiti. I gave up my career to raise them (my wife works full-time to support us). I am learning to cope with two galloping cases of post-traumatic stress syndrome, although I have no technical training in child psychiatry. We are giving the gift of an enriched life to two people who, if ...[text shortened]... brutality. That's my 'faith building' exercise, not once but every day for the rest of my life.
Originally posted by FMFI have also stated that I agree with Suzianne that the question under such a hypothetical is offensive as a Christian. But I can understand that if one is not a Christian and does not believe in God that it would not be offensive.
Well, the point being, Suzianne's "offence" is not really irrelevant to the hypothetical in the OP.
I responded to a different hypothetical example that I thought was also offensive and I even referred to it as despicable that someone would suggest such a hypothetical. The reason is the same in both cases.
However, the type of hypothetical you gave is not really in the same category in my opinion and should be made in a different thread.