Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Tone of meaning...


Tone of meaning significantly underscores poster attitude in any forum. Quite often the tone in Red Hot Pawn Spirituality Forum threads seems less than relaxed, even tempered and respectful. Rather it verges on combative as in rancorous and unfocused as in 'straining at a gnat', 'forest and trees', etc, as contrasted with other site forums. Wonder why. Thoughts?

gb[/b]

This well-named effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect

...in a forum where many claims are made that are untestable except by dying, if at all.
...in a forum where what is one person's massively important Truth is to the next person a trivial -- or dangerous -- delusion.

Originally posted by JS357
This well-named effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect

...in a forum where many claims are made that are untestable except by dying, if at all.
...in a forum where what is one person's massively important Truth is to the next person a trivial -- or dangerous -- delusion.

Wow! I had no idea clinical studies of this scholarship and depth were available. These objective findings are absolutely stunning and a refreshing change of pace to the usual pattern of subjective, self serving excuses. Thanks, JS. If I may, I'd like to encourage you to consider employing this link as the centerpiece of a general forum thread. Topic relevance clearly merits a thread of its own.

gb

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Thanks, Robbie. You enjoy being in the minority?

😉

Except when it comes to his argument for Jehovah as God's name, which he
claims is correct because the majority uses it. Or was that G-man?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Tone of meaning...


Tone of meaning significantly underscores poster attitude in any forum. Quite often the tone in Red Hot Pawn Spirituality Forum threads seems less than relaxed, even tempered and respectful. Rather it verges on combative as in rancorous and unfocused as in 'straining at a gnat', 'forest and trees', etc, as contrasted with other site forums. Wonder why. Thoughts?

gb[/b]

There's an old saying, that goes something like "In polite company, you should never discuss politics and religion."

I think it's because on both sides of the fence there is such immense passion as well as in many cases, contempt for those who oppose your position.

Why? Maybe it's because of the implications. With Christianity and some other religions vs. the unbelieving crowd, the unbelieving know that if they are wrong, there will literally be hell to pay. So that, in and of itself, fuels a ton of passion, aggression, and angst. With Christians, there is such an enormous investment of self into our beliefs, that we do react strongly when someone tries to convince us we are wrong. Some of us react with contempt and aggression but not all. Just like not all unbelievers are militant and aggressive.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Except when it comes to his argument for Jehovah as God's name, which he
claims is correct because the majority uses it. Or was that G-man?

Because of the time I'm in my car going home from work, and not necessarily because of personal choice or preference, I hear Dr. Michael Youssef preach a sermon 5 nights a week.

He uses the name Jehovah a lot when referring to God. And he's not a Jehovah's Witness; in fact I believe he is an Evangelical Christian.

Originally posted by Ullr
Hahahaha!!!! Finally some honesty on this forum!!

Indeed my good man! hahahahhahahahhaha!

Originally posted by sumydid
Because of the time I'm in my car going home from work, and not necessarily because of personal choice or preference, I hear Dr. Michael Youssef preach a sermon 5 nights a week.

He uses the name Jehovah a lot when referring to God. And he's not a Jehovah's Witness; in fact I believe he is an Evangelical Christian.

He probably uses Jehovah because it is in the KJV which most people know.
But since he he has a Doctorate, he must know Jehovah is not really the
personal name of God. The only reason I bring it up is that the JW's base
one of their dogmas on that name. Since they concentrate on the name
so much, they should at least get the name right.

Originally posted by sumydid
There's an old saying, that goes something like "In polite company, you should never discuss politics and religion."

I think it's because on both sides of the fence there is such immense passion as well as in many cases, contempt for those who oppose your position.

Why? Maybe it's because of the implications. With Christianity and some other r ...[text shortened]... mpt and aggression but not all. Just like not all unbelievers are militant and aggressive.

There are other intensely personal and serious issues intelligent folks discuss without becoming off balance and exibiting excessive passion, aggression and angst. Serious medical conditions with imminent high risk surgery (major organ, brain or heart); serious financial issues (no longer affordable college tuition, personal or business bankruptcy); and criminal charges (pending litigation and possibility of lengthy incarceration) are discussed with surgeons, financial consultants and attorneys without militantcy or combativeness.

Why not so with Christianity or religion?

gb

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
There are other intensely personal and serious issues intelligent folks discuss without becoming off balance and exibiting excessive passion, aggression and angst. Serious medical conditions with imminent high risk surgery (major organ, brain or heart); serious financial issues (no longer affordable college tuition, personal or business bankruptcy); and ...[text shortened]... torneys without militantcy or combativeness.

Why not so with Christianity or religion?

gb

I thought I explained but I guess I could expand a little further.

It's the implications. And those implications are, to most people, very insulting. The person in a state of nonbelief is often completely insulted that a Christian would submit that they need to change their ways or suffer. And, it's the Christian who is often insulted by the nonbelieving for rejecting their message and likewise condemning them for being immoral.

Both sides seem to be in a perpetual state of, "Well who are YOU to tell me I'm acting immorally! Screw you!"

There are exceptions on both sides but, you get my drift.

Originally posted by sumydid
I thought I explained but I guess I could expand a little further.

It's the implications. And those implications are, to most people, very insulting. The person in a state of nonbelief is often completely insulted that a Christian would submit that they need to change their ways or suffer. And, it's the Christian who is often insulted by the non ...[text shortened]... acting immorally! Screw you!"

There are exceptions on both sides but, you get my drift.

As usual, you're probably right. Nite...

😴

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
As usual, you're probably right. Nite...

😴

GO RAIDERS GO!!!!!


😏

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Wow! I had no idea clinical studies of this scholarship and depth were available. These objective findings are absolutely stunning and a refreshing change of pace to the usual pattern of subjective, self serving excuses. Thanks, JS. If I may, I'd like to encourage you to consider employing this link as the centerpiece of a general forum thread. Topic relevance clearly merits a thread of its own.

gb

Thanks, I've mentioned it before, here or there, without eliciting discussion, so will leave it where it lies, for now. Of course I don't own it, you are free to do as you wish.

Originally posted by sumydid
I thought I explained but I guess I could expand a little further.

It's the implications. And those implications are, to most people, very insulting. The person in a state of nonbelief is often completely insulted that a Christian would submit that they need to change their ways or suffer. And, it's the Christian who is often insulted by the non ...[text shortened]... acting immorally! Screw you!"

There are exceptions on both sides but, you get my drift.

The person in a state of nonbelief is often completely insulted that a Christian would submit that they need to change their ways or suffer.

'Iinsulted' is one word for it but I suggest another word. Mystified. In the context of this thread, how much about the 'ways' of the persons in a state of nonbelief are known to the Christians who so submit?

All those Christians seem to know, is that these persons are in a state of nonbelief. Well they may know something about them as chess players on RHP. Do they know if these nonbelievers are good people, good partners, good parents, good citizens? Does it matter? All that seems to matter is beliefs. This is an unfortunate aspect of the media we use to communicate here. We don't know one another as people.

This emphasis on beliefs and in fact, disregard of works, is a great divide within Christianity. So it is mystifying that such Christians would take it upon themselves to judge the worthiness of anyone, nonbelievers or not. They arrogate to themselves, that which they are told to leave to their Father in heaven.

How are we to approach such a religion, that produces such people?

Originally posted by sumydid
There's an old saying, that goes something like "In polite company, you should never discuss politics and religion."

I think it's because on both sides of the fence there is such immense passion as well as in many cases, contempt for those who oppose your position.

Why? Maybe it's because of the implications. With Christianity and some other r ...[text shortened]... mpt and aggression but not all. Just like not all unbelievers are militant and aggressive.

I agree with you that the issues involved raise passions.

But I totally disagree with your analysis of why they raise atheists passions.

Barring those who used to be fundamentalist theists who had fear of hell drilled into them,
who can indeed spend a long time having lost their faith but still be afraid of hell, aptly demonstrating
the mental abuse their religion heaped on them.
Most atheists are not in the least worried or concerned by the idea that 'if we are wrong we are going to hell'
it's not an issue, we find the idea absurd.

What is an issue is how people act and are treated in this, our one and only, life.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What is an issue is how people act and are treated in this, our one and only, life.

I daresay this attitude has resulted in a lot more sin and bloodshed than Christianity. All those so-called Christians (CiNO?) who started the bloody ball rolling on the killing were motivated to "get theirs" while they could because this is the only life they had, so better grab everything they could while they're here, since there's no heavenly reward in any afterlife. Conveniently this also means no punishment, either.