|
On May 19 2017 11:04 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 10:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Lets take it a step back then.
Every single person in the history of existence will at some point or another say or do or express something that is insulting to the person receiving such information.
That victim might or might not say something back to you about the incident.
You might never know it has happened.
Sometimes, they express something that gives you a clue or message informing you of your wrongs. If they do--apologize, take responsibility for it, and try to learn from it. Sure Show nested quote +
If your victims never say anything explicit enough for you to "get" that you were being an ass--simply learning about as many different cultures and traditions as you can and using what you learned at appropriate times can teach you that.
As such, at no point is it the victims responsibility to teach you how to be a better person. You could proactively strive to be a better person knowing that something you say or do could be hurtful to others at some point.
Not every one has the time or the resources or the willingness to find out about as many cultures possible. I don't like how you call people that feel insulted victims. It's extremely blown up for what it is. You have an issue with the content of another human being, that's not what being a victim entails. Show nested quote +HOWEVER + Show Spoiler +That is assuming your goal is to not hurt them. There are opinions and ideas that can be considered dangerous to some. For example--as a person of color race issues bother me a lot, and racist opinions bother me a tonne. So when I learn that someone has those opinions--I feel okay engaging with them in a way that does not always produce the friendliest results, and sometimes the things I saw might even insult them. Such as if I tell them they are racist.
In every human interaction there is a chance you can hurt others with what you say, and at each juncture you are able to make the decision to be okay with insulting them or not. When I meet new people, I try to be as status quo as I can in the hopes to find a common ground with them before I run my mouth. I could still fail at being nice, I could still say something insulting--but that is an issue of my ignorance and not their thickness of skin. When I am more comfortable with people, I am more fast and loose with what I say, knowing they better understand the context of my actions. But, the goal with strangers is always to find a commonality first and generalizations second. I pretty much agree with the stuff above the bolded part except for the fact that while it's true that in every interaction there's that chance, I don't like the fact that its that way and it shouldn't be that way. Why even try to engage in a fundamental conversation about race or something like that when there's unbeknownst to you, booby traps for you to fall over after every loaded word? How do we ever solve these kinds of issues? For the bolded part I'd say it's a combination of both thickness of skin and ignorance. Show nested quote ++ Show Spoiler +And even then I could still say the wrong thing. One should never be afraid to say the wrong thing, being uneducated in another person's realities easy to be and hard to resolve. Accept your mistake and try better the next time.
But if the person has to be talked to candidly. If the hard conversation has to happen for whatever reason--then accept that you are about to insult or hurt that person and have the hard conversation. Don't be so cowardly to try to make that hard conversation be about how guilty you feel, or how much you'd rather sound like a nice guy--if it has to be done then have it. But if there is no need to hurt the person, don't. Its that simple. I don't really think human interaction is that simple and there's a lot more to it than that.
In regards to your detestation to the notion that it could be your fault you hurt someone--I would just like to say that learning and coming together is not meant to be comfortable. Mistakes happen, feelings get hurt, and you learn from it and move on. Don't walk through life afraid to make those mistakes. Be brave enough to break things once in a while, push yourself hard enough to make the mistakes needed to learn from those mistakes.
|
The simple part is that you either respect peoples feelings or you don't. You either want to avoid offending them or your don't care. If you decide that a specific offense is hysterical or overly emotional, that is your decision.
Every part of what you are talking about is your personal hang ups. If you don't feel you can have a discussion about race because you are concerned you might offend someone, congratulations, you found your first topic. And it is mostly going to be you listening to how to avoid offending people.
Of course some people are quick to be offended. But some people are mean drunks. You don't get to assume everyone is a mean drunk and you shouldn't assume everyone is thin skinned. The majority of people are not and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to avoid being critical of your own action.
|
I was going to address both your posts, but I'm kind of exhausted -and generally tired- trying to find the right words (not regarding the context we're speaking of here though  ). You'll have to expect an answer from me in a few hours time. But I'll make it a damn fine one! Good night.
|
Are there examples of games in which after a message such as "Registration successful!" there's another phrase like "have a nice game!" or "wish you good gaming!" or "happy gaming!". Is this a thing?
Games in China often contain messages that roughly translate to "wish you happy gaming!" Not sure if there's some kind of English equivalent.
Full disclosure: I'm a translator and a casual gamer who's curious about this. When in doubt, I just leave stuff out, but it'd be cool to know more about different kinds of game messages. Cheers
|
On May 19 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
Debates between atheists and believers are as old as religion itself. There is nothing inherently insulting about the debate in the abstract. However, the internet has given rise to a sort of pro-wrestling style of debate that is more about scoring points that enlightenment or simply enjoying the back and forth with another person. This could be due to the lack of social cues on the internet or simply that people enjoy winning argument. But even those debates did not really poison the well until social media and the rise of aggressive atheists communities that revel in “owning” religious people. And these communities have become louder and very much dominated the discussion of religion online.
This is the current social context around an atheists explain religion to a believer, especially on public forums like this one. It can and does leave a sour taste in some peoples mouth due to the connotations of that asshole atheists talk down religious people a lot on the internet.
Yeah. To put it in the simplest terms, debate between a Christian and an Atheist about Christianity is not an even playing field. You are not debating Atheism on which the Atheist can speak from experience. "Christianity" isn't a thing... the individual beliefs of Christians real though and collectively make up Christianity. So an Atheist can't tell me what Christianity is "really about" any more than I can tell you whether you like eggs.
What the debate ought to be about is the Atheist seeking to understand the Christian's faith and, if they see holes, poking at them. If you say "Christianity is wrong because it says gay people go to hell" and I say "that's not what mainline Christians believe" you don't get to say "they're not true scotsmen." You can't insist on defining the beliefs of your opponents as those of the least reasonable people who share their label.
Incidentally, this applies to any ideological debate, not just religion. You don't get to pretend your strawmen are the "true interpretation" of something you don't believe has a true interpretation.
|
On May 19 2017 14:59 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
Debates between atheists and believers are as old as religion itself. There is nothing inherently insulting about the debate in the abstract. However, the internet has given rise to a sort of pro-wrestling style of debate that is more about scoring points that enlightenment or simply enjoying the back and forth with another person. This could be due to the lack of social cues on the internet or simply that people enjoy winning argument. But even those debates did not really poison the well until social media and the rise of aggressive atheists communities that revel in “owning” religious people. And these communities have become louder and very much dominated the discussion of religion online.
This is the current social context around an atheists explain religion to a believer, especially on public forums like this one. It can and does leave a sour taste in some peoples mouth due to the connotations of that asshole atheists talk down religious people a lot on the internet.
Yeah. To put it in the simplest terms, debate between a Christian and an Atheist about Christianity is not an even playing field. You are not debating Atheism on which the Atheist can speak from experience. "Christianity" isn't a thing... the individual beliefs of Christians real though and collectively make up Christianity. So an Atheist can't tell me what Christianity is "really about" any more than I can tell you whether you like eggs. What the debate ought to be about is the Atheist seeking to understand the Christian's faith and, if they see holes, poking at them. If you say "Christianity is wrong because it says gay people go to hell" and I say "that's not what mainline Christians believe" you don't get to say "they're not true scotsmen." You can't insist on defining the beliefs of your opponents as those of the least reasonable people who share their label. Incidentally, this applies to any ideological debate, not just religion. You don't get to pretend your strawmen are the "true interpretation" of something you don't believe has a true interpretation.
This is not fully transparent as very few Christian sects actually have the same belief systems outside of the commonality of the importance of God--and even that is up for debate. Its like asking an astrophysicist to perform brain surgery just because they're both related to science. Being similar is not the same as being unified.
Not that I think being homophobic is right. But telling one group that you wish to lump them with another group and hence the initial group's argument is invalid is, frankly, bad logic. This is why its problematic to discuss homophobia in the lens of "but what do other Christians think" when it should be discussed outside of religious terms--IE universal rights.
You ask them; should the government punish you because we dislike your partner?
All Christians would say, "no, that's ridiculous." You then tell them that its a good thing we are in agreement and give civil rights to homosexuals.
But that's not how it works primarily because the discussion is still focused on correctness of the opinion.
|
On May 19 2017 16:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 14:59 Yoav wrote:On May 19 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
Debates between atheists and believers are as old as religion itself. There is nothing inherently insulting about the debate in the abstract. However, the internet has given rise to a sort of pro-wrestling style of debate that is more about scoring points that enlightenment or simply enjoying the back and forth with another person. This could be due to the lack of social cues on the internet or simply that people enjoy winning argument. But even those debates did not really poison the well until social media and the rise of aggressive atheists communities that revel in “owning” religious people. And these communities have become louder and very much dominated the discussion of religion online.
This is the current social context around an atheists explain religion to a believer, especially on public forums like this one. It can and does leave a sour taste in some peoples mouth due to the connotations of that asshole atheists talk down religious people a lot on the internet.
Yeah. To put it in the simplest terms, debate between a Christian and an Atheist about Christianity is not an even playing field. You are not debating Atheism on which the Atheist can speak from experience. "Christianity" isn't a thing... the individual beliefs of Christians real though and collectively make up Christianity. So an Atheist can't tell me what Christianity is "really about" any more than I can tell you whether you like eggs. What the debate ought to be about is the Atheist seeking to understand the Christian's faith and, if they see holes, poking at them. If you say "Christianity is wrong because it says gay people go to hell" and I say "that's not what mainline Christians believe" you don't get to say "they're not true scotsmen." You can't insist on defining the beliefs of your opponents as those of the least reasonable people who share their label. Incidentally, this applies to any ideological debate, not just religion. You don't get to pretend your strawmen are the "true interpretation" of something you don't believe has a true interpretation. This is not fully transparent as very few Christian sects actually have the same belief systems outside of the commonality of the importance of God--and even that is up for debate. Its like asking an astrophysicist to perform brain surgery just because they're both related to science. Being similar is not the same as being unified. Not that I think being homophobic is right. But telling one group that you wish to lump them with another group and hence the initial group's argument is invalid is, frankly, bad logic. This is why its problematic to discuss homophobia in the lens of "but what do other Christians think" when it should be discussed outside of religious terms--IE universal rights. You ask them; should the government punish you because we dislike your partner? All Christians would say, "no, that's ridiculous." You then tell them that its a good thing we are in agreement and give civil rights to homosexuals. But that's not how it works primarily because the discussion is still focused on correctness of the opinion.
Yeah of course there's the legal level. But that's not enough, I think. I believe it important that Christianity affirm gay/trans/whatever folks as made in the image of God and I'll go to bat for that as an ethical/theological/biblical thing.
There is a semi-legitimate debate to be had within Christianity about homosexuality. But it's not going to be helpfully addressed by outsiders. The debate looks kinda like a conservative pointing to Leviticus, then a liberal observing that the Gospels are a thing, and Jesus released us from the ritual law. Even the most conservative non-Jewish Christians don't observe ritual law, so then the debate is whether homosexuality is fundamentally a moral issue or fundamentally a matter of ritual purity etc. The liberal points out that Jesus is pretty clear that the definition of morality has to do with the Golden Rule and Love for God and Neighbors and that places the gender of who you fuck outside of that area.
Then the conservative has to argue either that gay sex does cause harm in some fashion (an argument you see less of these days as people learn what gay folks are like personally) or that there is some special exception for sex to the normal rule of what counts as morality and what Jesus really meant was “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the whole Bible... oh and also only have sex with people of the opposite gender who you're married to." And then you can get in the whole argument about that.
|
On May 19 2017 02:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 01:05 xM(Z wrote:On May 19 2017 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 19 2017 00:16 xM(Z wrote:On May 18 2017 22:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 18 2017 20:50 xM(Z wrote:"proven" is a loaded word here. you took the latest(official) interpretation on the issue that was based on an interpretation of cherry picked words but sure, proven. i called it ideological, you call it theological/metaphysical; it's fine. now that we're working of a live an let live scenario, i'd cherry pick on this ...but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. as a disclaimer, i never cut off the line mid sentence to omit whatever came next; it's just how i found the quote on The Internet. on that part thou, i can pull at least three interpretations from the top of my head: - haters get punished to the fourth generation and lovers(of him) get love in return; forever, no repents, no crossovers. - haters get punished to the fourth generation but if they convert, they get love in return; - one lover gets to save his to the thousandth generation even when someone along from lineage switches/turns into a hater; basically that quote can not be used as a prof for neither/nor(as with most/all things in the bible). that covers Thieving Magpie too; it's about what you read, how you read it(punctuation), how you interpret what you read and i think, maybe a few more semantically prone inclinations. oh yea ... translation ... At the time of writing, the point was that you can't simply blame women--as the Greeks did--or pagans--as many monotheists still do--for the state of the world. that though, could be argued at length and in some cases, even proven that early(proto)eastern latin-romance people, come from a matriarchal lineage. for a religious association, Mary, the mother of Jesus is more important than Jesus itself for latin people. Edit: well maybe not matriarchal as the word is currently understood, but more like a split man - woman society where women ruled their side so to speak(transgressions happened obviously but as to their extent, things are muddy). It doesn't actually cover me since interpretation is not what I am discussing, dogma is what I'm talking about. Some christian groups believes baptism is important and to actually forgive people, even babies, even the dead, because no matter how good a person is, original sin (or proxies of it) is still there. Some christian groups believes that everything we do and believe in the here and now is what determines our goodness. Baptism is merely ritual because there is nothing to forgive, everything is a clean slate. Some don't even believe in either--Calvanists believe that the heavenly hierarchy is deterministic. Time is eternal and thus has already happened, thus everyone who deserves to be with God is already with God and those who aren't are already damned. And there is nothing we can do to change that. You having your own specific reading of a specific text does not dictate what the dogmas of societies and cultures outside of you have. For the same reason that racists don't get to define a race as lazy/violent just because they're reading and their research of that race suggests so. i'd argue, on that part, that you're being purposely blind to what else does it take to make an own specific reading into a dogma. i mean ... power?/being pretty? ... power +an idea and say hello to your new church/army/groupies/whatever floats your boat. or is your argument that dogmas are somehow holy and arise organically from shared psychological needs and things and values and aw4kghsethgsrt. i'm not getting your context, i don't think so. what is the effect or worth of a (new)dogma that you're looking at?, that you want it to have?. my reading is not special, i make it special by projecting it+power onto unsuspecting victims. if i happen to read something differently or you know, how God intended it  , whether or not people get on board with it is irrelevant to me(that may or may not happen (peacefully)) but there's always the option of abuse, physical or psychological, at my disposal. Edit: i read the posts from Acro and Yoav and though you both have some validity there(in smaller contexts) it is not interesting to me. i am saying to both of you that i can use your ambiguity on the interpretation of a text, irrespectively(?) of your sanctioned contemporary thought in Judeo-Christian society, to my benefit. Nothing makes the dogma special--it's simply what people within that group believes to be the truth/axiom that they base their follow up arguments against. There are some that believe (fully or metaphysically) in the passing down of sins. Social Justice movements hinges on the idea that the socio economic state of one's lineage greatly dictates your current and future success ie, you are societally punished/rewarded for the deeds of your ancestors. Some believe that people are inherently evil unless they proactively do good works--ie original sin. Whatever the case may be, it isn't something you can blanket as a Christian or Jewish (actually Abrahamic if we want to get nitpicky) ideal, because not all members of that group prescribe to that axiom or truth. There are those who do, especially sociologists and majority of class focused liberals, but it's not a truism in regards to how people believe. from your words i get that you think "the belief in" is a given(by nature, by Gods, by something outside the human sphere). things like "people within that group believes to be..." gives the word a meaning outside humans/humanity while me, dismissing gods all together, i'm claiming that i can create religions because religions were created before me, by men; maybe men specialer than me, but men not the less. men found a way to exploit human weaknesses(faith if you will) for personal gain and they did it. if, when using belief you mean faith + Show Spoiler + =allegiance to duty or a person; the most casual definition , then to me, the difference is that belief already has a target, direction, it achieved a goal/purpose, while faith can be steered ... towards my dogma, in this case. Edit: i'm playing here the good cracker part, telling you to get a better firewall for i shall exploit your programming to get bitcoins. The specificity of the belief is meaningless. For example: very very few people on the planet actually *know* what gravity is, can sense it, can prove it exists. Very very very few people know the mathematical way to prove, beyond a doubt, that gravity is real. And, for the most part, even gravity "as is" is in contention due to specificities in how the mathematics of it works depending on scale of the phenomena. BUT, most people believe gravity is real because they go to a building called a school and have leaders called Teachers tell them that the books provided tell us that Gravity is real, has been proven, and that there are dead men who did all the work to show this X years ago. That is good enough for 99% of the population. We don't need 100% of the population to show you how to prove what gravity is for ma fundamental level, we just need for them to believe when told that it is real and that some guy with a piece of paper proved however many years ago. This is true for majority of things in the world. How many people in the Deep South do you know have physical proof that Africa exists other than stories their peers tell them and pictures in books? Does it matter that majority of poor people in the US will never hunt game in the serengety? That they will have to believe from the testimonies of others that these things are real? It doesn't matter--since believing it is good enough. When things move to the metaphysical it's much the same. Different groups will have different books and different scholars making different analyses on these same sources. The scholars pushing the boundaries of the research can dissect and discuss things very deeply--but for the majority within those faiths, the dogma is "enough" to get them through the day. When going into specificities you'd need many things to align first from source texts, agreed upon theories, and agreed upon scholars to form the baseline of the discussion at hand. sooo, you're literally saying nothing; or rather, some people teach other people stuff. well tnx for the thumbs up, that's exactly how i said i'll make my own religion.
On May 19 2017 14:59 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
Debates between atheists and believers are as old as religion itself. There is nothing inherently insulting about the debate in the abstract. However, the internet has given rise to a sort of pro-wrestling style of debate that is more about scoring points that enlightenment or simply enjoying the back and forth with another person. This could be due to the lack of social cues on the internet or simply that people enjoy winning argument. But even those debates did not really poison the well until social media and the rise of aggressive atheists communities that revel in “owning” religious people. And these communities have become louder and very much dominated the discussion of religion online.
This is the current social context around an atheists explain religion to a believer, especially on public forums like this one. It can and does leave a sour taste in some peoples mouth due to the connotations of that asshole atheists talk down religious people a lot on the internet.
Yeah. To put it in the simplest terms, debate between a Christian and an Atheist about Christianity is not an even playing field. You are not debating Atheism on which the Atheist can speak from experience. "Christianity" isn't a thing... the individual beliefs of Christians real though and collectively make up Christianity. So an Atheist can't tell me what Christianity is "really about" any more than I can tell you whether you like eggs. What the debate ought to be about is the Atheist seeking to understand the Christian's faith and, if they see holes, poking at them. If you say "Christianity is wrong because it says gay people go to hell" and I say "that's not what mainline Christians believe" you don't get to say "they're not true scotsmen." You can't insist on defining the beliefs of your opponents as those of the least reasonable people who share their label. Incidentally, this applies to any ideological debate, not just religion. You don't get to pretend your strawmen are the "true interpretation" of something you don't believe has a true interpretation. that last part ... are you serious ... for years i've been dragged to church and i've also read the bible.
i remember being stuck in the woman side in the church(yes, the church was split between men side and women side and the children would go with the women) and during sermons some random words from the priest would trigger a painful memory in a woman and she'll start crying. not long after, they were all crying because that shit was contagions; it used to get me and i'd start crying for no reason. i hated it.
i've listen to sermons and i remember what the priests were saying about Adam and Eve sins.
i've been to baptisms, i've seen parents sigh with relief after their kids were baptized and i've seen parents feign in church while begging priests for a postmortem baptism for their dead child just so he wouldn't go to hell; that baptism never came and there were no priests at the burial reading last rites. devastated parents, believers, with a kid in hell(because yea, belief ...) were in church the next day praying to fucking Jesus for their child, in hopes that maybe, just maybe he will give them a pass. what else could they have done?...
i tried to meet you half way but you, talking to me about metaphysical happenings and whatnot is an assholery.
|
That's way too many pages of text walls for this thread.
Boring.
|
On May 19 2017 16:42 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 16:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 19 2017 14:59 Yoav wrote:On May 19 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
Debates between atheists and believers are as old as religion itself. There is nothing inherently insulting about the debate in the abstract. However, the internet has given rise to a sort of pro-wrestling style of debate that is more about scoring points that enlightenment or simply enjoying the back and forth with another person. This could be due to the lack of social cues on the internet or simply that people enjoy winning argument. But even those debates did not really poison the well until social media and the rise of aggressive atheists communities that revel in “owning” religious people. And these communities have become louder and very much dominated the discussion of religion online.
This is the current social context around an atheists explain religion to a believer, especially on public forums like this one. It can and does leave a sour taste in some peoples mouth due to the connotations of that asshole atheists talk down religious people a lot on the internet.
Yeah. To put it in the simplest terms, debate between a Christian and an Atheist about Christianity is not an even playing field. You are not debating Atheism on which the Atheist can speak from experience. "Christianity" isn't a thing... the individual beliefs of Christians real though and collectively make up Christianity. So an Atheist can't tell me what Christianity is "really about" any more than I can tell you whether you like eggs. What the debate ought to be about is the Atheist seeking to understand the Christian's faith and, if they see holes, poking at them. If you say "Christianity is wrong because it says gay people go to hell" and I say "that's not what mainline Christians believe" you don't get to say "they're not true scotsmen." You can't insist on defining the beliefs of your opponents as those of the least reasonable people who share their label. Incidentally, this applies to any ideological debate, not just religion. You don't get to pretend your strawmen are the "true interpretation" of something you don't believe has a true interpretation. This is not fully transparent as very few Christian sects actually have the same belief systems outside of the commonality of the importance of God--and even that is up for debate. Its like asking an astrophysicist to perform brain surgery just because they're both related to science. Being similar is not the same as being unified. Not that I think being homophobic is right. But telling one group that you wish to lump them with another group and hence the initial group's argument is invalid is, frankly, bad logic. This is why its problematic to discuss homophobia in the lens of "but what do other Christians think" when it should be discussed outside of religious terms--IE universal rights. You ask them; should the government punish you because we dislike your partner? All Christians would say, "no, that's ridiculous." You then tell them that its a good thing we are in agreement and give civil rights to homosexuals. But that's not how it works primarily because the discussion is still focused on correctness of the opinion. Yeah of course there's the legal level. But that's not enough, I think. I believe it important that Christianity affirm gay/trans/whatever folks as made in the image of God and I'll go to bat for that as an ethical/theological/biblical thing. There is a semi-legitimate debate to be had within Christianity about homosexuality. But it's not going to be helpfully addressed by outsiders. The debate looks kinda like a conservative pointing to Leviticus, then a liberal observing that the Gospels are a thing, and Jesus released us from the ritual law. Even the most conservative non-Jewish Christians don't observe ritual law, so then the debate is whether homosexuality is fundamentally a moral issue or fundamentally a matter of ritual purity etc. The liberal points out that Jesus is pretty clear that the definition of morality has to do with the Golden Rule and Love for God and Neighbors and that places the gender of who you fuck outside of that area. Then the conservative has to argue either that gay sex does cause harm in some fashion (an argument you see less of these days as people learn what gay folks are like personally) or that there is some special exception for sex to the normal rule of what counts as morality and what Jesus really meant was “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the whole Bible... oh and also only have sex with people of the opposite gender who you're married to." And then you can get in the whole argument about that.
This is where issues within the Christian community really come into being.
A lot of "western" or "American" arguments for homophobia is not proactive against homosexuals but reactive to perceived attacks on social norms.
The phrase "Sanctity of marriage" is 100% the main driving force of homophobia from a dialectic and academic standpoint for modern christians. That is because modern christians are okay with sinners; ie you can commit sins and you are supposed to be loved despite your sin.
But when you start rewarding sinners--why would they ever be supportive of that?
To really understand let's look at pedophiles. There are literally towns that makes it illegal for pedophiles to be around. But it's weird, because they don't increase the legal punishment of pedophiles, simply make the restricted zones essentially the entire county. And so you'll have folks get locked up for flashing a school bus and he does a short amount of time for his crime and essentially is exiled from society.
The reason I bring it up is because if you noticed, they don't want to use the legal system as punishment; no executions, no life sentencing, no getting fed by the state while in prison. To them, these sinners are expected to naturally disappear themselves. They don't want the burden of getting rid of these people, but they don't want the existence of these people to disrupt what they perceive is their normal day-to-day.
It's much the same with homosexuals.
No one argues about it being unclean. They argue about why do homosexuals have to be homosexual in front of them. Like, obviously, if they just didn't show that they were homosexual everything would be fine.
I've had people argue with me that the sanctity of marriage protects women from husbands who leave them with their kids. And that if homosexuals destroys the Sanctity of marriage, women would be the most punished for it, and that it's actually to protect women than gays not be allowed to marry.
It's insane because they don't like how other theocracies punish people for being gay. So they instead punish the visibility of being gay, the visibility of being a pedophole? The visibility of being homeless, of being colored, of being foreign.
Christian America wants the world to just pretend that their way of life is normal and for the world to maintain that illusion.
|
I want to ask a question on the cultural identity politics of being insulted but now I am too scared.
|
On May 19 2017 22:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I want to ask a question on the cultural identity politics of being insulted but now I am too scared.
Don't limit yourself to what your fears allows you.
|
I fear to read walls of text on shakey foundations to which I would feel obliged to read. This sounded cleverer in my head before I typed it out.
|
On May 19 2017 23:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I fear to read walls of text on shakey foundations to which I would feel obliged to read. This sounded cleverer in my head before I typed it out.
Idk if web forums are the best form of discourse for people who fear walls of text.
|
|
|
On May 19 2017 23:50 JimmiC wrote:
of course it is. It's like going to the ocean if you fear water. Where else would you conquer that shit? Come on TM THINK
Swim in our walls
Wade in our texts
Get wet in our trolling
|
On May 19 2017 17:02 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 14:59 Yoav wrote:On May 19 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
Debates between atheists and believers are as old as religion itself. There is nothing inherently insulting about the debate in the abstract. However, the internet has given rise to a sort of pro-wrestling style of debate that is more about scoring points that enlightenment or simply enjoying the back and forth with another person. This could be due to the lack of social cues on the internet or simply that people enjoy winning argument. But even those debates did not really poison the well until social media and the rise of aggressive atheists communities that revel in “owning” religious people. And these communities have become louder and very much dominated the discussion of religion online.
This is the current social context around an atheists explain religion to a believer, especially on public forums like this one. It can and does leave a sour taste in some peoples mouth due to the connotations of that asshole atheists talk down religious people a lot on the internet.
Yeah. To put it in the simplest terms, debate between a Christian and an Atheist about Christianity is not an even playing field. You are not debating Atheism on which the Atheist can speak from experience. "Christianity" isn't a thing... the individual beliefs of Christians real though and collectively make up Christianity. So an Atheist can't tell me what Christianity is "really about" any more than I can tell you whether you like eggs. What the debate ought to be about is the Atheist seeking to understand the Christian's faith and, if they see holes, poking at them. If you say "Christianity is wrong because it says gay people go to hell" and I say "that's not what mainline Christians believe" you don't get to say "they're not true scotsmen." You can't insist on defining the beliefs of your opponents as those of the least reasonable people who share their label. Incidentally, this applies to any ideological debate, not just religion. You don't get to pretend your strawmen are the "true interpretation" of something you don't believe has a true interpretation. that last part ... are you serious ... for years i've been dragged to church and i've also read the bible. i remember being stuck in the woman side in the church(yes, the church was split between men side and women side and the children would go with the women) and during sermons some random words from the priest would trigger a painful memory in a woman and she'll start crying. not long after, they were all crying because that shit was contagions; it used to get me and i'd start crying for no reason. i hated it. i've listen to sermons and i remember what the priests were saying about Adam and Eve sins. i've been to baptisms, i've seen parents sigh with relief after their kids were baptized and i've seen parents feign in church while begging priests for a postmortem baptism for their dead child just so he wouldn't go to hell; that baptism never came and there were no priests at the burial reading last rites. devastated parents, believers, with a kid in hell(because yea, belief ...) were in church the next day praying to fucking Jesus for their child, in hopes that maybe, just maybe he will give them a pass. what else could they have done?... i tried to meet you half way but you, talking to me about metaphysical happenings and whatnot is an assholery.
I am serious that I think you should try to approach any ideology from the point of view of its reasonable adherents, not the nutcase fringe. I am furthermore serious that you don't get to say what the true interpretation is of something you don't believe has a true interpretation because you ultimately think it's bullshit.
That said, I think the important thing to say in response to this is that I'm really sorry you had to go through that shit. It's awful. It's heretical, and it's contrary to the gospel. I understand that that experience has turned you personally off from Christianity and that's fair; but I do ask that you don't lump us all in with that group or think they are more "right" than we are (as surely you don't).
I'll go into details, but please remember that my fundamental thought is that I'm really sorry all that crap happened, and that I'm physically angry about it.
+ Show Spoiler +As an FYI, I'm currently a seminarian at one of the top seminaries in the country, studying under some of the most respected (and most published) scholars in religion out there. I'm not some liberal talking out my ass because I'm a softie... I'm not a softie and there's plenty of stuff I'm hard as nails on, but I try to have it be the kind of abusive crap that got Jesus riled up, like the shit you described.
The men and women's side? Yeah all the evidence is that Jesus taught to mixed gendered groups, and that this was unusual at the time (it may have been part of why he taught outdoors or at residences, but rarely at synagogues). The earliest churches were often led by women.
The whole salvific baptism thing is insane. Yeah baptism is a wonderful sign of being accepted into the community of believers... but that's a community in and of this world. The idea that God only saves people we bothered to dip in water is profoundly insulting to the divinity. Incidentally, even though I believe that, I've been taught that the correct thing to do if a parent asks you to baptise their stillborn is to do it... not because it does anything for the child (heck, I'm a Protestant; we don't even pray for the dead because we trust God with them). It's a way of showing kindness to parents going through some rough shit.
Anyway, I'll leave it there if you wish. Thanks for sharing and I am deeply sympathetic; fundamentalism does some genuine damage and I'm really sorry for all you've witnessed.
|
If you can't prove a negative, why do atheists believe something they know to be unprovable?
|
On May 20 2017 01:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:
If you can't prove a negative, why do atheists believe something they know to be unprovable?
For the same reason you believe there is not a pink teapot in orbit around Mars.
|
I think that would be a misuse of the word believe in that context Theiving Magpie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
