At Crossroads -- Cf's Vision Discussion Thread (2) - Please Vote in Poll Thread

[intricatic]

I also added stoning to death disobedient children.

I was making a point using the bible showing that every Christian picks and chooses what they want the bible to say. Would Christians consider stoning to death people evil? The bible supports such behaviors.

And in the process showing your lack of knowledge of biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. Thanks.

 

[JGG]

Nice job martin , too bad you didnt quote the rest of claires post which makes it imply that we would do that today yet dont because of tolerance but im guessing you got it anyway.

Apparently Jesus' command to love thy neighbour, do unto others, etc. was lost a few eras ago.

That was the part I liked, but I guess it doesn't play very well anymore. Now we've moved onto tolerance is not murdering those who disagree with you.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Atheists on a Christian website are analogous to guests in a church.

I don't know what the problem is. Christians in an atheist site would be welcome to the site, but they'd expect to be governed by the rule of the atheists. I don't know why the attitude is so different here.

AS a former member of an athiest site, that is untrue.

Christians are not welcomed, and will be arbitrarily given more rules governing them.

IE...if you post your opinion in a the section named 'religion' and you discuss Christian principles, you may be cut down to 4 posts per day because you are not sharing the vision of the site.

I can proove that ....it happened to me.

I still have the thread telling me I lost my privledges because my visions were not shared...and furthermore I was told there was no reason for me being there.

I do not want to hear that Christians are held equally in the secular world...because even online, if you are Christian, you are not wanted.

WILL that be the eventual case here once all the Christians get fed up and persue other places to fellowship in peace?

And new Christians won't likely come here either since it will be just another relative site employing free thinking and 'open mindedness' regarding if God exists or not.

If the name changes and this is no longer Christian, it will lose a great amount of Christian members.

I have yet to see an atheist site thrive...
In fact most lose pace and eventually sit in idle.

 

[Lisa0315]

Stalemate is only really an issue if the decision is framed as a choice between one policy and another. If rather decisions are all of the form 'implement this policy or not?' then if no agreement is reached, the default should be 'not.' No adjudication required.

Well, let me give you the only example of a stalemate that I know of.

In the Controversial Siggy wiki, we went round and round and came up with a total of 8 choices to be voted upon. That did not work out too well because in ignorance, I did not realize that a poll can be manipulated. So, back to the wiki we went. (Long story short) We had come up with what I thought was the most fair unbiased position possible which was Life Affirmation while Respecting the Gift of Freewill. This meant that avatars, signatures, etc., would not carry any triggering tags like "Pro-Life" or "Pr-Choice", but perhaps would be something like "Pro-Compassion" or there were many other suggestions. We were going to have a contest to come up with about 50 or so "approved" items that people could use.

However, there were a few who insisted that Pro-Life only be used and even Life Affirmation was not good enough. So, no decision has been made. We are at a stalemate.

The whole point was that no avatar or signature would be harmful to anyone. Yet, there were some who would not compromise. It was their way or no way. How do you work through something like that?

BTW, when we had the poll, there were two of the eight options that were pretty much even. The Pro-Life only was slightly ahead by a handful of votes, but was not a consensus or a majority by any means.

Even so, we basically, took the "winner" and changed it to not have non-offensive language or triggering effects. It still could not please everyone no matter what we tried. It had to be Pro-Life only regardless of how most people felt.

Lisa

 

[JGG]

AS a former member of an athiest site, that is untrue.

Christians are not welcomed, and will be arbitrarily given more rules governing them.

IE...if you post your opinion in a the section named 'religion' and you discuss Christian principles, you may be cut down to 4 posts per day because you are not sharing the vision of the site.

I can proove that ....it happened to me.

I still have the thread telling me I lost my privledges because my visions were not shared...and furthermore I was told there was no reason for me being there.

I do not want to hear that Christians are held equally in the secular world...because even online, if you are Christian, you are not wanted.

WILL that be the eventual case here once all the Christians get fed up and persue other places to fellowship in peace?

And new Christians won't likely come here either since it will be just another relative site employing free thinking and 'open mindedness' regarding if God exists or not.

If the name changes and this is no longer Christian, it will lose a great amount of Christian members.

I have yet to see an atheist site thrive...
In fact most lose pace and eventually sit in idle.

What are atheists going to talk about? I admit to stealing this bit from another poster:

Atheist 1: I believe no God exists.
Atheist 2: I don't believe that God exists.
Atheist 1: ...
Atheist 2: ...
Atheist 1: ...
Atheist 2: ...
Atheist 1: Now what?
Atheist 2: I dunno. Scrabble?

 

[joebudda]

And in the process showing your lack of knowledge of biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. Thanks.

Maybe a lack of knowledge of the particular way you pick and choose what the bible says. Which only supports my point.

By the way I have read the whole bible cover to cover, have you?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Intolerance is evil.

And some Christians with editing power telling other Christians what is Christian and then taking their cross away which they identify with is intolerance and dehumanizing.

Every Christian picks and chooses what the bible says to support their own position. So enforcing the popular groups picking and choosing as more valid then the other I find hypocritical, intolerant, and just the "in group" pushing further away the "out group".

All of this intolerance seems to go against what Christians say to be Christian means.

But from my godless perspective it is just us humans grouping others as "less then" in some way so we can look down or feel sorry for those in the "out group". This is one method we humans use to "feel" better about ourselves.

Tolerance ie relativism is evil.

Oh, come on!

I am really, really tired of the hyperbole from both sides of the aisle here.

There is no atheist takeover.

There are no concentration camps.

Haul your heads back to reality-land, people. You all sound like lunatics.

Experienced lunatic here. If it makes me a lunatic to have seen this play out before with rotten outcome...so be it.

I shall mark myself the lunatic that I am.
Proudly.

 

[MartinM]

In the Controversial Siggy wiki, we went round and round and came up with a total of 8 choices to be voted upon.

Yeah, I was following that one for quite a while. It seems to me that there were two major problems there:

1) the decision was precisely 'this policy or that one?' rather than 'implement this policy or not?'

2) certain people had no interest whatsoever in trying to advance Erwin's vision as he had stated it

Both could be fixed easily enough with a clear set of rules as to how the Wiki process should work.

 

[intricatic]

Maybe a lack of knowledge of the particular way you pick and choose what the bible says. Which only supports my point.

By the way I have read the whole bible cover to cover, have you?

Quite a few times, thanks.

I don't have any difficulty communicating with you, are you saying language doesn't have a fixed meaning? If so, shouldn't we be reaching an impass by now, or do you just like wearing a blindfold?

 

[MartinM]

Tolerance ie relativism is evil.

Tolerance is not relativism.

 

[intricatic]

I also added stoning to death disobedient children.

I was making a point using the bible showing that every Christian picks and chooses what they want the bible to say. Would Christians consider stoning to death people evil? The bible supports such behaviors.

So lemme get this straight. You're intolerant of intolerant people, yet you're not intolerant against yourself for being intolerant? I'm confused.

 

[JGG]

So lemme get this straight. You're intolerant of intolerant people, yet you're not intolerant against yourself for being intolerant? I'm confused.

What he means is that you don't take people who burn people at the stake, and burn them at the stake.

That is the running definition of tolerance, right?

 

[Debi1967]

Everyone in both camps

Drop the unnecessary drama

Drop the sarcasm

Drop the I am the one being persecuted here so pity me

Jesus never asked for pity, and he did suffer real persecution he was put to death ..... Is anyone here being held against their will? Are you being nailed to Cross?

 

[WarriorAngel]

First off: I love my non-Christians friends here. I will never deny them a spot next to me and I welcome the chance to fellowship with them.

I choose option 2 though because this is a Christian site---I want Christian beliefs stated here, like they have been since the day I joined. But I want fellowship with non-believers as well.

I choose option 2 as well.

But I think allowing 'questions' from non Trinitarians and athiests should be welcomed in Christian areas.

Not debating that God exists or such...but for them to find answers to questions.

 

[mariposa1127]

I am not sure how to vote.....I think anyone should be allowed to be on the forum as long as the obey the rules, this would mean that the forum would need to be moderated more. I think people talking about other religions is fine. I had a discussion with some Mormons a few days ago on the forum and it started to get heated so I left. But unless you are going to strictly watch over the forum opinions are going to happen among Christians and Non Christians.

But then the other part of me says. I really like that this is a Christian forum where I can talk with people who love Jesus I do not want it to be overtaken by people who are going to ruin the forum with there anti-Christian stuff.

Why can it not be a Christian forum and also for people who are honestly seeking to know more about Christianity?

 

[intricatic]

What he means is that you don't take people who burn people at the stake, and burn them at the stake.

That is the running definition of tolerance, right?

Well, he's saying intolerance is evil, yet he doesn't seem to address the fact that he's intolerant of intolerance, thus making him guilty of the very thing he's condemning.

 

[CaDan]

Quite a few times, thanks.

I don't have any difficulty communicating with you, are you saying language doesn't have a fixed meaning? If so, shouldn't we be reaching an impass by now, or do you just like wearing a blindfold?

Fixed meaning of language?

*sigh*

Doubleplusungood.

 

[intricatic]

Fixed meaning of language?

*sigh*

Doubleplusungood.

What? I don't understand your strange characters appearing on my screen seeking to communicate a thought to me. Could you be more clear? Do you have to be this transparent all the time CaDan?

 

[CaDan]

So lemme get this straight. You're intolerant of intolerant people, yet you're not intolerant against yourself for being intolerant? I'm confused.

Shamelessly stolen from Slacktivist:

About here, inevitably, someone will chime in with what they seem to think of as the trump card for the religious totalitarian perspective. Aha! they will say, so what you're saying is you're all for tolerance, except when it comes to people who are intolerant!

Well, yeah. And also, duh. Antonyms are incompatible. Opposites are opposed. That's not a particularly noteworthy observation, so I've always been baffled as to why this bit of adolescent wordplay was regarded as meaningful.

Here again, though, I think Patel's terminology is helpful. Intolerance is, necessarily, totalitarian. So when I say I favor freedom -- whether freedom of conscience or of any other sort -- then, yes, what I'm really saying is that I'm all for freedom except for when it comes to people who want to impose totalitarianism. This exception does not, as the JV sophists would have it, negate the claim that "I'm all for freedom." It simply demonstrates that, unlike them, I'm aware of what words like "free" and "tolerant" -- and their opposites -- actually mean.​

 

[intricatic]

Shamelessly stolen from Slacktivist:

About here, inevitably, someone will chime in with what they seem to think of as the trump card for the religious totalitarian perspective. Aha! they will say, so what you're saying is you're all for tolerance, except when it comes to people who are intolerant!

Well, yeah. And also, duh. Antonyms are incompatible. Opposites are opposed. That's not a particularly noteworthy observation, so I've always been baffled as to why this bit of adolescent wordplay was regarded as meaningful.

Here again, though, I think Patel's terminology is helpful. Intolerance is, necessarily, totalitarian. So when I say I favor freedom -- whether freedom of conscience or of any other sort -- then, yes, what I'm really saying is that I'm all for freedom except for when it comes to people who want to impose totalitarianism. This exception does not, as the JV sophists would have it, negate the claim that "I'm all for freedom." It simply demonstrates that, unlike them, I'm aware of what words like "free" and "tolerant" -- and their opposites -- actually mean.​

Actually, this tolerance bandwagon is a totalitarianism of it's own sort. I'm sorry, but that entire diatribe has no meaning whatsoever; it doesn't address anything at all except for what the very idea being defended seeks to impose on people.