Forcing your beliefs on others

[beechy]

The satanist mass is a direct inverted copy of the catholic mass and the inverted cross (from a satanist perspective) is a sacrilegeous act that is meant to deny christ.

http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefsreversecross.htm

 

[TuxThePenguin]

But you are wrong about that The inverted cross has been a very holy christian symbol for a long time. One of the Apostles (Peter, I believe) was crucified upside-down. Catholics, especially, have no problem with an inverted cross.

You of course have proof that the catholics have no problem with it?

Nitz tell me that i'm not on your ignore list


http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=27993591&postcount=157

see the link about the cross of St. Peter.

 

[JesusWalks78]

http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefsreversecross.htm

Please note I said satanist perspective.....I would link you to a satanist site, but I will not bring the enemy here.

 

[beechy]

Please note I said satanist perspective.....I would link you to a satanist site, but I will not bring the enemy here.

The reversed cross, also known as the cross of St. Peter, has also been used as an emblem of Satanism, although more often by non-satanists than believers.

See also the New Catholic Dictionary. [reverse cross: Emblem in Christian art associated with Saint Peter, symbolizing the manner of his martyrdom]

See also this about.com article which affirmatively states that the inverted cross is not a symbol of satanism, and is not used within the modern satanic movement: "The inverted Christian cross is not a symbol of Satanic religion and is not used, except by shock rockers and dabblers."

 

[jesusxchick]

Wrong, haven't you read anything in this thread?



It's your right to be wrong, but why in the hell wqould you want to be wrong?

Sometimes you have to be wrong. Being wrong is a mistake. You learn from your mistakes. Life is a test and we're here to learn.

And I'm not going to answer your first question, because I'm here to express my opinion in this thread. Not to argue with you.

 

[NPH]

Well, other's have done a good job of presenting the inverted cross data but to answer the question put to me I was Catholic at birth and was Catholic when I deconverted to atheism. I know a thing or two about catholicism

Tux, why in the world would you think I have you on ignore? lol. I've only ever put 3 or 4 ppl on ignore here and then usually only for a few days. You've never said or done anything that would rise to ignore level for me Shoot, if i'm still reading much of what JesusWalks, Karate, Defensor and others have to say you can darn well guarantee I wouldn't be putting you on ignore

 

[JesusWalks78]

Shoot, if i'm still reading much of what JesusWalks, Karate, Defensor and others have to say you can darn well guarantee I wouldn't be putting you on ignore

And what exactly have you got against us?

 

[RavenPoe]

A symbol has no power but that which is given to it by the person using or viewing it.

My mother gave me a comic book by Jack Chick when I was younger that claimed the "peace sign" of the sixties...

...ws really a satanist symbol showing how initiates into satanism were handed an upside-down cross and had to break the crossbars downward. I don't think that's what all those hippies meant, do you?

 

[TricksterWolf]

And what exactly have you got against us?

I assume he just means your opinion is more along the fundamentalist lines, which is in opposition to his beliefs.

In all honesty, disagreeing with someone only makes me want to listen to them more. I've never understood ignore lists.

Trickster

 

[TricksterWolf]

A symbol has no power but that which is given to it by the person using or viewing it.

My mother gave me a comic book by Jack Chick when I was younger that claimed the "peace sign" of the sixties...

...ws really a satanist symbol showing how initiates into satanism were handed an upside-down cross and had to break the crossbars downward. I don't think that's what all those hippies meant, do you?

I used to believe it represented a broken cross, but this is actually a post-hoc attribution. It was designed to be a combination of the semaphore signs for N and D, for "Nuclear Disarmament".

We could use a little of that nuclear disarmament today.

Trickster

 

[NPH]

And what exactly have you got against us?

Your collective attitudes towards homosexuality for one Ranging from antagonizing statements such as "gays have the right to marry, just someone of the opposite sex" to terms such as "sodomites" and going on into realms of discussion including the jailing or other restrictions on the liberty of homosexuals.

If someone wants to debate whether it's ok or not to be gay for religious or secular reasons I jump right in. But when people begin intentionally demonizing a group in such ways I start to have very little interest in what those people have to say. When someone continually uses 'hot' terms and statements to demonize homosexuals they find themselves eventually on the ignore list. Not because what they say is so darned convincing that I don't want to hear it, but because what they say is so vile and hateful that i'd rather not let myself become riled from reading it. It's just like a christian who would ignore someone who constantly used the term GD.

The fact that I haven't put you on ignore yet means you still hold credibility and interest to me and haven't gone beyond what I see as debate and into nastiness

 

[quatona]

And what exactly have you got against us?

Not against you, but against your posts.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

because what they say is so vile and hateful that i'd rather not let myself become riled from reading it. It's just like a christian who would ignore someone who constantly used the term GD.

And unlike cussing, statements expressing hatred of gays are not censored on this board, unless they are directed to a specific person.

 

[Cerberus~]

Sometimes you have to be wrong. Being wrong is a mistake. You learn from your mistakes. Life is a test and we're here to learn.

Learning from you mistakes in this case would be educating yourself to the facts of homosexuality.

You seem to wish to remain wrong, which is certainly not learning from your mistakes.

And I'm not going to answer your first question, because I'm here to express my opinion in this thread. Not to argue with you.

Fair enough. But refusing to debate with me doesn't make you any less wrong.

 

[KarateCowboy]

And unlike cussing, statements expressing hatred of gays are not censored on this board, unless they are directed to a specific person.

Can you show me one example of where someone said they hate people with SSA?

 

[KarateCowboy]

Ranging from antagonizing statements such as "gays have the right to marry, just someone of the opposite sex"

That's stating a fact. People with same sex attractions do have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and I don't have the right to marry someone of the same sex either. It doesn't matter who you're attracted to, because marriage isn't about attractions. If I fell in love with my sister, I could not marry her. I cannot marry a minor either. I cannot marry someone who is already married, etc. If you think that stating a fact is antagonizing then I recommend a little self examination.

to terms such as "sodomites" and going on into realms of discussion including the jailing or other restrictions on the liberty of homosexuals.

I have never seen anyone on this board say in any seriousness that people with SSA should be jailed. Maybe at one point in time they were jesting or trying to provoke you, but people on this board simply do not believe in that.
As far as "sodomites". It refers to someone who engages in sodomy. It is an accurate description of someone who does that behavior. If I ride bicycles, then calling me a biker is not hateful. All we are doing is accurately describing reality. If this term does no fit with PC Newspeak, then oh well.

Anyway, when it comes to tolerance, I think that very often the people who espouse that virtue are the worst violators. As in "Do what I say, not as I do", or "You have to tolerate us but we don't have to tolerate you"

 

[humbledbyhim]

And unlike cussing, statements expressing hatred of gays are not censored on this board, unless they are directed to a specific person.

I don't think any mod would accept me saying, "I hate Gays." What they would accept is, "I don't believe that homosexual lusts or acts are right in any situation or at any time."

 

[TheMissus]

As far as "sodomites". It refers to someone who engages in sodomy. It is an accurate description of someone who does that behavior. If I ride bicycles, then calling me a biker is not hateful. All we are doing is accurately describing reality. If this term does no fit with PC Newspeak, then oh well.

Then call the married folks who engage in sodomy Sodomites as well. If the people in question actually do engage in sodomy, the term would be accurate. However, when you use it to mean gays and not simply everyone who does it (including lots and lots of married couples) that's where it becomes offensive. It's akin to focusing on black armed robbers. It may be a technically correct term for a very specific subgroup, but the term appears to be singling out one group when they're not the only ones to do a particular action.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Then call the married folks who engage in sodomy Sodomites as well. If the people in question actually do engage in sodomy, the term would be accurate. However, when you use it to mean gays and not simply everyone who does it (including lots and lots of married couples) that's where it becomes offensive. It's akin to focusing on black armed robbers. It may be a technically correct term for a very specific subgroup, but the term appears to be singling out one group when they're not the only ones to do a particular action.

We're also considering frequency.

It has been shown that virtually all men with SSA engage in sodomy on a regular or near regular basis. Most married couples do not do so at near the same frequency, if at all. Going back to the biker analogy: i have ridden a bike, but I am not a biker in the same sense that Lance Armstrong is.

 

[Cerberus~]

I have never seen anyone on this board say in any seriousness that people with SSA should be jailed. Maybe at one point in time they were jesting or trying to provoke you, but people on this board simply do not believe in that.

WalkswithChrist does.

Anyway, when it comes to tolerance, I think that very often the people who espouse that virtue are the worst violators. As in "Do what I say, not as I do", or "You have to tolerate us but we don't have to tolerate you"

An empty charge. No one here isn't tolerating you.

It has been shown that virtually all men with SSA engage in sodomy on a regular or near regular basis. Most married couples do not do so at near the same frequency, if at all. Going back to the biker analogy: i have ridden a bike, but I am not a biker in the same sense that Lance Armstrong is.

It's a derogatory word used to highlight a single action that bugs you. And it leaves out lesbos. Don't discriminate in your hatred, that's just wrong.

It's no different than callin a black person a monkey.