Who's winning: God or the Devil? (origionally posted by Michele) [Archive]

Solitary

02-12-2008, 12:18 AM

Heh, I'm a non-believer, but I don't mind fairy tales. :)

If I believed in an ultimate good and an ultimate evil as personified by god and the devil, I would have to say that the middle figure, as personified by human beings, is the winner, or to be more accurate, the one in control.

We are the ones destoying the planet and ourselves, we are the ones who are curing diseases while at the same time inventing new ones. We are the ones creating music and art and poetry, while at the same time destroying the music, art and poetry of previous generations.

When the world goes splat, as it inevitably will either because our sun explodes or because we manage to blow ourselves to little bitty bits, the ultimate personifications will pick up their marbles and start a new game somewhere else, then sit back and watch the shenanigans.

I guess you could say humans are the ultimate reality show, with no scripts, last minute saves or rule changes, just two disinterested viewers who can't even be bothered to vote anyone off the island.

That's my asnwer, if I believed in god and the devil, that is. :)

samiinh

03-05-2008, 07:13 AM

Here's something you should read about who's winning:

http://www.waynebesen.com/2008/03/arch-butcher-of-nigeria.html

Dejavu

03-11-2008, 10:05 AM

If evil was winning there would be more evil than good... which is not the case. Well, for now at least :|

Kendra

03-22-2008, 03:13 PM

God will win.

samiinh

03-22-2008, 06:06 PM

God will win.

Perhaps, if there were a god, but since there isn't I guess you're wrong, again.

Gracie

03-22-2008, 06:17 PM

God will win.

Most definitely!

ArcticPhoenix

03-22-2008, 07:58 PM

Perhaps, if there were a god, but since there isn't I guess you're wrong, again.

So, with what authority do you so definitively claim the nonexistance of something whose very existance can be neither proven nor disproven? Some sort of holy text? Some sort of... scientific analysis? Theories? What?

You sound like someone who thinks they know the answers. You don't.

samiinh

03-23-2008, 06:34 AM

So, with what authority do you so definitively claim the nonexistance of something whose very existance can be neither proven nor disproven? Some sort of holy text? Some sort of... scientific analysis? Theories? What?

You sound like someone who thinks they know the answers. You don't.

Hey, I'm entitled to my beliefs as much as anyone else is. Those who talk about gods and god/men are entitled to their beliefs, but as far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no evidence for any of their foolishness and ignorance and I have as much a right to deny it as they have to accept it.

Where is your proof that any god exists? Show me, and then I'll become a believer too. Until then, I will continue to deny the existence of any god. Faith is believing something you know ain't true.

Gracie

03-23-2008, 07:35 AM

Show me your proof that he doesn't.

samiinh

03-23-2008, 07:38 AM

Show me your proof that he doesn't.

I don't have to. You have to show he does. You have no evidence that he does exist. The babble doesn't count.

Gracie

03-23-2008, 07:44 AM

I don't have to. You have to show he does. You have no evidence that he does exist. The babble doesn't count.

I'm honestly sorry you have such hatred for Christianity :( I don't know what else to say to you that you would even bother to listen to.

Gracie

03-23-2008, 07:44 AM

Ugh, double post.

samiinh

03-23-2008, 07:50 AM

I'm honestly sorry you have such hatred for Christianity :( I don't know what else to say to you that you would even bother to listen to.

I don't hate Christianity. I just think it is a factious hoax perpetrated on children by their unthinking parents that has been the cause of much of the world's suffering for the last 2000 years. I actually feel sorry for you believers. You've been had and you don't even know it.

Gracie

03-23-2008, 07:54 AM

ArcticPhoenix

03-23-2008, 12:21 PM

Hey, I'm entitled to my beliefs as much as anyone else is. Those who talk about gods and god/men are entitled to their beliefs, but as far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no evidence for any of their foolishness and ignorance and I have as much a right to deny it as they have to accept it. However, your point is just as ridiculous.

Where is your proof that any god exists? Show me, and then I'll become a believer too. Until then, I will continue to deny the existence of any god. Faith is believing something you know ain't true. I'm sorry, I don't recall saying that I had the answers, nor did I claim that God absolutely existed, or didn't exist, etc. You're an arrogant SOB, you know that?

ArcticPhoenix

03-23-2008, 12:22 PM

I don't hate Christianity. I just think it is a factious hoax perpetrated on children by their unthinking parents that has been the cause of much of the world's suffering for the last 2000 years. I actually feel sorry for you believers. You've been had and you don't even know it.

Oh what a bunch of BS. Your contempt for Christianity is pretty obvious from many of your posts. I mean, calling it a hoax? Puh-lease! Not more of a hoax than atheism, or agnosticism, or existentialism, or any other idea of anything that exists. Even if you won't consciously admit it, you have a serious problem with Christianity. I don't know if you have as much contempt for other religions as you do for Christianity, but you certainly focus your hatred towards Christianity. Did you grow up a Christian? What, were you molested by a priest?

You're condescending and arrogant.

/Not a Christian

JPSartre12

03-23-2008, 02:09 PM

Oh what a bunch of BS. Your contempt for Christianity is pretty obvious from many of your posts. I mean, calling it a hoax? Puh-lease! Not more of a hoax than atheism, or agnosticism, or existentialism, or any other idea of anything that exists. Even if you won't consciously admit it, you have a serious problem with Christianity. I don't know if you have as much contempt for other religions as you do for Christianity, but you certainly focus your hatred towards Christianity. Did you grow up a Christian? What, were you molested by a priest?

You're condescending and arrogant.

/Not a Christian

:smileypop

samiinh

03-23-2008, 05:23 PM

However, your point is just as ridiculous.

I'm sorry, I don't recall saying that I had the answers, nor did I claim that God absolutely existed, or didn't exist, etc. You're an arrogant SOB, you know that?

I can tell that you certainly are one. You have no point, jack. You are ridiculous. Go suck eggs, rodent.

samiinh

03-23-2008, 05:25 PM

:smileypop

And look who's trolling again. :violin:

Gracie

03-23-2008, 07:36 PM

I can tell that you certainly are one. You have no point, jack. You are ridiculous. Go suck eggs, rodent.

How are you any less hateful than you claim Christians are?

samiinh

03-23-2008, 07:47 PM

How are you any less hateful than you claim Christians are?

What's it to you?

Gracie

03-23-2008, 07:50 PM

What's it to you?

You know what. I have never even been rude to you and you don't need to get an attitude with me. Fair is fair. If you want to accuse others of being hateful you need to admit you are also.

kingclick

03-23-2008, 07:51 PM

You know what. I have never even been rude to you and you don't need to get an attitude with me. Fair is fair. If you want to accuse others of being hateful you need to admit you are also.

Why? Does a tree need to admit they are made from wood? Does a lake need to admit it is full of water? Does a apple pie need to admit having apple in it?

Gracie

03-23-2008, 07:56 PM

Why? Does a tree need to admit they are made from wood? Does a lake need to admit it is full of water? Does a apple pie need to admit having apple in it?

I haven't delt with him that much but it seems to me that treating him with respect is better than name calling. Just a thought.

Pops In

03-23-2008, 11:34 PM

kingclick

03-23-2008, 11:52 PM

I haven't delt with him that much but it seems to me that treating him with respect is better than name calling. Just a thought.

No. He deserves no respect. He is a troll.

samiinh

03-24-2008, 05:41 AM

No. He deserves no respect. He is a troll.

I'm a troll because I don't agree with all of you on your superstitious nonsense. But you are not a troll because??????????

The words that come to my mind to describe you are begin with A and H as in asshole.

JPSartre12

03-24-2008, 07:20 AM

I haven't delt with him that much but it seems to me that treating him with respect is better than name calling. Just a thought.

Nah, he's a slimy little troll. He should be kicked back under the bridge whenever he surfaces. ;)

Pops In

03-24-2008, 07:27 AM

Nah, he's a slimy little troll. He should be kicked back under the bridge whenever he surfaces. ;)
:howling:

Pots, kettles....

Pops In

03-24-2008, 07:33 AM

Oh Christ! This quote just turned up:

"And what would it matter if he did reveal his general geographic
location? What could you really tell about him other then your own base
stereotyping of geopolitical locations? Do you need to know his nationality so
you lazily launch jingoist clichéd name calling attacks instead of addressing
the issue?"
- BAmaracas

samiinh

03-24-2008, 10:51 AM

Nah, he's a slimy little troll. He should be kicked back under the bridge whenever he surfaces. ;)

Trolling again, asshole. You are a worthless piece of crap.

Gracie

03-24-2008, 11:02 AM

Isn't this calling each other trolls back and forth getting a bit ridiculos? You guys don't like each other. Ignore each other. Be grown up about this.

JPSartre12

03-24-2008, 11:42 AM

:howling:

Pots, kettles....

Look who's talking, our geriatric shit-stirrer. :rofll:

samiinh

03-24-2008, 11:42 AM

Isn't this calling each other trolls back and forth getting a bit ridiculos? You guys don't like each other. Ignore each other. Be grown up about this.

Yep. It is. :agree:

JPSartre12

03-24-2008, 11:43 AM

Isn't this calling each other trolls back and forth getting a bit ridiculos? You guys don't like each other. Ignore each other. Be grown up about this.

How can you tell that we don't like each other? ;)

Pops In

03-24-2008, 12:30 PM

Look who's talking, our geriatric shit-stirrer. :rofll:Hark at the fat school bully! :howling:

samiinh

03-24-2008, 12:40 PM

Hark at the fat school bully! :howling:

:rofll: My image of JP too...a fatboy bully with pimples.

Gracie

03-24-2008, 12:45 PM

I am seeing more than one bully here :( How is making fun of anyone necessary? I am talking to everyone who makes fun of another person.

JPSartre12

03-24-2008, 12:52 PM

Hark at the fat school bully! :howling:

Once again, you demonstrate your geriatric shit-stirring propensity. Now go grab your bottle and drink yourself back into oblivion….again. :party:

:rofll: My image of JP too...a fatboy bully with pimples.

And I envision you as a tutu-wearing little queer. I’m not far off either, am I. ;)

I am seeing more than one bully here :( How is making fun of anyone necessary? I am talking to everyone who makes fun of another person.

It beats watching the grass grow…or the snow melt as it were.

Gracie

03-24-2008, 12:55 PM

It beats watching the grass grow…or the snow melt as it were.

Ok, I'd actually like to address this JP :) Were you ever bullied a sa child? Has your child ever been bullied? What is fun? You don't need to actually answer this but I hope you (all of you ) will think about it.

People actually kill themselves over being bullied. Bullying isn't funny and it isn't entertaining :(

I myself would prefer to watch the grass grow........

Pops In

03-24-2008, 12:56 PM

:rofll: My image of JP too...a fatboy bully with pimples.It's latent homosexuality. ;)

samiinh

03-24-2008, 01:25 PM

Watching the grass grow…or the snow melt..

That does sound like about as much as your tiny brain could handle, you latent fatboy asshole.

samiinh

03-24-2008, 01:25 PM

It's latent homosexuality. ;)

I think you could be right...his interest is beyond that of a healthy heterosexual.:agree:

Kendra

03-26-2008, 06:04 PM

The Christians all know that God is real and the Lord Jesus is real.
Once you put your faith in God and the Lord he will prove to you beyond any doubt that he is real. Just give him a chance.

Raven

03-26-2008, 08:07 PM

JPSartre12

03-26-2008, 10:00 PM

Ok, I'd actually like to address this JP :) Were you ever bullied a sa child? Has your child ever been bullied? What is fun? You don't need to actually answer this but I hope you (all of you ) will think about it.

People actually kill themselves over being bullied. Bullying isn't funny and it isn't entertaining :(

I myself would prefer to watch the grass grow........

I was a white kid bussed in the early 70's to a ghetto high school. What do you think?
I learned how to survive in that hostile environment real quickly....but that's besides the point. How does one bully people on the internet? :huh:

Pops In

03-27-2008, 04:39 AM

http://www.bullyonline.org/related/cyber.htm

Raven

03-27-2008, 08:53 AM

http://www.bullyonline.org/related/cyber.htm

I found this quite interesting:

Targets of bullying usually have these qualities:

popularity (this stimulates jealousy in the less-than-popular bully)
competence (this stimulates envy in the less-than-competent bully)
intelligence and intellect
honesty and integrity (which bullies despise)
you're trustworthy, trusting, conscientious, loyal and dependable
a well-developed integrity which you're unwilling to compromise
you're always willing to go that extra mile and expect others to do the same
successful, tenacious, determined, courageous, having fortitude
a sense of humour, including displays of quick-wittedness
imaginative, creative, innovative
idealistic, optimistic, always working for improvement and betterment of self, family, the employer, and the world
ability to master new skills
ability to think long term and to see the bigger picture
sensitivity (this is a constellation of values to be cherished including empathy, concern for others, respect, tolerance etc)
slow to anger
helpful, always willing to share knowledge and experience
giving and selfless
difficulty saying no
diligent, industrious
tolerant
strong sense of honour
irrepressible, wanting to tackle and correct injustice wherever you see it
an inability to value oneself whilst attributing greater importance and validity to other people's opinions of oneself (eg through tests, exams, appraisals, manager's feedback, etc)
low propensity to violence (ie you prefer to resolve conflict through dialogue rather than through violence or legal action)
a strong forgiving streak (which the bully exploits and manipulates to dissuade you from taking grievance and legal action)
a desire to always think well of others
being incorruptible, having high moral standards which you are unwilling to compromise
being unwilling to lower standards
a strong well-defined set of values which you are unwilling to compromise or abandon
high expectations of those in authority and a dislike of incompetent people in positions of power who abuse power
a tendency to self-deprecation, indecisiveness, deference and approval seeking
low assertiveness
a need to feel valued
quick to apologise when accused, even if not guilty (this is a useful technique for defusing an aggressive customer or potential road rage incident)
perfectionism
higher-than-average levels of dependency, naivety and guilt
a strong sense of fair play and a desire to always be reasonable
high coping skills under stress, especially when the injury to health becomes apparent
a tendency to internalise anger rather than express it

Gracie

03-27-2008, 09:30 AM

I was a white kid bussed in the early 70's to a ghetto high school. What do you think?
I learned how to survive in that hostile environment real quickly....but that's besides the point. How does one bully people on the internet? :huh:

That was Kendra who made those accusations. I was speaking of bullying in general. And one can be cruel and hateful on the interned causing others to feel hurt. If you doubt this read many of the posts here ;)

Kendra

03-27-2008, 05:31 PM

I wasn't the one accusing anyone of anything on this thread.

I didn't say much of anything except that God would win. You must be thinking of some other thread.

Gracie

03-27-2008, 06:13 PM

I wasn't the one accusing anyone of anything on this thread.

I didn't say much of anything except that God would win. You must be thinking of some other thread.

I didn't say this thread but you are the one who mentioned feeling bullied.

kingclick

03-27-2008, 06:32 PM

I'm a troll because I don't agree with all of you on your superstitious nonsense. But you are not a troll because??????????

The words that come to my mind to describe you are begin with A and H as in asshole.

You are a troll because you insult people. Call them A$$holes because they disagree with your agenda. Spew hatred toward Christians like I have never seen. LIE when you post other peoples words as your own.

THAT is why you are a troll.

This board has never seen a troll as big as you. JP tries sometimes, Matthew gets close, but YOU are the king and queen of this board when it comes to trolling.

samiinh

03-27-2008, 06:36 PM

You are a troll because you insult people. Call them A$$holes because they disagree with your agenda. Spew hatred toward Christians like I have never seen. LIE when you post other peoples words as your own.

THAT is why you are a troll.

This board has never seen a troll as big as you. JP tries sometimes, Matthew gets close, but YOU are the king and queen of this board when it comes to trolling.

Go suck eggs, weasel.

kingclick

03-27-2008, 06:39 PM

Go suck eggs, weasel.
Thanks for proving my point.

Book Wizard

03-27-2008, 07:03 PM

King, just ignore him. He hasn't got an original idea in his head and spews stuff because it takes no imagination nor intellect.

JPSartre12

03-27-2008, 07:04 PM

That was Kendra who made those accusations. I was speaking of bullying in general. And one can be cruel and hateful on the interned causing others to feel hurt. If you doubt this read many of the posts here ;)

Anyone that takes posts on the internet made by anonymous people personally has some serious problems, IMO.

You are a troll because you insult people. Call them A$$holes because they disagree with your agenda. Spew hatred toward Christians like I have never seen. LIE when you post other peoples words as your own.

THAT is why you are a troll.

This board has never seen a troll as big as you. JP tries sometimes, Matthew gets close, but YOU are the king and queen of this board when it comes to trolling.

watch it KC. I've seen you throw a line or two into the water yourself.

Torlain

03-27-2008, 07:17 PM

Anyone that takes posts on the internet made by anonymous people personally has some serious problems, IMO.

watch it KC. I've seen you throw a line or two into the water yourself.

I have to say.... I've been a member of this board off an on for quite a while, used to talk to KC alot, and I have NEVER seen him spew the kind of crap that I've seen on here since I came back... Maybe I missed it...

Kendra

03-28-2008, 11:42 AM

Now Sam do you really think it's nice to call people names.
You didn't like it much when I got on your case before and I really don't want to again since I got to know more about you.

But I don't like it when people call others fat, I've known many overweight people that are very nice and would have their feelings hurt by comments like that.

Christians have feelings and the Jews do to. Just because you are choosing to not worship God please don't put down others that do.

You are a member of a group that used to face lots of discrimination so actually you should know better than to make fat cracks or trailer park cracks or atheist cracks.

The only way to end discrimination and hate in the world is to learn more about and try to understand others and their feelings.

samiinh

03-28-2008, 03:01 PM

“I'm a nonbeliever. I don't believe in the existence of a God. I don't believe in the Christian dogma. I find it horrifyingly silly.The intolerance that flows from organized religion is the most dangerous thing on the planet.”

-- Jane Rule, Brave Souls: Writers and Artists Wrestle with God, Love, Death and the Things that Matter by Douglas Todd (1996), cited by Celebrity Atheists website.

I believe what Jane Rules says, and if some people don't like it, I'm sorry, but I think you'd be surprised to know that there are many people who think the way I do.

Book Wizard

03-28-2008, 03:07 PM

samiinh

03-28-2008, 03:12 PM

samiinh

03-28-2008, 03:12 PM

What did I quote that said anything about bad people? Get a grip old girl. Is there some rule here that you are not supposed to quote other thinkers?

Raven

03-28-2008, 04:13 PM

Sam, have you ever had an original thought in your life? You only quote from others.

There are many good Christians in the world. And good people of all sorts. You only see the bad people because that is all you are looking for. Try looking outside you narrow little box.
I can understand if you don't like it when Sam calls Click a weasel, but aren't you being just as bad with your post above? You don't call other people out when they snark at Click... so why are you consistently harping at Sam?

Could it be that he's an in-your-face-atheist and you don't like that? Perhaps you are only seeing the bad in him because that is all you are looking for.

JPSartre12

03-28-2008, 09:23 PM

I can understand if you don't like it when Sam calls Click a weasel, but aren't you being just as bad with your post above? You don't call other people out when they snark at Click... so why are you consistently harping at Sam?

Could it be that he's an in-your-face-atheist and you don't like that? Perhaps you are only seeing the bad in him because that is all you are looking for.

I'm guessing that it's because he's an in-your-face-ass and NOBODY likes some stranger's ass in their face. :rofll:

ArcticPhoenix

03-29-2008, 05:24 PM

By the same token, how can anyone claim that "God will prevail"?

That one is quite simple, actually, when you think of the concept of God as the most powerful being in the universe. God must prevail because nothing can be stronger than God.

However, the caveat here is that you must assume that God does exist. So, the correct thing to say would be, "If God exists, God will prevail".

But really, why would God care? We're just a drop in the bucket of time, and so is everything else about our universe.

There could be literally billions upon billions of universes out there, all being created and destroyed at different times, containing vast vast vast quantities of life. Vast, dude. Farking vast.

samiinh

03-29-2008, 05:32 PM

"If God exists, God will prevail"..

That's a big assumption. How can we, the spec of sand in the dessert, know or understand such a concept, and while we're at it....who created god?

samiinh

03-29-2008, 05:33 PM

I'm guessing that it's because he's an in-your-face-ass and NOBODY likes some stranger's ass in their face. :rofll:

KC doesn't like me to call you and asshole, asshole.

ArcticPhoenix

03-29-2008, 05:37 PM

I can tell that you certainly are one. You have no point, jack. You are ridiculous. Go suck eggs, rodent.

Wow... I haven't seen maturity of such a level since I was in elementary school.

I think we need to let Michele know that we have a teeny-bopper on out site, and that they need to be banned until they are an adult. Clearly this individual cannot communicate with others on an adult level.

Samii, I cannot remember a single debate I've read that's included you where you have NOT resorts to name calling or bashing an entire group of people.

I wish to know more about you. What is your ethnicity? Where do you come from? I know you're obviously an atheist (and an arrogant one at that), but surely you have other beliefs. Do you have any kind of disability?

Why do you focus on so much intolerance? What, are you trying to form the atheist version of the KKK? Because I really haven't seen so much hatred towards a particular group of people outside of that organization. You claim that you don't hate a particular group of people, yet all I see you spew onto the computer screen is hatred towards that particular group of people.

I've told other people this, and I'll tell you this. You need a new reality check. The last one bounced.

ArcticPhoenix

03-29-2008, 05:39 PM

That's a big assumption. How can we, the spec of sand in the dessert, know or understand such a concept, and while we're at it....who created god?

Where did I say we could? And what concept do you have of God? Are you giving credence to the idea?

samiinh

03-29-2008, 05:45 PM

Where did I say we could? And what concept do you have of God? Are you giving credence to the idea?

Credence to the idea of a god? No, I wasn't trying to do that. What kind of disability do you have? Please share.

ArcticPhoenix

03-29-2008, 06:21 PM

Credence to the idea of a god? No, I wasn't trying to do that. Then why mention the idea if you aren't giving credence to it?

What kind of disability do you have? Please share. A lack of patience for stupidity is surely a disability in today's society. Thusly, I have no patience for you.

samiinh

03-29-2008, 06:24 PM

Then why mention the idea if you aren't giving credence to it?

A lack of patience for stupidity is surely a disability in today's society. Thusly, I have no patience for you.

You people really have some problems. This is a friggin' virtual forum!!! WTF is wrong with you.

JPSartre12

03-29-2008, 06:31 PM

You people really have some problems. This is a friggin' virtual forum!!! WTF is wrong with you.

Maybe he doesn't like being trolled, asshole. ;)

samiinh

03-29-2008, 06:37 PM

Maybe he doesn't like being trolled, asshole. ;)

I have never in my life met a group of people who were as hateful as most of you in the forum. I've been attacked and mocked since the I first tried to become a part of the forum. You, JP, are responsible for most of it. But your followers have done their job as well. You don't like outsiders. You're like a high school clique. I believe your whole purpose is to get me to quit the forum. Well, I think you may have succeeded because I just don't see the point anymore in trying to get a "conversation" going. And speaking of trolls, JP, you are the biggest troll ever.

ArcticPhoenix

03-29-2008, 06:40 PM

You people really have some problems. This is a friggin' virtual forum!!! WTF is wrong with you. People are still people. You seem to forget that (along with the rest of your manners). All you do is belittle, berate, and begrudge people when they speak of beliefs that are different from yours.

If you don't like that fact, then you should leave. If you want to engage in civil discussion, then go ahead and stay, but you have yet to prove that you are capable of such an endeavor. I cringe to think that there's more than one of you out there, but unfortunately, there are. This has nothing to do with you being an atheist, either. It has to do with you being rude, uncouth, and immature. Resorting to simple name calling, and nothing but name calling speaks to me of your IQ, or, rather, the lack of it.

But if you want to continue on with your life giving the impression that you have the wit and intelligence to match mayonnaise, then be my guest. I won't try to stop you.

Torlain

03-29-2008, 06:42 PM

You people really have some problems. This is a friggin' virtual forum!!! WTF is wrong with you.

And stupidity should be tolerated because it's a virtual forum?

I think I have the same disability as AP.....

ArcticPhoenix

03-29-2008, 06:42 PM

samiinh

03-29-2008, 06:47 PM

samiinh

03-29-2008, 06:49 PM

There are only three people that I have dissed...JP, KC, and Kendra. Show me where I've dissed another. Please.

ArcticPhoenix

03-29-2008, 06:50 PM

There are only three people that I have dissed...JP, KC, and Kendra. Show me where I've dissed another. Please. And it's acceptable to diss those people because.......????

samiinh

03-29-2008, 06:52 PM

And stupidity should be tolerated because it's a virtual forum?

I think I have the same disability as AP.....

Please share with me when I mocked you, Torlain. As far as I remember, I've never responded to anything you've posted, but here you attack me. Maybe you need to look in a mirror.

samiinh

03-29-2008, 06:53 PM

And it's acceptable to diss those people because.......????

Because they attacked me from the start. That's why. Rudeness appears to be a condition of being a participant here.

ArcticPhoenix

03-29-2008, 07:16 PM

Because they attacked me from the start. That's why. Rudeness appears to be a condition of being a participant here. Ahh, so the best way to show that you're better than them is by... acting... like... them...?

JPSartre12

03-29-2008, 07:26 PM

I have never in my life met a group of people who were as hateful as most of you in the forum. I've been attacked and mocked since the I first tried to become a part of the forum. You, JP, are responsible for most of it. But your followers have done their job as well. You don't like outsiders. You're like a high school clique. I believe your whole purpose is to get me to quit the forum. Well, I think you may have succeeded because I just don't see the point anymore in trying to get a "conversation" going. And speaking of trolls, JP, you are the biggest troll ever.

:violin: :violin: :violin: :violin: :violin:

Oh no!!! Sammy the homo's threatening yet another hairflip! :rofll:

You poor baby. Matthew invited you to come here to bust my and others' balls, which you've attempted to do since Day 1.

For example, your fifth post on this forum was:

[http://www.theconversationcafe.com/forums/showpost.php?p=391749&postcount=21

All one has to do is look at your posting history to see that it's a series of trolls. You came to this forum after being banned for doing the same on another forum.

But you don't get a "conversation" going! JP is an areseface, you're spot on there, but the ONLY thing I've EVER see you do is belittle others. Try communicating with others in a civil fashion, and then see who is the bigger person.

I hope that you include yourself in the "arseface" category.

There are only three people that I have dissed...JP, KC, and Kendra. Show me where I've dissed another. Please.

I feel privleged. :trophy:

Because they attacked me from the start. That's why. Rudeness appears to be a condition of being a participant here.

You came here and started bashing Christians from the gitgo. When we/they didn't roll over and play dead and bloodied your lip (figuratively), you started crying like a bitch "oh poor me". :bigboy: Oh, I forgot, you probably only wear panties. :lol:

Gracie

03-29-2008, 07:37 PM

If I suggested we all stop name calling would you all scream shut at me at once???

Torlain

03-29-2008, 07:55 PM

Please share with me when I mocked you, Torlain. As far as I remember, I've never responded to anything you've posted, but here you attack me. Maybe you need to look in a mirror.

I didn't attack you, I stated something as I see it... I did not call you any names, as I have seen you do multiple times to other people. And believe me when I say this, I do not believe you to be a stupid person, your insulting attitude, no matter who it is towards shows you in a bad light. Your attitude sucks, so far as I can see it. And believe me, you are not the only one who has this problem. Perhaps you have been attacked before, but honestly, in the threads I have personally seen you participate in that go downhill, you precipitated the problem. For you to complain about others attacking you, when you are just as guilty is, well, stupid....

Torlain

03-29-2008, 07:56 PM

If I suggested we all stop name calling would you all scream shut at me at once???

Nope, I have a feeling we'd take turns.... :respekt:

BTW, I am just kidding..... hehe

ArcticPhoenix

03-29-2008, 08:02 PM

I hope that you include yourself in the "arseface" category. With pride!

Gracie

03-29-2008, 08:02 PM

Nope, I have a feeling we'd take turns.... :respekt:

BTW, I am just kidding..... hehe

I'd call you a butthead but that would be breaking my own rule ;) :D

Torlain

03-29-2008, 08:03 PM

I'd call you a butthead but that would be breaking my own rule ;) :D

You can call me a butthead.... I'd still luv ya.....

Gracie

03-29-2008, 08:10 PM

You can call me a butthead.... I'd still luv ya.....

I'm touched, really! :) And I don't mean in the head :P

Kendra

03-29-2008, 08:21 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by samiinh
There are only three people that I have dissed...JP, KC, and Kendra. Show me where I've dissed another. Please.

Sam now I'm sure that you even realize that you were the one that started it.
You called me stupid and ignorant because I am a Christian.

I only threatened to call you names back. It's not nice to mess with Christians.

Kay I know that you mean well but re-read the book of Revelation and a few other books including the four gospels and Christians have always had to fight a battle. Possibly the biggest fight is still ahead.
If we fought for our rights as Christians as hard as all the other groups have fought for their rights there wouldn't be so many things going on that really are upsetting to most of us.
Onward Christian Soldiers.

Raven

03-29-2008, 08:50 PM

I didn't attack you, I stated something as I see it... I did not call you any names, as I have seen you do multiple times to other people. And believe me when I say this, I do not believe you to be a stupid person, your insulting attitude, no matter who it is towards shows you in a bad light. Your attitude sucks, so far as I can see it. And believe me, you are not the only one who has this problem. Perhaps you have been attacked before, but honestly, in the threads I have personally seen you participate in that go downhill, you precipitated the problem. For you to complain about others attacking you, when you are just as guilty is, well, stupid....

you, KC, Kay, AP, Book Wizard... exactly how many people need to harp on him while certain others continue to troll him? Perhaps if everyone who's insisting THEIR shit don't stink would quit minding everyone else's business and start minding their own, we'd all spend less time arguing about who is behaving the worst.

Torlain

03-29-2008, 09:05 PM

you, KC, Kay, AP, Book Wizard... exactly how many people need to harp on him while certain others continue to troll him? Perhaps if everyone who's insisting THEIR shit don't stink would quit minding everyone else's business and start minding their own, we'd all spend less time arguing about who is behaving the worst.

Actually, I am not harping on anyone, I'm telling it like I see it. I have seen several instances where HE started bashing other people. I do not excuse anyone else for their actions. There are alot of people in the wrong when it comes to "trolling".

I was responding to a specific post in this thread, and honestly, I still want the answer, anyone can answer it. Does the fact that this is "a friggin' virtual forum" excuse people when they act stup...no, wrong word... ignorant?

Gracie

03-29-2008, 09:21 PM

Gracie

03-29-2008, 09:23 PM

ArcticPhoenix

03-29-2008, 09:34 PM

kingclick

03-29-2008, 09:53 PM

Because they attacked me from the start. That's why. Rudeness appears to be a condition of being a participant here.

That is a lie.

Just because you consider something a cult doesn't mean they are. People are Christians because they (mostly) believe in the concepts. Sure some people are brainwashed into believing but most everyone I know has chosen their faith after serious personal deliberation.

So if you consider association with people of similar beliefs to be a "cult" then the LGBT is a cult. So is the Democratic Party and any Union affiliation.

My hope is that instead of coming onto this site to denegrate Christians and be a horrible example of a gay person, you will chill out and quit trying to troll many of the posters here.

This is from my first interaction with. Samii

ArcticPhoenix

03-29-2008, 10:00 PM

This is from my first interaction with. Samii Now now, KC, truth and reason doesn't belong here! It's a friggin' online forum!

Kendra

03-29-2008, 10:29 PM

Please do not tell me to re-read any book of the Bible. I find that attitude quite offensive. I can assure you I have read Revelation several times and I have yet to read anything that tells Christians to spew hate.

I didn't mean to be offensive, however I'm sure that even you aren't to happy about some of the things going on. Many of us really need to be strong and stand up for our beliefs. Well maybe some of us need to make our voice heard. For one example it appears that pornography is protected by the first amendment but some students have gotten into trouble for bringing their bibles with them to school. It seems like so many groups make their voice heard and we as Christians are loosing ground.

I live in California so maybe we have the most problems here. We are supposed to be politically correct to everyone and the atheists are allowed to bad mouth us and overrule our opinions on certain things that are being pushed as required reading in school. I wasn't talking about Darwin's theory of evolution (that is theory and not known fact) but that is another thing that is taught and yet creation is not allowed to be taught. We seem so willing and able to spread the word throughout the world and fail to stand up for our values here.

Don't mind me I've been having to deal with too many Atheist lately and it really does get too me.

send a PM if you want I'll try to explain more, maybe we are all supposed to think differently because maybe we all have different jobs to do.

ArcticPhoenix

03-29-2008, 11:06 PM

For one example it appears that pornography is protected by the first amendment but some students have gotten into trouble for bringing their bibles with them to school. I call complete BS on this one.

Pornography isn't allowed in schools, and neither is proselytizing by the staff.

Kendra

03-29-2008, 11:44 PM

A librarian got fired for reporting someone looking at child porn in a public library. It appears that the only thing that made it illegal was the fact it was child porn.
I would hope porn isn't allowed in schools but it is protected under the first ammendment.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080319/31564_Librarian_Fired_for_Reporting_Child_Porn_Use r_Demands_Job_Back.htm

I wasn't talking about teachers with bibles but some student have gotten into trouble over bringing their bibles to school. I can't find the article I was reading the other day but I'll continue to look for it.

ArcticPhoenix

03-29-2008, 11:47 PM

A librarian got fired for reporting someone looking at child porn in a public library. I read that. I have a feeling that there will be a lawsuit involved. To the BEST of my knowledge... if you are a government employee, and you have knowledge of a crime that's being committed, you are required BY LAW to report said crime. So, like I say.. I smell a lawsuit.

I wasn't talking about teachers with bibles but some student have gotten into trouble over bringing their bibles to school. I can't find the article I was reading the other day but I'll continue to look for it. The reason why you're having trouble finding it is because it.... didn't actually happen. A kid got into trouble for bringing his bible to school and ripping it apart, but that was more because the kid was being disruptive than anything else.

Kendra

03-30-2008, 12:45 AM

The article I read was about the bibles offending the atheist.
It was in regard to the students having their bibles with them during a required acceptance class.

Pops In

03-30-2008, 03:24 AM

The article I read was about the bibles offending the atheist.
It was in regard to the students having their bibles with them during a required acceptance class.Well that's extraordinary, if factual. All the non-believers I know couldn't care less. Looks like another dishonest Christian smear to me.

ETA: What the hell is a "required acceptance class"?

Pops In

03-30-2008, 03:47 AM

God will win.

Perhaps, if there were a god, but since there isn't I guess you're wrong, again.

So, with what authority do you so definitively claim the nonexistance of something whose very existance can be neither proven nor disproven? Some sort of holy text? Some sort of... scientific analysis? Theories? What?

You sound like someone who thinks they know the answers. You don't.Both statements being equal, Why wasn't that asked of the one who made the first assertion, hmm? How is Kendra more correct than samii, hmm?

Raven

03-30-2008, 07:21 AM

Actually, I am not harping on anyone, I'm telling it like I see it. I have seen several instances where HE started bashing other people. I do not excuse anyone else for their actions. There are alot of people in the wrong when it comes to "trolling".

I was responding to a specific post in this thread, and honestly, I still want the answer, anyone can answer it. Does the fact that this is "a friggin' virtual forum" excuse people when they act stup...no, wrong word... ignorant? You are targeting Sam. Moreover, it is only your opinion that he is acting "stupid" or "ignorant". Personally, I think certain others are the ones acting EXTREMELE ignorant/stupid. How about we all continue the rapid deterioration of this entire board by continuing to call out everyone we each don't like. Or how about EVERYONE shuts the fuck up and posts on topic? I am just as guilty of this stupid shit as the rest of you, but unless we ALL stop, it won't stop.

Raven

03-30-2008, 07:23 AM

How have I harped on him???? I have been quite nice to Sam. I've harped on the "Christians" more than anyone :huh:

ETA, Sam, I apologize if I have offended you in any way. That was not my intent. I was trying to show you kindness.
It is true that you have also "harped" on those who are attacking Sam and have actually been an excellent equalizer. My apologies for not making that clear. And please note, I include myself in the "harping" group... just not the one directed at Sam specifically ;)

Raven

03-30-2008, 07:29 AM

That is a lie.

This is from my first interaction with. Samii

Why did you not post the entire exchange?

They can certainly be considered members of cults, however, and that is how I feel about christians. They are no different than any other cult members. If they were able to think for themselves, they wouldn't need the cult.

The same could be said for ANY association then. I guess that means your aren't a member of any group?

I'm not a member of a cult, if that's what you mean. I do not worship non-existent gods and virgins. No. I don't belong to such a group.

Just because you consider something a cult doesn't mean they are. People are Christians because they (mostly) believe in the concepts. Sure some people are brainwashed into believing but most everyone I know has chosen their faith after serious personal deliberation.

So if you consider association with people of similar beliefs to be a "cult" then the LGBT is a cult. So is the Democratic Party and any Union affiliation.

My hope is that instead of coming onto this site to denegrate Christians and be a horrible example of a gay person, you will chill out and quit trying to troll many of the posters here.

Sam has a very strong opinion about the christian religion and those who align with it. It may offend some, but that is still his opinion on it and he is entitled to it. Why does that make him a troll?

There are people who quote the bible every other post, who tell known atheists to go to church, tell excellent christians to re-read the bible, and in many other ways are JUST as obnoxious (if not more) than Sam is in his opinion.

How come your first exchange with them is not calling them a troll? And how is that not "name-calling"?

Raven

03-30-2008, 07:31 AM

I call complete BS on this one.

Pornography isn't allowed in schools, and neither is proselytizing by the staff.
:agree: :cheer: :trophy:

kingclick

03-30-2008, 09:46 AM

Why did you not post the entire exchange?Because it wasn't the "worst" one of the exchange. I posted the worst one, which really wasn't that bad. Thanks for proving even more that I wasn't insulting from the get go.

Sam has a very strong opinion about the christian religion and those who align with it. It may offend some, but that is still his opinion on it and he is entitled to it. Why does that make him a troll?No. What makes him a troll is most of his posts are insults and attacks with no real debate quality. You read the thread.

There are people who quote the bible every other post,Not a troll, annoying but not a troll. who tell known atheists to go to church,Not a troll. tell excellent christians to re-read the bible,again irritating but not a troll. and in many other ways are JUST as obnoxious (if not more) than Sam is in his opinion.Obnoxious doesn't = troll. Hateful angry and vile and namecalling with no other posted value = troll. Sammi is a troll.

How come your first exchange with them is not calling them a troll? And how is that not "name-calling"?Calling someone a troll has a specific meaning on a forum like this. Now if I had called him a jerk or a scum or a blighted puss dripping scab it would have been name calling. But instead I pointed out his ACTUAL actions by using a name for someone who does what he is doing.

If you are unable to see the difference between calling someone a troll for their actions and just calling someone an asshole because they don't support your views, then I am sorry.

Sammi has been banned from at least two boards for his actions and his spots are still there. He is inflammatory and seeks negative reactions. Not real discourse. He lies and posts other peoples words as his own. He he is the ONLY person I have ever seen make BW THAT angry.

kingclick

03-30-2008, 09:51 AM

Gracie

03-30-2008, 11:13 AM

I didn't mean to be offensive, however I'm sure that even you aren't to happy about some of the things going on. Many of us really need to be strong and stand up for our beliefs. Well maybe some of us need to make our voice heard. For one example it appears that pornography is protected by the first amendment but some students have gotten into trouble for bringing their bibles with them to school. It seems like so many groups make their voice heard and we as Christians are loosing ground.

I live in California so maybe we have the most problems here. We are supposed to be politically correct to everyone and the atheists are allowed to bad mouth us and overrule our opinions on certain things that are being pushed as required reading in school. I wasn't talking about Darwin's theory of evolution (that is theory and not known fact) but that is another thing that is taught and yet creation is not allowed to be taught. We seem so willing and able to spread the word throughout the world and fail to stand up for our values here.

Don't mind me I've been having to deal with too many Atheist lately and it really does get too me.

send a PM if you want I'll try to explain more, maybe we are all supposed to think differently because maybe we all have different jobs to do.

Kendra, I am deeply distressed by the state of this world. That said my biggest beef is with those "Christians" who claim to know Him, love Him and say they are doing His work while preaching hatred and intolorance. They curse, spew hate and are mean spirited to others. We are to love one another. Is it love to call names and make fun of others?

Yes, I hold Christians in a different standard because we are representing Him. I am ashamed of some of the things I have heard and seen from those very people who are representing Him. I was a very poor example of a Christian. I was luke warm, one foot in the Church and the other in the world. I was disgusted with myself so I did something about it. I got on my knees and submitted fully to Him.

Unbelievers can become believers. If this is to happen they need to see proof that Christians are the Christ loving people they claim to be.

As for atheists, my own son is one of those atheists you are blaming for all the problems. I love my son dearly and pray he will be saved. Instead of passing judgement on him I pray for mercy for him in my strong belief.

Who's punishment will be greater, those who do not believe or those who do believe and and know Him and are backslidden or lukewarm?

Kendra

03-30-2008, 11:20 AM

I'm not saying that we are in the end times or anything but looking at some of the different books in the bible so many things are making much more sense than they did before.

The book of Daniel mentions something about things being more clear, I'll look that up when I get a chance, but it's Sunday and I don't have time right now.

Jesus told his followers that since he was hated they also would be hated.
It seems like anymore Christians are the group that so many are against.

There was talk about the mark of the beast and with identity theft and counterfeit money I can see that some people would go for a micro chip.

There was talk about people thinking they are serving God by killing Christians, I'm sure you can guess who I think these people might be.
Some of the statements made by the President of Iran really did me very suspicious.

Gracie

03-30-2008, 11:24 AM

Kendra, I know how a Christian is supposed to live. You are not responding to what I am saying. How are we to spread His good news if our words are laced with hatred?

We need to speak His word without allowing our flesh to taint those words.

JPSartre12

03-30-2008, 11:53 AM

With pride!

:howling:

you, KC, Kay, AP, Book Wizard... exactly how many people need to harp on him while certain others continue to troll him? Perhaps if everyone who's insisting THEIR shit don't stink would quit minding everyone else's business and start minding their own, we'd all spend less time arguing about who is behaving the worst.

Grow some balls, chickenshit. If you mean me, say it!!! Your obtuse shots are one of the things that annoys the Hell out of me. It's like stabbing someone in the back, IMO. I'd never sneak up and stab someone in the back (figuritively); I'm man enough to be right in front of them, eye to eye.

Raven

03-30-2008, 11:54 AM

No. What makes him a troll is most of his posts are insults and attacks with no real debate quality. You read the thread. I did and I completely disagree with your opinion on it. I found his words to be reflective of a strongly held opinion, but NOT trolling. Just because someone has zero use for christianity and doesn't have a problem saying so does NOT make them a troll.

Not a troll, annoying but not a troll. Not a troll. again irritating but not a troll. Obnoxious doesn't = troll. Hateful angry and vile and namecalling with no other posted value = troll. bull. tellling someone that you KNOW is an atheist that they should go to church most certainly IS being an obnoxious twit, and very well may be trolling. Trolling assumes the *troll's* intent is to upset people and start arguments. So you think you know Sam's intent and call him a troll. I disagree. But I think a few other people here are trolls, while you disagree with me. But until you or I can get inside other people's heads to know their genuine intent, why do you get to hound people with the label of "troll" while you don't like it when I do the same?

Sammi is a troll. in your opinion only. I disagree and have ample evidence that he is not.

Calling someone a troll has a specific meaning on a forum like this. Now if I had called him a jerk or a scum or a blighted puss dripping scab it would have been name calling. But instead I pointed out his ACTUAL actions by using a name for someone who does what he is doing. "actual actions" mean nothing unless you know the intent. You don't. JUST because you disagree with his pov does not make him a troll.

If you are unable to see the difference between calling someone a troll for their actions and just calling someone an asshole because they don't support your views, then I am sorry.

Sammi has been banned from at least two boards for his actions and his spots are still there. He is inflammatory and seeks negative reactions. Not real discourse. He lies and posts other peoples words as his own. He he is the ONLY person I have ever seen make BW THAT angry. So does banning make someone a troll? If so.... :lol:

Raven

03-30-2008, 11:56 AM

But I have now realized that I have wasted too much of this threads time on this. I am sorry for taking it off track even further.

Raven if you feel the need to discuss this further please PM me.

Again I apologize for keeping this off point. sorry, saw this after I posted. But no need to argue about it in PMs since my only suggestion to everyone is that everyone stop labeling each other. If you are done with that, then I'm done, too :)

Izall

03-31-2008, 01:11 PM

Yes, I hold Christians in a different standard because we are representing Him.

Kay you are exactly right.
Christians are human but we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. We have to let His light shine through us. We have to strive to be spotless. Which sadly, all to many "Christains" forget about, and even sadder is the fact that those are the ones that most people see. (Warning: I'm going to start quoting the bible now so if you are a nonbeliever you can stop reading now)
It says in the bible that there will be a great falling away in the last days. I think that is what we are seeing now. God is slowing being shut out of America. That IMO is why we as a nation are in the condition that we are in.

Gracie

03-31-2008, 01:38 PM

Kay you are exactly right.
Christians are human but we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. We have to let His light shine through us. We have to strive to be spotless. Which sadly, all to many "Christains" forget about, and even sadder is the fact that those are the ones that most people see. (Warning: I'm going to start quoting the bible now so if you are a nonbeliever you can stop reading now)
It says in the bible that there will be a great falling away in the last days. I think that is what we are seeing now. God is slowing being shut out of America. That IMO is why we as a nation are in the condition that we are in.

I tried to rep you but it seems I have to spread some arond first. :trophy:

JPSartre12

03-31-2008, 03:21 PM

PlayBall40

03-31-2008, 03:27 PM

That IMO is why we as a nation are in the condition that we are in. What condition is that?

Izall

03-31-2008, 03:30 PM

What condition is that?

A morally decaying condition

JPSartre12

03-31-2008, 03:34 PM

A morally decaying condition

Speak for yourself, now. My morals are just as fresh as they were 30 years ago. ;)

Izall

03-31-2008, 03:40 PM

Speak for yourself, now. My morals are just as fresh as they were 30 years ago. ;)

Glad to hear that JP :) :claps: but society as a whole is what I was refering to.

Raven

03-31-2008, 05:47 PM

I read that. I have a feeling that there will be a lawsuit involved. To the BEST of my knowledge... if you are a government employee, and you have knowledge of a crime that's being committed, you are required BY LAW to report said crime. So, like I say.. I smell a lawsuit. In that case, it was a public library, NOT a school library as is being implied. And while the probationary librarian was fired, the supervisor claims that she understood it to be adult porn, not child porn. Every advisory clearly states that child porn is illegal and must be reported to the police - so the claim that it is "protected speech" in California is false. Moreover, the Lindsay City Council and other authorities are siding with the fired librarian, so it's not even like the library system or anyone else in that county agrees with her firing. It was a mistake of some sort on the part of one supervisor who is being dealt with. It was not ever an example of For one example it appears that pornography is protected by the first amendment but some students have gotten into trouble for bringing their bibles with them to school. It seems like so many groups make their voice heard and we as Christians are loosing ground... We are supposed to be politically correct to everyone and the atheists are allowed to bad mouth us and overrule our opinions on certain things that are being pushed as required reading in school. Rather, it appears to me that we have another example of christian psuedo-martrdom.

The reason why you're having trouble finding it is because it.... didn't actually happen. A kid got into trouble for bringing his bible to school and ripping it apart, but that was more because the kid was being disruptive than anything else. Except that it is a matter of opinion as to "disruptive." He tore pages from the bible as part of a class assignment that the students had to present to the classroom. And once again, this *example* was grossly misportrayed on this thread as if it was some sort of slap against christians. If anything, it was the opposite - he was suspended for offending christian sensibilities (sort of like Sam gets hounded for offending those same sensibilities here). According to the student's mother, this young man is "struggling" with his christian faith right now. Here is what actually happened: District officials requested an opinion on the matter from their legal counsel, attorney David Moore. The Janesville Gazette obtained a copy of the opinion, which described the Bible incident.

The opinion states that a student was giving a presentation in class that involved his opposition to religion.

“In the course of doing so, he stated that no word of the Bible is true, that those who thought so were ‘idiots,’ that he would prove that persons in the class were ‘ignoramuses for believing in the Bible,’ and that the Bible was written by ‘a bunch of old Mesopotamian men with sand up their (expletive.)’

“He further said, ‘See, I can do this to the Bible and not be harmed because it is not true,’ and then proceeded to rip pages out of a Bible,” according to the document.

“Certain parents and students have understandably raised objections to the student’s conduct,” Moore’s opinion continues. “They have framed the question presented in terms of whether Parker High School will permit a student to rip up a Bible in class.”

Moore’s legal opinion is that a student can’t be disciplined only for ripping the Bible, but the school could discipline him for using offensive language and for promoting “negative stereotyping that degrades or flagrantly demeans any individual or group by negatively referring to religion.”

http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2007/dec/20/bible-incident-draws-concerns/

I find it highly ironic that this is the example of a good christian boy getting into trouble in one of those damned liberal/atheist controlled schools just for bringing his bible to school. :lol:

Raven

03-31-2008, 05:50 PM

The article I read was about the bibles offending the atheist.
It was in regard to the students having their bibles with them during a required acceptance class. prove it. I contend there is NO such case and that you are simply slandering atheists in order to offend those you know post here.

ArcticPhoenix

03-31-2008, 05:51 PM

Raven

03-31-2008, 06:00 PM

Well that's extraordinary, if factual. All the non-believers I know couldn't care less. Looks like another dishonest Christian smear to me.

ETA: What the hell is a "required acceptance class"?
I think I know what case she's referring to. If it is the one I think it is (from a year ago), the students at Heritage High School in Vancouver Washington were suspended for purposely standing in the middle of the traffic flow in the cafeteria and disrupting the other students. They were repeatedly warned and they were offered a private room for their prayers, but they defied the school administration. If this is the case being referred to, it's a flat out lie that any "atheist" complained.

I challenge her to support her claim or withdraw it.

Torlain

03-31-2008, 06:02 PM

I think I know what case she's referring to. If it is the one I think it is (from a year ago), the students at Heritage High School in Vancouver Washington were suspended for purposely standing in the middle of the traffic flow in the cafeteria and disrupting the other students. They were repeatedly warned and they were offered a private room for their prayers, but they defied the school administration. If this is the case being referred to, it's a flat out lie that any "atheist" complained.

I challenge her to support her claim or withdraw it.

I'd like to see some proof of her contention as well, I don't recall hearing anything about what she's speaking of...

Raven

03-31-2008, 06:04 PM

Oh come on now, there are some words of the Bible that are true.

Sepulcres really did exist back then. And many of the Jews really were slaves at one point in time.

Clearly this boy has never actually read the Bible, and probably stole the book from a Ramadan Inn the night before just for a show-and-tell. :P Perhaps :lol: but that possibility just further destroys the claim presented in this thread that the incident was some sort of atheist action against a good christian boy :P

JPSartre12

03-31-2008, 06:06 PM

Glad to hear that JP :) :claps: but society as a whole is what I was refering to.

I can't speak for society, only me. ;)

Terrell

03-31-2008, 06:09 PM

A morally decaying condition

Exactly what moral decay are you referring to? Many things that are considered morals are subjective in nature.

Kendra

03-31-2008, 06:16 PM

ArcticPhoenix

03-31-2008, 06:18 PM

This is one link

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55498

here is another link

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070303/26130_12_Students_Suspended_for_Praying_at_School. htm

How about a reputable source? Both of those are too obviously slanted towards Christianity. Try to find one that's neutral in its regard to religion in general, and perhaps I will take you seriously. Otherwise, I'm going to have reservations in taking your statements seriously.

JPSartre12

03-31-2008, 06:20 PM

Exactly what moral decay are you referring to? Many things that are considered morals are subjective in nature.

I'm thinking that's exactly what the poster was referring to. Our standards for morality have slipped a tad. For example, the illegitimate birth rate in big cities exceeds the legitimacy rate.

Kendra

03-31-2008, 06:26 PM

How about a reputable source? Both of those are too obviously slanted towards Christianity. Try to find one that's neutral in its regard to religion in general, and perhaps I will take you seriously. Otherwise, I'm going to have reservations in taking your statements seriously.

I doubt that any of your liberal papers will have such articles.

Raven

03-31-2008, 06:32 PM

This is one link these are a few examples where everyone else seems to have freedom of speech except for Christians. I haven't found the one on the students getting kicked out of a class for a bible yet but I read it only a few days ago.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55498

Bull

Trent Allen, a spokesman for the San Juan Unified School District, said the problem with the shirts worn by San Juan students isn't that they espouse religious beliefs, it's that they target a particular group or refer to a sexual act. The shirts for which students were suspended on Monday quoted Bible verses implying homosexuals would go to hell.

"We don't want an intimidating environment where students feel harassed and persecuted because of one of their identifying qualities," Allen said. He said district and school officials would meet with parents of suspended students Monday night to explain what's OK and what isn't. http://www.sacbee.com/193/story/171284.html

which, btw, was the same reason the student who tore up the bible (the case you misrepresented earlier in this thread) got suspended:

Moore’s legal opinion is that a student can’t be disciplined only for ripping the Bible, but the school could discipline him for using offensive language and for promoting “negative stereotyping that degrades or flagrantly demeans any individual or group by negatively referring to religion.”http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2007/dec/20/bible-incident-draws-concerns/

oh my! so bible boy was actually suspended for using offensive language and negative stereotyping that degraded and demeaned the christians in his class...

well then... the anti-gay group were suspended for EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Sorry... no example of christian martrydom here

Raven

03-31-2008, 06:38 PM

here is another link

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070303/26130_12_Students_Suspended_for_Praying_at_School. htm

yep - that's the story I figured she was referring to :pointandl

and nope... they were NOT suspended for praying. They were suspended for DISRUPTING THE SCHOOL. Despite repeated warnings and an offer of a private room, the "christians" (in blatant disregard for both school authority AND scripture against public displays of pseudo-piety) insisted on holding their "prayers" in the middle of the traffic in the cafeteria.

Oh, and even your article, Kendra, does NOT say it was an atheist who complained. It quotes some idiot who says a "satanist" complained. Other articles claim it was a "pagan" who complained. You owe the atheists on this board an apology.

Raven

03-31-2008, 06:40 PM

How about a reputable source? Both of those are too obviously slanted towards Christianity. Try to find one that's neutral in its regard to religion in general, and perhaps I will take you seriously. Otherwise, I'm going to have reservations in taking your statements seriously.
Contrary to Kendra's "doubt" about "liberal papers" - I've already posted less biased sources and shown her sources for the lying rags they are. ;)

Terrell

03-31-2008, 06:49 PM

I'm thinking that's exactly what the poster was referring to. Our standards for morality have slipped a tad. For example, the illegitimate birth rate in big cities exceeds the legitimacy rate.

I do tend to favor personal freedom on these matters, because there are LOTS of things that some people find immoral, that others are okay with. Many are also okay with using the force of law to enforce them.

I largely think that the government would be better if they stayed out of those things. Some people think that drinking is immoral, we even had an amendment to the Constitution to make it illegal to make, transport, & sell, alcohol in the United States, it lasted 13 years before it was repealed. Now if only we would realize that the drug war is just as futile as Prohibition.

Some people think that it's immoral for gays/lesbians to have sexual relations with one another. There are some who think that it should be illegal ie: Sodomy laws, as applied to homosexuals (though they can also be applied to heterosexuals as well) would be an example. I don't think that a majority in a legislature should ever be able to tell two consenting adults what kind of sex they may have in the privacy of their own home. If one is opposed to homosexual sex, one should refrain from engaging in said sex but I don't think that the government should have the power to outlaw it among adults in private.

Fornication/Adultery I don't think that it's right to run around on one's wife, however I would strongly oppose any government intervention against said behaviour under the criminal law, and as far as the civil law is concerned I would favor it being a grounds for divorce, but I would be opposed to "alienation of affection" lawsuits. Fornication between adults is something else that many consider immoral, but I don't think that we should do anything about it, especially with the force of law.

Samaritan Laws: Generally I oppose any law that requires an individual to come to the aid of a stranger in distress, when said individual did not cause or exacerbate the distress of the person in danger. It should be up to the individual's judgment whether or not to lend assistance.

Those are a few things.

Kendra

03-31-2008, 07:41 PM

Here is a link about students suspended for carrying a bible.

http://www.adherents.com/misc/school_houston.html

the article I actually was talking about was students getting suspended over bringing their bibles with them to a required alternative life style class.

Raven

03-31-2008, 08:08 PM

2000-MAY-19: Texas: Students' speech restricted: A lawsuit was filed on behalf of two middle school students, Angela and Amber Harbison, against the Lynn Lucas Middle School in the Willis Independent School District, about 50 miles north of Houston TX. Teacher Sara Flottman allegedly took the girls' Bibles, shouted "This is garbage," and tossed them into a wastebasket. In three unrelated incidences, teachers at the school had students remove book covers with the Ten Commandments printed on them. The school district allegedly justified its action by saying the book covers constituted hate speech, and that the school had a policy against students distributing literature without permission. In early June, Judy Thornton, spokesperson for the Willis Independent School District, released a statement saying that "The district has investigated the allegations and determined that they are untrue."http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_praa.htm

The Free Market Foundation, a "non profit organization dedicated to protecting freedoms and strengthening families in Texas and nationwide", has a list of alleged violations of religious freedom done by Texas schools, the most grievous of which is the case of Sara Flottman, a middle school teacher who, in 2000, threw the Bibles of two students in the trash, calling them "garbage." That's really, really bad, however the legal group Liberty Counsel that took the case on June 1, 2000 dropped it 9 days later, after, according to school officials, it found that "students of Willis Independent School District have not been told they cannot bring Bibles to school, and Bibles were never thrown into the trash." Matthew Staver of the group said that it was to avoid a costly lawsuit and provide a forum for an amicable settlement. That just begs the question of why would a group that claimed to "educate the educators" in this matter choose to drop it so soon after taking it. And where does that leave the legal standing of an act design to prevent something that apparently didn't happen? http://rahne-everson.livejournal.com/33212.html

liars for Jesus. Doncha just love 'em?

kingclick

03-31-2008, 08:36 PM

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_praa.htm

http://rahne-everson.livejournal.com/33212.html

liars for Jesus. Doncha just love 'em?

The first source isn't very clear in where the information actually came from.

A school district gets sued about an abuse..the school district declares no abuse happened.

I guess you would be happy with a policeman declaring his partner innocent of accusations!

The second source is crap. A blog? It's no better than the sources Kendra provided..heck even less.

And lastly your claim that they have lied is unsubstantiated by anyone except for the people that are being held financially liable.

Find me PROOF that they lied from anyone other than the school district.

Raven

03-31-2008, 08:42 PM

The first source isn't very clear in where the information actually came from.

A school district gets sued about an abuse..the school district declares no abuse happened.

I guess you would be happy with a policeman declaring his partner innocent of accusations!

The second source is crap. A blog? It's no better than the sources Kendra provided..heck even less.

And lastly your claim that they have lied is unsubstantiated by anyone except for the people that are being held financially liable.

Find me PROOF that they lied from anyone other than the school district.
how about you find this supposed lawsuit. I've provided TWO sources showing that the claims were false. How about YOU find me the lawsuit if you think Liberty Council didn't drop it like a hot potato

Raven

03-31-2008, 08:48 PM

06/00, Only one week after the lawsuit was brought, the Liberty council withdraws its charges against the school district, without explanation. Three Texas middle school students had sued the Willis Independent school district in federal court alleging their fundamental rights were violated when they were punished for having Christian texts on campus, charges that the school says were discovered to be unfounded after an investigation. Represented by the Liberty Counsel, a religious right group that claims separation of church and state only applies to the federal government and that state governments may each have an established church, Angela and Amber Harbison and Jeremy Pasket had accused officials with the Willis Independent School District of unconstitutionally punishing them for bringing their Bibles and Ten Commandment book covers to school, and they also alledged that a teacher threw a Bible in the trash. Not only does the school deny these charges, but they have stated that students are free to bring Bibles to school, to have religious book covers, and to read Bibles during free reading time. (Sources: Freedom Forum Online, Associated Press, and the link above) http://www.infidels.org/activist/state/ArchivesTexas.shtml

you will, of course, insist that this is a biased source too, but the FACT remains - Liberty Council voluntarily DROPPED the lawsuit. Why do you suppose they would do that? They would have LOVED the publicity of this case if the claims had been factual.

kingclick

03-31-2008, 08:57 PM

06/00, Only one week after the lawsuit was brought, the Liberty council withdraws its charges against the school district, without explanation.

NOW who is a liar.

Mathew Staver, a lawyer with Liberty Counsel, said the lawsuit's withdrawal was an attempt to avoid a court battle and reach a mutually satisfying agreement between the parties involved.

Staver said the action was based on a promise from district officials that they would work toward adopting federal guidelines on religion in schools.

I know who is a liar. Your source.

Raven

03-31-2008, 09:17 PM

NOW who is a liar.

I know who is a liar. Your source.
adherents . com? :pointandl another BIASED source. So you claim your source is correct and I will claim mine is correct, but common sense and knowledge of Liberty Council's purpose will support the contention that the accusations against the school district were false. Liberty Council would not have dropped the lawsuit if they thought the allegations were true and/or provable. Frankly, the allegations are so wild on the face of it I am surprised that YOU believe them.

And in any case, even IF (for the sake of argument) one teacher actually made a big scene and threw bibles in the garbage and threatened the mother with CPS over the bibles... (come on!! That one doesn't even begin to pass the smell test. But let's pretend it does...) that STILL doesn't support the original contentions: everyone else seems to have freedom of speech except for Christians For one example it appears that pornography is protected by the first amendment but some students have gotten into trouble for bringing their bibles with them to school. and my favorite: We are supposed to be politically correct to everyone and the atheists are allowed to bad mouth us and overrule our opinions on certain things that are being pushed as required reading in school.

So you and I can argue about a poorly source EIGHT YEAR OLD DROPPED case all we want, but that case will never support the bogus claims made on this thread.

kingclick

03-31-2008, 09:22 PM

adherents . com? :pointandl another BIASED source. So you claim your source is correct and I will claim mine is correct, but common sense and knowledge of Liberty Council's purpose will support the contention that the accusations against the school district were false.If you actually clicked the link. It would provide another link and attribute the story to

Drumroll please....

The AP. But obviously you didn't follow the link.

Liberty Council would not have dropped the lawsuit if they thought the allegations were true and/or provable. Frankly, the allegations are so wild on the face of it I am surprised that YOU believe them.I don't believe nor disbelieve them. However I don't have enough information to call them liars either.

And in any case, even IF (for the sake of argument) one teacher actually made a big scene and threw bibles in the garbage and threatened the mother with CPS over the bibles... (come on!! That one doesn't even begin to pass the smell test. But let's pretend it does...) that STILL doesn't support the original contentions: and my favorite:

So you and I can argue about a poorly source EIGHT YEAR OLD DROPPED case all we want, but that case will never support the bogus claims made on this thread.I guess it's in the eye of the beholder.

Raven

03-31-2008, 09:34 PM

If you actually clicked the link. It would provide another link and attribute the story to

Drumroll please....

The AP. But obviously you didn't follow the link.

I don't believe nor disbelieve them. However I don't have enough information to call them liars either.

I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. There is no link in your post. The URL you posted leads to adherence.com, which claims as their source the AP, but the URL they provide does NOT go to any AP source. In fact, the URL even appears to indicate it came from the CHAT site of Amarillo.com (http://chat.amarillonet.com/stories/061000/tex_LD0717.shtml) So why am I supposed to take the word of adherents.com that their source really was the AP. Moreover, even if it is from the AP, you dismissed a quote from a representative of the school district when she stated the allegations were false. Why do you expect me to believe a representative of Liberty Council as to why they so rapidly dropped the case? They are trying to save face. There is NO WAY they would have dropped a viable case.

And you don't have to call them liars for Jesus. I did.

kingclick

03-31-2008, 10:17 PM

There is no link in your post. The URL you posted leads to adherence.com, which claims as their source the AP, but the URL they provide does NOT go to any AP source. In fact, the URL even appears to indicate it came from the CHAT site of Amarillo.com (http://chat (http://%3Cb%3Echat%3C/b%3E).amarillonet.com/stories/061000/tex_LD0717.shtml) So why am I supposed to take the word of adherents.com that their source really was the AP. Moreover, even if it is from the AP, you dismissed a quote from a representative of the school district when she stated the allegations were false. Why do you expect me to believe a representative of Liberty Council as to why they so rapidly dropped the case? They are trying to save face. There is NO WAY they would have dropped a viable case.Again did you try that link? "Chat" is for a newspaper website. Newspapers all over the world have chats on their sites.

And you don't have to call them liars for Jesus. I did.And you wonder what is up my butt.

You have no proof that anyone lied for Jesus. And you have non proof that this did or didn't happen. The only proof you have is that a lawsuit was dropped. And it WASN'T dropped without comment, but instead was dropped because of an agreement to terms.

But thanks for giving me proof that Atheists lie with your false quote from a very biased source.

Raven

03-31-2008, 10:25 PM

:lol: Interesting cite: 08/30/00, Americans United for Separation of Church and State called on Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman to resign as honorary chairman of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. AU charges that the group makes a number of false charges against public education and church-state separation. "The Fellowship seems to have a track record of making reckless and baseless charges about religious freedom in America and specifically the role religion plays in public schools," Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn wrote to Lieberman and said the stories the Fellowship circulates about public schools suppressing student religious activity are most likely mythical. "Members of my staff and I have personally investigated many of these types of claims over the years and have found them to be either completely groundless or grossly misconstrued," Lynn wrote. (For example, see the Willis Independent school district case in Texas.) Lynn noted that the advisory board of the Center for Jewish and Christian Values is studded with Religious Right activists who frequently attack public schools and church-state separation, including former Education Secretary William Bennett, Southern Baptist Convention official Richard Land, former Family Research Council director Gary Bauer and ex-Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed. (Americans United press release) http://www.infidels.org/activist/state/ArchivesFederal.shtml

kingclick

03-31-2008, 10:29 PM

Your sources are less than valid.

Raven

03-31-2008, 10:38 PM

Again did you try that link? "Chat" is for a newspaper website. Newspapers all over the world have chats on their sites. A CHAT site. I don't care what it is attached to. BLOG sites quote AP and newspaper sites, too, but if you want to dismiss BLOG sites, then CHAT sites are no more reputable.

And you wonder what is up my butt. So, you are proving my point that you hound people on this board because you disagree with their POV? I never called YOU a liar for Jesus, but I do say that the family that made those allegations against the teacher in the Willis Independent School District in 2000 are liars for Jesus. Their claims are incredible just on the face of it, and the fact that the Liberty Council dropped them so fast just supports my opinion that the family lied.

You have no proof that anyone lied for Jesus. And you have non proof that this did or didn't happen. The only proof you have is that a lawsuit was dropped. And it WASN'T dropped without comment, but instead was dropped because of an agreement to terms. BULL. It was NOT dropped because of any agreement of terms. Not even the Liberty Council quote that YOU posted claimed that. Mathew Staver, a lawyer with Liberty Counsel, said the lawsuit's withdrawal was an attempt to avoid a court battle and reach a mutually satisfying agreement between the parties involved. It didn't say that any agreement was reached. It was a face-saving claim that they wanted to "attempt" to reach an agreement.

s for giving me proof that Atheists lie with your false quote from a very biased source. Find the court case to PROVE the case was dropped with any sort of comment. Prove that the quote by the Liberty Council representative was made or publicized BEFORE the comment about "without comment" Prove the "without comment" comment was made by an atheist. Your adherents.com site claims that the school district didn't comment about the lawsuit, yet other sources QUOTE the school district. So, it looks like, according to your measure and failure to consider timing, that adherents.com LIES.

Raven

03-31-2008, 10:50 PM

Your sources are less than valid. you can claim that all you want, but my sources are far more credible than the nonsense site Kendra posted. And regardless what your personal opinion of the sources are, you can not deny that the lawsuit was dropped and that there was ZERO evidence presented on ANY of the sites to support the wholly incredible claim of a teacher throwing bibles in the garbage and threatening a mother with CPS because her daughters brought bibles to school. And you can not deny that this EIGHT YEAR OLD DROPPED CASE does not in any way support the claim that: everyone else seems to have freedom of speech except for Christians

Raven

03-31-2008, 11:02 PM

:lol: and those two good "christian" bible toting sisters... they were serving multiple detentions when they made their wild allegations. Naw... they obviously wouldn't lie about anything. :lol:

kingclick

03-31-2008, 11:14 PM

Izall

04-01-2008, 08:48 AM

I'm thinking that's exactly what the poster was referring to. Our standards for morality have slipped a tad. For example, the illegitimate birth rate in big cities exceeds the legitimacy rate.

Yes, exactly. We veiw unwed mothers as the norm instead of the exception. You can't watch a tv show with your children without a curse word being used (on the tv show that is :jester1:). We have no regard for human life anymore. (And when I say "we", it is a generic term for society). Just to name a few.

JPSartre12

04-01-2008, 11:35 AM

you can claim that all you want, but my sources are far more credible than the nonsense site Kendra posted. And regardless what your personal opinion of the sources are, you can not deny that the lawsuit was dropped and that there was ZERO evidence presented on ANY of the sites to support the wholly incredible claim of a teacher throwing bibles in the garbage and threatening a mother with CPS because her daughters brought bibles to school. And you can not deny that this EIGHT YEAR OLD DROPPED CASE does not in any way support the claim that:

To claim that Christians haven't been targeted by public school officials is just plain disengenuous. We can argue about the frequency of it occurring, but it DOES occur.

How to Teach Religion in Public Schools
by Krista Kafer
Earlier this year, a kindergartner named Kayla was told she couldn't pray with her friends during lunch. Her family filed suit against her New York school district, and a federal judge ordered the school to allow the girl to pray while the trial proceeds.

This situation probably never would have arisen if school officials had been properly cognizant of a string of Supreme Court decisions in recent decades that have clarified students' rights and responsibilities under the law regarding religious exercise and free speech. Ignorance of these decisions has led to school policies, as in Kayla's case, that chill legal religious practice and that cold-shoulder the legitimate and legal teaching about religion in such subjects as social studies, literature, history, and geography.

According to the Constitution, the American people are guaranteed the right to practice religion free from government intervention. But interpreting the First Amendment clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has not been easy, particularly pertaining to public schools. Nonetheless, the High Court has said, generally speaking, that voluntary student expression and the study of religion are protected but proselytizing and school-sanctioned or teacher-led prayers are not.

The justices have recognized students' First Amendment rights to religious expression and to receive instruction about religion and its role in history, philosophy, and the arts. Congress has voted to enforce--and the Court has affirmed--the right of student religious groups to receive the same access and treatment as other groups. These distinctions are well articulated in a 1995 statement of principles by the National Education Association (NEA), the country's largest teachers union, the Christian Coalition, and 22 other educational associations and religious groups.

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed083102.cfm

Terrell

04-01-2008, 12:45 PM

Yes, exactly. We veiw unwed mothers as the norm instead of the exception. You can't watch a tv show with your children without a curse word being used (on the tv show that is :jester1:). We have no regard for human life anymore. (And when I say "we", it is a generic term for society). Just to name a few.

What do you propose we do about those things?

Izall

04-01-2008, 01:12 PM

What do you propose we do about those things?

As I stated in my earlier post, IMO we need to stop pushing God and anything that has anything to do with God out of everything. At the very least, whether your a believer or not, the bible is a great reference for moral values. Again just my opinoin.

Terrell

04-01-2008, 02:05 PM

As I stated in my earlier post, IMO we need to stop pushing God and anything that has anything to do with God out of everything. At the very least, whether your a believer or not, the bible is a great reference for moral values. Again just my opinoin.

Could you be a little more specific, as to what you want done? I disagree though about the bible, nonbelievers should have every right to reject it as a source of morality.

samiinh

04-01-2008, 04:10 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145

Watching this video and learn who GOD is. Gold, Oil, Drugs.

Izall

04-01-2008, 04:21 PM

Could you be a little more specific, as to what you want done? I disagree though about the bible, nonbelievers should have every right to reject it as a source of morality.

I'm starting to feel like I am being baited here.

Terrell

04-01-2008, 04:35 PM

I'm starting to feel like I am being baited here.

Not really, debated is more like it. You're making generalizations, I'm curious as to what your specifics are. What would you do, socially, or with governmental power, to address those things you see as "moral decay"? What exactly is "moral decay"? What do you consider taking god out of everything, different people may have different opinions of exactly what that entails. I'm simply asking you to defend your positions with some specifics or at the very least to clarify what your positions are.

JPSartre12

04-01-2008, 06:23 PM

Not really, debated is more like it. You're making generalizations, I'm curious as to what your specifics are. What would you do, socially, or with governmental power, to address those things you see as "moral decay"? What exactly is "moral decay"? What do you consider taking god out of everything, different people may have different opinions of exactly what that entails. I'm simply asking you to defend your positions with some specifics or at the very least to clarify what your positions are.

I gave one example, illegitimacy. This has caused the decay of urban life, a Lord of the Flies mentality and a precipitous rise in crime.
Another sign of decay, 1 out of every 100 males in the US is an incarcerated prisoner.
Our politicians are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes and going to jail now than ever before.
Our sports heros are cheaters that use illegal performance-enhancing drugs.
Our "moral leaders" are charlatans, con men and hypocrites.
We don't value human life, instead placing more emphasis on a woman's "choice".

The list is virtually endless.

Raven

04-01-2008, 06:48 PM

Ok...I give.

I may have misinterpreted your post about liars for Jesus being an accusation on all people who believe.

If you didn't mean that...I respectfully step aside.

As to supporting that claim. It doesn't matter, that claim is false.KC you should know me well enough by now to know I would not make that as a blanket accusation against all christians. Only the ones who are. And based on the facts we have on this 8 year old case, I think the mothers and daughters are liars. And I think Liberty Council realized it, too, and dropped the case in the most face-saving way they could.

And I'm glad we agree that the claim that case was supposed to support is false :D

Terrell

04-01-2008, 06:49 PM

I gave one example, illegitimacy. This has caused the decay of urban life, a Lord of the Flies mentality and a precipitous rise in crime.

Illegitimacy is more open than it was before as well. We don't ship girls off to be with relatives when they get "in trouble". I don't really worry about people having children outside of marriage, I do wonder though about people having children that they cannot afford to take care of. For me this is somewhat situational.

Another sign of decay, 1 out of every 100 males in the US is an incarcerated prisoner.

One can ascribe at least some of this to the war on drugs. Legalize it and regulate it, and prison rates may fall. It's also troubling when we have privatized some of the prisons. I find this troubling because it gives the people who run said privatized prisons an economic incentive for people to be incarcerated.

Our politicians are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes and going to jail now than ever before.

Are they more likely to be found guilty because they're committing more crimes, or because they're getting exposed more for the crimes that they commit? (24 hr news cycle, internet, YouTube). We also have lots more things that are considered crimes. Some things should be crimes like taking bribes, but it was suspicious activity reports that caused Spitzer to get busted. (The bank is required by law to report to the federal government if you make any transaction over 10K or if you make multiple transactions adding up to 10K.) It's a federal crime called structuring to break cash transactions into amounts smaller than 10K to avoid reporting to the Feds how you're spending your money.

Our sports heros are cheaters that use illegal performance-enhancing drugs.

Were our sports heroes ever always morally upright? The Black Sox scandal comes to mind (there was a movie about this called Eight Men Out). I think that the only differences here is what "immoral" behaviour that the sports stars are doing. Not to mention greater news coverage on these types of things.

Our "moral leaders" are charlatans, con men and hypocrites.

Can be said for many of our moral leaders, in various points in history. Are you talking about the church leaders or the political leaders when you say "moral" leaders? There's plenty of power use/abuse over the course of history on that, same can be said for political leaders.

We don't value human life, instead placing more emphasis on a woman's "choice".

This one is subjective, the woman's freedom also has value, though we disagree on which should take priority. I'm personally against making a woman give access to, or use of, her body in a way that she doesn't want to give such access too, even if it means that costs someone else their life. (I also oppose any organ donation system other than opt-in, and bad samaritan laws for similiar reasons the principle that we as individuals own our bodies, and should not be compelled to use them in a way that we don't wish to do so)

Raven

04-01-2008, 06:49 PM

To claim that Christians haven't been targeted by public school officials is just plain disengenuous. We can argue about the frequency of it occurring, but it DOES occur.
You are absolutely correct. Good thing I didn't ever say that.

Raven

04-01-2008, 06:51 PM

As I stated in my earlier post, IMO we need to stop pushing God and anything that has anything to do with God out of everything. At the very least, whether your a believer or not, the bible is a great reference for moral values. Again just my opinoin.
(1) support that claim and be prepared for counter-claims showing it is not, and
(2) one doesn't need the bible to have develop an ethical/moral world view

JPSartre12

04-01-2008, 07:25 PM

You are absolutely correct. Good thing I didn't ever say that.

And good thing that I didn't state that you did. ;)

JPSartre12

04-01-2008, 07:41 PM

Illegitimacy is more open than it was before as well. We don't ship girls off to be with relatives when they get "in trouble". I don't really worry about people having children outside of marriage, I do wonder though about people having children that they cannot afford to take care of. For me this is somewhat situational.

You aren't going to debate that the crime in big cities isn't related to the out of control youth being raised by single mothers unable to control their sons are you? If that is your position, then I would recommend that we make it a formal debate. I haven't participated in a bloodbath in quite some time. ;)

One can ascribe at least some of this to the war on drugs. Legalize it and regulate it, and prison rates may fall. It's also troubling when we have privatized some of the prisons. I find this troubling because it gives the people who run said privatized prisons an economic incentive for people to be incarcerated.

I agree on all points above. :agree:

Are they more likely to be found guilty because they're committing more crimes, or because they're getting exposed more for the crimes that they commit? (24 hr news cycle, internet, YouTube). We also have lots more things that are considered crimes. Some things should be crimes like taking bribes, but it was suspicious activity reports that caused Spitzer to get busted. (The bank is required by law to report to the federal government if you make any transaction over 10K or if you make multiple transactions adding up to 10K.) It's a federal crime called structuring to break cash transactions into amounts smaller than 10K to avoid reporting to the Feds how you're spending your money.

What triggered the Spitzer FBI investigation was the cash payments to dummy companies. Ironically, the law was put in place after 9-11 as a means of stopping the funding of terrorists. It appears that the former attorney general was caught in his own net. ;)

Were our sports heroes ever always morally upright? The Black Sox scandal comes to mind (there was a movie about this called Eight Men Out). I think that the only differences here is what "immoral" behaviour that the sports stars are doing. Not to mention greater news coverage on these types of things.

We've always had "colorful" sports heros, but the majority were upstanding people. Musial, DiMaggio, Aaron, Starr, Starbuck, Too Tall Jones, et al, were good role models for kids, unlike today's sports figures across-the-board, practically.

Can be said for many of our moral leaders, in various points in history. Are you talking about the church leaders or the political leaders when you say "moral" leaders? There's plenty of power use/abuse over the course of history on that, same can be said for political leaders.

I disagree. And I believe that the term moral politician is an oxymoron.

This one is subjective, the woman's freedom also has value, though we disagree on which should take priority. I'm personally against making a woman give access to, or use of, her body in a way that she doesn't want to give such access too, even if it means that costs someone else their life. (I also oppose any organ donation system other than opt-in, and bad samaritan laws for similiar reasons the principle that we as individuals own our bodies, and should not be compelled to use them in a way that we don't wish to do so)

Of course it's subjective NOW (no pun intended). That wasn't the case 50 years ago, which further strengthens the contention that our morality has decayed.

Terrell

04-01-2008, 09:11 PM

You aren't going to debate that the crime in big cities isn't related to the out of control youth being raised by single mothers unable to control their sons are you? If that is your position, then I would recommend that we make it a formal debate. I haven't participated in a bloodbath in quite some time. ;)

No, not going to debate that, there are plenty of parents that could do a better job of rasing their kids, regardless of their marital status (I have a lower threshold for out of control children than you might realize which is one of the reasons that I don't want any). We might see more eye to eye on that one than you may realize.

I do think that if a parent is giving their best effort to take care of the children they have, even if they're not married to the other parent, are not being immoral.

What triggered the Spitzer FBI investigation was the cash payments to dummy companies. Ironically, the law was put in place after 9-11 as a means of stopping the funding of terrorists. It appears that the former attorney general was caught in his own net. ;)

There is some irony there, I agree with you on that. Not to mention his past stint as AG. Money-laundering laws though don't originate with the war on terrorism, they're used for the war on drugs as well, wouldn't be surprised if they were used during Prohibition in some form or another.

I do think that Prostitution should also be legal and regulated. The world's oldest profession isn't going away anytime soon, the amount of harm in it would likely be decreased if it were legal. (In the book Death by Black Hole and Other Cosmic Quandries Neil DeGrasse Tyson says that Astronomy is the 2nd oldest profession ;))

We've always had "colorful" sports heros, but the majority were upstanding people. Musial, DiMaggio, Aaron, Starr, Starbuck, Too Tall Jones, et al, were good role models for kids, unlike today's sports figures across-the-board, practically.

I don't think that the majority of our current/recent sports heroes are more immoral than the "colorful" ones in the past, but they are under far greater scrutiny than they were in the past. How differently might we look at those colorful characters in the past if they were under the same level of scrutiny as modern athletes.

I can think of a stars though that are well known and aren't really in any trouble. Recently retired Brett Favre, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Ben Rothlesberger, & Donovan McNabb would be some examples from Football. There are examples from other sports as well, but I like football best and follow it most closely.

We also don't know, whether we look at past or modern players, of things that they got a bye on.

I disagree. And I believe that the term moral politician is an oxymoron.

Depends on the politician in question. I do think that many of them are seeking power over others. I do wonder who you consider a "moral" leader. I would think that a parent is a moral leader to their child, or at least the one that should have the most influence. Grands may also be the case too.

Of course it's subjective NOW (no pun intended). That wasn't the case 50 years ago, which further strengthens the contention that our morality has decayed.

People simply have more room, both socially and economically to register their dissent. Simply because they kept quiet about things, doesn't necessarily mean that they agreed with social norms/beliefs. I saw a quote a while back that said: "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him" by John Morley.

Here are a few things that occured in the fifties, that some might disagree with the morality of.

Companies openly having separate salary levels for women vs men doing the same job (in those professions women could occupy) the "family wage". JFK's labor secretary once said "Pay is for work done, not the number of dependents of the workers" with respect to the "family wage".

Mistrust towards men if they weren't married with children after a certain age (both society, and more importantly employers) Is it really moral to marry, for the sake of appearences?

Restriction of economic opportunities for women (especially married women and mothers)

McCarthyism, and other red scares.

Just to name a few.

flygirl

04-02-2008, 04:53 AM

In spite of JP's and Izalls's views on the general moral decay of modern society, I actually think that in most ways our society is vastly MORE moral than in the past.We've all had our fill of 'political correctness' but in a way, it's a sign of what's right with us.It's unnacceptable to ostracize or denigrate single mothers like was done in the past, and the word illegitimate, when applied to children is considered archaic. This is better. It's sternly frowned upon to make fun of those physically or mentally challenged and we go out of our way to accomodate their unique problems. This is better.
Women, poor, desperate, with no support, or too many children are no longer forced to continue pregnancies in fear, and women do not have to give birth to children they can not feed or clothe or care for. This is better. It's widely accepted that looking down on a person because of their skin color, religion, or sexual preferences is bigoted and ignorant. Though that's long been the law of the land, it is only now that people's mindsets are catching up with it. This is better.
Our acceptance of unmarried mothers and their children isn't a sign of moral decay, it's a sign of moral integrity. Acceptance of people and lifestyles different than our own is the moral way and we're doing that, and we're doing it more and more, and we're doing it better.
If, Michele, by 'God or the Devil' you mean good or evil, then God's winning hands down. If you want evidence of this, don't go to church, watch sesame street.

Izall

04-02-2008, 10:44 AM

Sorry I have not responded back yet but I only have time to post when I am at work :paranoid:, so anyway, thank you JP for taking over in my absence. And thank you Raven for the refresher course on debate forums but I understand how they work and secondly I did not say one needed the bible to have an ethical/moral world view, I simply stated it had some good moral values in it :). And to Terrell, I can see your point as far as there is alot more exposure in todays society, information is more easily accessable and there were things happening 50 years ago that at the time would seem to be just as bad as what you see today. What I am seeing in todays society though and part of what I have been eluding to I guess is the desensitizing of America. We are so bombarded with violence and sex that we are becoming numb to it. As far as what to do about it, I'm not sure anything can be done at this point.

ArcticPhoenix

04-02-2008, 01:44 PM

eluding to I guess is the desensitizing of America

ALLUDING to.

/Spelling Nazi
//Heil!

Izall

04-02-2008, 02:37 PM

ALLUDING to.

/Spelling Nazi
//Heil!

And that was how I had it spelled originally but changed it because it didn't look right.:nod:

flygirl

04-02-2008, 02:52 PM

And that was how I had it spelled originally but changed it because it didn't look right.:nod:
probably because you see the word 'eluding' in print all the time, when the article is about criminals and police. ;) Don't worry about it. Half the time I have to STILL stop and think whether the word I want is 'effect' or 'affect'.

Raven

04-02-2008, 04:35 PM

And thank you Raven for the refresher course on debate forums but I understand how they work and secondly I did not say one needed the bible to have an ethical/moral world view, I simply stated it had some good moral values in it. so instead of actually trying to support your claim, you give me the above comment? I was not attempting to educate you on how to post. I would assume you already know how. I am challenging you to support your claim that the bible "had some good moral values in it" as if that should mean anything to anyone else. Big deal. Saturday morning cartoons have "some good moral values in it", too. So? In other words, even if we decide to stipulate that we may be able to find "some good moral values" among the more horrific aspects of the bible... what difference does that have to our society that you say is in "moral decay." What do you propose we do with your claim regarding the bible.

Book Wizard

04-02-2008, 04:38 PM

I always have a dictionary within reach because I have trouble with spelling. And me an English major!

JPSartre12

04-02-2008, 09:39 PM

No, not going to debate that, there are plenty of parents that could do a better job of rasing their kids, regardless of their marital status (I have a lower threshold for out of control children than you might realize which is one of the reasons that I don't want any). We might see more eye to eye on that one than you may realize.

The creation of a Welfare State in the US was certainly an amoral action in the name of liberalism. It gave unwed mothers cash incentive to NOT have a responsible male in her life. I saw much of the WS up close and personal, having been bussed into a ghetto HS and interacting with the progeny of those mothers. I learned that there were indeed “Welfare Cadillacs” because I saw the kids being picked up in them after school and taken home to their shacks. I saw the bars fill the day that the “Eagle Shit” (welfare checks were sent out on a particular day of the month). I could tell you stories that would make your head spin.

I do think that if a parent is giving their best effort to take care of the children they have, even if they're not married to the other parent, are not being immoral.

I’m not talking about single parents that became so through no fault of their own. I’m talking about the embracing of a culture of illegitimacy that is multi-generational.

There is some irony there, I agree with you on that. Not to mention his past stint as AG. Money-laundering laws though don't originate with the war on terrorism, they're used for the war on drugs as well, wouldn't be surprised if they were used during Prohibition in some form or another.

I do think that Prostitution should also be legal and regulated. The world's oldest profession isn't going away anytime soon, the amount of harm in it would likely be decreased if it were legal. (In the book Death by Black Hole and Other Cosmic Quandries Neil DeGrasse Tyson says that Astronomy is the 2nd oldest profession ;))

I’m in favor of legalizing prostitution as well, but I’m not ever going to say that prostitution is moral. It simply isn’t.

I don't think that the majority of our current/recent sports heroes are more immoral than the "colorful" ones in the past, but they are under far greater scrutiny than they were in the past. How differently might we look at those colorful characters in the past if they were under the same level of scrutiny as modern athletes.

I can think of a stars though that are well known and aren't really in any trouble. Recently retired Brett Favre, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Ben Rothlesberger, & Donovan McNabb would be some examples from Football. There are examples from other sports as well, but I like football best and follow it most closely.

We also don't know, whether we look at past or modern players, of things that they got a bye on.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point, I guess.

Depends on the politician in question. I do think that many of them are seeking power over others. I do wonder who you consider a "moral" leader. I would think that a parent is a moral leader to their child, or at least the one that should have the most influence. Grands may also be the case too.

I would agree that parents should be moral leaders, but they have certainly not lived up to the standards of their predecessors either, for the most part. Divorce rates are way higher now because parents put their own happiness above that of their kids far more than before. There is no such thing as silent stoicism any more.

People simply have more room, both socially and economically to register their dissent. Simply because they kept quiet about things, doesn't necessarily mean that they agreed with social norms/beliefs. I saw a quote a while back that said: "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him" by John Morley.

Keeping up with the Jones at the expense of your family isn’t moral.

Here are a few things that occured in the fifties, that some might disagree with the morality of.

Companies openly having separate salary levels for women vs men doing the same job (in those professions women could occupy) the "family wage". JFK's labor secretary once said "Pay is for work done, not the number of dependents of the workers" with respect to the "family wage".

Mistrust towards men if they weren't married with children after a certain age (both society, and more importantly employers) Is it really moral to marry, for the sake of appearences?

Restriction of economic opportunities for women (especially married women and mothers)

McCarthyism, and other red scares.

Just to name a few.

I’ll agree that it wasn’t perfect, but here’s something to consider. Could you go to sleep at night with your doors and cars unlocked 50 years ago? Can you today?
Can kids go outside at dawn and not return until dinner without them being at risk? They could when I was a kid.
Can you walk down any street in a major city today? You could 50 years ago.

We had a thread recently about produce stands that left jars for people to put their money in when they bought produce from the self-serve stands. Those have disappeared. Why? Because they were being robbed.