OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
lifebaka wrote:
No, you said it again. When you say "God", you (probably) only mean "God as defined by mainstream Protestant Christianity in the US". The latter isn't actually representative of Christianity as a whole, much less religion as a whole. (Hell, the latter doesn't even really exist as a singular thing. There're a bunch of Protestant denominations who believe some very different things.)
The problem is that a lot of the terms you (and others) are using are loaded with cultural meaning, but someone else won't necessarily attach those same meanings to the terms. To take a far-flung example, if you say something about "God" to a Hindu, they'll likely ask something like this: "Oh, a god? Which one?" This a really obvious example of how you can be misunderstood, due to the large cultural differences, but the same thing applies on a much smaller (and harder to notice) scale with basically everyone who isn't you.
More the point, the idea that faith/belief and a book define a religion is pretty unique to Protestant Christianity, largely because these two things are how Protestant Christianity defines itself. So when you talk about "religion" without talking about anything except faith/belief and a book, you're really only talking about Protestant Christianity. And when you make claims about "religion" based off of faith/belief and books, unless you're talking about Protestant Christianity, those claims really aren't valid.
Problems start when we forget that we're talking about Protestant Christianity, not religion as a whole. This is why I keep pointing out that we're not talking about religion, we're talking about Protestant Christianity. It's pretty invalid to make claims about Zen Buddhism (or Orthodox Judaism, or Taoism, or extremist Islamic movements, etc.) based on Protestant Christianity, right? But it's not as ridiculous when you've made claims about "religion" (by which you really only meant Protestant Christianity) and then expand it to Zen Buddhism (or Orthodox Judaism, or Taoism, or extremist Islamic movements, etc.), because you haven't been explicit about what you were talking about in the first place.
I'm just trying to make it clear that what's been discussed in this thread is pretty much exclusively Protestant Christianity, rather than religion as a whole, to (maybe) help (some) people notice the distinction (a little).
you amuse me
thanks Hogopogo for the banner :D
Alright, I'm chiming in now, because it's very clear that the mods don't want to play babysitter inside of my playground, so I'm going to moderate this ****.
Quit it with these snide, idiotic remarks that add absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand. If you're going to ****post, make it either irrelevant, witty, or hilarious. If you can't do either of these things, either don't respond to this thread or sit down and think of a way to properly respond to the opposition's post. Making ****posts like this where you act like a smug ******** only makes your side look stupid. Idiotic bait comments like this are infrac worthy and you should very well be infrac'd for any future remarks made like this.
Seeing how you clearly aren't defending EVERY religion out there and you only have one religion, kindly focus his attention onto "Alright, this is the religion I believe in/am defending, and here's the perspective I have about what you said".
Going off on a big *** tangent of playing the assumption game (there's a reason why the word "***" is in that word) while taking the thread through another petty ***** fight about what you think he thought he said is infrac worthy. You're getting no where with your argument, other than making you look like a little nit pick. He said he wasn't singling out Christianity, so you should take him on face value and simply ASK what his opinions are regarding that religion (Christianity) vs his scientific beliefs. If you can't do that, then either don't post or ram your head against the wall until you clear enough room for common sense to fill it up. If you continue posting in this nature again after this warning, you SHOULD be infrac'd.
Carry on children, and leave your petty bickering at the door. You've proved several times already in this thread that you can't go about this argument as adults, so therefore you're going to be treated like kids. If you can't add any order or intelligent line of thinking (that includes you smug scientists as well) into your posts, I'm going to see to it that this thread gets locked.
This is your only warning. Don't test my patience with this anymore.
ShiftyCake wrote:
you amuse me
Quit it with these snide, idiotic remarks that add absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand. If you're going to ****post, make it either irrelevant, witty, or hilarious. If you can't do either of these things, either don't respond to this thread or sit down and think of a way to properly respond to the opposition's post. Making ****posts like this where you act like a smug ******** only makes your side look stupid. Idiotic bait comments like this are infrac worthy and you should very well be infrac'd for any future remarks made like this.
lifebaka wrote:
No, you said it again. When you say "God", you (probably) only mean "God as defined by mainstream Protestant Christianity in the US". The latter isn't actually representative of Christianity as a whole, much less religion as a whole. (Hell, the latter doesn't even really exist as a singular thing. There're a bunch of Protestant denominations who believe some very different things.)
The problem is that a lot of the terms you (and others) are using are loaded with cultural meaning, but someone else won't necessarily attach those same meanings to the terms. To take a far-flung example, if you say something about "God" to a Hindu, they'll likely ask something like this: "Oh, a god? Which one?" This a really obvious example of how you can be misunderstood, due to the large cultural differences, but the same thing applies on a much smaller (and harder to notice) scale with basically everyone who isn't you.
More the point, the idea that faith/belief and a book define a religion is pretty unique to Protestant Christianity, largely because these two things are how Protestant Christianity defines itself. So when you talk about "religion" without talking about anything except faith/belief and a book, you're really only talking about Protestant Christianity. And when you make claims about "religion" based off of faith/belief and books, unless you're talking about Protestant Christianity, those claims really aren't valid.
Problems start when we forget that we're talking about Protestant Christianity, not religion as a whole. This is why I keep pointing out that we're not talking about religion, we're talking about Protestant Christianity. It's pretty invalid to make claims about Zen Buddhism (or Orthodox Judaism, or Taoism, or extremist Islamic movements, etc.) based on Protestant Christianity, right? But it's not as ridiculous when you've made claims about "religion" (by which you really only meant Protestant Christianity) and then expand it to Zen Buddhism (or Orthodox Judaism, or Taoism, or extremist Islamic movements, etc.), because you haven't been explicit about what you were talking about in the first place.
I'm just trying to make it clear that what's been discussed in this thread is pretty much exclusively Protestant Christianity, rather than religion as a whole, to (maybe) help (some) people notice the distinction (a little).
The problem is that a lot of the terms you (and others) are using are loaded with cultural meaning, but someone else won't necessarily attach those same meanings to the terms. To take a far-flung example, if you say something about "God" to a Hindu, they'll likely ask something like this: "Oh, a god? Which one?" This a really obvious example of how you can be misunderstood, due to the large cultural differences, but the same thing applies on a much smaller (and harder to notice) scale with basically everyone who isn't you.
More the point, the idea that faith/belief and a book define a religion is pretty unique to Protestant Christianity, largely because these two things are how Protestant Christianity defines itself. So when you talk about "religion" without talking about anything except faith/belief and a book, you're really only talking about Protestant Christianity. And when you make claims about "religion" based off of faith/belief and books, unless you're talking about Protestant Christianity, those claims really aren't valid.
Problems start when we forget that we're talking about Protestant Christianity, not religion as a whole. This is why I keep pointing out that we're not talking about religion, we're talking about Protestant Christianity. It's pretty invalid to make claims about Zen Buddhism (or Orthodox Judaism, or Taoism, or extremist Islamic movements, etc.) based on Protestant Christianity, right? But it's not as ridiculous when you've made claims about "religion" (by which you really only meant Protestant Christianity) and then expand it to Zen Buddhism (or Orthodox Judaism, or Taoism, or extremist Islamic movements, etc.), because you haven't been explicit about what you were talking about in the first place.
I'm just trying to make it clear that what's been discussed in this thread is pretty much exclusively Protestant Christianity, rather than religion as a whole, to (maybe) help (some) people notice the distinction (a little).
Seeing how you clearly aren't defending EVERY religion out there and you only have one religion, kindly focus his attention onto "Alright, this is the religion I believe in/am defending, and here's the perspective I have about what you said".
Going off on a big *** tangent of playing the assumption game (there's a reason why the word "***" is in that word) while taking the thread through another petty ***** fight about what you think he thought he said is infrac worthy. You're getting no where with your argument, other than making you look like a little nit pick. He said he wasn't singling out Christianity, so you should take him on face value and simply ASK what his opinions are regarding that religion (Christianity) vs his scientific beliefs. If you can't do that, then either don't post or ram your head against the wall until you clear enough room for common sense to fill it up. If you continue posting in this nature again after this warning, you SHOULD be infrac'd.
Carry on children, and leave your petty bickering at the door. You've proved several times already in this thread that you can't go about this argument as adults, so therefore you're going to be treated like kids. If you can't add any order or intelligent line of thinking (that includes you smug scientists as well) into your posts, I'm going to see to it that this thread gets locked.
This is your only warning. Don't test my patience with this anymore.
Well, im abandoning this thread, but I do want to leave with a bang, and so I will release the quote that I live my life by and a video that I absolutely loved. I will stick around to hear people's opinions on the quote, but apart from that, I leave you with the quote, and a video to enjoy
ShiftyCake wrote:
He made a couple of minor mistakes in grammar, and your going to point that out like an idiot? I haven't read enough to really care whether or not he is *****ing in previous posts but, right now, you both are.
Now stop trying to one-up each other and be quiet.
Thanks for calling me an idiot.
I'm "fighting" fire with fire, since I thought it applicable.
Get off your high horse. Your haughty behavior is just looking stupid when you use snide remarks just a few comments later.
Toshabi wrote:
Alright, I'm chiming in now, because it's very clear that the mods don't want to play babysitter inside of my playground, so I'm going to moderate this ****.
<3
I wish you were a mod.
"I saw [Twilight: Eclipse] in theaters with a girl I was dating at the time. I spent more time staring at my toes and wiggling them than I did watching this abomination. When Edward proposed to Blank Face, I finally looked up with a revelation.
I blurted out loud, in a dead silent theater full of teenage girls on opening night "Wait a minute, Edward has no blood flow. How does he get an erection?" I heard several men laughing, and had several girls turn and stare at me.
I did not get laid that night." - Berengier817
I blurted out loud, in a dead silent theater full of teenage girls on opening night "Wait a minute, Edward has no blood flow. How does he get an erection?" I heard several men laughing, and had several girls turn and stare at me.
I did not get laid that night." - Berengier817
Let me clear up a few things, since people feel the need to take my words and make them into something else.
Alright, I'm chiming in now, because it's very clear that the mods don't want to play babysitter inside of my playground, so I'm going to moderate this ****.
Quit it with these snide, idiotic remarks that add absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand. If you're going to ****post, make it either irrelevant, witty, or hilarious. If you can't do either of these things, either don't respond to this thread or sit down and think of a way to properly respond to the opposition's post. Making ****posts like this where you act like a smug ******** only makes your side look stupid. Idiotic bait comments like this are infrac worthy and you should very well be infrac'd for any future remarks made like this.
If I wanted to post that as a snide idiotic remark, I would have put a full stop at the end. Words, as much as expressions, are written in ways where feelings are projected through them.
"you amuse me"
"you amuse me."
Can you not feel what that full stop does to the sentence, it makes it final. Somehow as if I'm annoyed and don't like what you posted/sick of your posts. THAT would be snide and idiotic. Do not mistake what I said.
I was simply saying it because it actually did amuse me that he can take my words, and turn them into something they are not. I didn't reply to his actual post because it isn't that he is wrong, its simply that I'm not relating to what he is talking about. Continuing on that path would only confuse us more, and lead to more complications.
Thanks for calling me an idiot.
I'm "fighting" fire with fire, since I thought it applicable.
Get off your high horse. Your haughty behavior is just looking stupid when you use snide remarks just a few comments later.
I didn't call you an idiot. Again, you people are taking my words and turning them into something else. Please. Stop.
"your going to point that out
As you can see, I wasn't calling you yourself an idiot, but rather the comments, where you grammer nazi his one mistake, idiotic. It's petty, and really unnecessary.
ohk? Is this cleared up now?
Toshabi wrote:
Alright, I'm chiming in now, because it's very clear that the mods don't want to play babysitter inside of my playground, so I'm going to moderate this ****.
Quit it with these snide, idiotic remarks that add absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand. If you're going to ****post, make it either irrelevant, witty, or hilarious. If you can't do either of these things, either don't respond to this thread or sit down and think of a way to properly respond to the opposition's post. Making ****posts like this where you act like a smug ******** only makes your side look stupid. Idiotic bait comments like this are infrac worthy and you should very well be infrac'd for any future remarks made like this.
If I wanted to post that as a snide idiotic remark, I would have put a full stop at the end. Words, as much as expressions, are written in ways where feelings are projected through them.
"you amuse me"
"you amuse me."
Can you not feel what that full stop does to the sentence, it makes it final. Somehow as if I'm annoyed and don't like what you posted/sick of your posts. THAT would be snide and idiotic. Do not mistake what I said.
I was simply saying it because it actually did amuse me that he can take my words, and turn them into something they are not. I didn't reply to his actual post because it isn't that he is wrong, its simply that I'm not relating to what he is talking about. Continuing on that path would only confuse us more, and lead to more complications.
Searz wrote:
Thanks for calling me an idiot.
I'm "fighting" fire with fire, since I thought it applicable.
Get off your high horse. Your haughty behavior is just looking stupid when you use snide remarks just a few comments later.
I didn't call you an idiot. Again, you people are taking my words and turning them into something else. Please. Stop.
"your going to point that out
like
an idiot"As you can see, I wasn't calling you yourself an idiot, but rather the comments, where you grammer nazi his one mistake, idiotic. It's petty, and really unnecessary.
ohk? Is this cleared up now?
thanks Hogopogo for the banner :D
You need to log in before commenting.
I said God, not "mainstream Protestant Christianity in the US".
No, you said it again. When you say "God", you (probably) only mean "God as defined by mainstream Protestant Christianity in the US". The latter isn't actually representative of Christianity as a whole, much less religion as a whole. (Hell, the latter doesn't even really exist as a singular thing. There're a bunch of Protestant denominations who believe some very different things.)
The problem is that a lot of the terms you (and others) are using are loaded with cultural meaning, but someone else won't necessarily attach those same meanings to the terms. To take a far-flung example, if you say something about "God" to a Hindu, they'll likely ask something like this: "Oh, a god? Which one?" This a really obvious example of how you can be misunderstood, due to the large cultural differences, but the same thing applies on a much smaller (and harder to notice) scale with basically everyone who isn't you.
More the point, the idea that faith/belief and a book define a religion is pretty unique to Protestant Christianity, largely because these two things are how Protestant Christianity defines itself. So when you talk about "religion" without talking about anything except faith/belief and a book, you're really only talking about Protestant Christianity. And when you make claims about "religion" based off of faith/belief and books, unless you're talking about Protestant Christianity, those claims really aren't valid.
Problems start when we forget that we're talking about Protestant Christianity, not religion as a whole. This is why I keep pointing out that we're not talking about religion, we're talking about Protestant Christianity. It's pretty invalid to make claims about Zen Buddhism (or Orthodox Judaism, or Taoism, or extremist Islamic movements, etc.) based on Protestant Christianity, right? But it's not as ridiculous when you've made claims about "religion" (by which you really only meant Protestant Christianity) and then expand it to Zen Buddhism (or Orthodox Judaism, or Taoism, or extremist Islamic movements, etc.), because you haven't been explicit about what you were talking about in the first place.
I'm just trying to make it clear that what's been discussed in this thread is pretty much exclusively Protestant Christianity, rather than religion as a whole, to (maybe) help (some) people notice the distinction (a little).