Barnet

People and their choices - not the divine, eternal truth.

ELECTROGOD

Is that why "god" will only save 144,000 people or so and all the billions of others get to suffer in eternal torment apparently for no reason but to satisfy the twisted desires of an all powerful creator of the universe who just happened to not make it clear that he may in fact exist which would have kept billions of people from being tortured for...eternity? How fucked up is that?

Barnet

Totally dude (in your best Bill and Ted voice) - which is why it isn't true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Barnet

In a country where George Dubbya says you're not real citizens, I actually find some atheists very honest and decent and not offensive in the slightest. I don't want to leave for this reason. This is about common decency - and I suspect that you and others who are involved in this sordid little affair are too proud to back down and admit you're out of order on this one.

Vicar Philip

Let's get back to a substantive discussion about the OP. Any further posts with a) images more suited for Humor or b) baseless accusations and this thread shall be locked.

VP

Overkill

Anybody else think of Jamie Kennedy when they read this?
"The boo-ooty of christ. Little Jimmy Jenkins in the third row, lets go to the nunnnery for some funnnnery."
I'm sorry, I find it a little hard to talk about this without joking about it it, it seems so goofy and inherently funny to me.
/I typed this with one hand.

mirage

You don't seem to have a grip on context. We are not shouting this in the street or turning up at church. This is a forum where views strongly hostile to religion and its taboos are tolerated. It is often an outlet for people angry at religion (the deconverts generally , not the lifelong sane) Common decency is therefore certainly not the standard that is enforced or desired, anymore than an adult rated film should be perfectly OK for 6 year olds to watch.

Common decency is about self censure to create a baseline standard where any member of society should be able to interact with any other. It doesn't apply inside buildings clearly marked: some people may find this offensive. Now I have no particular interest in obscene pictures of nuns, or cruciform dildos. That is until it becomes a matter of taboo enforcement.

You need to separate out two objections:

1. There is no substansive debate (arguable)

2. The posts are offensive. (undoubtedly true, if we take you as evidence).


1. Might get you a move to Elsewhere.
2. Is irrelevant. This place cannot be moderated by what might cause offensive to any particular person or group. All you get is enforcement of minimum civility towards yourself.

mirage

It is entirely irrelevant to the discussion, since we are not "knowing God". A pretty stupid thing to post really.

Yep, you get pulled up on any thread, no matter how worthless.

Barnet

Quote:
I get pulled up for preaching on THIS thread?

It is acceptable for some to indulge in this nonsense at the expense of decency amongst fellow human beings; but unacceptable to quote the Bible?

Thank you for your clarity of thought on the first post. I have alluded to the fact there is little relevant debate AND to the fact it is offensive. I'm not a sensitive soul usually but this is really beyond the pale. I am asking for self-censure on this, as have others. There is no merit/worth in Steamer's train of thought and that of some others here. It is intended to offend and upset.

I take no offence at beliefs which are constructive and debatable. This is a twisted little assault which does come down to common decency. If you take your thinking to its logical conclusion I should be allowed to preach till I'm blue in the face - given the context of 'some people may find this offensive.'

A place for debate. Some are allowed to intentionally offend - read Steamer and others - others aren't. This is allowed to go on, if I preach some of you close ranks and ban me. Doesn't make sense for a site of freethinkers...

t.w.

You see suggesting that some christians finding Jesus sexually attractive is equivalent to suggesting that rape of young boys is part of atheism? If you don't like the thread, go away. All I can see is a very serious, genuine discussion about the nature of a figure like Jesus in a huge religion like Christianity. Is it possible that sexual urges, perhaps some of the strongest urges humans feel, could be intrinsically linked to their often fanatical support and defence of jesus? I think it is very likely; if you disagree I am delighted because then we have a great opportunity for an intellectual debate. If you are offended by some irrelevant jokes that don't represent the general topic of the thread, then you are seriously lacking any sense of humour, or any capacity for 'turning the other cheek'.
I also feel the way you bring up dead atheists to be incredibly low, pety and offensive.