WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site?

Post Reply New Topic

Humans are apes and Christ is a Sun god, I don't see the offensive part in using technical jargon to describe the other side.

Unless of course, it is the realization of the truth that offends you.

I see divergent arguments occurring here.

Ska, you seem to assume that since DW professes a Christian faith, she must also believe in the literal, word-for-word, historical inerrancy of the Bible. She has indicated that this is not the case, but you have refused - repeatedly - to pay any attention to that.

I wonder if you've treated my own statements on the topic equally cavalierly.

Inuyasha, the ark described in Genesis is considerably smaller than a cruise ship (cf Gen. 6:15-16), and far too small to hold seven pair of each clean animal and each bird, and two pair of each unclean animal, in the world, plus Noah and his immediate family (cf Gen. 7:2-3). Even the Bible doesn't seem to believe in a literally world-wide flood...

I meant reminding you that you are an ape is technical jargon. The sun god is something else but I don't think that an atheist claiming that Christianity is a Sun God worship is offensive at all. For once, because it is true, and for twice because it is an opinion like any other and not a personal attack.

But Yeah, Christianity is a derivative of the Sun God worships. It is pretty obvious once you get out of Christanism, you begin seeing the Sun symbol overlapping with Jesus. For example, The place where Catholics keep the little bread circles, has a sun on top. I would elaborate if needed but it is not needed for my point.

Apes worshipping a Sun God. You and I are both apes and I think I should be free to claim that Christianism is Sun God worship as it is an opinion and not a violation of ToS.

----
If you don't believe in literal word for word Christianism, you are not really a Christian, are you? The fundies are right that in order to follow their ways, you have to accept the bible as truth. And I think that pretending like you can call it a metaphore in some places and fixed law in other makes you prone to living an ambiguous life and ultimately makes you a hypocrite. My doubts on the bible (because of finding stuff that is severely inconsistent with my own truth, moral and ethics) were what initially caused me to think that it is all right, I am just not a literal Christian. But I eventually learned I was living a contradiction that only increased my problems instead of helping me.

If you do not take all of the bible literally then who decides which parts to take literally and which not? Some Church? Then what guarantee is there that such Church is right and not manipulating things around. If you yourself decide to use your own intelligence to cherry pick the parts of the Christian faith your like and the ones you do not and still call yourself a Christian, you are basically creating your own one-man Sect and it is the same risk as the "following a church one". I just took a step forward and say that perhaps some parts of the bible are interesting and or entertaining and can be useful in life, just like any other fiction book. The second I began calling it a fiction book I was freer. I no longer HAVE to believe in it and then when I decide which parts to take seriously I am not making up a new religion, I am just doing the same thing I would do with any novel I read.

The particular words don't always offend me.

The motive behind them does. If the reason for calling me an ape is to say "I believe all human beings are apes by nature; it is a description of the human species," then I take no offense. If the reason for calling me an ape is to say, "I am smarter and more evolved than you are," then yes I am going to take offense.

I think it is *always* wrong, no matter what the context, to "rattle your cage," "just mess with ya," "yank your chain," or however it is worded.

Also, "My opinion is that green is a better color than purple" is entirely different from saying, "Green is a better color than purple, and if you're on the side of purple, then you're wrong and irrational."

You can prove the words that were used, you can't prove motive.

I really, really think that if people don't assume that my post contains my opinion, it is their problem and not mine. As an example, check your two last posts, and also consider the very MLA post I quoted. There are no occurrences of IMO clarifying that they are your opinions, even though, they are. But I am not offended by you omitting IMO, because everyone does, and in fact, discussions become rather impractical and annoying if you have to typo IMO every time due to arbitrary etiquette.


Mods always win, in their site, but mod power does not translate to real life correctness.

And what Vex isn't getting is that "green is a better color than purple," with or without the IMO, is an opinion, yes that's true, and is not what is in dispute here.

My point is that it should stop right there. Adding anything resembling "you're stupid/wrong/irrational/somehow inferior if you disagree with me" is offensive and either *is* a TOS violation or *should* be.

Sure, but now you have changed your argument entirely.

"You are stupid if you disagree with me" is not equivalent to "You are wrong".

"You are stupid if you disagree with me" is and has always been against the ToS. But most of the rants in this thread about, for example, ska being against the ToS are about statements that do not resemble such personal attack at all.

Although calling people that disagree with me is stupid. Me saying that I don't agree with them shouldn't, ever, be against any ToS, at least not against a healthy site's ToS.