Those quiz games will rack yer head. I suggest playing some "Trivia Whiz". Do your best, guess the correct answers (or just give the answer if'n ya know it), and see how high of a score you can get.
The only problem with "Trivia Whiz" via Merit's old '90s Megatouch hardware is that you have to go "all in" every time and nail the correct answers every single time. High risk stuff with an exponential numeric payoff. And it'll humble ya real quick if you give one incorrect answer.
Fun stuff, though! Especially if you have a crowd of people. I wonder if it will ever reach the Retro Rumble. :-)
--Bekki
Combating functional illiteracy with latex-clad drama since the '80s, because old video games rule!
> Those quiz games will rack yer head. I suggest playing some "Trivia Whiz". Do your > best, guess the correct answers (or just give the answer if'n ya know it), and see > how high of a score you can get.
Contrary to popular belief, IQ tests don't measure how intelligent you are (that's what trivia and tests are for) but your ability to resolve problems. I did one through Internet years ago and while I can't remember the score now, I recall the score itself had numbers three, two and one plus the score wasn't over 200. I sincerely don't trust the score, so I prefer not to brag about it. People using PCs for decades have a three digit IQ anyway.
I agree those tests are gay, you end up getting a higher score at IQ or domino tests and suddenly you're a phenomenon with strange abilities excluded from the society you live. I had to put up with that shit at high school.
Reading various cases through Internet, I feel sorry about those exploitable children with higher IQ unable to have normal life styles. Only because a group of adults believe it's better for you to behave older than you are.
> > Those quiz games will rack yer head. I suggest playing some "Trivia Whiz". Do your > > best, guess the correct answers (or just give the answer if'n ya know it), and see > > how high of a score you can get. > > Contrary to popular belief, IQ tests don't measure how intelligent you are (that's > what trivia and tests are for) but your ability to resolve problems. I did one > through Internet years ago and while I can't remember the score now, I recall the > score itself had numbers three, two and one plus the score wasn't over 200. I > sincerely don't trust the score, so I prefer not to brag about it. People using PCs > for decades have a three digit IQ anyway. > > I agree those tests are not okay, you end up getting a higher score at IQ or domino tests > and suddenly you're a phenomenon with strange abilities excluded from the society you > live. I had to put up with that shit at high school. > > Reading various cases through Internet, I feel sorry about those exploitable children > with higher IQ unable to have normal life styles. Only because a group of adults > believe it's better for you to behave older than you are.
I don't know if this kid would qualify as a "genius" but I think there's a stigma associated with kids of a "remarkable" I.Q. (and this one just happens to be unwittingly demonstrating a good example of that attitude). It's usually that they're arrogant and/or condescending. They might know a lot, but they have much to learn when it comes to interacting with others of lesser "intellect".
> I don't know if this kid would qualify as a "genius" but I think there's a stigma > associated with kids of a "remarkable" I.Q. (and this one just happens to be > unwittingly demonstrating a good example of that attitude). It's usually that they're > arrogant and/or condescending. They might know a lot, but they have much to learn > when it comes to interacting with others of lesser "intellect".
> I don't know if this kid would qualify as a "genius" but I think there's a stigma > associated with kids of a "remarkable" I.Q. (and this one just happens to be > unwittingly demonstrating a good example of that attitude). It's usually that they're > arrogant and/or condescending. They might know a lot, but they have much to learn > when it comes to interacting with others of lesser "intellect".
That's another issue with this group of adults. Since the very beginning you get considered a kind of genius, you're taught you need to worry about different and "mature" things than anyone usually does. And that's when the word "anyone" comes. You're given the impression you're not "anyone else" anymore, but some kind of special brew it should not interact very often or trust others considered "normal" or "average".
These guys are told to exploit their potential at maximum (so they can be later exploited more than anyone else) while you see the rest of your classmates, familiars and friends having normal rules and expectations from the society. But sooner or later they will find out humans have different qualities when they're born and also develop many others during its life cycle. Only because a genius is a genius, it doesn't mean you won't learn, teamwork or depend on that people considered "average".
I can't say I'm a genius, but I lived a similar case. Someday these kids will wake up and realize while they have an unusual "quality", they also lack many others and frequently physical/social skills are one of them. But it's up to the person itself to realize that because these adults won't let you realize if given the chance.
They were born to make those adult's frustrated dreams become true. These adults (usually parents) are not evil, they only do what they think is better for these kids. Not realizing the damage it will bring later.
Quote: I agree those tests are gay, you end up getting a higher score at IQ or domino tests and suddenly you're a phenomenon with strange abilities excluded from the society you live. I had to put up with that shit at high school.
Tom Braider's revision (emphasis added):
Quote: > I agree those tests are not okay, you end up getting a higher score at IQ or domino tests > and suddenly you're a phenomenon with strange abilities excluded from the society you > live. I had to put up with that shit at high school.
--Bekki
Combating functional illiteracy with latex-clad drama since the '80s, because old video games rule!
There's a difference between knowledge and wisdom. Some "intellects" lack common sense, the ability to socialize, an understanding on the difference between what looks good on paper and what will fly in the real world, and some people lack a Christian faith because their intellect tells them there's no God, Jesus, or need for faith.
Hell is going to have a lot of geniuses spending eternity there.
If you keep pushing the boundaries of religious trolling I'll ban it as a subject. You have got to have some serious defect to think it's a good subject for this board. If you have some mental tick where you have to talk about it this often I suggest you get your release on a religious message board, there have got to be thousands of them. I've already gotten complaints about them, they aren't going to stack up much higher either way I can assure you.
> There's a difference between knowledge and wisdom. > Some "intellects" lack common sense, the ability to socialize, an understanding on > the difference between what looks good on paper and what will fly in the real world, > and some people lack a Christian faith because their intellect tells them there's no > God, Jesus, or need for faith.
I don't need to remind you that kind of bullshit was precisely what got your ass kicked out of here. But don't trust my word (I'm not a moderator or someone entitled to tell them what to do anyway), just wait and see.
Which reminds me a criminal is not only an illegal looking for a job on the other side, but also a person capable to work yet spending his time playing games while expecting the government (and his wife) to cover all the expenses.
> Hell is going to have a lot of geniuses spending eternity there.
Scientists had done better good to the world than Christians. You're still alive because of them. That logic does not compute.
Quote: There's a difference between knowledge and wisdom.
Really now? Which is?
Quote: Some "intellects" lack common sense, the ability to socialize, an understanding on the difference between what looks good on paper and what will fly in the real world, and some people lack a Christian faith because their intellect tells them there's no God, Jesus, or need for faith.
That doesn't explain your initial claim of the "difference between knowledge and wisdom."
Your weaselly "some people" qualifier doesn't mask your own contempt you have for people who have no reason to either believe or share in your own religious beliefs.
Is it because you feel threatened by those who wind up finding freedom though their own independent thought, understanding and conclusions that they draw all by themselves? I can only guess but you do have your own written track record here that can be examined for that pattern of behavior.
As for the "difference between knowledge and wisdom" let's consult the Good Book of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Thesarus (emphasis added):
Quote: Main Entry:knowledge Function:noun
1 Synonyms EDUCATION 2, erudition, learning, scholarship, science Antonyms ignorance 2 the body of things known about or in science *made major contributions to scientific knowledge* Synonyms information, lore, science, wisdom Related Word advice, intelligence, news; data, evidence, facts, input
Quote: Main Entry:wisdom Function:noun
1 Synonyms KNOWLEDGE 2, information, lore, science 2 Synonyms SAGACITY, insight, sagaciousness, sageness, sapience 3 Synonyms SENSE 6, common sense, good sense, gumption, horse sense, judgment Related Word judiciousness, sageness, saneness, sapience; perspicacity, sagacity, shrewdness Antonyms folly
Give it up, greybeard. You're not going to win within your little trollish games and your infantile need to make assumptions.
--Bekki
Combating functional illiteracy with latex-clad drama since the '80s, because old video games rule!
> There's a difference between knowledge and wisdom. > Some "intellects" lack common sense, the ability to socialize, an understanding on > the difference between what looks good on paper and what will fly in the real world, > and some people lack a Christian faith because their intellect tells them there's no > God, Jesus, or need for faith. > > Hell is going to have a lot of geniuses spending eternity there.
Yeah, so I've had a beard since January and there is a smattering of gray hair in it. Yesterday, Mrs. Gor and I were about to engage in some boom-chicka-wah-wah, when she calls me Mr. Greybeard. "WTF," I'm thinking, "I wish that jackass would stay out of peoples' sex lives." Thanks.
> BIOS-D's original paragraph (emphasis added): > > I agree those tests are gay, > > Tom Braider's revision (emphasis added): > > I agree those tests are not okay,
I did that for a reason. By replacing the words I put it as what Bios-D meant to say. Which raises the question. Why is it that some people will defend something, then in the next instance be ready to use it as in insult? I fail to see the logic in this.
> > BIOS-D's original paragraph (emphasis added): > > > > I agree those tests are gay, > > > > Tom Braider's revision (emphasis added): > > > > I agree those tests are not okay, > > > I did that for a reason. By replacing the words I put it as what Bios-D meant to say. > Which raises the question. Why is it that some people will defend something, then in > the next instance be ready to use it as in insult? I fail to see the logic in this.
Yeah, I have to agree on this one. Using "gay" as a derogatory term like that is pretty demeaning to a group of people who had nothing to do with the discussion.
It's weird, I remember "gay" as a derogatory term being in common usage when I was in junior high in the late 80s, then it seemed to kind of fall out of favor for awhile. When it started to become more common again about 10-15 years ago, it sounded strange and kind of juvenile to me, adults using a term I associated with smart-ass pre-teens.
> Okay, I'll help you to understand what greybeard was trying to say. > > Your "help" is insulting, not appreciated and therefore disregarded. > > --Bekki
Quote: I did that for a reason. By replacing the words I put it as what Bios-D meant to say.
...gay...gay....gay...gay...gay...
But BIOS-D didn't say that. Therefore it's arrogant for you to deliberately misquote through such fanciful revisions.
If *YOU* don't like a certain word then you don't personally use it. Then again, if someone else uses that word it's poor form to change what they wrote through "thinking" what they "meant" to say and pretending you're quoting them rather than actually straight-quoting what they actually said.
That is a form of dishonesty.
And it's gay.
And the person who does such a thing is gay.
Quote: Which raises the question. Why is it that some people will defend something, then in the next instance be ready to use it as in insult? I fail to see the logic in this.
Well, you have to understand a bit of word entomology and how that lingua franca works within the modern world.
"Gay" is also a synonym for "queer". From that Good Book:
The kids pick up on that real quick. So you have kids calling peculiar things "gay". It's not that the kids are homophobic. It's just how it works out.
Then you have homosexuals and bisexuals (I count myself as the latter) who have this thang known as "gaydar". I've already wrote about how the more homophobic a person is and the more hostile they are in regards to defending their own heterosexuality the more closeted they are. People trust their intuition on that since it's correct most of the time. People like me have seen the best and worst of peoples' character. So that becomes a foundation of intuitive knowledge that fuels that.
So, if you're offended that I call this "gay" or that "gay" then it's not me with the problem. It's you. With all the atrocities within this world, in particular bullying where it it veers into outright personal slander and hate, getting offended by my use of the word "gay" should be very low at the list of yer priorities.
Anyone who pushes for Political Correctness rather than mutual respect while ignoring current culture and context really needs a new hobby. Anything less is gay.
> Yeah, so I've had a beard since January and there is a smattering of gray hair in it. > Yesterday, Mrs. Gor and I were about > to engage in some boom-chicka-wah-wah, when she calls me Mr. Greybeard. "WTF," I'm > thinking, "I wish that jackass > would stay out of peoples' sex lives." Thanks.
Why not call her 'Cha-cha' then proceed from there?
Quote: They don't even share a synonym here, though I expect I might find one another level out.
That's only one shortcoming of the Good Book that I'm fully aware of: It's great with language but not completely down with the culture. At least as far as I'm aware of via the 11th Edition distributed on CD-ROM.
Within LGBT the word "gay" is indeed synonymous with "queer" through common usage. That and the word "gay" saves me two letters when used instead of using five. It also ticks off those P.C. white liberals who suffer from neurotic guilt complexes and self-hate.
But the hilarious part is this: If anyone doesn't like how I use the word "gay" then change the lyrics to "Deck The Halls". If'n yer truly offended by the use of the word by me then it's time to do more revising, folks!
No? You don't like me? Tough!
Go back to yer room, Ms. Crawford. Meanwhile, all P.C. people are gay. Oh, I mean "queer" for that's how peculiar P.C. behavior is. ;-)
> > Yeah, so I've had a beard since January and there is a smattering of gray hair in > it. > > Yesterday, Mrs. Gor and I were about > > to engage in some boom-chicka-wah-wah, when she calls me Mr. Greybeard. "WTF," I'm > > thinking, "I wish that jackass > > would stay out of peoples' sex lives." Thanks. > > Why not call her 'Cha-cha' then proceed from there?
> But the hilarious part is this: If anyone doesn't like how I use the word "gay" then > change the lyrics to "Deck The Halls". If'n yer truly offended by the use of the word > by me then it's time to do more revising, folks!
Why? The way it's used in that song is exactly in line with the first set of synonyms. You want people to change a word that's being used to mean exactly what one of its definitions says it means? Then you say a group which describes itself explicitly using the word, as per the second meaning, uses it in a way that is not within the scope of either meaning? Sorry, that's just... wrong. By which I mean "wrong," because I try to use words that mean things to mean the things the words mean.
Someone once used the word "gay" here to describe, I think it was, the second X-Men movie. As in, "[it] was the gayest movie I've seen." Some people didn't understand what was meant by that. Because it was a homosexual female using the word to mean homosexual, rather than some other thing.
But some people just dont want to hear it.You have no respect at all for these people. Please,ease up a little,or go a religious forum. Yes I know this is the bin,but cmon,not everyone shares your views.And it is ignorant to assume they do,and that they wish to hear your ongoing preaching.
I hope Smitdogg bans religious discussions completely.
> But some people just dont want to hear it.You have no respect at all for these > people. Please,ease up a little,or go a religious forum. > Yes I know this is the bin,but cmon,not everyone shares your views.And it is ignorant > to assume they do,and that they wish to hear your ongoing preaching.
> But some people just dont want to hear it.You have no respect at all for these > people. Please,ease up a little,or go a religious forum. > Yes I know this is the bin,but cmon,not everyone shares your views.And it is ignorant > to assume they do,and that they wish to hear your ongoing preaching. > > I hope Smitdogg bans religious discussions completely.
If he does he would also have to *ban anything related to atheism, or anything that bashes religion -just to be fair and... (dare I say it) balanced.
I'm sure they'll allow the posting of links to illegal rom sites way before that happens.
eta: And if you can't post anything about religion (of either side of the spectrum) you also cannot post about political topics/statements, or any other touchy subject/hot topic that could potentially invoke a debate. It will make teh Bin a very boring place.
Quote: If he does he would also have to *ban anything related to atheism, or anything that bashes religion -just to be fair and... (dare I say it) balanced.
It's not really about being fair or having a strict set of rules that as long as you stay within, you can't get banned. I'll simply do whatever I think makes the place better for the majority. It's a matter of if you don't have basic social skills then you ruin the place for everyone else so you don't last long here. It's a social gathering, not a free speech democracy rally. Paratech's religious trolling shows over and over that he lacks social skills. So he can change or new rules will have to be put in place or he will have to be removed again, simple as that. People enjoying the place is priority 1, not what you perceive as fair.
> If he does he would also have to *ban anything related to atheism, or anything that > bashes religion -just to be fair and... (dare I say it) balanced.
> "Off-topic mayhem. Not for the faint hearted or easily offended. " > > I guess spreading the good news of Jesus the Christ and redemption and Salvation is > "offensive" but talking about butt sex isn't? > > uh huh...
True. But I guess what most of the people allegedly complaining about (I guess in PMs to mods or admins? ) is the "hell" talk. Or maybe it is anything regarding God in general.
What I don't get is if this is something they don't believe in, something they would proclaim isn't real - then why are they so threatened by it? It makes no sense.
eta: On 2nd thought. It does make sense. It's intolerance. I guess this gives me a free ticket to PM smit or any of the other (new) admins about statements made that I could find even remotely offensive. But if not - then please explain why, and how that is different than someone else whining about a religious statement?
eta2: that question isn't directed at you greybeard. :-)
Has nothing to do with being threatened by it.It has to do that not everyone is HIS preferred religion.What about members that are of the Jewish faith? or Muslim?
Take me for example,do I believe in GOD,a creator? YES,I do.But I DO NOT believe that he had a son that wandered the earth performing magic tricks,then died and came back as a zombie.It just doesnt make sense. Nothing worse then a pushy Christian-which is what greybeard is,whether he knows it or not
Its just not a good topic for discussion on the internet.There are just too many people from with different views.It should be a banned topic,just like it is on just about every other forum.
And no political discussion should not be banned.Only greybeard turns political discussions into a religious one
If you guys are so comfortable about your religion,why do you (not you personally Tom) feel the need to bring it into every topic? Even ones that have nothing to do with it. If you are so sure and confident on your beliefs it shouldnt matter that others dont share your views.
I could post the most recent complaints but the writing styles would probably give away their identities and I'm assuming they don't want them here or else they would have been posted here to begin with instead of privately. His posts have literally driven people away before, including valued long-time members. It really doesn't make any difference to me what label you want to put on it (intolerance, threatening, whatever). If the majority of people here don't like you, you can get banned just for that or rules can be set up to keep you from ruining people's moods. The bin can be fun or it can be a shithole of nutcases screaming about fire and brimstone. I'll probably aim for the former.
> Has nothing to do with being threatened by it.Has to do that not everyone is HIS > preferred religion.What about members that are of the Jewish faith? or Muslim? > > Take me for example,do I believe in GOD,a creator? YES,I do.But I DO NOT believe that > he had a son that wandered the earth performing magic tricks,then died and came back > as a zombie.It just doesnt make sense.
It would make sense if it was that very same Creator you profess to believe in. And you know what? That's exactly what the Bible says. So I can only guess that you believe in A God of some sort (not the God of the Bible). Who that is - you haven't said yet.
> Nothing worse then a pushy Christian-which is what greybeard is,whether he knows it > or not > > Its just not a good topic for discussion on the internet.
Seriously? :-|
There are jus too many > people from with different views.It should be a banned topic,just like it is on just > about every other forum. > > And no political discussion should not be banned.Only greybeard turns political > discussions into a religious one
Would politically correct discussion be better?
Honestly, that would be kind of fun, like a challenge. To skirt around a topic using parables or examples and still get your point across.
---------
eta: Let's give a go.
Todd was a good man. He did no wrong, not ever. Won't you live for Him?
They say jail is bad. If you don't say you're sorry... you could go to jail.
The Bar-B-Que's hot! Do not stick your hand in their. Todd died for your hand!
I was trolling through this thread thinking about wisdom, and righteousness, and it occurs to me, why do Christians eat bacon?
Think this thru with me...
If you are Christian (believe in Jesus), then you believe he is the savior as foretold in the Jewish prophacies... so by definition you must first believe in the Jewish prophacies as well (otherwise how could he be your foretold savior). In other words, in theory, you believe in the Jewish religion and then ON TOP OF THAT you believe in the coming of your foretold savior...
And... I'm not aware that Jesus ever taught "Now that I'm here, you can ignore all the rules from before," because even he himself and all his diciples still practiced the Jewish faith, and he is the leader and example, no?
Which brings me back to my original question...
How come Christians eat bacon?
Not passing judgement, just throwing out theoretical possibilities...
1. There is no one universal truth, and religion is a buffet from which you can pick and choose what's convenient, which goes against all the "you'll be damned if you don't beleive like me" discussions.
2. Followers are ignorant of their requirements, having not really studied their religion so much as just do what everyone else is doing... which just might leave you still in the damned catagory quite possibly.
3. It doesn't really matter, because its all made up anyway (but that can't be true because it doesn't say that in the Bible ANYWHERE).
4. Bacon is THAT good, that it's even worth eternal suffering.
> 1. There is no one universal truth, and religion is a buffet from which you can pick > and choose what's convenient, which goes against all the "you'll be damned if you > don't beleive like me" discussions. >
If it's a breakfast buffet, I'm always choosing bacon.
13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.
eta: There's also praying and blessing food (e.g. Saying Grace) before eating it. And what the Lord blesses shouldn't be called unclean.
Jesus said it wasn't what went into your mouth that defiled you but what came out of your mouth.
What you say, do, think, those things get you into trouble.
Christians believe they are sinners, that they fall short of the glory of God, that Jesus is the Son of God, that He is sinless, died a death on the cross, and was Resurrected. Christians believe that faith in Jesus the Christ and His Resurrection and sharing (professing) that Faith is what gets you Salvation.
"If you believe in your heart and profess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, you will be saved."
Exactly how is discussing faith threatening? If you don't believe, you don't believe.
BTW, it used to be this was "Anything goes"...
So once you start banning people and censoring, how do you determine what to censor and who to ban? by public opinion? and do you censor both sides, i.e. "pro" and "anti" religious discussion or all religious discussion?
There's a lot of topics discussed that could be viewed as "offensive", frag the site advertises "not safe for work" threads for a reason.
In the long run a site doesn't have to be "fair" and it can do whatever it wants, but like I *and Tom* stated, that's a slippery road.
If long term people leave because they can't handle either ignoring a discussion or accepting the fact there will be discussions they don't like, I don't know what to say. Name me one messageboard anywhere where all discussions are approved or have to be approved by a majority let alone everyone.
> > How come Christians eat bacon? > > > > Romans Ch 14... > > 13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind > not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am > convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in > itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is > unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are > no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. > 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the > kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace > and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is > pleasing to God and receives human approval. > > eta: There's also praying and blessing food (e.g. Saying Grace) before eating it. And > what the Lord blesses shouldn't be called unclean.
Verse 15 seems to be contradicting the rest of those.
It means if your behavior causes someone to sin, don't do it in their presence. If someone thinks eating bacon is sinful, you shouldn't do it in their presence. If you eat bacon and its been blessed its ok, but if someone thinks eating bacon is sinful, and they eat bacon, its sinful to them.
You can make something sinful be believing its sinful, even if it isn't sinful.
You just dont get it.You bring YOUR beliefs into 9\10 threads.Why cant you just keep your beliefs to yourself? Why is that so hard to do? You remind me of a child that cant keep his hands out of the cookie jar before dinner.
Oh I get it now,you are trying to spread your word to BUY your way into heaven,either that or you are just a angry,frustrated man that enjoys being ignorant to others.Gotcha!
> Exactly how is discussing faith threatening? If you don't believe, you don't believe.
Ask Tom I guess, because I never said it was.
> BTW, it used to be this was "Anything goes"...
Not anymore.
> So once you start banning people and censoring, how do you determine what to censor > and who to ban? by public opinion? and do you censor both sides, i.e. "pro" and > "anti" religious discussion or all religious discussion?
I'll simply do absolutely whatever I want. I might start a poll system for possible bans, to make it easier on myself.
> There's a lot of topics discussed that could be viewed as "offensive", frag the site > advertises "not safe for work" threads for a reason.
I don't know where "offensive" came into play. Was it something I wrote and forgot? I'm looking at the socially retarded issue. Undiagnosed Ass Burgers.
> In the long run a site doesn't have to be "fair" and it can do whatever it wants, but > like I *and Tom* stated, that's a slippery road.
Don't care.
> If long term people leave because they can't handle either ignoring a discussion or > accepting the fact there will be discussions they don't like, I don't know what to > say. Name me one messageboard anywhere where all discussions are approved or have to > be approved by a majority let alone everyone.
> It means if your behavior causes someone to sin, don't do it in their presence. If > someone thinks eating bacon is sinful, you shouldn't do it in their presence. If you > eat bacon and its been blessed its ok, but if someone thinks eating bacon is sinful, > and they eat bacon, its sinful to them. > > You can make something sinful be believing its sinful, even if it isn't sinful.
So it's wrong to find fault in what others do if they think what they do is OK, but it's OK for others to find fault in what you do, so you should go do it somewhere else, even if they choose to do what they do in front of you. The person who leaves is the "better" one.
Anh... you're not playing by the rules... just because YOU said Jesus said... where's your reference? Tom at least listed references to the Book of Romans, which aren't Jesus' teachings, and where written after his death.
> "Off-topic mayhem. Not for the faint hearted or easily offended. " > > I guess spreading the good news of Jesus the Christ and redemption and Salvation is > "offensive" but talking about butt sex isn't? > > uh huh...
It's not like we have a "Dark Paratech" preaching buttsex in here 24/7.
It's not that it's threatening, it's just really annoying. And you're the only one who does it. There are several declared/apparent Christians who post here who don't feel the need to turn everything into a religious discussion, or preach at every opportunity like you do.
I believe that anyone is entitled to believe whatever they want, I'm not intimidated by other people's beliefs, much in the same way that I don't get embarrassed on someone else's behalf. It's your personal business. I have beliefs, faith, whatever you want to call it, just like you do, but I don't go around shoving it down other people's throats every chance I get.
> So once you start banning people and censoring, how do you determine what to censor > and who to ban? by public opinion? and do you censor both sides, i.e. "pro" and > "anti" religious discussion or all religious discussion?
Enough!!! Can you please get it into your thick head that there wouldn't be anything to spark "anti-religious discussions" if you weren't constantly igniting the spark?!
Despite whatever immature ramblings and general weirdness that get posted here we are all adults, I guess most of us are close to 40 by now, if people want to know more about Jesus Christ Our Lord And Almighty Saviour they will fucking google him okay?
> There's a lot of topics discussed that could be viewed as "offensive"
Yes of course, but they are 100% less pushy and preachy than your run of the mill Paratech christdribble.
And for the record I am 100% certain that there's not a single person here who is literally "offended" by your posts.
If someone thinks what they're doing is wrong, its wrong. You don't want to contribute to them doing something wrong. Hopefully they'll grow and learn what they think is wrong isn't wrong.
> If someone thinks what they're doing is wrong, its wrong. You don't want to > contribute to them doing something wrong. Hopefully they'll grow and learn what they > think is wrong isn't wrong.
Ah, but if they DON'T think it's wrong, it isn't, and you should let them be.
Quote: Why? The way it's used in that song is exactly in line with the first set of synonyms. You want people to change a word that's being used to mean exactly what one of its definitions says it means?
I simply roll along. I don't want to change anything.
But you do. That's psychological projection and yet another assumption on your part.
Get used to it: Humans created the definitions. They're the ones who use 'em. I'd be more concerned about right-wingers who denigrate the word "liberal" to equate with "communism" and other pejoratives.
So "gay" has a dual-meaning and that drives thin-skinned P.C. pablum pukers nutz. It can mean "happy" or it can mean "peculiar". That's just the way it is.
You don't like it? Don't use it. If you don't like some who uses it as a form of self-deprecating humor, though? Get over it. Don yer jock, insert the cup and take the hit.
Quote: Then you say a group which describes itself explicitly using the word, as per the second meaning, uses it in a way that is not within the scope of either meaning? Sorry, that's just... wrong
You're the one calling it "wrong". That makes you an uptight P.C. pablum puking crybaby. Only because, "...wahhhhh...they don' wanna play by mah rulz...wahhhhh!!!"
All over the word "gay". And if that riles you up I just wonder how you get along IRL.
That's the problem with people who take themselves why too seriously within their finite lifespan: No sense of either humor or perspective.
Anyway, I'll laugh at your expense. Because you're gay.
Quote: BTW, there are several Atheists who have posted Christian bashing posts and you don't see me doing anything about them.
Oh, yes you have! It's just that you're unaware of what your fingers dig from the crack of yer...
...I'm going to leave that open. Like "Match Game", just fill in the "blank". I have several answers in mind. ;-)
Atheists are intellectuals: They've used their own brains to figure out that believe in some "deity" is not just unnecessary but also harmful. They're also known as "freethinkers".
Let's look back, back, wayback, to the top of this thread for one of your gems:
Quote: Hell is going to have a lot of geniuses spending eternity there.
I did leave this one out initially at first. I wanted the pot to simmer just to clear out the crybaby emotionally-stunted P.C. crowd.
That quote of yours, Greybeard, The Religiously Insane Troll, gives me pause: Why would anyone want to hope anyone who decides to use their own brains, brains given to them allegedly by a deity that made them in its own image according to your dogma, winds up being condemned forever within a pit of burning torment?
Burning torment, as in having the flesh seared from your body with zero painkillers. And yet having your nervous system left intact to feel each searing flaming whiplash of fire and brimstone. Just enough regeneration so that no harm is done to destroy such agonizing sensory input. But long enough to last the infinite time of eternity.
How does it look and feel? Send such inquiries to burn-ward patients.
Yeah. Believe in a "loving god" and you'll get that "eternal life". But the odds, given the statement quoted above, of avoiding the char-broiled flesh-roasting fires is exceptionally and aneorexically slim for anyone who chooses to think, ask questions and learn about the world around them. That's how geniuses develop.
And why didn't Jesus condemn such a place, a wrongly-punished man alleged to be a savior to humankind?
I, of ALL people, would NEVER condemn anyone to a place like that! That, that one simple fact, makes me better than Jesus and makes me relieved to be a nonbeliever. An atheist, if you will. Or a happy heathen. Either way, I'm proud to be one and not a blind believer such as yourself.
And if a Christian holds any "intellectual" in contempt and hopes that they roast within eternal torment upon the infinity rotisserie then they are very, very, VERYdeep in denial.
Again, this isn't about the sentencing of convicted criminals who commit crimes against nonconsenting people and/or property into such a place. This is about the use of such a place to condemn people who dare to use their own brains! That's their only "crime"! Isn't this what lead to the Dark Ages of the Inquisitions and, especially, "witch burning"?
Believers really have to challenge their own beliefs and ask themselves if they are that are morally conscionable to see how repellent they are with such outright cruelty.
And if a believer tells you to "go to hell" in any way, shape or form, call them out for such grotesque hostility.
I'll make this into a very tiny one-sixth pager someday. ;-)
> And if a believer tells you to "go to hell" in any way, shape or form, call them out > for such grotesque hostility. > > Meh, I usually reply with "If i wanted to go to an imaginary place, I'd just go to > sleep"
Reminds me of a Bill Hicks bit:
Redneck: "HEY! MR. FUNNY MAN! we're Christians and we didn't like what you said making jokes about Christianity."
Hicks: "well, then forgive me."
btw, I'm a Christian*, and I support this message. I don't like to force my beliefs on anyone. That is to say, I don't condone religious rape.
*but I also think that the Life of Brian is one of the greatest films ever. And I don't go to church, and I don't cut my hair. And I could (or couldn't) really care less if anyone anywhere is either gay or married, or even gay married. I'm not. Though I may be one of those things one day. Plus, I can go to the movies and see it all there. But no, I rarely ever wish I had a pencil thin mustache.
But I enjoy thinking of the details. Then I report my findings for entertainment purposes only. That's my life as a fringe-dweller: After all, what good is any of it if'n ya don't have fun? Do it for the lulz! :-)
I like playing with the "what if" possibility of calling one of these fools out. I may have to visit Planned Parenthood and troll the protestors there outside of the next Anthrocon in downtown Pittsburgh (my backyard). ;-)
> > Exactly how is discussing faith threatening? > > It's not that it's threatening, it's just really annoying. And you're the only one > who does it. There are several declared/apparent Christians who post here who don't > feel the need to turn everything into a religious discussion, or preach at every > opportunity like you do. > > I believe that anyone is entitled to believe whatever they want, I'm not intimidated > by other people's beliefs, much in the same way that I don't get embarrassed on > someone else's behalf. It's your personal business. I have beliefs, faith, whatever > you want to call it, just like you do, but I don't go around shoving it down other > people's throats every chance I get. > > > So once you start banning people and censoring, how do you determine what to censor > > and who to ban? by public opinion? and do you censor both sides, i.e. "pro" and > > "anti" religious discussion or all religious discussion? > > Enough!!! Can you please get it into your thick head that there wouldn't be anything > to spark "anti-religious discussions" if you weren't constantly igniting the spark?! > > Despite whatever immature ramblings and general weirdness that get posted here we are > all adults, I guess most of us are close to 40 by now, if people want to know more > about Jesus Christ Our Lord And Almighty Saviour they will fucking google him okay? > > > There's a lot of topics discussed that could be viewed as "offensive" > > Yes of course, but they are 100% less pushy and preachy than your run of the mill > Paratech christdribble. > > And for the record I am 100% certain that there's not a single person here who is > literally "offended" by your posts. > > S
Preaching to God is not a threat, but it talks so bad about the person: an egoistic subject unable to live in society who doesn't care for the rest but her/himself. I don't think anyone likes a stranger to enter your house without invitation and start screaming for the sole purpose to save himself (notice how he gives a damn about you as long as somehow you can hear him and "Christ can see it"). There's a huge difference between Tom (a real Christian) and Paratech (a religious troll).
If religious trolling were not enough, the moment... not us, HIM... feels threatened, he takes any of the two routes: go psychopath + religious and start rambling christian sentences like crazy to no one but himself (see this post) or remind everyone he is conveniently sick and plead for mercy.
For the record, it's not me who sends PMs as complains. But if Smitdogg starts a baning poll you can count on my exclusive vote to greybeard, no one else... no one more.
I'm not an Atheist but an Agnostic Catholic. It's funny how you trust a book or two as if everything else were false and without questioning who wrote those books and for what purpose. Have you ever though who you will be preaching if you were living in other country or unconquered land? Christ as we know it had like 1400 years to show itself and spread his word again here. What about those native Americans who didn't know about Christ before but someone else? The sightings of God in dreams and hallucinations should at least match. How is it that almighty truth is not shared among the rest of the world but Europe who made sure to make it true for everyone? Up until colonization and later.
You can believe as much on those books as you want, but pushing that on other people throats without asking and in topics not related... that's not only rude but something anyone egoist and without etiquette or social skills does.
'cause bacon when spiced and marinated and aged at that perfect time that only human tastebuds can determine makes it taste soooooooo good!
But when Real Canadian Maple Syrup collides with bacon, I shouldn't be eating this...and I have to watch my figure...ummmmmmmmmm....oh...ohhhhhhhhhh....OHMIGAWD YES!!!! YESSSSSSS!!! OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Quote: Something like this...
I thank Canadians for that. ;-)
It works for what Eaglelanders call "bacon". And it works for Canadian Bacon, aka what Eaglelanders know as "canned ham". What is it about Real Canadian Maple Syrup that causes that orgasmic burst of pleasure upon ones' tastebuds when those bacons blend with its syrupy sensory succulence?
Is it any wonder that the maple leaf is on the Canadian flag? And it's red, the color it changes in the fall at the peak time of maple sap harvesting. That is not a coincidence! ;-)
And that's how Canada will take over the world. All that's needed is a scentless apprentice to get the Big Leaf to bring it down hard, bustin' out that gastronomy, and leaving its tundra-hardened bootprints within its wake of writhing "victims", pleasurably palpating and panting for pure porcine pleasure. BUAHAHAHAHA!!! NOM NOM NOM...
> Why? The way it's used in that song is exactly in line with the first set of > synonyms. You want people to change a word that's being used to mean exactly what one > of its definitions says it means? > > I simply roll along. I don't want to change anything. > > But you do.
Do I? I think that's just you doing what you think I'm doing. I only entered the discussion because you said a word was a synonym of another word, then promptly quoted a source listing synonyms, with that word not in evidence. I'll do that for any word.
Quote: I think that's just you doing what you think I'm doing. I only entered the discussion because you said a word was a synonym of another word, then promptly quoted a source listing synonyms, with that word not in evidence. I'll do that for any word.
I've also mentioned the limitation of reference works and how they aren't always current with the culture for context. Only an ignoramus would deny that "gay" isn't a synonym for both "queer" and "happy" for instance. The only way they'd do that is to ignore the world around them.
Ask Henry Rollins. Or Dan Savage. Ask anyone for that matter. Or are you an antisocial aspie with control-freak tendencies as well? It's as if you don't learn.
And, yes, you're also deliberately ignoring people who just happened to identify with being LGBT and took back that particular piece of language decades ago to the point that it becomes a humorous self-deprecating weapon. Fun stuff! That means you're out of touch. So much for the lie that whitebred, liberal, insipid P.C. idjits are concerned about the welfare of others. Do-gooders are so gay!
That's okay. You're still gay, P.C. boi. You are what you are. And I will never play by your rulllllllz. ;-)
> Do I? > > Yes you do. The appropriate authorities are waiting for you. > > I think that's just you doing what you think I'm doing. I only entered the discussion > because you said a word was a synonym of another word, then promptly quoted a source > listing synonyms, with that word not in evidence. I'll do that for any word. > > I've also mentioned the limitation of reference works and how they aren't always > current with the culture for context.
No. Within that post, you did no such thing. You said they were synonyms, then gave "evidence" of that in the form of a quote that didn't say it at all.
> Only an ignoramus would deny that "gay" isn't a > synonym for both "queer" and "happy" for instance. The only way they'd do that is to > ignore the world around them.
If you think I said they aren't, you read too much into my post.
> Ask Henry Rollins. Or Dan Savage. Ask anyone for that matter. Or are you an > antisocial aspie with control-freak tendencies as well? It's as if you don't learn. > > And, yes, you're also deliberately ignoring people who just happened to identify with > being LGBT and took back that particular piece of language decades ago to the point > that it becomes a humorous self-deprecating weapon.
If we're going into multiple posts, then I clearly did exactly NOT that when recalling Angela's old post concerning X-Men.
> Fun stuff! That means you're out > of touch. So much for the lie that whitebred, liberal, insipid P.C. idjits are > concerned about the welfare of others. Do-gooders are so gay!
Hah. Hah. Oh wait, in your mind people are always things they say they aren't, so I'll just have to ignore that, won't I?
> That's okay. You're still gay, P.C. boi. You are what you are. And I will never play > by your rulllllllz. ;-) > > --Bekki
You're still acting a lot like a Democrat, throwing around inflammatory remarks to get a rise out of people.
> EDIT: For grinz I decided to hit http://dictionary.reference.com for something a bit > up to date when compared to my favorite circa 2003 electronic Merriam-Webster > Collegiate Dictionary+Thesaurus (11th Edition). This should leave things to rest as > evidence of the multiple-meanings of "gay", unless one is an antisocial aspie P.C. > ignoramus who also happens to be functionally illiterate for the lulz: > > gay > [gey] Show IPA > adjective gay·er, gay·est, > 1. > homosexual. > 2. > of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues: a gay organization. > 3. > having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music. Synonyms: cheerful, > gleeful, happy, glad, cheery, lighthearted, joyous, joyful, jovial; sunny, lively, > vivacious, sparkling; chipper, playful, jaunty, sprightly, blithe. Antonyms: serious, > grave, solemn, joyless; staid, sedate; unhappy, morose, grim; sad, depressed, > melancholy. > 4. > bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments. Synonyms: colorful, brilliant, vivid, > intense, lustrous; glittering, theatrical, flamboyant. Antonyms: dull, drab, somber, > lackluster; conservative. > 5. > Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive . awkward, stupid, or bad; lame: This game is > really gay.
Again? My list of synonyms for "gay" covered both the "traditional" (3&4) and "homosexual" (1&2) meanings of the word, so your quote is useless here, unless you want me to call you stupid, lame, or bad. Is that the meaning you want to claim is synonymous with "queer?" Because that is relatively close, though I had thought you were going with the "homosexual" meaning of both words, said meaning not being present (for "queer") in either your post or mine.
Index 
Threaded 
So now I'm really wondering what these "IQ" tests contain...
Reply
[Re: 
So I can only guess that you believe in A God of some sort (not the God of the Bible). Who that is - you haven't said yet. 
Because you're gay.
