|
RyanDev wrote: Quote: Indifferent does not mean respectful. It means indifferent.
I don't care.
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am.
JimmyRopes
|
|
|
|
|
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
No, *i* called them idiots, and then said it's not a matter of respect, it's a matter of total indifference.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: *i* called them idiots, and then said it's not a matter of respect
Clearly.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: the "religion of peace[^]"
Is this to what you are referring? 
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am.
JimmyRopes
|
|
|
|
|
Yes.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I guess that makes me a godless heathen.
I have always wondered who has the best orgies, pagans or heathens. Because I would then classify myself accordingly.
By the way, my comment about pagan orgies somewhere else got downvoted twice.
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Carmichael wrote: Are Christians supposed to simply ignore the jabs and taunts?
I'm a Christian.
My answer to your question would be 'YES'.
I believe God has already won this thing so I don't spend much time worrying about meaningless posts on a forum.
To me atheism is like those Japanese soldiers who held their posts for 30 years after the war was over.
You can respect those guys for their dedication but they're no threat to the reality of things.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: You can respect those guys for their dedication but they're no threat to the reality of things.
Unless you lived on Lubang Island.
Onoda drew on his training in guerilla warfare to kill as many as 30 people[^] whom he mistakenly believed to be enemy soldiers.
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am.
JimmyRopes
|
|
|
|
|
Again, Onoda was not a threat to the ultimate reality of the situation.
My guess is when he was informed of the truth he felt worse than anyone.
As always, nobody suffered more than he did.
From the article:
Onoda wept uncontrollably as he agreed to lay down his perfectly serviceable rifle.
He was later pardoned for the killings by the then Philippine president, Ferdinand Marcos. In his formal surrender to Marcos, Onoda wore his 30-year-old imperial army uniform, cap and sword, all of which were in good condition.
I see our time here ending in much the same way.
|
|
|
|
|
I have to admit I read what you said twice because I didn't understand what you were saying.
I didn't understand it the second time either.
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am.
JimmyRopes
|
|
|
|
|
The Japanese soldier was living in an alternate reality.
He hurt other people, but he hurt himself most of all.
To me that is an important reason to not be offended by atheists (especially on message boards).
I believe they are wrong but I suffer the least from any delusions they may harbor.
That is insulting to some here(1) but it is the reason why I feel no need to harass/shame/berate even the most offensive atheist. I get peace of mind out of the deal and they get freedom of speech. I think it works out well for both of us.
NOTES
-------------------------------------------------------
1: It isn't meant as an insult. Yes, I know I'm a delusional worshipper of a Bronze Age Tribal Deity. Say, wanna go get a beer?
|
|
|
|
|
![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am.
JimmyRopes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Carmichael wrote: but history has shown that anyone who believes will be attacked.
You can't attack someone for believing in something, unless they tell you they believe.
I suppose people could randomly attack someone for being in a certain religion just to find out if they are, but that's not generally what I see happening.
Elephant elephant elephant, sunshine sunshine sunshine
|
|
|
|
|
If you were referring to my post, I wasn't mocking Christianity at all. Furthermore, the responses I got actually did surprise me in that they were not mocking either.
So, I can only assume you were NOT referring to my post, but I don't see what you could have been referring to.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: So, I can only assume you were NOT referring to my post, but I don't see what you could have been referring to
He is referring to your post  Specifically to your reference to "gods" - lowercase g, and the plural form. Not guessing here btw, the OP did mention it in a response.
|
|
|
|
|
If you posted this in response to my reply to Marc, I've just posted a response[^] that may help you see there was no intent to mock.
Best wishes,
David
|
|
|
|
|
David, it was not your post, it is the general timbre of the Lounge and it is often repeated, despite the Lounge posting rules specifically requesting that it NOT be posted.
When someone posts about Christianity and then reference 'gods' (plural, lowercase), then it isn't about Christianity at all, it is a not-too-well-subtle mocking despite claims to the contrary.
Believe or don't, but don't mock other's beliefs.
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Carmichael wrote: Believe or don't, but don't mock other's beliefs.
If we do mock christianity, are you gonna go all crusader on us? (I would have said jihad, but I'm trying to keep the violence references aligned with the appropriate religion.)
BTW, what do the jews call their version of jihad/crusades?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: BTW, what do the jews call their version of jihad/crusades?
Hollywood.
|
|
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I did not read Marc's post as mocking Christianity. I suspect the pretty and evocative nature of Steiner's poem resonated with him so much that he simply did not see the "gods'" as a problem, and wanted to share that prettiness with us.
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Carmichael wrote: When someone posts about Christianity and then reference 'gods' (plural, lowercase), then it isn't about Christianity at all, it is a not-too-well-subtle mocking despite claims to the contrary.
So, you claim a personal right, based on your religion, to judge, and regulate, other people's use of the English language, and to define, absolutely, what is "respectful," and what is "mocking," based on the use of plural noun-forms, and upper- and lower- case ?
That's a form of intolerance that well fits the current term "political correctness;" and, for me, that's the very opposite of the Christianity I respect.
I believe that Marc's post was well intentioned, and expressed no disrespect towards anyone, or any belief system.
I wonder why the phrase "cast the first stone" comes to my mind in this context.
“I speak in a poem of the ancient food of heroes: humiliation, unhappiness, discord. Those things are given to us to transform, so that we may make from the miserable circumstances of our lives things that are eternal, or aspire to be so.” Jorge Luis Borges
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: So, you claim a personal right, based on your religion, to judge, and regulate, other people's use of the English language, and to define, absolutely, what is "respectful," and what is "mocking,"
Well that's religion all over, isn't it? See also the reaction of Muslims to anything that doesn't fit into their approved usage of language regarding their important figures.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: So, you claim a personal right, based on your religion, to judge, and regulate, other people's use of the English language, and to define, absolutely, what is "respectful," and what is "mocking," based on the use of plural noun-forms, and upper- and lower- case?
He claimed no personal right - he invoked the rules of the forum.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
