Banned For "Intentional Blasphemy ?

[Bright Raven]

I was banned for a few days for "Intentional blasphemy " . What the heck is that ? I meant no blasphemy . I was just disagreeing with the Christians here . Is this a crime ? I wasn't disrespectful to anyone , didn't call anyone names .
Recently, someone on this forum called me a nasty word for a gay person, even though I'm not even gay . As far as I can tell, this person was not banned for such blatant disrespect .
Of course, I'm not even offended or upset about being called this, just angered by the double standard .
I've been called a lot of nasty and stupid things on the internet by right-wingers, but I just shrug it off .

:baby:

 

[alwight]

I did. That was the point. You are blaming God for what we have wrought ourselves. You may not realize that the BHT and MSG and sodium in your and a woman's diet has ill effects. You may not understand that blaming God for 'your' consequences is bad-form. You may not get that just because you 'accidentally' kill a zygote doesn't mean it is okay to 'purposefully' do it. You may get none of this, but the answer has been clearly given and your rationalization is completely wrong. I can at least assert it, even if you cannot be rationalized with. So, sadly, you didn't reread or you are being stubborn, and neither moves us forward but don't blame me wrongly for it, like you wrongly blame God. "Your" worldview is wrong, not His or mine. -Lon

Completely untrue, I've never ever blamed God for anything. We live in a natural world and this is just how it works.
If you believe that people are actually created special at conception rather than by developing later in the womb then you tell me why your God seems to have so little regard for conception?

 

[Lon]

Completely untrue...

Next breath:

then you tell me why your God seems to have so little regard for conception?

He doesn't (accusation/blame - not sure what you are thinking this is):
1) we have bad habits that relate to them dying 2) sin infects the world in more ways than one, and this is 'our' doing 3) just because I'm definitely terminal doesn't mean I'm a nonperson nor give you the right to kill me and 4) God doesn't have 'little' regard for humans at any stage of their/our terminal condition. It doesn't logically follow that God must not care nor that you are excused for killing me, regardless if I die this year or next. That is just faulty thinking right there...and excusing behavior. Stop it.

You are blaming God for what we have wrought ourselves [and/or using it as excusing behavior]. You may not realize [bad health choices and poor] diet has ill effects. You may not understand that blaming God for 'your' consequences is bad-form. You may not get that just because you 'accidentally' kill a zygote doesn't mean it is okay to 'purposefully' do it. You may get none of this, but the answer has been clearly given and your rationalization is completely wrong. I can at least assert it, even if you cannot be rationalized with.

 

[alwight]

Next breath:


He doesn't (accusation/blame - not sure what you are thinking this is):
1) we have bad habits that relate to them dying 2) sin infects the world in more ways than one, and this is 'our' doing 3) just because I'm definitely terminal doesn't mean I'm a nonperson nor give you the right to kill me and 4) God doesn't have 'little' regard for humans at any stage of their/our terminal condition. It doesn't logically follow that God must not care nor that you are excused for killing me, regardless if I die this year or next. That is just faulty thinking right there...and excusing behavior. Stop it.

It really is a crock Lon to talk about me wanting to kill you or perhaps another person. My own view is that a person is something that develops over time as a foetus develops. You however still want to go on about a magical/spiritual moment of conception as if that were the key factor. But that simply cannot be true since the likelihood of any conception is that it is rather more likely to fail than to become anything. Clearly your God apparently isn't too concerned about any awful human tragedy going on just after conception and so I too can also conclude that there isn't, and suggest that neither do you.

 

[republicanchick]

I was banned for a few days for "Intentional blasphemy " . What the heck is that ? I meant no blasphemy .off .

u have often been disrespectful...

so quit being a liberal... aka truth bender... etc..




++

 

[Lon]

It really is a crock Lon to talk about me wanting to kill you or perhaps another person. My own view is that a person is something that develops over time as a foetus develops. You however still want to go on about a magical/spiritual moment of conception as if that were the key factor.

Cop out. You've no idea when. It as best, for you, a guess. Me? The bible makes that distinction.

But that simply cannot be true since the likelihood of any conception is that it is rather more likely to fail than to become anything.

This is the third time I've already answered this. "We" do it. If not on purpose, much more excusable than 'on purpose.'

Clearly your God apparently isn't too concerned about any awful human tragedy going on just after conception and so I too can also conclude that there isn't, and suggest that neither do you.

"Clearly apparently?" :think: Is He clearly apparently not too concerned about earthquakes or hurricanes?

Do we use things like that to cheapen human life, 'normalizing' abortion? It is taking the life of another human being. Regardless of what hurricanes or eathquakes do, I do NOT likewise, then have the right to kill only one.

"Afterall, the hurricane killed hundreds, I'm only killing one. Nobody should put me in jail for that. It isn't right to put me in prison for what I do on purpose, when hurricanes and earthquakes do it without purpose." :dizzy:

 

[aikido7]

Hurricanes, tsunamis, floods, earthquakes are not from God. They originate from natural forces which have always been a part of Creation.

We all have free will. God cannot stop murder or give both football teams who pray during half-time to win the game.

Jesus had “faith” in God, not belief. The word “belief” back then meant “trust.” Not belief or dogma. Jesus did not “believe” in God; he KNEW God. He had trust in his love for all and gave humanity a way to trust in that same love.

 

[quip]

As is your atheist rejection of it. :noway:

No, rather an agnostic rejection of it. You can believe what you've been told....just don't place me within its crosshairs.

 

[freelight]

Its a question of how far one can stretch the definition of 'blasphemy'

Its a question of how far one can stretch the definition of 'blasphemy'

I was banned for a few days for "Intentional blasphemy " . What the heck is that ? I meant no blasphemy . I was just disagreeing with the Christians here . Is this a crime ? I wasn't disrespectful to anyone , didn't call anyone names .
Recently, someone on this forum called me a nasty word for a gay person, even though I'm not even gay . As far as I can tell, this person was not banned for such blatant disrespect .
Of course, I'm not even offended or upset about being called this, just angered by the double standard .
I've been called a lot of nasty and stupid things on the internet by right-wingers, but I just shrug it off .

Hello Horn,

I agree with your post, and have did commentaries on 'The Bible and homosexuality', showing that the typical 'clobber verses' used against homosexuality can be variously 'interpreted'. Unfortunately threads on this subject where I've written have been recently deleted in the recent purging of threads to save space. God loves all his kids, that includes LGBTQ persons, and I've stood for human rights and the brotherhood of all, naturally, since my philosophy and theology includes that principle.

Now concerning the reason for your infraction explained here...I think such is a bit over-reactive. Lets review your post in question -

I'm not a Christian and have never believed what the Bible says about homosexuality . To me, the notion that God would send people to hell for being gay makes zero sense .And if it is true, God is monstrously evil , and I would never want to have anything to do with such an evil being or be in heaven, assuming it exists at all .
The Bible also calls eating pork and shellfish an abomination, as well as working on the Sabbath, wearing clothes with two or more different kinds of fabric, cutting your hear, having tattoos and so much more .
Teaching kids in SECULAR public schools ridiculous Christian
superstition is a blatant violation of their parents rights, and the kids too .
If hell existed , people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot,
Al Capone, the clergy responsible for the Spanish Inquisition,
Osama Bin Laden and other cruel ,evil people would belong there, not innocent gay people who had never harmed anyone, which is true of the vast majority of them .

The way I see it, is you a being intellectually honest about a 'god' who send people to hell just because they are gay. Many would agree with you. Also,...you are just being honest about seeing such a 'god' as 'monstrously evil' because it violates your sense of justice, humanity, goodness, truth. I've challenged concepts, versions and caricatures of 'God' that my conscience cannot accept, and speak against such freely, since I have the right to do it, being careful of course to keep things within the bounderies of the rules here. But when you have a strong opinon on things, sometimes you tread the lines at times,...you take a risk. But also note that an infraction seen by posters as 'unjust' reflects on the moderator and forum administration, not the poster necessarily. - in these cases moderators do better to be more careful about hasty infractions done prematurely.

Since a few of my posts have been deemed 'intentional blasphemy', I can relate to your feeling of being banned unjustly. Such are shared sentiments. I find some of these bannings a bit arbitrary, knee-jerky and unnecessary, since a moderator can engage the poster in the thread itself, instead of a poster finding out that they cannot log onto TOL because they are banned, and then feeling dejected, then being surprised at why they were banned when reading the report in the Woodshed (often shaking their head). Some of us have been there.

While on the subject of hellfire or eternal punishment, I've been very vocal on my thoughts on this here and elsewhere. See my last post to Sherman about meshak being banned here. I hold my ground. If I get banned for that post, then let all readers make their own judgment on it, but I'll be fine, because I've made a principled stand. If a forum will not allow for equality of voice, opinion, point of view which fosters genuine dialogue and serious discussion, then its integrity, progress and spirit suffers, being in a retarded state.

 

[freelight]

btw...

:think:

Perhaps "monstrously evil - evil being" wasn't meant as a personal slam?

:think:

See previous post. I agree with Horn about a 'god' sending people to hell just because they are gay as being a 'monster'. I've said so before on this count and on other behaviors that I do not find befitting 'God'. Its not a 'personal slam', its an observation of conscience based on moral and philosophical grounds. - its a 'rejection' of a particular 'characterization' of 'God'.

 

[alwight]

Cop out. You've no idea when. It as best, for you, a guess. Me? The bible makes that distinction.

This is the third time I've already answered this. "We" do it. If not on purpose, much more excusable than 'on purpose.'

Again you choose to miss the point through your dogma Lon.
Your God doesn't seem to worry that "persons" are being routinely discarded just after conception, as part of a quite natural process, most probably because they're not.
I wasn't talking about an unfortunate few, this was about the process itself which only if successful will produce a whole new person.

You otoh choose not to mourn for the majority of conceptions that fail naturally, even though it seems you do regard them as persons, lest you blame God perhaps, which would never do of course. But the tiny number terminated by human choice, done in whatever circumstances, at whatever stage, perhaps with the best of intentions, clearly would never escape your righteous ire.

"Clearly apparently?" :think: Is He clearly apparently not too concerned about earthquakes or hurricanes?

Clearly I at least don't blame any God for natural processes of a natural world. Yet people choose to control these effects when they can, to fight disease or to defend against natural forces of nature. Shouldn't they simply accept whatever is thrown their way in case they play God? :think:

Do we use things like that to cheapen human life, 'normalizing' abortion? It is taking the life of another human being. Regardless of what hurricanes or eathquakes do, I do NOT likewise, then have the right to kill only one.

"Afterall, the hurricane killed hundreds, I'm only killing one. Nobody should put me in jail for that. It isn't right to put me in prison for what I do on purpose, when hurricanes and earthquakes do it without purpose." :dizzy:

I simply try to put things more into some perspective Lon. If you are right then the human people lost naturally and routinely just after conception should also be included in your thoughts, but somehow I rather doubt that they are.

 

[relaff]

Kills a person, really?
Fact is two thirds of all zygotes self-abort or fail quite naturally. If a caring involved God exists then there is surely no contradiction at all at that early stage because whatever a "person" actually is, it clearly can't be happening until rather later on.

Funny, how you twist the argument. I did not make a Christian argument, but a scientific one(or are you assuming that Christians per se have no clue about science?). So either you answer in kind or you shouldn't expect a good discussion to evolve. Also your statistics are quantitative, while I was making a qualitative point, so that's comparing apples and oranges.

Also: The surgical abortion is not really performed on zygotes. Even drugs used either usually act before ("morning-after pill") or after that stage ("medical abortion").

BTW: Regarding the "caring involved God" - looks like you have misunderstood the basic Christian faith, but being an agnostic you of course don't have to do that. But then you probably shouldn't try to make an argument based on what God should or shouldn't "allow".

 

[alwight]

Funny, how you twist the argument. I did not make a Christian argument, but a scientific one(or are you assuming that Christians per se have no clue about science?). So either you answer in kind or you shouldn't expect a good discussion to evolve. Also your statistics are quantitative, while I was making a qualitative point, so that's comparing apples and oranges.

You seem to be doing rather more of the presuming/twisting here than I am, not to mention equivocation.
I highlighted in yellow previously where you seem to have presumed that a person was involved to which (yes) I then presumed from your previous sentence that for you "life" and perhaps a person too began at conception, but feel free to clarify.
My point is however that accepting that most "persons" would be doomed to fail in that way naturally rather suggests to me at least that a "person" actually happens further down the road at some not too easy point to define.

Btw I certainly have never made any generalised disparagement of the scientific abilities of all Christians, and I rather resent that implication.

Also: The surgical abortion is not really performed on zygotes. Even drugs used either usually act before ("morning-after pill") or after that stage ("medical abortion").

BTW: Regarding the "caring involved God" - looks like you have misunderstood the basic Christian faith, but being an agnostic you of course don't have to do that. But then you probably shouldn't try to make an argument based on what God should or shouldn't "allow".

However the principle here is about whether life is somehow sacred from conception.
I am more than happy to consider an alternative later point up to which such a termination might be deemed a more difficult moral problem in its specific context.
The more usual bone of contention around here anyway is that life/person actually is absolutely sacred from conception, but if we can move on from there then I would be delighted.

 

[Lon]

Again you choose to miss the point through your dogma Lon.
Your God doesn't seem to worry that "persons" are being routinely discarded just after conception, as part of a quite natural process, most probably because they're not.
I wasn't talking about an unfortunate few, this was about the process itself which only if successful will produce a whole new person.

You otoh choose not to mourn for the majority of conceptions that fail naturally, even though it seems you do regard them as persons, lest you blame God perhaps, which would never do of course. But the tiny number terminated by human choice, done in whatever circumstances, at whatever stage, perhaps with the best of intentions, clearly would never escape your righteous ire.

lain: You have no idea what I chose to do at that point. You should, but you don't.

Clearly I at least don't blame any God for natural processes of a natural world. Yet people choose to control these effects when they can, to fight disease or to defend against natural forces of nature. Shouldn't they simply accept whatever is thrown their way in case they play God? :think:

The one trying to save life: Noble. The one taking it: ignoble, murder.

I simply try to put things more into some perspective Lon.

Ignoring the difference between the noble and ignoble.

If you are right then the human people lost naturally and routinely just after conception should also be included in your thoughts, but somehow I rather doubt that they are.

I'd pay money to save them. It is a tragedy, not an excuse to go do likewise.

 

[Lon]

See previous post. I agree with Horn about a 'god' sending people to hell just because they are gay as being a 'monster'. I've said so before on this count and on other behaviors that I do not find befitting 'God'. Its not a 'personal slam', its an observation of conscience based on moral and philosophical grounds. - its a 'rejection' of a particular 'characterization' of 'God'.

Thus God is yourself, rather than a God who may dictate Himself to you. That is why you are the religion you are. It is wholly the god of self, rejecting the God of Scriptures and/or the God who is - then inventing one in your own image. I won't bow to you.

 

[Bright Raven]

Get out of the kitchen if you can't take the heat.

 

[ok doser]

or open the refrigerator door

 

[Totton Linnet]

Strange how people expect to punished for breaking human laws...but God's greater laws may be broken with impunity.

 

[relaff]

You seem to be doing rather more of the presuming/twisting here than I am, not to mention equivocation.

Well, instead of actually discussing my points, you keep coming up with new stuff. Hence I can't see a real discussion starting here.

 

[freelight]

Your 'version' of 'God'.......

Your 'version' of 'God'.......

Thus God is yourself, rather than a God who may dictate Himself to you. That is why you are the religion you are. It is wholly the god of self, rejecting the God of Scriptures and/or the God who is - then inventing one in your own image. I won't bow to you.

Wrong. Lets cover this again -

Originally Posted by freelight:

See previous post here. I agree with Horn about a 'god' sending people to hell just because they are gay as being a 'monster'. I've said so before on this count and on other behaviors that I do not find befitting 'God'. Its not a 'personal slam', its an observation of conscience based on moral and philosophical grounds. - its a 'rejection' of a particular 'characterization' of 'God' .

If you want to discuss the 'charge' made against Horn's post, you may do so, since I've addressed it already. To say I'm asking to be bowed down to as 'God' is ludicrous. Its what is deemed 'intentional blasphemy' that is being 'questioned' here.