Banned For "Intentional Blasphemy ?

[alwight]

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

OK but that's just a cop out imo and you probably know it, but by all means restate something I may have avoided.
I suspect however that you really don't want to admit to me that the moment of conception dogma is actually not so particularly sacred after all.

 

[alwight]

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

I'll simply assume then that you think that God works in mysterious ways, which may seem wrong and tragic to you, but mysterious ways nevertheless.

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

Quality of life is also a factor imo, as is the quality of an extant human life rather than of a potential one.

Ignoring the difference between the noble and ignoble.

I certainly don't ignore any such thing, it's just that we may have different views on what exactly they are.

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

You seem to be rather closer than I am to blaming God for it Lon. :think:

 

[relaff]

OK but that's just a cop out imo and you probably know it, but by all means restate something I may have avoided.
I suspect however that you really don't want to admit to me that the moment of conception dogma is actually not so particularly sacred after all.

Did you actually read my posts? I wasn't talking about any dogma. I simply stated that biologically (by its scientific definition) life means that an organism both metabolizes and reproduces. Neither the sperm cell nor the egg cell can do that, but the fertilized egg cell does. Hence life scientifically begins there. I then further stated that many European countries acknowledge that. In some this produces quite a twist in order to make a killing legal, yet still they allow abortion.

The problem with this in the US, and I don't think I stated that before, is that acknowledging that life begins at conception would mean that abortion is a killing and then it wouldn't matter whether it is a privacy issue, because a private killing is still punishable. To change that would require a legislative effort, that would likely not be successful. Hence people in the pro-choice realm try to put the beginning of life as late as possible (e.g. by claiming that the fetus can't support itself) in order to avoid this. Actually I started my first post by saying that I find it interesting that people to the left usually tell those right of center that they ignore science, while it here is the opposite.

 

[Lon]

Wrong. Lets cover this again -



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.

Exactly. Calling God a monster for doing anything you don't like, is indeed blasphemy. Job said "though God slay me, yet will I praise Him." So much for serving the Biblical God, PJ. You said no and proceeded after a different one of your own imagining, which God of Isaiah said is really 'no god at all.' Your religion is pick and choose and you choose which God to serve on the plate tonight - Obviously not the "Monster-God" of Romans 9 or the Old Testament.

 

[Lon]

I'll simply assume then that you think that God works in mysterious ways, which may seem wrong and tragic to you, but mysterious ways nevertheless.

:nono: Hint: You could have direct quoted me. That, is why you 'should know.'

Quality of life is also a factor imo, as is the quality of an extant human life rather than of a potential one.

Too many were careless in the first place. Two wrongs, and the second even more violent than the first, doesn't work for me.

I certainly don't ignore any such thing, it's just that we may have different views on what exactly they are.

Again, a violent act doesn't excuse. That is why assisted suicide is yet wrong in this country.

You seem to be rather closer than I am to blaming God for it Lon. :think:

You assume/observe me wrongly. In a nutshell, what you 'should' have known about me is that I view the failure rate as human fault, including diet, ill use of tobacco drugs and alcohol, and etc. In ignorance is excusable, but on purpose? :nono: That's the difference here. It is not God's fault. Blame for that failure rate is on us. Romans 8:20-22 take a moment on those.

 

[alwight]

Did you actually read my posts? I wasn't talking about any dogma. I simply stated that biologically (by its scientific definition) life means that an organism both metabolizes and reproduces. Neither the sperm cell nor the egg cell can do that, but the fertilized egg cell does. Hence life scientifically begins there. I then further stated that many European countries acknowledge that. In some this produces quite a twist in order to make a killing legal, yet still they allow abortion.

The problem with this in the US, and I don't think I stated that before, is that acknowledging that life begins at conception would mean that abortion is a killing and then it wouldn't matter whether it is a privacy issue, because a private killing is still punishable. To change that would require a legislative effort, that would likely not be successful. Hence people in the pro-choice realm try to put the beginning of life as late as possible (e.g. by claiming that the fetus can't support itself) in order to avoid this. Actually I started my first post by saying that I find it interesting that people to the left usually tell those right of center that they ignore science, while it here is the opposite.

I've never claimed that making such choices is easy, I only insist that people should be able make their own moral choices about when they think a viable human person exists, and not to be controlled by the often dogmatic diktats of "pro-lifers" as to what will happen to their own body.

 

[alwight]

You assume/observe me wrongly. In a nutshell, what you 'should' have known about me is that I view the failure rate as human fault, including diet, ill use of tobacco drugs and alcohol, and etc. In ignorance is excusable, but on purpose? :nono: That's the difference here. It is not God's fault. Blame for that failure rate is on us. Romans 8:20-22 take a moment on those.

Sanctimonious claptrap Lon. Every form of life on Earth overproduces its seeds, often considerably so, that's just how it is. That may not fit comfortably with your particular religious beliefs, but then that isn't exactly my problem.

 

[Lon]

Sanctimonious claptrap Lon.

To report or not to report :think: If against the scriptures given and you were asked to read, you are headed for a deserved vacation. Why? Because you trample purposefully, what is sacred, whether you agree it is sacred or not. There was not but scripture and explaining what they mean. Re-evaluate your presence here. If it is to insult God and scriptures, you are going to be a long time gone.

 

[quip]

To report or not to report :think: If against the scriptures given and you were asked to read, you are headed for a deserved vacation. Why?

If you don't believe as I believe then you must burn-at-the-stake....or at least the ToL version of it! :devil:

 

[relaff]

I've never claimed that making such choices is easy, I only insist that people should be able make their own moral choices about when they think a viable human person exists, and not to be controlled by the often dogmatic diktats of "pro-lifers" as to what will happen to their own body.

Yet this a problematic point, because ending a life is a killing. Surely it's also a "moral choice", when somebody decides to kill someone else, but not only ... because it does not only affect himself/herself. The diversion to talk of "person" instead of "life" is just that: a diversion. If you don't think so I'd suggest try to hunt an animal without the appropriate license and then try to argue to the game ward that it wasn't a person.

 

[Lon]

If you don't believe as I believe then you must burn-at-the-stake....or at least the ToL version of it! :devil:

Trolling. Your membership is an acceptance of TOL rules and by necessity, an agreement to not treat what is sacred as profane, thus 'intentional' blasphemy. So you already accepted those parameters. Stop trolling and complaining. You both, by membership, agree not to do it so hiatus is an infraction for when you are not good to your word.

 

[relaff]

If you don't believe as I believe then you must burn-at-the-stake....or at least the ToL version of it! :devil:

I think it's more about respect ... we abolished the burning some centuries ago and leave that decision to the Lord, who will decide about heaven or the flames (or darkness)

 

[aikido7]

The terms “blasphemy” and “disruptive” are terms that are WAY too general.
What appears to be blasphemous to one person will be different to what another person thinks.

More specific language would be helpful.

Even though I have a deep and personal relationship with Jesus and know full well that I am a Christian, I have been banned for these same reasons.
And I am left with NO WAY to be accountable for my behavior because I don’t know what it really is.

Perhaps TOL could screen participants ahead of time and help them give their assent to a list of theological terms that would separate the disruptive and the blasphemous from the “elect” so that these bans would not be needed as much.

What does anyone else say? I think this could be a helpful path for TOL moderators to take.

 

[Lon]

Perhaps TOL could screen participants ahead of time and help them give their assent to a list of theological terms that would separate the disruptive and the blasphemous from the “elect” so that these bans would not be needed as much.

What does anyone else say? I think this could be a helpful path for TOL moderators to take.

It isn't too overtly difficult, imho.
1) Recognize what others love about God, Christianity, and His word and avoid needlessly offending based on those devotions.
2) When offending, be stalwart. You are going to be banned for trampling those affections, but may have a sufficient reason for doing so. Conscientious objection is understood and even admired in some cases, if not appreciated and yet against TOL rules.

 

[aikido7]

1) Recognize what others love about God, Christianity, and His word and avoid needlessly offending based on those devotions.
2) When offending, be stalwart. You are going to be banned for trampling those affections, but may have a sufficient reason for doing so. Conscientious objection is understood and even admired in some cases, if not appreciated and yet against TOL rules.

1.A poster who clearly believes s/he offers information to a forum “based on devotions” is hardly problem-solving this whole thing in my view. What one person believes is “showing devotion” is different than what another person believes.

2. I have tried to be a conscientious objector before years ago--much like I have tried to be on TOL. My draft board stipulated that my objection had to be based on “religious training and belief.”

And on TOL, my religious training and belief are my foundation for everything I do both online and off.

Thanks for your efforts, though. They are sincere and are grounded in common sense. However, I am still left with major questions and they have not yet been answered in a way that helps me out.

 

[relaff]

And I am left with NO WAY to be accountable for my behavior

Ok, I'm taking it out of context and I know it's not what you wanted to say, but I just couldn't resist ;-)

You are left and therefore not accountable for your behavior :devil:

 

[quip]

Trolling. Your membership is an acceptance of TOL rules and by necessity, an agreement to not treat what is sacred as profane, thus 'intentional' blasphemy. So you already accepted those parameters. Stop trolling and complaining. You both, by membership, agree not to do it so hiatus is an infraction for when you are not good to your word.

The problem here Lon is that you need us, we're a necessary evil...if you will. You need our heathen, irreverence in order to define your sense of pious, self-righteousness.

Without the requisite damned, being saved holds no meaning....you'd otherwise exist without purpose. :devil:

--- so, gather round and give us a hearty toast. :cheers:

 

[freelight]

characterizations of 'God'......

characterizations of 'God'......

Calling God a monster for doing anything you don't like, is indeed blasphemy.

Not quite,....since we're dealing with 'characterizations' of 'God' here, not necessarily 'God' himself or itself (whether you personalize Deity, or see it as an Impersonal essence, spirit-presence, or consciousness). What you're doing is assuming that our criticism and non-acceptance of your 'characterization' of 'God', is blasphemy against 'Real God', but you have yet to prove its a correct representation of 'God', and not a distorted presentation thereof.

Job said "though God slay me, yet will I praise Him." So much for serving the Biblical God, PJ.

:idunno: - not sure what this has to do with the subject. Its just the writers rendition of Job's devotion to his 'God'. Devotional-service and worship of 'gods' may vary according to one's religious tradition, or lack thereof

You said no and proceeded after a different one of your own imagining, which God of Isaiah said is really 'no god at all.'

Your religion is pick and choose and you choose which God to serve on the plate tonight - Obviously not the "Monster-God" of Romans 9 or the Old Testament.

In this world of freedom of choice,...many different options and possibilities exist,...that's the wonderful thing about life. As long as 'choice' exists,...there will be 'choosing' of various sorts. 'God' allows such liberties. That universal primordial consciousness (Call it 'God' or something else) allows all potentials to exist and to be actualized. A 'God' whose nature is love, who is wholly just and merciful, wise and all-benevolent, could not behave in a way contrary to his own nature, and it is only representations of God that are not according to that divine nature that are criticized or questioned,....and logically so, according to conscience and reason.

 

[aikido7]

Ok, I'm taking it out of context and I know it's not what you wanted to say, but I just couldn't resist ;-)

You are left and therefore not accountable for your behavior :devil:

No matter if my opinion is characterized as left OR right I still aspire to be responsible for it. And it's not always easy for me either.

 

[Lon]

The problem here Lon is that you need us, we're a necessary evil...if you will. You need our heathen, irreverence in order to define your sense of pious, self-righteousness.

Without the requisite damned, being saved holds no meaning....you'd otherwise exist without purpose. :devil:

--- so, gather round and give us a hearty toast. :cheers:

I have a few of you on ignore so no, in fact I'm still alive. As to your always hasty over-assessment? Yeah, you aren't as observant as you think you are, prideful? arrogant? Projecting? Yes. Before you dismiss it, remember you laughed at meeting God on His terms. This whole post of yours is an exercise in those myopic assertions. It is way more about you than it is me.