Banned For "Intentional Blasphemy ?

[ok doser]

The problem here Lon is that you need us, we're a necessary evil...if you will.

the problem for you, quip, is that your type is a dime a dozen - as soon as one of you trolls slinks off, another replaces him

 

[relaff]

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.

I was only joking. Well, I tried to ;-)

Characterizing something as left or right is often only used as an argument when there are no real arguments left (or right).

 

[alwight]

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.

Give me a break Lon, your scripture is what you want to make of it, not what it necessarily is. You somehow want to have it explain, in your mind at least, that life wasn't somehow originally as it seems to be today, often harsh random and cruel, but that it was all wonderful and perfect until some idiot called Adam managed to mess it all up for everyone yet to be born. Without Adam, in your mind anyway, you think that every human conception would result in a perfect new baby, right?

Firstly, only some Christians will claim to adhere to that kind of rigid doctrinal dogma.

Secondly I don't believe that it is actually a ToL definition of blasphemy to argue that only a strict (Catholic?) interpretation of original sin is the only view acceptable.
At least I've never been penalised for it, maybe that will change now if you bleat enough? But we'll see perhaps.

But is it actually remotely blasphemous to suggest that there is no apparent rationality at all that all of humanity should ever be cursed in that way by God?
Is it blasphemy to suggest that in fact this is a natural world, perhaps one created by God, not a cursed one where we are all somehow to blame?

The stricter dogma of original sin may be what you believe Lon, perhaps only because you need a reason to explain to yourself why a perfect God would have created a natural and often imperfect world?:idunno:
Why should I not be allowed to say that?
Do your views need to be protected from the likes of me?

I'll say it again in case you want to report me again.
Why do most human conceptions fail naturally?
I say it's because this is a natural world and that's just how it naturally is, while you blame some guy called Adam.
I say that's just an apologetic spin favoured by you, but not blasphemy on my part.

 

[alwight]

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.

Yes but "life" doesn't mean "person". Nobody gets upset if I choose to kill a weed of course, which is nevertheless life, but I certainly accept that there is much more at stake emotionally when it comes to a potential human person. But for me it has to be considered in the round, the whole set of individual circumstances.
Did the woman actually want to be pregnant?
Is a baby wanted?
Rape?
Congenital dysfunction?

Nobody seems to get all steamed up over contraception these days but it nevertheless prevents human life far more than abortion.
Why shouldn't some people be free to morally conclude for themselves that a prompt abortion isn't such a great moral leap from contraception?
My own moral judgement FWIW is that babies should be healthy, wanted and generally planned for, we have enough unwanted babies, but I wouldn't seek to impose that view on others as some want to impose theirs.

 

[Bright Raven]

Banned for blasphemy? What did you expect?

 

[everready]

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 .

Why not just apologize and be done with it, if your looking for respect there's where you'll find it.

James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.


everready

 

[Lon]

Secondly I don't believe that it is actually a ToL definition of blasphemy to argue that only a strict (Catholic?) interpretation of original sin is the only view acceptable.


At least I've never been penalised for it, maybe that will change now if you bleat enough? But we'll see perhaps.

▼This▼

Sanctimonious claptrap

Not that your comment to me other than scripture is much better, but I can take that kind of comment. I would not, however, put up with it regarding scripture and you bet, most on TOL believe Romans 8 is scripture we hold sacred.

But is it actually remotely blasphemous to suggest that there is no apparent rationality at all that all of humanity should ever be cursed in that way by God?
Is it blasphemy to suggest that in fact this is a natural world, perhaps one created by God, not a cursed one where we are all somehow to blame?

:nono: What is blasphemous isn't doubting it, it is calling it...

Sanctimonious claptrap

Again, against me, no problem. You have a right to an opinion. When it comes to God, scripture, and the Church, we have a right not to hear it, thus the blasphemy rule.

Simply "I don't believe that" or questions about your doubt.
Do that, or make sure you are making a clear difference between "Lon's ideas are sanctimonious claptrap" vs God's word. Nobody cares if Lon's ideas are 'sanctimonious claptrap.' It isn't worth saying and is certainly worth ignoring. You however, were throwing it out there amongst an expiation of scripture. So, I posted the benefit of the doubt 'before' hitting report. It depended upon your response, I try and only hit report if there is an actual TOL infraction, though sometimes just to give mods a heads-up.

The stricter dogma of original sin may be what you believe Lon, perhaps only because you need a reason to explain to yourself why a perfect God would have created a natural and often imperfect world?:idunno:
Why should I not be allowed to say that?

Explained. You may debated, even scripture respectfully.

Sanctimonious claptrap

...ain't it.

Do your views need to be protected from the likes of me?

Nope. 1) it doesn't matter if you agreed or not. What matters is what you meant by sanctimonious claptrap. As long as it isn't against those scriptures I'm not as offended. I believe it was a combination of both, so I can take that heat, even if uncalled for. I try very hard in these debates not to cause offense. I don't accomplish that always, but I try.

I'll say it again in case you want to report me again.
Why do most human conceptions fail naturally?

You missed the mark. On top of that, I also said even if such were somehow God's fault/responsibility, it does not mean you can or should go do likewise. That was the point of the earthquake/hurricane analogy. You don't get to go do likewise and so doing so in abortion is special pleading murder. We don't even allow mercy killing without attaching murder to it with penalty, remember?
Considering most aborted are minorities, supporting it is even incredible bigotry. I'm against sinful behaviors, not skin colors.

I say it's because this is a natural world and that's just how it naturally is, while you blame some guy called Adam.
I say that's just an apologetic spin favoured by you, but not blasphemy on my part.

Great. As I said, you had an opportunity to clarify. "Sanctimonious" could have been more about the scripture used, and I definitely wasn't going to stand for 'claptrap' regarding the scripture. Regarding me? I'm not as knee-jerk as that. I'd only have reported it against scripture.
I don't think it was called for, but that's another matter altogether. You can debate how you like on TOL while upholding its rules. It doesn't bother me much in that sense, though I often second-guess what I could have said that sets another person off. Sometimes it is just TOL. -Lon

 

[alwight]

Just to be clear Lon I only called your beliefs "sanctimonious claptrap" and your beliefs are imo only your personal beliefs, not automatically definitive Christian doctrine which I think is very open to a variety of interpretations.
Is it blasphemous not to particularly respect the words of a man called Paul? He calls me a fool and a liar btw.

However if it helps your cause to get rid of me then I personally don't see why the words of a man named Paul are worthy of any blasphemy label?
But in my defence I would certainly never be rude about your God or Jesus, which I would regard as blasphemous if I were.

If the management here disagree with me then we'll both know one way or the other.

 

[Lon]

Just to be clear Lon I only called your beliefs "sanctimonious claptrap" and your beliefs are imo only your personal beliefs, not automatically definitive Christian doctrine which I think is very open to a variety of interpretations.

Understood. Thanks for clarity.

Is it blasphemous not to particularly respect the words of a man called Paul? He calls me a fool and a liar btw.

Paul who?

in my defence I would certainly never be rude about your God or Jesus, which I would regard as blasphemous if I were.

Gotcha.

 

[alwight]

Thanks Lon.

 

[ok doser]

and i thank both of you for providing an example that is sorely needed here :thumb:


now, get back to whacking at each other and squabbling! :sibbie:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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 .

Life isn't fair.

 

[alwight]

and i thank both of you for providing an example that is sorely needed here :thumb:


now, get back to whacking at each other and squabbling! :sibbie:

Squabbling? Moi?