No frog, I mean humans are human. What I was talking about were the things some do trying to "get to you". For instance, once again in his new okuok name, a misfit runs amok calling atheists animals, claiming people on the forum are criminals, alcoholics, you name it. He keeps posting that I work in a massage parlor. He's not the only one that does that type of thing, he's just the sleaziest. So if I, or other people he attacks, was thin skinned his perverted antics might upset us.
Originally Posted by ReleaseTheElephant:
Originally Posted by frog:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:
Frog, the same reason you don't find "love" on the political sites. People have different opinions. Some claim ownership of a forum. "Discussions" get heated, then people get "personal", then some get "threatening" to others. Some can handle it, some can't. If you have "thin skin" none of these forums are the place to be.
Hmm, yes, people have different opinions, and it is wonderful to discuss and learn from each other. It's isn't necessary to go past that phase of a discussion though....really it isn't. Who learns or enjoys a discussion in a healthy way if the nastiness begins?
So the answer seems to be that those who insult, get personal, or threaten others get to own the forums? What exactly does thin skin mean in this context then? Would it mean that if it bothers me to see people hurling insults and trying to demean and threaten each other I have thin skin and don't belong in a religion forum? Now isn't that ironic?
In some forums those who behave in those ways are banned or at least reminded to be civil...although in a religion forum one would think that would be a natural way to behave...but do you mean that here the accepted and encouraged way to interact is nastiness? How sad....
Philosopher?
I've just seen forums that work and those that have a few who pretty much bully the rest into either leaving, not posting, or arguing to defend themselves. I'm just observing what I see and feel here...that's all. It's not everyone, of course
It is too bad really.
Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by gbrk:
Don't you two go and spoil Unob's knowledge of scripture with silly things such as facts or accurate interpretation and actual meaning of "this generation".
-------
Ahh, the old "Out of Context" fallacy again. Nice.
So I guess Pauls letter was also some sort of ""context" thing, too when he was begging followers to get right with their womenfolk?
1 Corinthians 7:29-31
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, 30 those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, 31 and those who use this world as not misusingit. For the form of this world is passing away.
The above scripture is not talking about time being short for the end of the world. The meaning of the above is Paul talking to his readers about serving the Lord, working for the Lord and he is speaking to the married as if they should be single in order to devote more time to working for the Lord. If single they would be able to dedicate their entire lives doing the work for the Lord where if married they have to divide their time with their families. The following verse (verse 32) clarifies that and reveals the context that Paul is talking in and what he is saying.
1 Corinthians 7:32-35 (NIV)
{32} I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord.
{33} But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife--
{34} and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world--how she can please her husband.
{35} I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
And here is another verse that I am certainly taking "out of context" because it seems to clearly assert that Paul beleived that at least some of his friedns would still be alive when Jesus returned:
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.[a]
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words."
And Paul certainly seem to suggest that dead people would simply remain dead. It was the LIVE people who went to heaven. I wonder when that changed?
How can you construe that the words of Paul mean that??? Paul is talking to fellow Christians about their loved one who had died reassuring them that their dead loved ones would also be raptured along with those living at the time Christ returns. In fact Paul said that when Christ returns, to Rapture the Church, that the dead in Christ (Christians who had died) will be Raptured first then those Christians that are alive will be Raptured but all will be Raptured and not just those who happen to be alive. This passage though does refer to the end days so in that part you did get the timing right.
TWO THOUSAND YEARS, you people have been waiting. How deluded must one be to keep on waiting for some fictional dead guy to return from his sky palace? GROW UP!
From your first post where you used Luke 21:32 and keyed in on the term "this generation". I will be the first to admit that different people, human people, interpret Scripture differently so you will get all kinds of answers. Speaking directly though about the way you used these verses and the term "this generation" as if it was the generation that the apostles were in or in their lifetimes. You are correct in stating that Jesus said He would return and bring in His earthly Kingdom at a point later in time.
He then went on to tell the Disciples/Apostles when this would be when they ask Him (Luke 21:7). Christ began to answer their question about how to recognize when that time would be. He told them for them to take and teach to the Churches and fellow believers for many would question when it would be and many would falsely report that it had happened or was happening. (Luke 21:8). Later on Christ would explain certain signs to look for so as to authenticate for sure that it was the actual end days and time for His return. Those signs were outlined in Luke 21:20-27 or is explained in greater specific detail in Matthew 24:15-31. The verse you cited: Luke 21:7 is mirrored by Matthew 24:34 and the generation that is spoken of was not the generation alive during the writing of the gospel (Luke, Matthew, etc) nor the generation of the apostles but the generation spoken of is the generation alive at the time of the signs spoken of. What are those definitive and definite signs that the end times are actually come.
Matthew 24:15 (NIV)
{15} "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand--also
Matthew 24:29-31 (NIV)
{29} "Immediately after the distress of those days "'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'
{30} "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.
{31} And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
Matthew 24:32-34 (NIV)
{32} "Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.
{33} Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door.
{34} I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
It is therefore the Generation that are alive and can witness the very signs that Christ foretold would happen that will experience them and not the generation of the apostles time or when the Gospel was written. That's why they said you were wrong in applying it to that time period. Note that I have commented above on the specific scriptures that you presented in this post.
Originally Posted by frog:
I've just seen forums that work and those that have a few who pretty much bully the rest into either leaving, not posting, or arguing to defend themselves. I'm just observing what I see and feel here...that's all. It's not everyone, of course
It is too bad really.
----------
It is too bad, Frog. But when a forum is infected with the bitter likes of Bill Gray, Invictus, Rram and all his various incarnations, and Ono, civil discussion just isn't going to happen. All of these folks take our disagreement with their belief very personally. It is completely understandable, of course. We are challenging the thing they (claim to) hold most dear so of course they will defend it violently and angrily..
Growing up is painful, I suppose.
Originally Posted by ReleaseTheElephant:
Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by frog:
I've just seen forums that work and those that have a few who pretty much bully the rest into either leaving, not posting, or arguing to defend themselves. I'm just observing what I see and feel here...that's all. It's not everyone, of course
It is too bad really.
----------
It is too bad, Frog. But when a forum is infected with the bitter likes of Bill Gray, Invictus, Rram and all his various incarnations, and Ono, civil discussion just isn't going to happen. All of these folks take our disagreement with their belief very personally. It is completely understandable, of course. We are challenging the thing they (claim to) hold most dear so of course they will defend it violently and angrily..
Growing up is painful, I suppose.
Fits you to a T Unob...
Psychopaths atheists do not feel emotions as deeply as normal people. Though they are not completely unemotional, their emotions are so shallow that some clinicians have described them as mere "proto-emotions: primitive responses to immediate needs."
Psychopaths atheists have a total lack of remorse for the abuses they commit. Even when they are aware of the consequences of their actions, they frequently rationalize their behavior so as to minimize the seriousness or shrug off responsibility. They often blame their victims for their crimes; "he shouldn't have provoked me" and "suckers deserve to be swindled" are common sayings.
Wow. I continue to be amazed at what spews from people here. Seriously, where did your comparison of psychopaths to atheists come from? How is that not just plain hateful? It isn't anywhere near accurate, is totally off the wall, over the top, and just plain nasty.
How would you know how deeply someone feels...you say silly and untrue things, and you twist legitimate evaluations of disturbed mentally ill people to suit your need to insult people. Wow...you are in some dreamworld where you can just make things up and no one here challenges you?
Is this what whichever church you attend teaches you to do to others? Lie about them, make up what suits you, and spew lies? Is this type of post acceptable to the board or the other posters?
Originally Posted by frog:
How would you know how deeply someone feels...you say silly and untrue things, and you twist legitimate evaluations of disturbed mentally ill people to suit your need to insult people. Wow...you are in some dreamworld where you can just make things up and no one here challenges you?
Is this what whichever church you attend teaches you to do to others? Lie about them, make up what suits you, and spew lies? Is this type of post acceptable to the board or the other posters?
Wait frog, people see through uno, RE knows uno as well as anyone can.
Besides, uno can take it, he gives more than he takes.
.
But that wasn't a comment on uno. It was a lumping together of all atheists to be psychopaths. Do you not see the difference?
Originally Posted by frog:
Originally Posted by ReleaseTheElephant:
Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by frog:
I've just seen forums that work and those that have a few who pretty much bully the rest into either leaving, not posting, or arguing to defend themselves. I'm just observing what I see and feel here...that's all. It's not everyone, of course
It is too bad really.
----------
It is too bad, Frog. But when a forum is infected with the bitter likes of Bill Gray, Invictus, Rram and all his various incarnations, and Ono, civil discussion just isn't going to happen. All of these folks take our disagreement with their belief very personally. It is completely understandable, of course. We are challenging the thing they (claim to) hold most dear so of course they will defend it violently and angrily..
Growing up is painful, I suppose.
Fits you to a T Unob...
Psychopaths atheists do not feel emotions as deeply as normal people. Though they are not completely unemotional, their emotions are so shallow that some clinicians have described them as mere "proto-emotions: primitive responses to immediate needs."
Psychopaths atheists have a total lack of remorse for the abuses they commit. Even when they are aware of the consequences of their actions, they frequently rationalize their behavior so as to minimize the seriousness or shrug off responsibility. They often blame their victims for their crimes; "he shouldn't have provoked me" and "suckers deserve to be swindled" are common sayings.
Wow. I continue to be amazed at what spews from people here. Seriously, where did your comparison of psychopaths to atheists come from? How is that not just plain hateful? It isn't anywhere near accurate, is totally off the wall, over the top, and just plain nasty.
How would you know how deeply someone feels...you say silly and untrue things, and you twist legitimate evaluations of disturbed mentally ill people to suit your need to insult people. Wow...you are in some dreamworld where you can just make things up and no one here challenges you?
Is this what whichever church you attend teaches you to do to others? Lie about them, make up what suits you, and spew lies? Is this type of post acceptable to the board or the other posters?
Wow! How is it that you don't see many of the hateful things Unob and a few others post on here just to get one in on the Christians?? Huh? Did you see the "International Religion Day" post?
THAT was the rantings of a mentally defective person. A lunatic...who professes "intelligence"???
I have no horse in this race other than I detest ignorant bullies which is the only reason most atheists post here.
As for the so called "Christian Lunatics" that post here, they are no better. There are a few whom are actually "walking the walk" and they are the most frequent targets.
Maybe you should examine the "perfect world" in which you seem to reside with all of your "fluff" you post here.
And by the way ONCE MORE...I DO NOT ATTEND ANY CHURCH. I DO NOT WORSHIP ANY GOD.
I DO, however, try to be respectful of those that deserve it. Not many do that post in this forum.
Originally Posted by frog:
But that wasn't a comment on uno. It was a lumping together of all atheists to be psychopaths. Do you not see the difference?
I se what you're saying frog, and there is some lumping, but uno brings
that on himself and includes all atheists the same way I'm lumped
in with the Bill G's. It's not a direct hit to you.
Unless you're a Bull Frog.
.
Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by frog:
But that wasn't a comment on uno. It was a lumping together of all atheists to be psychopaths. Do you not see the difference?
I se what you're saying frog, and there is some lumping, but uno brings
that on himself and includes all atheists the same way I'm lumped
in with the Bill G's. It's not a direct hit to you.
Unless you're a Bull Frog.
.
Yes, I DID lump. I meant to lump. ALL atheists that post on this forum. Every single one...since Bluetick is no longer here.
Originally Posted by ReleaseTheElephant:
Originally Posted by frog:
Originally Posted by ReleaseTheElephant:
Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by frog:
I've just seen forums that work and those that have a few who pretty much bully the rest into either leaving, not posting, or arguing to defend themselves. I'm just observing what I see and feel here...that's all. It's not everyone, of course
It is too bad really.
----------
It is too bad, Frog. But when a forum is infected with the bitter likes of Bill Gray, Invictus, Rram and all his various incarnations, and Ono, civil discussion just isn't going to happen. All of these folks take our disagreement with their belief very personally. It is completely understandable, of course. We are challenging the thing they (claim to) hold most dear so of course they will defend it violently and angrily..
Growing up is painful, I suppose.
Fits you to a T Unob...
Psychopaths atheists do not feel emotions as deeply as normal people. Though they are not completely unemotional, their emotions are so shallow that some clinicians have described them as mere "proto-emotions: primitive responses to immediate needs."
Psychopaths atheists have a total lack of remorse for the abuses they commit. Even when they are aware of the consequences of their actions, they frequently rationalize their behavior so as to minimize the seriousness or shrug off responsibility. They often blame their victims for their crimes; "he shouldn't have provoked me" and "suckers deserve to be swindled" are common sayings.
Wow. I continue to be amazed at what spews from people here. Seriously, where did your comparison of psychopaths to atheists come from? How is that not just plain hateful? It isn't anywhere near accurate, is totally off the wall, over the top, and just plain nasty.
How would you know how deeply someone feels...you say silly and untrue things, and you twist legitimate evaluations of disturbed mentally ill people to suit your need to insult people. Wow...you are in some dreamworld where you can just make things up and no one here challenges you?
Is this what whichever church you attend teaches you to do to others? Lie about them, make up what suits you, and spew lies? Is this type of post acceptable to the board or the other posters?
Wow! How is it that you don't see many of the hateful things Unob and a few others post on here just to get one in on the Christians?? Huh? Did you see the "International Religion Day" post?
THAT was the rantings of a mentally defective person. A lunatic...who professes "intelligence"???
I have seen many hateful posts on all sides, believe me. But my point is that you are insulting a whole group of people and lumping them all into one mentally ill group. I didn't say no one else ever posts things that aren't nice, but really...psychopaths to atheists? I agree it is definitely not okay to "get Christians" just as it isn't to "get atheists".
I have no horse in this race other than I detest ignorant bullies which is the only reason most atheists post here.
But you insult the same group again and say they are automatically bullies and ignorant just because they happen to not believe in God. Not all atheists are bullies and some of all other faiths are, so all I am saying is that if you really need to insult one person, how about leaving the rest of the group out? I assure you none of us here represent the whole of any group.
As for the so called "Christian Lunatics" that post here, they are no better. There are a few whom are actually "walking the walk" and they are the most frequent targets.
I would agree it is not one group or one belief system. It is the choices an individual makes that determine who he becomes.
Maybe you should examine the "perfect world" in which you seem to reside with all of your "fluff" you post here.
Hmm...so you think I live in a perfect world? You don't know me at all. What fluff is it that I post here? What is your definition of "fluff"?
And by the way ONCE MORE...I DO NOT ATTEND ANY CHURCH. I DO NOT WORSHIP ANY GOD.
I DO, however, try to be respectful of those that deserve it. Not many do that post in this forum.
The bolded part is interesting. Apparently you believe that all atheists are undeserving of your respect...but how many do you really know? There are wonderful atheists just as there are wonderful Christians and those of any other faith or no faith, and even if you don't agree with what they believe is it really a respectful thing to compare them to psychopaths and list all the supposed traits they share?
Originally Posted by ReleaseTheElephant:
Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by frog:
But that wasn't a comment on uno. It was a lumping together of all atheists to be psychopaths. Do you not see the difference?
I se what you're saying frog, and there is some lumping, but uno brings
that on himself and includes all atheists the same way I'm lumped
in with the Bill G's. It's not a direct hit to you.
Unless you're a Bull Frog.
.
Yes, I DID lump. I meant to lump. ALL atheists that post on this forum. Every single one...since Bluetick is no longer here.
___________________________________________________________________________
Ah, God bless Bluetick. And yes, I know he's an atheist, and guess what? He would not take the LEAST bit of offence at my words. He knows I'm a Christian, and if I say I wish God's blessings upon him, he will take it in the spirit it was intended. So - God bless you Blue! I'll try to make it over to the other place sometime today to say hello. 
One other Atheist I USED to always get along with was Road Puppy. We seem to have had a few run-ins lately, and now he seems to have disappeared. (No, I'm NOT saying I think it is because of our run-ins.) But once again, I'm worried about him and hoping everything is OK. Last time it was computer problems. I hope it is something similar this time.
Originally Posted by ReleaseTheElephant:
Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by frog:
But that wasn't a comment on uno. It was a lumping together of all atheists to be psychopaths. Do you not see the difference?
I se what you're saying frog, and there is some lumping, but uno brings
that on himself and includes all atheists the same way I'm lumped
in with the Bill G's. It's not a direct hit to you.
Unless you're a Bull Frog.
.
Yes, I DID lump. I meant to lump. ALL atheists that post on this forum. Every single one...since Bluetick is no longer here.
But do you really know who every single atheist here is? And you know them all well even to know how deeply they feel, what kind of responsibility they feel, what they choose to be in their lives, and you can dismiss the whole group without feeling you might have misjudged any one at all?
Originally Posted by frog:
Originally Posted by ReleaseTheElephant:
Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by frog:
But that wasn't a comment on uno. It was a lumping together of all atheists to be psychopaths. Do you not see the difference?
I se what you're saying frog, and there is some lumping, but uno brings
that on himself and includes all atheists the same way I'm lumped
in with the Bill G's. It's not a direct hit to you.
Unless you're a Bull Frog.
.
Yes, I DID lump. I meant to lump. ALL atheists that post on this forum. Every single one...since Bluetick is no longer here.
But do you really know who every single atheist here is? And you know them all well even to know how deeply they feel, what kind of responsibility they feel, what they choose to be in their lives, and you can dismiss the whole group without feeling you might have misjudged any one at all?
----------------------
At the end of the day, it's not that complicated.
.
ReleaseTheElephant has just expressed his/her opinion based upon observation of various topics and post on the Religion forum and the people who post. If he/she is so incorrect I'm sure they would entertain being informed of where they are in error but I suspect that they have just taken the whole of what they have observed and expressed their opinion based upon what they actually see.
Gb, every time I think you can't get any sillier. Sheesh.
Originally Posted by Bestworking:
Every time I think you can't get any sillier. Sheesh.
----------------------------
Just a pachyderm pms moment. Nothing a eighty five pound hershey bar
can't handle.
.
Originally Posted by gbrk:
ReleaseTheElephant has just expressed his/her opinion based upon observation of various topics and post on the Religion forum and the people who post. If he/she is so incorrect I'm sure they would entertain being informed of where they are in error but I suspect that they have just taken the whole of what they have observed and expressed their opinion based upon what they actually see.
I'm not even sure what that meant to agree or disagree with most of it, but lumping all "atheists" who post here as psychopaths still seems a bit over a line to me. I wouldn't lump all of any group as psychopaths...well, unless they were diagnosed by a professional to actually be psychopaths. But that is just fluffy old me..lol.
I totally understand what you are saying, Frog, and I do agree with the statement about including all of any group. Are you also as critical of those that do the same thing to Christians or any subset of Christians as that is also done at various times by various people?
That wasn't meant for you invic.