'Seeking' God

[Shell B]

I didn't say you turned him pink Shell. There seem to be a lot of ppl taking advantage of his enforced silence.

Do you think I would have replied any differently had he not been pink, Frodo? Let's not drop insinuations here without looking at the facts of the situation.

1. He obviously never gave the rules more than a cursory glance.

2. My interactions with him, and everyone else on the forums, show that I have no qualms about saying what I mean to say regardless of the color of their names.

3. I checked my email, saw that he had replied to me and replied to him without caring whether he was in R'lyeh or not.

4. That being said, he has the option of replying to this and any other posts in R'lyeh. He can start any thread he wishes there. Therefore, calling it enforced silence is a stretch. I think you know this.

[fr0d0]

4. He can respond directly using an indirect method, sure. Perhaps he could post on his facebook page and people could follow him there. Fact remains: he is no longer at liberty to address points directly.

3. Perhaps he expected it. He seems always calm amid the thrashing about.

1. Well I'm still confused by that rule and its application.

I don't think you or anyone else would have replied differently, no.

[Shell B]

African apes, on the other hand.... they've done a lot of fucked up shit to people in the name of their imaginary friend. That's what I have a problem with, as someone who owns responsibility for my own fucked up shit.

Clear this up for me please Aleialoura. African apes have done things in the name of their imaginary friend? Are you relating evolution to Christians? This reminds me of a racial slur, so I need some clarification, please help me. thanks.

While I do utterly trust that alei meant no such thing, given her earlier reference to "African apes," I can see how that would be construed as such. I agree that it would be cool for her to clarify, as Orangutans, Gorillas and Chimpanzees do not seem to have imaginary friends.

[Minimalist]

lucent is pink

Lucy pink? Breathing carbon dioxide? He'd best call for his invisible friend to give him CPR.

[frankiej]

While I do utterly trust that alei meant no such thing, given her earlier reference to "African apes," I can see how that would be construed as such. I agree that it would be cool for her to clarify, as Orangutans, Gorillas and Chimpanzees do not seem to have imaginary friends.

I imagine that she was referring to the African origins of humans...

[Shell B]

4. He can respond directly using an indirect method, sure. Perhaps he could post on his facebook page and people could follow him there. Fact remains: he is no longer at liberty to address points directly.

Bad analogy, frods. R'lyeh is on this forum and past experience shows that people do reply to those who post there. Most people do not bother to post there, but that does not mean it is an indirect means of communication. It is part of this site and visible to all members. He absolutely can directly reply there. I do believe he still has access to the PM system, as well. He is at liberty to address the points in a different place, directly to those who posted said points. That being said, he earned his trip to R'lyeh.

3. Perhaps he expected it. He seems always calm amid the thrashing about.

That is your opinion. If, like so many naysayers here, we are to gauge calmness by content, rather than actual calm, I would say he is not so calm as you like to think. Now, Frodo, I understand that as a Christian, you may feel a need to defend all Christians on these forums. However, I find it a bit trying that every time a Christian breaks the rules, you question the rules, you question the staff and you question every user who was not in full agreement with said Christian. We do not warn people/condemn people/ ban people for disagreeing with us. If he did expect it, it is probably either because he often finds himself banned for being a preaching holier than thou character or he is a troll.

1. Well I'm still confused by that rule and its application.

I think it is its application that is your issue. You know what preaching is, as you are a Christian. You seem to not like the rule being enforced so literally. In the past, we have received countless complaints for preaching that we decided were not preaching and ignored, after investigation and discussion. Other times, it is impossible to ignore. When a person starts a thread that is essentially a sermon involving a religious topic, it is preaching. Starting a discussion is one thing. Having a soliloquy is another.

I don't think you or anyone else would have replied differently, no.

Then please explain how we are "taking advantage." He replied to many of us before his expulsion (which is reversible, if he takes the time to get through the Gauntlet). We then replied to him. We do this even after members are banned. Remember, just about anyone can read these forums. The discussions are not solely for the individuals posting herein.

---

I imagine that she was referring to the African origins of humans...

I would imagine so as well, but it is my thinking that fairy tales didn't arise until later in our evolution. Besides, we may be considered great apes, but we were never actually apes as one would imagine them now. Note: I said imagine. I realize we are quite literally apes.

I don't think she was being racist, but it wouldn't do for her to have that hanging out there. It is quite a pseudo-accusation. Alei strikes me as someone who is highly unlikely to be racist or make racist remarks, so I am positive this will resolve itself. I'm just curious to see what she meant.

[IATIA]

So the flood and the punishment for Lot's wife are two of the many reasons you...

1. don't believe in God
2. think..IF God was real he'd be terrible

No. The point was that this brain dead moron, commonly referred to as god, punished Lot's wife for looking back at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, yet allowed Noah and company to witness the destruction of the entire world. This god of yours has no standards.

Have you actually read the babble-book or do you just read the 'Sunday school version'? If it were any other book or movie, I doubt you would let your children read that kind of trash.

(KJV) Hosea 1:2:
The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. and the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.

The New International Version:
When the LORD began to speak through Hosea, the LORD said to him, "Go, take to yourself an adulterous wife and children of unfaithfulness, because the land is guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the LORD."

So, adultery is OK if you hear voices in your head? That means anything is OK if I here little voices in my head. Wait ... I hear a voice now, "Thou shalt go out and ... ". Oops! gotta go. I have been commanded by god.

[fr0d0]

R'lyeh.

...is not the same as directly responding to people quoting you or you having the ability to respond to points in line. I'm not going to repeat that again. Feel free tt baselessly dismiss it all you like.

3. Perhaps he expected it. He seems always calm amid the thrashing about.

That is your opinion.

You don't think that he's a calm poster??

If, like so many naysayers here, we are to gauge calmness by content, rather than actual calm, I would say he is not so calm as you like to think.

You swear at him and call him names. He names that in his dogma.

Now, Frodo, I understand that as a Christian, you may feel a need to defend all Christians on these forums.

I defend anyone.

However, I find it a bit trying that every time a Christian breaks the rules, you question the rules, you question the staff and you question every user who was not in full agreement with said Christian.

I've questioned this preaching thing as I genuinely don't get it. That's covered in the thread about it. These things are apparent to theists: Ryft & Rayaan have both indicated their agreement.

We do not warn people/condemn people/ ban people for disagreeing with us.

In a manner of speaking you do. Like atheists who come to a church, and who's mild dissent is tolerated and expected, more extreme or honest views aren't. That how we all are.

1. Well I'm still confused by that rule and its application.

I think it is its application that is your issue. You know what preaching is, as you are a Christian. You seem to not like the rule being enforced so literally. In the past, we have received countless complaints for preaching that we decided were not preaching and ignored, after investigation and discussion. Other times, it is impossible to ignore. When a person starts a thread that is essentially a sermon involving a religious topic, it is preaching. Starting a discussion is one thing. Having a soliloquy is another.

No the application is not my issue. I've not seen it applied to any other theism, so how you can accuse me of bias is beyond me. You explaining why is helping us to understand why you think what you do.

I don't think you or anyone else would have replied differently, no.

Then please explain how we are "taking advantage." He replied to many of us before his expulsion (which is reversible, if he takes the time to get through the Gauntlet). We then replied to him. We do this even after members are banned. Remember, just about anyone can read these forums. The discussions are not solely for the individuals posting herein.

It's taking advantage because the person is unable to respond. It's kicking someone when they're already down. It's a debate where you make yourself an unreasonable advantage. That also makes you look bad. You can't argue the points so you must limit your opponent.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is that why he ended up in the gauntlet? No one could "argue the points"? I suppose that's one interpretation. Was there something in particular that you wanted to pick up and run with in his absence?

[ElDinero]

I'd say we were at more of an advantage when he was able to reply.