Hello All Religious Debaters!

I hope you had a wonderful Mother's Day.

First, let me explain who I am. I am the brother of someone who registered and posted on this BB recently. She told me a story about her experience here which I found hard to believe. Not because I doubted her word, my sister is the most honest person I know, but because I found it hard to believe that such a thing could happen in this day and age on the internet. Anyway, I came here to check out what she told me and found it to be true.

I'd like to share her experience with you and get your feedback as it concerns issues of free speech and open-mindedness even in the face of differences of opinion.

My sister tells me that after coming across this sight by chance and reviewing some of the recent posts, a few days ago, she decided to register and address some points of debate using the words of Jesus Christ. Right or wrong, in her humble opinion, she felt that God's word was lacking in this debate especially since He, through His Word delivered by Jesus Christ, had addressed current issues which were being discussed here in pure and simple truth a couple of centuries ago. She told me that, as tempting as it was to use her own words, she felt that noone could say it better than God.

So, that is what she set out to do. To include what she considers to be the pure and simple truth of life into this debate.

She told me that she posted only the Word of God, the words that Jesus Christ himself spoke while on this earth. From what I can see that IS all she did. Her posts were met with quite a bit of animosity. One person criticized the posts because they apparently could not comprehend the point or the relevancy of Christ's words. Another referred to her as "Themaniac" and called for all other posters to ignore her posts and not to respond. Such animosity, in and of itself, is not that surprising to me given the current values, mentality, mind-set, closed-mindedness, fear of the unknnown and whatever-have-you of the average human being. It is almost to be expected today in this power-hungry society in which we live. We're the shit, right? Hey, I've been there myself! In contrast, my sister happens to think that Jesus Christ is the poop and that he's given us all the answers. Right or wrong, I believe she's entitled to share the message with others, don't you?

What came next is the thing that really boggles my mind... She was banned from posting on this BB. When she first told me this, I told her that maybe it was a misunderstanding and encouraged her to re-register if she felt it was important. Later, she told me that she did re-register, under a different but similar name. She then told me that she posted a couple of sentences under her new member name (in the words of Jesus Christ) in response to someone named Tony, but that when she came back to see if they responded, her post was deleted. Thinking that maybe the deletion was a mistake, she tried to post the response again and found out that her privileges had once again been taken away by an administrator or moderator on this board.

Pretty scary stuff as far as I'm concerned. I'm mean, how would you like it if you happened to hold an anti-christ position and were not allowed to share your message with others because they didn't want to hear it?

I look forward to hearing your responses.

Sincerely,

Brian



[This message has been edited by Brian (edited May 14, 2000).]

Hello Brian and The Word,

Welcome to the strange land of exosci, I don't say that flippantly either. :)

I'm sorry to read that your sister felt victimised in her approach to this group here. There are a number of personalities in this place and I have mentioned to them before that it would be better to welcome new people rather than attack them for their differences. Sure if you disagree then tell them so, but there are ways and there are ways of going about this.

With regards to the bar on her posts she actually e-mailed me and asked for some advice on this. I took the occurrence to be nothing more than a technical hitch and have experienced similar myself. It was interesting to note that another member e-mailed me and reported the same problems. I have had discussions with the administrator of this site in the past and he does not strike me as a person who would act in a way to discriminate against an individual. If you would like I will ask him for an explanation on your sisters behalf in the section used for asking these things.

Getting back to the people here. Mostly they are non believers, (I know that sounds strange for a religious discussion) on the whole they are fairly normal :D and sincere in what they think and believe. I come here to try to share with them what it is that I think the Lord needs them to hear, and what He wants to say to each of them personally. Its sometimes a tough place and hard questions are asked, not to mention hostile attitudes aroused. But at the end of the day most people are fairly nice to each other and either agree to disagree or ignore each other.

Once again I would like to welcome Theword and thank her for her heart felt concern for the people of this place. Please tell her to preserver.


Allcare

Tony H2o


To others in this place. Please do not insult or abuse anyone who is new to this place. Although we do not all share the same views I think it only fair that we welcome others and welcome the way they present what they have to say. (unless of course its crude, rude and vulgar).

Brian,

I have taken the liberty of asking the system administrator to explain the situation.

You will find my question to him under "Site Feedback" section.

Dave's a nice guy and should come up with a plausible excuse.......whoops that should read answer :D

Allcare

Tony H2o


[This message has been edited by Tony H2o (edited May 15, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Tony H2o (edited May 15, 2000).]

Thanks, pal!

Brian: I am sorry to hear about your sister. I was one who tried to warn her that she wasn't furthering her cause unless it was to make people think she was nuts. I am a Christian myself with a background in psychology. She exhibited all the classic signs of one who is caught in religious delusion. If she has had counciling before I recommend that she return, if she hasn't I recommend that she get professional help.

I get in funny moods myself and post weird things but it is all in jest. Your sister acted like a martyr when confronted with her behavior. The bulk of the people here acted no differently to her than any normal person would when confronted with her behavior. We have some odd posters but there is at least a thread of sanity in them and I am sorry to say that your sister gave us no clue that she was the slightest bit sane. Under the circumstances I would have done exactly what the administration did. Please have her get help if you love her.

Yours Sincerely,

Adlerian

Alderian,

Thanks for your response.

Let me get this straight, O.K.? She came on here and posted the Word of God in response to some debate points.

Based on that, you made the following statement. "She exhibited all the classic signs of one who is caught in religious delusion." Just what are the classic signs that you are referring to?

You go on to say that she "acted" like a martyr when confronted with her "behavior" - what behavior are you referring to? The posting of the Word of God? You deemed her to be insane because she posted the Word of God? Since you've offered some cheap, knee-jerk reactionary advice, let me offer some to you. Go back to school so that you might learn that your diagnostic methods are abnormally weak.

You say that you get in "funny" moods yourself and post "weird" things in jest. I take it that you don't take the Word of God as seriously as some people and don't see a place for it in a religious debate? O.K. - you're entitled to your opinion but so am I, so is my sister and so is everyone else who participates here. You do know that all she posted were the Words of Jesus Christ, right? In your Christianity, you consider the Words of Jesus Christ to be weird?

Has anyone else ever told you that you have a tendency to blow things out of proportion?

Under the circumstances, if it were up to you, you would have banned her also. Well, given the truly outrageous satanic rantings of Dude and others who have been allowed to post here, the banning of the Word of God stinks of one-sided censorship, for sure.

We all have our opinions and our unique way of expressing them, eh?

Brian

zapper,

I don't know who you think my sister is but I know you've got her confused with someone else, for sure. She is very respectful of others and does not use foul language.

She registered just days ago as Theword and posted nothing but the Word of God. For this, she was banned.

I hope you've got it straight now.

Brian--

I cannot comment to Theword's inability to communicate with the site.

Otherwise, though, Theword's words spoke for themselves.

However, I'm perfectly willing to repeat the experiment. At the next topic post which hints at something I don't like, I'll register under a different name and post exclusively snippets of odd philosophers, writers, and artists of history whose work comprises the essence of truth. I won't strive to be relevant. I won't answer anyone's inquiries directly, and if I acknowledge them at all, it will be with even more obscure and less relevant excerpts.

Now, despite the fact that no real debate will get done in that topic, I will assert that I am wronged when people get irritated at my tactics.

Frankly, I had just thought Theword had abandoned the board, finding few willing takers. So I can't speak about anyone being "banned." But, regarding the suggestion of reducing hostility at this board: You know, we've put each other through a whole lot of crap together, and I know that I for one am not going to have months of the same; for almost a year we've been acrimonious, getting more and more civil as time goes by: compare the huge "Evolution" thread against some of the short ones we engaged back near the turn of the year. I, for one, choose not to return to that mudslinging simply to accommodate a new person. (Don't get me wrong, I still find myself in the quagmire, but I'm not going to jump in just because someone wants to restart the "Is-not, Is-too" part of a discussion which we all know leads us nowhere). I personally had decided to cast my lot with the "ignore" group shortly after my last combative response to Theword. But at least one discussion has already been derailed by Theword's irrelevance. If I were to consider Tony's plea for civility, I'm left considering that irrelevance to be rude.

--Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited May 15, 2000).]

tiassa,

Why is it that you cannot comment on the ban?
There is no assertion of wrong-doing other than the ban itself.

There was no intention on the part of Theword to be irrelevant even though you did not comprehend the relevancy (BTW - I've read some of your posts - IMHO "obscure" would apply in many cases - sometimes even outright "rudeness") and, sorry about what's happened here in the past but that is irrelevant in this case since there has been no mudslinging on the part of Theword.

Given the above, it would not be much of a stretch to say that your comments are irrelevant to this topic at hand.

Should I consider your comments to be rude?

I look forward to the time when you might be able to comment on the ban.

Thanks,

Brian

(edited to correct spelling)

[This message has been edited by Brian (edited May 15, 2000).]

Brian--

It is not my place to comment on Theword's difficulties with the site because I do not own the site. I do not set the rules.

You want my comment on the ban? I think it sucks, technically. But, frankly, I have no sympathy. These things take time to work out in any society, and, frankly, Theword was not conducive to the mission I've heard defended. It's quite fine if someone wants to go around spewing Biblical quotes for lack of anything better to say. Would you like a blow-by-blow?

* Theword's first four points at this board were all quotes. This would be fine, except the basis of validity of those very quotes were, in part, at issue. If I say that two theories assert truth, we might as well stop the determination of truth because one person noticed that one theory asserts truth.

* I might point to May 10, when Theword interrupted a cosmology discussion with Biblical passages about hypocrites. Unhappy with the response, Theword laments: "If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?" At this point, I defer to my May 11, 2:47 pm post.

After that post, I hadn't heard from Theword again. But the damage is done; at least one thread is stopped cold. But I've offered my advice to Theword. She knows how to behave properly, I would assume. After all, she knows how to turn on a computer.

There was no intention on the part of Theword to be irrelevant even though you did not comprehend the relevancy (BTW - I've read some of your posts - IMHO "obsure" would apply in many cases - sometimes even outright "rudeness") and, sorry about what's happened here in the past but that is irrelevant in this case since there has been no mudslinging on the part of Theword.

As I advised before, I'm perfectly willing to carry out Theword's experiment.

I will post excessive and irrelevant snippets, and then complain when people don't like what I have to say. In fact, I will ask them why they're attacking me so needlessly. And then I'll run to my family and ask for their help. I mean, come on.

You can consider my comments as rude as you would like. However, instead of feeling sorry for your sister or yourself, you might want to take this moment to consider a simple premise: Since what we're arguing over at this forum, when our time isn't wasted by irrelevant sniveling, is often the basis of our faiths (it really does seem that many people here are quite familiar with basic Judeo-Christian assumptions), it seems quite ineffective to hold up articles of that faith (e.g.--The Bible) as evidence of the faith.

In the case of Theword's first post in the A Matter of Trust post, relevance doesn't come simply because the word "trust" occurs in the passage. If Theword had been more genuine and less inclined to impulse, she might have bothered to address how that passage applies to matters of trust and faith. As it is, any relevance one might establish rhetorically between Theword's regurgitation of Biblical wisdom and the subject at hand merely begs the original question. What kills me even more is that I had to include secondary posts within the thread because I was disappointed with the posts from Frank and Pash (sorry, guys, that was my own fault for not expressing the question better :o ). And then she bothers piping up with the verses.

So I reassert my advice to Theword: "If you really can't see the counterproductivity of [her] conduct, that's not my problem." As a matter of fact, her disruptive conduct at this board is so much "not my problem" that I'm willing to say that it's something she'll have to take up with God, and if she closes her eyes, covers her ears, and pretends long enough ... she probably won't have to take it up at all until then.

There was no intention on the part of Theword to be irrelevant even though you did not comprehend the relevancy ....

You might want to tell your Sis, then, that she ought to include what scant thoughts of her own she has confidence in. If you or she feels that people did not comprehend her relevancy, she ought to try debating methods more contemporary to A) this forum, and B) reality.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Brian -

This forum is 'Religious Debate', not 'Soapbox hour'. If your sister wants to post her ideas, comment on others, or (gasp) argue with somebody, fine. If she's just going to arrogantly put forth somebody elses ideas without analysis or relevency, it becomes rather annoying.

As for the ban, I don't know if she's earned it quite yet, but she was well on her way by bothering a large group of users. She wasn't banned for her views, she was banned for the way in which she put them forth.

If somebody came up to you on the street and started lecturing you about the glories of satan, or a god other than your own, and wouldn't actually debate it with you, would you let them go on until they were done, or tell them to shut up and stop bothering you?

FyreStar

tiassa and Fyrestar: Amen, brothers!

I post here a copy of reply to Dave W in site feedback.

Dave W,
Thanks for addressing the situation.

I do however have a concern about the "troublesome user" ban. Could you please explain what constitutes "troublesome user".

From what I saw the person refered to was simply trying to express herself in words that meant a great deal to her. She was trying to use excerpts that were relevant in the context of what was being discussed. Sure some may not have agreed with her methods and I also found it difficult in one discussion to discern exactly what was being said. Having said all that I am dissapointed that we as a whole group would rater show anamosity and hostility to an individual that may or may not be having trouble expressing themself, rather than that I would have expected that we try and draw that person in and get them to open up in a gentle way.

Personally I think we have all missed a wonderful oportunity to be commpassionate to another individual, and as corny and lame as this may sound it saddens me greatly. It saddens me because I believed that most of the individuals in this place were above that kind of behaviour, I don't care if your a wiccan, witch, satanist, Christian, Jew, JW, SDA, WHATEVER! We are all prone to making mistakes in what we say here, we all express ourselves in unique ways, we are gloriously human and a very diverse group of personalities, and we all hope and expect to a degree that people will at least try to listen to what we are saying and try to go beyond the words and understand what we mean.

So Dave W please do explain what constitutes a "troublesome user" as I expect that we should all be branded as such from time to time.

I know this is your site and all Dave and that final say is yours, but i do not understand how these decisions are made. Did a number of people complain directly to you?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB.
Although this BB does not and cannot review the messages posted and is not responsible for the content of any of these messages, we at this BB reserve the right to delete any message for any or no reason whatsoever.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Personally I did not see anything offensive or vulgar in what Theword posted.

As I said above I know its your site and you have final say on posts, you even mention that you can delete posts for no reason whatsoever. Fair enough its your place, but I could see nothing regarding "troublesome user" and what constitutes one. Sorry to keep on about it Dave it just kinda sticks in my throat a bit.


Honest regards and sincerity

Tony H2o


Honest regards and sincerity

Tony H2o


[This message has been edited by Tony H2o (edited May 15, 2000).]

ok, i dont think that she should be kicked off unless she jsut stared cursing at everyone and some other stuff, but everyone is entiled to his/her own oppinion. evan if they are less intellegent than i.(kinda hard to beileive that some people can accually stoop way down there huh) but thats all i gotta say....

------------------
when christianity ruled the world, it was called the dark ages.

-dexter (nimrod242 :aol sn)

tiassa,

Thanks for your reply.

First, so that it is not lost in the rest of your two lengthy responses worth of window dressing, I'd like to highlight your most relevant response to the question at hand:

You want my comment on the ban? I think it sucks, technically.

Thanks for addressing the issue.

********************************************

Next, I will take this opportunity to comment on some of the other stuff:

It is not my place to comment on Theword's difficulties with the site because I do not own the site. I do not set the rules.

I think you can do better than that. You seem to believe that it is your place to comment at length about drug laws which you did not set, right?

But, frankly, I have no sympathy.

Your sympathy was not asked for. Nor is it needed. But thanks for setting the record straight.

These things take time to work out in any society

It is impossible to work anything out when the mind is closed and the method of communication is non existent for one party.

and, frankly, Theword was not conducive to the mission I've heard defended.

I can see how you feel that way since the message was lost on you.

It's quite fine if someone wants to go around spewing Biblical quotes for lack of anything better to say.

As I mentioned in my initial post, Theword believes that there is nothing that could be better said than the words of Jesus Christ. You do not believe this to be true. So, what we have is a difference of opinion to which you are both entitled.

Would you like a blow-by-blow?

I really didn't need or want you to summarize a blow-by-blow since I had already checked out the exchanges for myself. But since you took the time to post your thoughts I did read it and I must say that your interpretation of what transpired lends great insight into your character.

Theword's first four points at this board were all quotes. This would be fine, except the basis of validity of those very quotes were, in part, at issue. If I say that two theories assert truth, we might as well stop the determination of truth because one person noticed that one theory asserts truth.

In turn, if you say that two theories assert truth, we might as well stop the determination of truth because you are not open to the possibility that there might only be one truth.

I might point to May 10, when Theword interrupted a cosmology discussion with Biblical passages about hypocrites.

Your perception of an "interruption" and your focus on the word "hypocrites" is quite telling on your part.

Being somewhat familiar with the scripture, I understood the message and its relevance when I saw it in context of the discussion. If I might deal with it here:

Just as cosmology is being discussed on this board, during the time of Jesus Christ, people posed similar cosmological questions to Him. The response that Theword posted was the response that Jesus Christ gave about such matters. In His response, He reproved those learned and intelligent men who were able to read indications about the processes and structure of the universe but who claimed not to be able to read indications of God's coming kingdom in the signs that Jesus offered through his life, deeds and teachings.

Unhappy with the response, Theword laments: "If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"

Gee, I didn't see where Theword said that she was unhappy? What I did see was a similarity in the path that the discussion took here to the path that the discussion took between man and Jesus Christ when He was here. You see, the reaction to Jesus' words here was no different than the reaction that man had to His words when He was here on earth. He pointed out to those who criticized or made fun of His words that they did so without truly making an effort to listen and to understand the truth which He spoke. Some lashed out from ignorance then and some lash out from ignorance now.

After that post, I hadn't heard from Theword again. But the damage is done; at least one thread is stopped cold.

Damage? And whose decision was it to stop that thread and continue it in another? Wow, Theword must be a pretty powerful person if she was able to make you do something against your will through cyberspace! Come on, tiassa, you can do better than that.

I will post excessive and irrelevant snippets, and then complain when people don't like what I have to say.

Excessive? I know you don't make the rules but, please, enlighten us if you can as to the excessiveness threshold on this board. I point you to the multiple lengthy posts in the Drug-War thread which include excessively lengthy quotes (IMHO - excessively lengthy relative to those posted by Theword). Would those in the Drug-War thread qualify as excessive?

You know, I'm inclined to post some scripture here about seeing a splinter in someone else's eye while having a log in your own but I'll refrain for the moment.

As for the relevancy of Theword's posts, well, I've already addressed that above.

In fact, I will ask them why they're attacking me so needlessly. And then I'll run to my family and ask for their help. I mean, come on.

That's a nice piece of fiction there, tiassa. As I explained in my initial post which I would have hoped that you took the time to read and understand before making snide remarks (I see a pattern emerging), for the record, my sister told me about what happened here. Period. She did not ask for my help. I found what she told me to be almost unbelievable so I came here to check this sight out of my own volition.

You can consider my comments as rude as you would like. However, instead of feeling sorry for your sister or yourself, you might want to take this moment to consider a simple premise:

That's another nice piece of fiction, tiassa, and I see another pattern developing. Let me say the only people I feel sorry for right now are those here who leaped and continue to leap to wild assumptions and conclusions about others in a state of almost perfect ignorance.

Since what we're arguing over at this forum, when our time isn't wasted by irrelevant sniveling, is often the basis of our faiths (it really does seem that many people here are quite familiar with basic Judeo-Christian assumptions), it seems quite ineffective to hold up articles of that faith (e.g.--The Bible) as evidence of the faith.

What that has to do with the issue of the ban is beyond me - Theword was sharing what Jesus Christ had to say in response to certain issues under discussion - if you don't believe in Jesus Christ, find His words to be invalid and are hell-bent on keeping it that way, then skip it.

In the case of Theword's first post in the A Matter of Trust post, relevance doesn't come simply because the word "trust" occurs in the passage. If Theword had been more genuine and less inclined to impulse, she might have bothered to address how that passage applies to matters of trust and faith. As it is, any relevance one might establish rhetorically between Theword's regurgitation of Biblical wisdom and the subject at hand merely begs the original question. What kills me even more is that I had to include secondary posts within the thread because I was disappointed with the posts from Frank and Pash (sorry, guys, that was my own fault for not expressing the question better ). And then she bothers piping up with the verses.

Uh, sounds like you might be taking things a little too personally. I see that you spend much time on this board - probably a significant part of your life. Perhaps you are becoming possessive? Maybe you should give it a rest for a while.

There was much more relevance to the passage than merely the word "trust" - at this point if you are so inclined, rather than having it come from me, I suggest that you re-read it to see if you can come up with something better.

So I reassert my advice to Theword: "If you really can't see the counterproductivity of [her] conduct, that's not my problem." As a matter of fact, her disruptive conduct at this board is so much "not my problem" that I'm willing to say that it's something she'll have to take up with God, and if she closes her eyes, covers her ears, and pretends long enough ... she probably won't have to take it up at all until then.

Really tiassa, "counterproductivity" and "disruptive behavior"? Forgive me but "Thou dost protesteth too much" - It's evident throughout your response here that you DO have a problem - specifically with the Word of God.

On the other hand, my sister believes that noone can address certain issues better than Jesus Christ did. So, what we are left with is a difference of opinion. Big deal.

As for your final complaint about relevancy, well, I think I've spoken enough for now about the relevancy of the quotes.

Thanks again,

Brian



[This message has been edited by Brian (edited May 16, 2000).]

Brian--

You can do better, I think.

I think you can do better than that. You seem to believe that it is your place to comment at length about drug laws which you did not set, right?

Let me try to explain it to you. As a cyber-citizen I do not own this private-property website, the discussion forums of which are provided for us for free. On the other hand, as an American system, I do own the laws. As to my position to object to them, they do not reflect my views, and they do not reflect what I feel are the central principles of A) our Declaration of Independence, and B) our Constitution.

How's this for a cheapshot?

In turn, if you say that two theories assert truth, we might as well stop the determination of truth because you are not open to the possibility that there might only be one truth.

Perhaps you should consider that I might possibly be familiar with the Book which Theword allows to speak for her. You might also consider that I have dismissed its practice as useless, namely because of its practicioners, but that is truly another debate, indeed.

And then you should consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, if there really is one truth, yours might not be it. It's a challenging perspective to live with; the biggest problem I can see to it is that people generally assume that if you admit that your own truth is not entirely definite, you apparently need to adopt theirs. That, too, is a separate issue.

Your perception of an "interruption" and your focus on the word "hypocrites" is quite telling on your part.

Would you mind please telling me what hypocrisy has to do with cosmology? Please?

The response that Theword posted ....

None of Theword's posts offered much for commentary, context, or perspective. That leaves me to assume what ... that I'm reading it the same as she? In that case, I have a firm argument for irrelevance.

Damage? And whose decision was it to stop that thread and continue it in another? Wow, Theword must be a pretty powerful person if she was able to make you do something against your will through cyberspace! Come on, tiassa, you can do better than that.

I don't take your meaning. You see, if a thread gets too far off its central theme, nobody ever gets back to it. Theword bombards the post with drivel and nobody's interested. In political circles, it's called filibuster. In commercial circles, it's soon to be legally called terrorism, if Congress gets its way. Here at Exosci, it's simply annoying and counterproductive.

Excessive? I know you don't make the rules but, please, enlighten us if you can as to the excessiveness threshold on this board. I point you to the multiple lengthy posts in the Drug-War thread which include excessively lengthy quotes (IMHO - excessively lengthy relative to those posted by Theword). Would those in the Drug-War thread qualify as excessive?

How simple could this be ... perhaps they're on topic? Not just plagiarisms? Personal commentary that offers a perspective?

Uh, sounds like you might be taking things a little too personally. I see that you spend much time on this board - probably a significant part of your life. Perhaps you are becoming possessive? Maybe you should give it a rest for a while.

I'll say it gently: If you care to advise my psychological condition, please do me two favors first: 1) Become qualified. 2) Shoot yourself. Ordinarily I would let a pathetic shot like that go, except that I'm wondering if you expect to win any sense of respect from anyone at this forum with your hostility?

Forgive me but "Thou dost protesteth too much" - It's evident throughout your response here that you DO have a problem - specifically with the Word of God.

I protesteth too much? Try this: Get Bent! Two points here: I do have a problem with simpleminded religious viewpoints that refuse to account for the fact that people might read the same sentence differently; I will remind you again that Theword had ample opportunity to make any contextual clarifications she needed, and any failure to derive her references specifically is her own damn fault. Secondly, and I will say this very simply:

You brought it up!

It seems the good doctor should give due consideration to his own remedies.

Oh, and one more thing ...

if you don't believe in Jesus Christ, find His words to be invalid and are hell-bent on keeping it that way, then skip it.

It seems to me that you're buying into one of the cheapest assumptions I've ever gotten sick of hearing from the Christian rank. Really, it does more legitimate considerations of Christ's message injustice.

Truth be told, I'm utterly prepared for my studies to show that Christ is The Way. Or the teachings of the Koran, or of Buddha, or the Triune Goddess, or just a formless blob of proto-matter. Unless I'm horribly misinterpreting you, there seems evident some sentiment that indicates that You, sir, are not prepared for the possibility that Christ is merely A Way, much less the idea that Christ has nothing to do with The Way.

Oh, and as to what that has to do with the ban? That, ultimately, is left to Dave, but since you seem to want a guess or something, I would say that repeated postings of subjective material bearing dubious relevance to the topic at hand can, under certain circumstances, constitute the appearance of harassment. As I said, I could whip out my own little library of truths and confound many a thread with sundry, barely-relevant (at best) "Truths". Believe me, I could make that experience even more obnoxious. But of all the hideous time that I spend here, of which you seem to disapprove, I'm generally smarter than to waste that time polluting other peoples' ideas with such petty distractions.

--Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

I think that this Word of God thing might very well be catalogged under 'spamming'. I perceived it as some kind of prophetic rantings that actually made no sense at all.
If somebody wants to say something on this board they are of course welcome to do so as long as it is relevant one way or an other.
Just quoting something, be it the bible or Nietzsche is fine as long as there is some commentary along with it. Otherwise it is just taking away space from other posters on the server.

------------------
I err, therefore I exist !

Plato,

Love your new sig! :D

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris,

I'll explain the change sometime in the determinism/indeterminism thread...

------------------
I err, therefore I exist !

I jumped in kind of late here, but this thread got me to thinking. I haven't seen Lori around. Have I just been not reading the right threads? She's very intelligent when she isn't getting ticked off.

Regarding use of this site as a soapbox, as mentioned several posts ago, that's exactly how I view the Friday Night Sermon, but I don't want to see it taken off the site. I just choose not to read it. (Sorry, ISDAMan :() If TheWord posted something that we don't agree with, and if there is nobody with a civil, intelligent rebuttal, we aren't obligated to read any more posts by this person. By the same token, if there is a civil, intelligent rebuttal but TheWord comes back with rudeness and/or stupidity, we are not obligated to get the last word in. Just walk away. I've done that with posts that, IMO, amounted to arguing with a brick wall.

If the poster cannot take having his or her ideas challenged, even attacked, they need to decide if the concept of Free Speech is really for them. We won't like everything we hear, but that's life. Yes, it will piss us off from time to time, but this isn't the Land of the Care Bears, the sun isn't always shining, and people don't agree on everything, but I think we've all figured that out by now. (If you haven't, I want whatever you're smoking! :D)

If we violate the TOA of the site, then I support banning, as these were terms we all agreed on before registering. If we didn't read the TOA, too bad. The best way, however, to avoid being banned is to remember that on the other end of your connection is a living, breathing human being. Post as though you were talking to them in a restaurant or on a park bench. The anonymity of the internet is not a license to be rude (good gravy! I'm sounding like Miss Manners!). To paraphrase something that was said about the rise to power of the Nazis in the '30s, "The Internet has given us a free hand so that we may see what manner of men we are."

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

Oxy,

If I may, I think Lori is just on hiatus. I too noticed she was missing and sent her a couple of emails to make sure she was okay. I think she's just fed up with all the arguing and needed a break. If you're concerned, you can find one of her old posts and send her an email, she answered mine and we argued constantly, so I'm pretty sure she'd answer an email from you! :) (Funny how this reminded you of Lori, it did the same for me! LOL)

Brian,

I can't help but wonder WHY you are here? Are you angry at your sister getting banned and trying to get back at "us" somehow, or do you have an actual goal here?

I've been posting on this board...oh, since December or so, I think, originally with the tag of "SkyeBlue". Now, I haven't actually read your sister's posts, I'm not commenting on that as yet, I'm wondering what YOU are up to.

Your first post was very amicable, but since then they have degraded to slinging insults left and right at anyone who dares suggest the moderator of this board was correct in yanking your sister's privileges. Are you here merely to stir up an arguement? You do realize that nobody in this forum has control over your sister's ability to post or not, don't you??

Now, before you waste your time digging through my old posts to demonstrate how rude and evil I am, keep in mind I'm not claiming I'm above slinging a bit o' mud myself. At the same time, I believe I have at least made the effor to apologize when I percieve I have gone over the line, and I have always tried to see things form the other person's perspective. Which I am having great difficulty doing in your case. I'm just wondering how you figure it's right to denounce other's posts, in other threads, that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, and that you were not participating in. What I am seeing is that you are angry, and are digging as far as you have to in order to find missles to launch at the other posters on this board. Perhaps your anger is justified, perhaps not, but certainally the missles can be left out of the mix. Doesn't your faith teach something about not casting the first stone unless you're pure of heart?

So, what is your goal? I do not believe it is what you claimed it to be in your first post.

FyreStar,

Thank you for your response.

In a way, your last paragraph can be expanded upon to speak to the heart of the matter:

If somebody came up to you on the street and started lecturing you about the glories of satan, or a god other than your own, and wouldn't actually debate it with you, would you let them go on until they were done, or tell them to shut up and stop bothering you?

Personally, if I was walking down the street and someone approached me out of the blue and starting lecturing me about religious matters and I had given no indication that I was seeking a religious debate and I told them that I was not open to hearing what they had to say - If they continued, I'd just smile and walk away. In reality though, there is really no way that I could stop them from talking unless I took drastic measure such as putting duct tape over there mouth and tying their hands or knocking them unconscious.

That is not the case here. One of the important differences here is that we are not just walking down the street. We have entered a "Religious" debate forum of our own volition. In such a forum it is only reasonable to expect to see the Word of God spoken by some. You have determined that Theword was not debating and there I know that you have erred. She was debating, using the Word of God to make her points. As I mentioned previously, she believes that God spoke the perfect truth as opposed to most here who believe that they can say it better. As it turns out her method was not popular, but as most of us seem to be agreeing, it was not cause to tape her mouth shut and tie her hands.

FYI - Theword has been posting the Word of God for more than 2 years on the internet. This is the only site that has ever banned her from posting.

Thanks again,

Brian

Dear Tony,

Thanks for the warm welcome and insightful words.

Brian

tiassa,

Thanks again for your response.

As far as the excessiveness issue goes, I understood you addressed it as an issue separate from the relevancy issue. I see now that you have intermingled the two in defense of yourself. To be honest, I really have no problem with your posts or anyone else's for that matter.

It's not that I think you are being excessive or that I disapprove of the time you spend here. Such things are not for me to judge or criticize you about. It was just a way of encouraging you to take a look at yourself for a few minutes rather than focusing on finding fault with others. I used those examples to emphasize that we can all find fault with each other if we so choose. But that is not the stuff that should ban a person from participating in this website.

As far as whether or not Thewords words were on topic, well, I explained the relevancy in part in my last response to you. I notice that you have not acknowledged your understanding or lack thereof but seem angry and intent on fighting.

So, if I might end our little tit-for-tat here emphasizing a point of agreement:

The ban sucks...

Thanks again,

Brian

Hello MoonCat,

Fairly briefly:

I stated my reason for being here in my first post which you have read. You have declared that you don't believe me. That's your right.

As far as what you see as slinging, well, being the complicated human beings that we are I guess to a certain extent we can all at times be the slinger, at times the slingee and at other times both, depending on who is doing the interpreting.

As far as my personal faith or lack thereof goes, I have not stated it and will refrain for now while people are giving their feedback on the ban. It shouldn't be a matter of faith or not whether they agree or disagree with the ban.

Thanks,

Brian



[This message has been edited by Brian (edited May 16, 2000).]

Hello Oxygen and thanks for your participation. You sound like a very reasonable person.

From what I can see Theword was met with rudeness and (IMHO) feigned stupidity in some cases when she first started posting here. She did not have a problem with that. It's not the first time that she's met with such a reaction when she posted the Word of God. The one thing she did do was to continue to respond using the Words of Jesus Christ. Different? Perhaps on this site. Cause to be banned? I don't think so - and the ban is the problem to me. Given what I've seen here the ban of the Theword is almost unbelievable.

As far as the TOA goes I am still waiting to hear Dave's response as to why he determined Theword to be a troublesome user. I'm aware that he is not obliged to respond but I think some feedback from him would be helpful to at least a few people who post here.

I really like your sig and I hope you never have to go to that extreme in your lifetime.

Thanks again,

Brian



[This message has been edited by Brian (edited May 16, 2000).]

Brian--

As I mentioned previously, she believes that God spoke the perfect truth as opposed to most here who believe that they can say it better. As it turns out her method was not popular, but as most of us seem to be agreeing, it was not cause to tape her mouth shut and tie her hands.

I can't quite understand the assumption that a block of words from the Bible will be read identically by different people.

For instance, you smugly reminded me that:

Your perception of an "interruption" and your focus on the word "hypocrites" is quite telling on your part.

Now, perhaps you're too much of an intellectual giant to care about such details, but so far, I'm not the only one who read "hypocrites". Check the Cosmological argument post ... FyreStar made an interesting observation or two in that one. But you really don't seem to care about that.

As far as whether or not Thewords words were on topic, well, I explained the relevancy in part in my last response to you. I notice that you have not acknowledged your understanding or lack thereof but seem angry and intent on fighting.

So:

* Theword posts the Word of God, without comment.
* With no advisement to her context, I can only read her posts as I read them.
* If you feel I have misinterpeted them, then take it up with dear ol' sis. I remind you that A) Not everyone reads the same sentence the same way, and B) unless Theword wants to offer some perspective, it's her own pathetic fault if she doesn't convey her meaning.

So, if you think I'm angry or combative, you might want to consider your position here (once again): It's your sister's own fault if she's too lazy to clarify her context; furthermore, I find the assumption that a passage from any holy book must necessarily read the same from person to person small-minded, regressive, and possibly even bigoted. I mean, here you are, telling people they're wrong for interpreting a sentence according to their own frames of reference.

It's not that I think you are being excessive or that I disapprove of the time you spend here. Such things are not for me to judge or criticize you about.

You're correct on one point:

* Such things are not yours to judge or criticize; I suggest you follow your own advice there. Because as long as we have an entire topic dedicated to unloading this pettiness, I'm game.

Otherwise, it's obvious that you do have an issue with the amount of time I spend here. It seems to me it's not a particularly important factor in any given argument until you bring it up. In the end, I think it's that you don't like my ideas because they're different from yours. But that's the point: as long as you continue to justify yourself after the fact with "It's not that I think ..." or "It's not for me to judge ..." well, that's your own pseudo-credibility you're flushing. Don't justify, clarify.

Oh, wait ... it's already supposed to be clear to the rest of us.

Look, never have I seen an ban executed on a website. But if you'd like to see what it looks like without any sense of enforced rules, check out some of the anarchic spewage taking place on a couple of other message boards around the web. I've seen the board at Parascope: there's a very easy reason why I debate with people here, as opposed to elsewhere. Simply, it's actually quite civil here. People rarely cuss here, and when they do, it's usually just a word here or there. One of our poster-friends here was (is) fond of stringing nonsense "censor" characters together to represent what was really a fairly impresssive amount of curses. But in the long run they're civilized and generally working toward their points. Seriously, look at a couple of other posting boards out there. The serious thinkers are in the minority out there.

But if there's one thing that seems to get people seriously steamed, it's the kind of irrelevant interference perceived in Theword's posts. Such tactics have the effect of preventing irresponsible theories like evolution, atheism, and diversity from polluting what ... a perfect Christian world?

One last thing, that you wrote to MoonCat:

As far as my personal faith or lack thereof goes, I have not stated it and will refrain for now while people are giving their feedback on the ban. It shouldn't be a matter of faith or not whether they agree or disagree with the ban.

You have stated your faith. You refer to her posting "the Words of Jesus Christ", as opposed to the "words". You have, on several occasions, referred to Theword's posts as the "word of God". These are declarations of faith, whether you believe it or not. You have marked yourself as a theist, and, moreover, as a Christian.

You are right, though, that it shouldn't be a matter of faith how we feel about the ban. In fact, if I had to put up with that kind of tactic from any holy book, I would be annoyed.

--Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Brian--

Oh, and just one more thing ....

As I mentioned previously, she believes that God spoke the perfect truth as opposed to most here who believe that they can say it better.

You once again have overlooked a vital segment of Exosci's posting population: those who do not believe that the words she spoke are part of God's perfect truth. Ah, and you forgot the atheists. You see, part of your problem is that your arguments reflect the sentiment that we're all Christians with various ideological differences. Say it better than God? You'll have to show God to a few people here before they'll even bother; after all, some of us might share your vision of God, but others will find some differences, and others yet will find you to be flat bonkers.

thanx,
Tiassa :D

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

tiassa: Two things are clear.

1. You are bright and articulate.

2. Brian will never agree with you.

Hence, my question, why bother?

The long version. I often times wonder why people spend so much time heatedly arguing their particular stance when it is apparent that others will not agree. Do they like to argue? Do they like getting all hot and bothered about this sound and fury signifying nothing? I have found it futile to try and dissuade people from foolish actions or to try to discourage them from holding ideas that are logically unsound. Both are exercises in futility.

But you did a good job, tiassa! :)

Adlerian

Apologies for my delayed response. I am at the WWDC in San Jose right now, so I've been busy.

At this point, there is not much to add to the debate. I am in total agreement with what tiassa has been saying.

Ultimately, Theword's postings contributed nothing to the content of the debate. She posted seemingly random quotes without explanation or context. She repeatedly did this despite the warnings from fellow members who expressed irritation at her attempts to disrupt the discussion.

Theword showed no respect for the community. She showed no wish to help the community. Her only contributions to the community were disruptive (in the eyes of both members and myself). Thus, I was entirely justified in taking action to protect the integrity of the forum.

Theword is welcome to rejoin, if she is willing to show some respect.

DaveW

i jsut wanna know one thing, were the hell is lori?? she was pretty cool! although no one liked her posts, they were just the same as ours, exscept about somthing else, so i thik i will send her a e-mail pleading with her to come back to me!! (have you guys ever wondered if she was hott? becasue that would kinda suck, having this fine ass chick hating you for your religioious point of veiws!)

------------------
when christianity ruled the world, it was called the dark ages.

-dexter (nimrod242 :aol sn)

i decline that post (please daveW, dont kick me off, it wasnt my fault, i didnt read it all the way through and i jsut posted, but i have seen my mistakes, i am sorry!!!)

------------------
when christianity ruled the world, it was called the dark ages.

-dexter (nimrod242 :aol sn)

Dexter,

Your a goose :D

But it was funny :)

Tony

DaveW,

Thanks for your response - I'll pass the information along.

As I'm sure you've figured out by now I disagree not only that the ban was ever put in place but now, also, I disagree with the reasoning given.

It seems far too subjective to be clear and it doesn't jive with what I observed but I appreciate your having responded.

*******************************************

To the BB community:

Here, I would like to post an example of an exchange which happened in a thread entitled "A Matter of Trust". It begins with Theword's first post in that thread and includes a sequential and equal number of exchanges between her and tiassa. What I would like to hear are your comments about your perception of disrespect and/or disruption exhibited on the part of one, both or neither of the posters. For those who are unfamiliar with scripture, Theword is using the Word of God/the words of Jesus Christ which are found in the Bible. Thanks for your time.

Theword's first post in the thread:

Theword
Junior Member
Posts: 19
Registered: May 2000
posted May 10, 2000 12:40 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The person who is trustworthy in very small matters is also trustworthy in great ones; and the person who is dishonest in very small matters is also dishonest in great ones. If you are not trustworthy with dishonest wealth, who will trust you with true wealth? If you are not trustworthy with what belongs to another, who will give you what is yours? No servant can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
------------------
This is The Word of God

IP: Logged

tiassa's response:

tiassa
Member
Posts: 628
Registered: Jul 1999
posted May 10, 2000 01:45 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've listened to Tipper Gore speak for five consecutive minutes without forming a single sentence that made any sense.
The last guy who ever answered me like that was a preacher with a penchant for hurling Bibles around the room when upset, or possibly a street preacher in Eugene, Oregon. Forgive me, please, if I otherwise decline comment.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

IP: Logged

Theword's response:

Theword
Junior Member
Posts: 19
Registered: May 2000
posted May 10, 2000 02:38 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am he, the one who is speaking with you. I have food to eat which you do not know. My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work.
------------------
This is The Word of God

IP: Logged

tiassa's response:

tiassa
Member
Posts: 628
Registered: Jul 1999
posted May 10, 2000 11:14 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you must be ... Darkwing Duck?
--Tiassa


------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

IP: Logged

Intermission:

Flash
Member
Posts: 763
Registered: May 99
posted May 10, 2000 09:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry, but that was funny! Good one Tiassa LOL
IP: Logged

Theword's response to tiassa:

Theword
Junior Member
Posts: 19
Registered: May 2000
posted May 11, 2000 01:45 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I AM known by my family.
Who is my mother? Who are my brothers and sisters?

Whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my mother, brother and sister.


------------------
This is The Word of God

IP: Logged

tiassa's response:

tiassa
Member
Posts: 628
Registered: Jul 1999
posted May 11, 2000 10:57 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called megalomania.
Seek help.

--Tiassa

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

IP: Logged

I look forward to your analysis of the exhibition of disrespect and/or disruption regardless of your faith or lack of faith.

Thanks again,

Brian

Originally posted by DaveW:

Ultimately, Theword's postings contributed nothing to the content of the debate. She posted seemingly random quotes without explanation or context. She repeatedly did this despite the warnings from fellow members who expressed irritation at her attempts to disrupt the discussion.

Theword showed no respect for the community. She showed no wish to help the community. Her only contributions to the community were disruptive (in the eyes of both members and myself). Thus, I was entirely justified in taking action to protect the integrity of the forum.

Theword is welcome to rejoin, if she is willing to show some respect.

DaveW[/B]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the explain on this, I do however find myself at dissagreement with your decision :( no big surprise there hey?

I do respect your right as the owner and administrator of this site to make the final decision. I do not respect the reason or grounds for that decision or the way it was enacted. Sorry mate, I gotta call it as I see it. Yes I can see and understand to a degree that other members were unhappy, however I do not see where they tried to understand Theword and draw her in to the discussion in a greater way. I do not respect the anamosity handed out and I do not say this innocently as I am guilty of similar in my dealings with Marie. I did however see the error I had made regardless of how noble I considered my actions and apologised. Sadly she has chosen not to show herself here again, and this still saddens me.

Dave the so called "warnings" from other members could be interpreted as anything. I ask the same question I asked previously: Did anyone lodge a formal complaint? Yes or No, is it then right to just cut someone off without a formal warning from the moderator about complaints?

Perhaps you can use what has happened here to establish some guideline or policy regarding these things. I think Theword has gotten a message from this place and I don't consider it was a good example of what the people here are really like.

What say everyone kiss and make up and we start afresh? :D Start afresh with some guidelines? :)

I would truly like to see some good come from an unfortunate situation as I'm sure everyone else would also.

Well that's my vent, I hope I at least get a waring before being ousted..............That was a joke Dave, buddy, pal, mate, chum :)

Regards

Tony

DaveW: Thank you for taking the time to respond and give an answer though it wasn't necessary. I am in full agreement with you. Your offer to have TheWord re-join was very kind, though I doubt she will accept it. You have a very nice board here. The nicest one I have ever seen of had the privilege to belong to. That is not something I take lightly.

Best of luck with this board and all you do,

Adlerian

no, i am serious, waht if lori was hott.... if any of you have one, please send me a pic of lori!!!
but also, i know this is off subject, but waht is the basic age group, i know age doesnt matter, but i jsut wanted to know how long some of you have been around.
and now more about the topic.... if the person isnt posting there point of veiws, only the "word of god" then i wouldve kicked them off too, 'after' i gave them a warning though, becasue it just clouds up everything. but that was my point of veiw, not very good but its what has come up in my mind.

------------------
when christianity ruled the world, it was called the dark ages.

-dexter (nimrod242 :aol sn)

Brian,

Well, you asked for my commentary. Judging from the posts you placed above, I'd say your sister is having a bit of an identity crisis. Does she always speak like this? Was she trying to be Jesus or something? I'm asking this sincerely, her posts make no sense to me. There was no relevance I could find in them, and they seemed aimed at directing the conversation out into nowhere. What was her point? Did she have one???

I dunno if this classifies as harrassment, HOWEVER, this is not the complete story, is it? I assume your sis posted more than just this, on more than one thread, yes?

Perhaps Dave should have given her a warning, but I have to say that judging from the single thread you reposted, if I assume she was like that every time she posted, I am in agreement with his decision.

I have never seen Dave kick anyone else off of this board, not for inflamatory language, not for ridiculing others, not for any reason, though perhaps at one time or another we all have deserved it. I think this is because these things are lapses in otherwise coherent conversations. Your sister seems not to want to participate in a coherent debate, or she is perhaps unable to do so.

On a side note, my apologies if I have wrongly assumed you to be of the Christian Camp. As Tiassa underlined, I believe that assumption came from the way you phrased your words, but please take no offence at my assumption.

Dexter!

Hey buddy, long time no see! I'm sorry, I don't have a picture of Lori, but by her description, I think she is "hot". :) I think she might be a bit out of your age range though. Send her an email, tell her Exosci says "hello". :)

Have a good day, everyone!

Dexter,
Right now an e-mail won't do ya any good buddy. She is not on the net as of yet..she keeps putting it off LOL I'll try to contact her sometime soon and let her know everyone has been asking about her...especially you ;) hahaha...
Although Lori and I have met in person I have no pictures to send ya. Sorry dude.

Alderian--

Once again you pay me great kindness with your regards. I can only thank you, for the time being, though let me say that your patience, despite what philosophical differences we've already encountered, is much, much appreciated.

I generally agree with the "Why bother" idea, but there's a couple of conditions--not really exceptions--that seem relevant about now.

* In broader, more complimentary debates (and that does include some of the vicious ones), I'm generally willing to go forward because, even if I believe I'm right, I can't demonstrate it until I've dealt with enough aspects of the objections. So even when Lori and I would just stomp each other senseless for days at a time, I'm still learning something. It's like any more easily recognized skill, in that sense: someday I might be called upon to put my perspectives into tangible action. The way I see it, those conditions would be pretty dire already if a company/town/nation is looking to me, personally. Should that ever be the case, I damn well better be prepared for sidebar-objections that could derail progress. In other words, the least diplomatic moments still teach me about diplomacy. Even if I think someone's perspective is so scattered and immediately subjective to classify as "stupid", there's still much to learn, if only about perspective. But that's to the broader debates.

* In the narrower, utterly subjective debates, such as the one inciting Brian and myself to crash our crania against brick walls, it has to do with lines in the sand. Having drawn one, as in my opinions concerning the thread we're in, I must necessarily stand on them. When I used to argue with Lori, for example, it might be that I had no other interest in the thread other than a theological irregularity that will cloud future debates if it isn't addressed. If I might point to a recent obsession I had with the theology of the Devil: it was important to me that any time anyone speculated about the Devil or Satan or any of those figures, that the image of such Grand Darkness still reconcile within the theology of God. It annoyed the hell out of a few people, I admit, but I didn't want to land in a debate of the same detail in another thread concerning different subject matter six weeks down the line. So some of these narrower debates, I admit, are pointless; much like a government refusing to negotiate with terrorists--if I allow this to go by unmentioned, I'm going to have to work with it later, anyway.


As to the longer version of the question ... if I might defer until a later hour, since I'm technically at work and now out of time. But I'd say that the exemplary reasons you offer pretty much state the case, in varying degrees, from person to person. And I, personally, do occasionally get a snippet of info I've never heard before. It might be like looking for diamonds in a wheat field; there's not much point to it, but we find some gems from time to time. But I do promise to give it some better thought. ;)

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

What many of you are not aware of (Brian, especially) is that Theword's harassment went beyond the currently available record of her posts. I was forced to delete many of the more inflammatory and disruptive messages. Bear this in mind.

tiassa: As you might know we are probably on different sides on several issues. However, I must say again how absolutely delighted I am to have met you and find a person who has thought through their views and still keeps an open-mind regarding their further refinement. I am just beaming! :D I have never cared as much where a person stood on an issue as long as they made sense. YOU!! and Boris are fine examples of that. I wish that many on the Internet and in the face to face world would learn from your example!

There were days (when I was younger) when I was as tolerant as you. Unfortunately, in my older years I have become less tolerant. A pity for me when there is always something new that a person can learn. Perhaps I should be a bit less reluctant to discuss matters with those less skilled in logic as I am, at least through the discussion I might pick up a pearl or two.

I have been around many minds over the course of my life and I must admit again that you and Boris impress me. You have NO idea how delighted I am when I find one other person who can string together an argument

Thank you for your compliment.

Yours,

Adlerian :D

DaveW: Thank you for the imformation, though it wasn't necessary. I knew that you must have had good reasons to ban someone or you wouldn't have done it. I am not surprised to find that out about Theword but it does make me sad. I hope her brother loves her enough to help her when he is done defending her.

Again, thank you for putting together such a wonderful board.

Yours,

Adlerian

flash... how did u meet her, aand were??? and was she hott??? and how old is she???? and if i were to send her nude pictures of me...........lol, j/k but ya!!! so, how are ya all?? well more about this argument, i dont doubt daveW's judgement, so wahtever he picks, i pick!

------------------
when christianity ruled the world, it was called the dark ages.

-dexter (nimrod242 :aol sn)

Originally posted by DaveW:
What many of you are not aware of (Brian, especially) is that Theword's harassment went beyond the currently available record of her posts. I was forced to delete many of the more inflammatory and disruptive messages. Bear this in mind.


Dave,

I know, maybe I should just let this thread ride off into the sunset never to be seen again :) But I think you understand me better than that ;)

Firstly thank you for offering up a bit more insight into why you made your decision. I think I read most of the posts put up (may have missed a few) and I would like an explanation of what was inflamatory in them?

Yes they may or may not have been disruptive depending on individual views, but I did not read anything inflamatory. All she posted was God's Word, and if that is viewed as inflamatory in a religious discussion forum....well I'm dumbstruck. You, I and every seasoned visitor here all know that threads can split off into any number of fragmented conversations or opinions. So I'm trying hard to see where your coming from but to kick someone out without a warning based on being disruptive and inflamatory ????? Well were all guilty of disrupting lines of conversation but up until now we've all been big enough to read around the disruptions. And inflamatory ??? Dave help me out here will you, I can't get what's going on? I'm trying to see Tiassa's view and understand, but like I said we've all done the same. Help me out will ya, sure I may not have seen some things your refering to so I need to trust your judgement, but from the way the judgement came down.....well I'm stuck :(

Also I haven't gotten an answer to the questions I asked?? Something substantial would be nice. Hey if you can't post it up here email me or something, you know I can keep my trap shut.

Seriously sincere

Tony

Dexter,
LOL...sorry to say that she is twice your age plus five. She and I have e-mailed one another for quite sometime. We became great friends..anyway, we do not live but about 1 hour and 30 minutes from one another..so we decided to meet.
So you want to know if she's hot, huh? LOL
What do you think??? LOL

dude, is she hott? i think she might possibly be, if she's only 30? i bet i could get her!!! and she already knows me!! all she has to do is get a pic...... were does she live? and also.... i think she might be hott... is she??? because i really need to know this!!!k? thanx..... (this is one of those times i pray to whatever god there might be, preferable lori's this time)

------------------
when christianity ruled the world, it was called the dark ages.

-dexter (nimrod242 :aol sn)

You crack me up, Dexter! LOL
You cannot be serious, right? First, she is married.... sooooooooooooo..... OOPS
I'm sure she will smile when she hears that you have a crush on her though :)
If you saw her, Dexter, you would think
she awwwwwwwwww, shoot...gotta run.. ;) LOL

Studdly Dexter my good man, it is obvious that you are suffering from a syndrom called "Crushis Maximus Hormonus Exciticus" which roughly translated means, "my hormons are driving me nuts"!!!! This is to be expected for one at such a tender age of developement. Subtle changes occuring in one's body which may on occassion cause some embarresment at the swimming pool :o .

Ahh yes it reminds me well of a time when I to suffered from this condition. Year eight english teacher...mmmmm such a lovley young teacher fresh out of university and unwise to the cunning ways of hormone driven young men. Spying on her while she was topless bathing at the beach we surfed at, bumping into her by accident while running up the beach. We were a match made in heaven, until I met her husband :(

Sadly after that our love died and so will yours for Lori.

And then there was the math teacher, a vision of beauty....................

But that's another tall tale of a dreamy eyed youngster suffering the same condition :D

DaveW,

Nice try but it looks like you're not aware of all that I am aware of. I read the entire record of posts, even the ones that nolonger exist here.

Theword's record of posts ends with a discussion with Tony on the morning of the 12th. Flash was also online and asked Theword what she meant by one of her posts. They seemed to be getting along O.K. - Tony? Flash? Care to give any insight into that particular discussion? That morning, Theword found that she was banned and that those posts were deleted.

Am I missing something about the mysterious (well, mysterious to some of us) posts that were deleted? I am still as much in the dark as Tony due to the continued subjective nature of your comments. Of course, you don't have to answer but I am also wondering why you chose to slam Theword in that way after extending an invitation for her to rejoin the board? No offense intended, believe me, that's just the way I see it.

I know that such decisions are yours to make but, honestly, it seems as though you are attributing some sort of intent on the part of a poster which I can assure you did not exist.

Please feel free to e-mail me if you do not want to continue this discussion on the board. I give you my word that I would hold any e-mail correspondence in the strictest confidence.

Thanks,

Brian

Brian--

Enlighten us, please.

One of the sticking points here, especially between you and me, is the issue of relevancy.

I mean, in the end, you're right. We insult each other ridiculously. We're hostile sometimes, but the general civility of it all comes from exchanging our ideas.

Now, irrelevancy isn't that big a problem, unless it's forced and continued, which seemed to be the pattern emerging. It's quite apparent, though, that you found her posts relevant.

You've been so kind as to detail a portion of the thread, A matter of trust.

Now, please, humor me.

Enlighten me.

Please demonstrate the relevance.

Really, pretend I'm stupid. Too stupid to interpret a Biblical phrase exactly the same way as your sister. Yeah, pretend that I'm so unfortunate as to not be her, since there's no other way I can bear her entire frame of reference. That, of course, because I'm just too hell-bent on being narrowminded, apparently.

So pretend it's the absolute unimaginable: someone who sees the world differently, has a different set of experiences, and reads the same words differently.

Now, please demonstrate the relevance of Theword's posts you've excerpted to the topic it was in.

However, if you or sis manage to do that, I'm going to have to ask what was so hard about it the first time around?

You seem to think her meaning is self-evident.

Some of us are just that dumb, then, I guess.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Dave W,

I would really like to know what the hell is going on around here????????

I went back to "Life after death / O.B.E" discussion and checked it out because I was totally unaware that Thewords posts had been deleted. What sort of stupid games are going on around here???? Are these the so called offensive posts???? If so, in who's opinion??? Come on Dave I'm running out of question marks here. I found nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing offensive in her posts, further more the were completely relevant to that which Flash and I were discussing.....well at least I thought so anyway. I will admit we had to play a bit of a guessing game with her but that was cool by me. Having to think about something and ponder its meaning should not be cause for offence. Geez I hope you people out there don't take up cryptic crosswords, I mean seriously if someone gets banned for being a little cryptic then they should also outlaw crosswords. Makes about as much sense to me at the moment, man alive I'm spitting chips at the moment. Its a good thing I'm a slow typer otherwise I'd really be going
spare.

Frankly Dave if I don't hear back with something more substantial than the dribble that's being offered up at the moment I'll be seriously disappointed.

Crikey I didn't make a complaint about what she said to me, did I?? So why come up with having to delete the conversation?? Hey Flash you out there? Did you make a formal complaint that should warrent her post being cut?

I don't believe this!! This is some weird, sick kinda joke isn't it?? Someone please tell me yes. Hey Oxy your always tagging that you may not agree with what someone says, but you would fight, kill etc for their right to say it. What say you??

I'm ranting with steam bellowing from my ears, I'm outta here before I say something I may really regret.

Brian and Tony,
I think I remember the conversation that the both of you are referring to. However, it is in a different thread...it's under The Cosmological Argument for God, which has not been deleted. I copied and pasted below:
Theword
Junior Member
Posts: 23
Registered: May 2000
posted May 12, 2000 12:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.
------------------
This is The Word of God

IP: Logged

Flash
Member
Posts: 774
Registered: May 99
posted May 12, 2000 12:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony,
Legs in your teeth can be an awful thing..LOL
You're ate up, man...LOL BUT, funny.
Ok, are you a preacher or what????? LOL


IP: Logged

Flash
Member
Posts: 774
Registered: May 99
posted May 12, 2000 12:59 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, Boris, I know I said I wouldn't do this..but I just gotta know one thing...
Word, are you directing your last post to Tony? If so...what they heck do you mean by it????????????
*thinking to self..good thing I'm not a cat*
IP: Logged

Tony H2o
Member
Posts: 242
Registered: Jan 2000
posted May 12, 2000 01:16 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He means my thoughts are carnal and not of God.
He's right, my mind is not Gods mind, my thoughts are not Gods thoughts. Its a round about way of using God's word to encourage me to not go to far over the edge with the jovial mood.

My thanks Word.

By the way did you here the one about..........

OK OK I'll stop

God does have a sense of humor folks, when Jesus walked the earth He had a short time frame in which to get across some very deep spiritual principles to His disciples. Thus we see a fairly serious tone in the Gospels, however I am sure He had time to stop and make the children smile. To laugh with those around about Him as well as cry out for them and eventually die for them. But the overwhelming joy is that he rose again, and a faith in that fact brings a bigger happy, an eternal joy in the depth of your being that surpasses the laughter of a lighter moment.

Flash as much as we've been enjoying having a chuckle Word is saying don't let the moment distract you from the eternal.

As far as how the Lord gives it to me anyway.


So did you hear the one..............Stop it already OK

Tony

IP: Logged

Flash
Member
Posts: 774
Registered: May 99
posted May 12, 2000 01:26 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony,
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAA, DUDE...WAIT A MINUTE. I understand that there is a time to be serious and a time not to be..but COME ON! Tony, doesn't the bible also say laughter does good like medicine????????
Not every thing has to be so bloody serious, ya know? One of the things that I enjoy about reading your posts, Tony, is your GREAT SENSE OF HUMOR! You are here to learn and to share what you feel God places on your heart. I think we all know that here. If you think that God cannot use you when you are being funny then I must say bull roar. Be you, Tony...not what the little perfect "christian mold" THINKS you ought to be.
IP: Logged

Tony H2o
Member
Posts: 242
Registered: Jan 2000
posted May 12, 2000 01:46 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Flash,
Don't freak out for me buddy, its cool my sense of humor is still intact. When I read those things from Gods Word they are also a medicine for me. But you know what's making me really smile at the moment is the fact that you are learning the whole counsel of God.

You are correct Flash.

Ecclesiastes 3:

1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
9 What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth?
10 I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.


Jesus knew this, Jesus lived this, this is how I know He had a complete personality capable of all facets of human emotion.

I don't know who word is but I think whoever it is really has a strong desire to live for God and see others do the same. So strong that they do not want to tarnish the words of Jesus and so they post them verbatim.

One thing to remember though is that satan also knows God's word, and he misquotes it as he did at the temptation of Christ.


Word,

As much as I love seeing "Gods Word" posted up here please be sure of the context. God's living word brings life, hope and conviction not condemnation.

If you wish to talk outside of this forum then my e-mail is above, please feel free to contact me.

Allcare

Tony H2o

IP: Logged

Tony H2o
Member
Posts: 242
Registered: Jan 2000
posted May 12, 2000 02:05 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND WEEKEND
Family time

Well almost, got excited a little to soon so like the last 25 mins are gonna really drag.

Gee I'm glad they gave me internet access.

IP: Logged

Flash
Member
Posts: 774
Registered: May 99
posted May 12, 2000 09:15 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, Tony... Freak out mode turned off.
Hey, have a great weekend with your family!
---------------------------------------------


Having had my blows from certain fine upstanding christians, you know the ones who are the first to point fingers at others, I felt that this is what Word was doing at the time. It was an immediate response due to my run in with the above mentioned. Due to that I let my emotions overtake and thus my mouth. I felt like Word was attacking Tony.
Funny, but Tony did not.
Brian, you above all others know what Word's intentions were. So I'm not doubting that when you say her intentions were meant for good. I apologize for jumping the gun and thinking otherwise. I agree with Tony that there is no crime in cryptic messages. It might have helped better though, if Word could have explained a bit better ..but, that is neither here nor there. For the record I have not complained to DaveW at all about Word. I above all have said many things in the past that were wrong and that I regret. So who would I be to make such a complaint. I certainly did not find Word's post offensive enough to do that. The only problem I had is that I thought she was coming down on Tony for having a sense of humor. My bad.
As to what DaveW would have deleted I'm not sure. The only thing I remember that would have come close is what I pasted above..which was not deleted.
Sincerely,
Flash

Hello Tony and Flash,

Thanks for your input.

Tony, I hope you realize that my reason for bringing this to light was to explore and not to inflame.

Flash, Theword responded to your question herself and to Tony. As usual, she responded using the words of Jesus Christ. The responses don't show up anymore because they were deleted.

Thanks again,

Brian

Brian,
Theword's record of posts ends with a discussion with Tony on the morning of the 12th. Flash was also online and asked Theword what she meant by one of her posts. They seemed to be getting along O.K. - Tony? Flash? Care to give any insight into that particular discussion? That morning, Theword found that she was banned and that those posts were deleted.

By what you had stated in the above I took it that you meant that entire conversation was deleted. I had got off the computer after I wrote my little outburst so if she responded to that one ..I didn't see it, sorry. I do not understand why Dave would have deleted the last two posts that you spoke of that Word had typed and not the rest. This makes no sense to me. Please do not get me wrong, I believe the post were deleted...but, I do not understand why the other posts weren't if they were along the same lines.

Thanks Flash,

I don't understand it either.

Brian

Hello tiassa,

Although I don't consider myself stuck on the subject of relevance, since you brought it up again, I'll be happy to address the subject with you again.

Really, pretend I'm stupid. Too stupid to interpret a Biblical phrase exactly the same way as your sister. Yeah, pretend that I'm so unfortunate as to not be her, since there's no other way I can bear her entire frame of reference. That, of course, because I'm just too hell-bent on being narrowminded, apparently.

So pretend it's the absolute unimaginable: someone who sees the world differently, has a different set of experiences, and reads the same words differently.

Now, please demonstrate the relevance of Theword's posts you've excerpted to the topic it was in.

O.K.

Besides your wanting to feign stupidity for the purpose of playing the game you propose I see a sarcastic suggestion that you don't or can't find the relevance in Theword's post because you and she don't interpret words exactly the same and because you and she don't share an entire frame of reference.

If I may assert:

1. It's evident that you are of above average intelligence.

2. If having the ability to interpret words exactly the same as someone else and if sharing an entire frame of reference with someone else are conditions which must be met before we begin to attempt to find relevancy in someone else's posts, then we have set ourselves up for failure and we might as well stop trying to exchange ideas with others.

In a previous post you pointed to what Theword posted during a discussion of cosmology. In my response, I explained to you the relevance that "I" saw. As close as we might be as siblings, as all individuals are different, Theword and I do not interpret things exactly the same - nor do we share an entire frame of reference. the whole of our respective life experiences are quite different as a matter of fact.

Given what I have discussed above with respect to relevance, I am inclined to pass on the game which you propose, for now at least. Instead of us pretending that you are stupid, why don't we both acknowledge that you are an intelligent individual with the ability to ascertain the relevance if you so choose? Things are the way they are but they don't have to remain that way.

Now, after getting to know you a little bit better from your posts, I'm almost certain that it is not a case of you being unable to see the relevancy. So, I would like to ask you: Have you made an honest effort? If so, I would appreciate it if you would share what it is that "you" see with respect to the relevance of the posts, if anything.

If you have made an honest effort and are really still in the dark (not pretend), I will be happy to share with you my understanding of the posts.

Thanks,

Brian

Brian--

I'm sorry, but you really are just missing certain points over and over again.

2. If having the ability to interpret words exactly the same as someone else and if sharing an entire frame of reference with someone else are conditions which must be met before we begin to attempt to find relevancy in someone else's posts, then we have set ourselves up for failure and we might as well stop trying to exchange ideas with others.

Thank you. Now, please explain that to your sister.

What I'm after is that you've summed up exactly what my problem with her posts is.

She registered just days ago as Theword and posted nothing but the Word of God. For this, she was banned.

"... posted nothing but the Word of God."

Okay ... so, she excerpts the Bible, and people find it irrelevant. That's one of the critical reasons I came up with when you demanded my take on the ban. I, for instance, found her irrelevant. That's why I was dismissive.

Now ... what I'm after is that all she posted was the "Word of God", as such. No commentary, no context. Got it? Now, without any context to tell me how she reads, intends, or otherwise regards the excerpt, what am I supposed to think? If I read her post on the merit of what she has included, it has nothing to do with the topic post, nor my amendments and explanations to that post. That's as I read it.

The point is that people are different, and if Theword wants to make her own specific interpretation of the Bible a point for discussion, then we need to have some idea of what that intrepretation is.

So if she thinks it's relevant, great. Tell us why when you post it. But if she gives us nothing to advise us regarding her context, we can only read it as we see it.

And her continued expectation through those several posts you cited--as well as in other topics--seemed to be that everyone knew exactly what she thought those phrases meant.

Being somewhat familiar with the scripture, I understood the message and its relevance when I saw it in context of the discussion. If I might deal with it here:

Just as cosmology is being discussed on this board, during the time of Jesus Christ, people posed similar cosmological questions to Him. The response that Theword posted was the response that Jesus Christ gave about such matters. In His response, He reproved those learned and intelligent men who were able to read indications about the processes and structure of the universe but who claimed not to be able to read indications of God's coming kingdom in the signs that Jesus offered through his life, deeds and teachings.

Read the bit Alderian and I were examining re: Salvation in the Matter of Trust II thread. Part of what I'm getting after is hinted in the ideas going on there.

But you're not helping your case with ideas like the one I've quoted above. I mean, with this quote you're admitting the sense of reproval which you tried to duck around in our earlier debates in this thread. But more than that, you're explaining a principle that is still subjective, and begs the original question. I believe you accused me of taking the word "hypocrite" out of context, implying that I have some deeper neurosis about it.

Consistency, Sir Brian--it's helpful.

And clarity.

But, since you did continue to harangue for an opinion on the ban, and since I did give my opinion of it, it does seem valid to be trying to resolve the issues you've never apparently been satisfied with. I mean, if you're going to write things like: Although I don't consider myself stuck on the subject of relevance, since you brought it up again, I'll be happy to address the subject with you again, then perhaps you should reconsider whether or not you've communicated adequately the ideas of relevance that you consider already addressed.

I also wanted to address something that has become important since Dave's return from WWDC--

Nice try but it looks like you're not aware of all that I am aware of. I read the entire record of posts, even the ones that nolonger exist here.

So I'm not assuming, or taking you out of context ... then I'm to believe that you find the deleted posts to be nonoffensive? If that's the case ....

* Provided that Dave has no objections (since the content may be the issue), I would invite you to cite one of those posts, as well as the material it's relevant to. If including it with some commentary is less desireable, then we can work out an e-mail address. (I've recently undergone an e-mail collapse; my personal Hotmail box is getting 300+ spams a day, and for some reason, I couldn't find my "select all" button the last three times I tried to clean it out. I have my work address, but can't use it, so if A- you and sis are willing to offer those verboten posts, and B- it is decided to be less desireable to carry it out at the board for content reasons, let me know and I'll speed up my effort to open a new email box.)

Um ... I think I got it all in there, but if I've left anything out, well, that's just me.

Give it some thought; but if the deleted posts are that critical to the issue at hand, we can hardly figure how they factor into the grand process without knowing what they are.

FTR, if I place this burden on you, it has to do with "reasonable expectation of privacy". In this context, under these circumstances, I am reluctant to press Dave to produce these; his association to the site can, under certain circumstances, restrict him from offering such portions of communication to the attending public. Being that your sister has confided these issues in you, you can gain her direct authorization to release her written words. (I am assuming that they are her written words, as opposed to verbatim citations of text w/o comment.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

(Edits--of all my typos in this post initially, only one was critical to my meaning. Apologies around.)
------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited May 18, 2000).]

tiassa,

I, too, would like some clarity and I will ask you for it in a direct and hopefully pleasant manner.

1. Have you made an honest effort to try to see the relevance of Theword's posts for yourself?

2. If so, what were the results of your effort?

I'm going out for the evening so I'll check back later tonight.

Thanks,

Brian

Brian -

**Brian: "If they continued, I'd just smile and walk away. "

Furthering the analogy, what if that person had come during a gathering at your house and was irritating several of your guests? Would you all pack up and leave, or would you escort him to the door?

**Brian: "We have entered a "Religious" debate forum of our own volition. In such a forum it is only reasonable to expect to see the Word of God spoken by some."

Yes, I see postings from others about what their gods say, from time to time. Tony H20 comes to mind. However, Tony posts more than just quotes; he puts forth his interpretations, his opinions, and makes his quotes relevent to the conversation. So, even though our beliefs are almost diametrically opposed, his posts don't annoy me.

**Brian: "You have determined that Theword was not debating and there I know that you have erred."

Well... if she had MADE any points, I might see why you'd think so.

**Brian: "it was not cause to tape her mouth shut and tie her hands."

Well, unless DaveW's been busier than we all thought, he simply showed her to the door.

**Brian: "FYI - Theword has been posting the Word of God for more than 2 years on the internet. This is the only site that has ever banned her from posting."

Well gee, everyone else puts up with it, so it must be A-OK.

FyreStar

Brian--

I've been carrying around a stack of printed pages--oh, say forty or so--containing various threads pertaining to the present debate. 27 of them, I should mention, came from this thread yesterday afternoon.

But I do like to think I've given it a ton of consideration.

And here's the problem I'm having:

I really can't see the relevance of, say, Theword's first post in A matter of trust, or the "hypocrites" post in Cosmological argument .... The reason for this is what I've been asserting about the lack of commentary. We both know that people aren't the same, and don't read words the same (or, really, do anything exactly the same as anyone else). So it's entirely possible to derive some relevance from the post, but the assumptions required to do so involve Theword's psychology to a depth that I'm sure would inspire complaint in either you or sis, mainly on the grounds that I've already been browbeaten about that level of assumption and have very easily see its folly now. But I would, in the end, be making assumptions about Theword's faith, psychology, and thus her character. Furthermore, the amount of philosophical modification I would have to do, put into words on a page, would be approximately six to eight times as long as the original quote; and I still wouldn't have any notion that I'm reading it in context.

The end result is that, even after I clarified myself (in the Trust thread) for vagaries of my original question, the first post I get is something which appears intentionally irrelevant. Now, again, I could make pages of assumptions about Theword's character in order to interpret relevance out of the post. But that's obviously not my role in this. Certain degrees of assumption occasionally become necessary here, but not to that degree. Hence, I'm left with no contextual advisement and must therefore interpret the post as I see it. At face value, by my own interpretation, the connection wasn't there at all. To be honest, it recalls a very specific scene to my mind:

* In 1993, during Holy Week, the Campus Christian Coalition invited several speakers to the University of Oregon. Though 40% of the lectures involved subjects that Christian activists typically demonstrate themselves unqualified, one of the intriguing ones was an Exodus International speech about the "Dangers of Homosexuality". After listening to citation after citation out of the Bible (both testaments), I asked the speaker, then, what was the relevance of a passage from Leviticus that is not particularly complimentary to the disabled. (FTR, the answer I usually get on that is something about separating the God of the Jews from the God of the Christians, but that is a monstrous issue best left for whenever we decide we really want to bang our heads against walls. ;) ) The answer I got was actually a young revival-Baptist girl (bussed in with a group from several local private high schools, though that detail seems only mildly relevant) who jumped up from her seat, waved her hands in the air, and shouted: "Ephesians! Put on your armor!"

Now, really, I'm hard pressed to find that girl's relevance to the question, despite the fact that every Lane County Christian who was present in that room cheered and whistled like she performing a donkey-show in Baja, save for one elderly man who lent me his Bible while knowing full well what my tack was. He just looked at me and said, "I don't like the question, but I don't get the answer." And we just laughed.

But that's kind of the moment I experienced with Theword. Her post seemed irrelevant. Quite truly, the only people who ever answered such questions like that--throughout my life, at least--have generally had no point to prove but their own affinities in life.

Furthermore, that she responded with more of the same ... after all, if I was that rude in my response, she could have called me on it and asked what was up? Then we could have gotten contextual, and worked the post into the subject.

Considering the Cosmology post, it seems Jesus was rebuking people for asking questions about the mysteries of nature. That was my first interpretation. Further consideration of the text as posted gives me a slightly different perspective; and some of this I've drawn from your discussion of "[Reproving] those learned and intelligent men who were able to read indications about the processes and structure of the universe but who claimed not to be able to read indications of God's coming kingdom in the signs that Jesus offered through his life, deeds and teachings." It seems, then, that Jesus, who knew what "faith" was, was arguing that these people, who knew a little astrology, astronomy, and meteorology should fall to their knees because God is more visible than their science. We know in the modern day that such faith-motivated statements overlook human diversity. While I would not assert a character-flaw in Jesus, per se--that is, I would assert that if that oversight is true, well, it's because it hadn't occurred to anybody that it was an oversight--I do think it demands faith, in the context it was presented.

Frankly, if I leave the quote as posted originally...
When you see a cloud rising in the west you say immediately that it is going to rain - and so it does; and when you notice that the wind is blowing from the south you say that it is going to be hot - and so it is. You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky; why do you not know how to interpret the present time?

... it seems that intervening theologies have wiped this out. As diversity became more and more important to the Church--the Church being the vessel delivering faith in God--such a perspective as the above excerpt becames limiting. The hypocrisy, then, of Jesus' words, as posted by Theword, suddenly becomes about these prescientists not believing in Jesus' idea of God. After all, were I not a Christian, and Jesus said that to me, I would have said, "Huh? Nevermind, you're blocking my light."

Now, I'm aware that the meaning of these words transcends such issues, but without any further context from the poster, that's all I see. Frankly, I still don't see how it's relevant to cosmology, as such. It's only relevant to classifying certain cosmologists as hypocrites.

Unfortunately, I feel the need to turn the heat up for a moment:

If you have made an honest effort and are really still in the dark (not pretend), I will be happy to share with you my understanding of the posts.

Hey, it's your post. If you want to know what happened to result in the ban, or how everyone feels about it, that's cool. That's actually why I'm still willing to carry this thread out. But you've asked, and part of my relentlessness is that I'm not going to stop until I think a few points are clear; they don't have to be accepted, but I want to make sure I'm clear about those things. However, I advise you against such statements as the one quoted above. I ignored it the first time for a reason, which I truly hope is obvious. But if you choose to be forthcoming with information as a bargain to ensure people's conduct, as implied by that quote, then I am happy to match you. Really, at this point, with this much conversation having been posted, I might say, "If you've made an honest answer to understand that people don't see things the same way as you, then I'll be happy to offer my interpretations.

Hell, at this point, you're either truly confused by the issues you've put forth, or an absolutely magnificent, malevolent provocateur. However, when I'm left to make pointed moral assumptions, I try to assume to the better, so for me to put the condition, "If you've made an honest effort" at the front of an offering is also to assume that you are malevolent. In this case, whether I've made that honest effort is entirely up to your judgement. But hey, if you haven't figured that for yourself yet, I can only submit these humble words.

If I were a dog, I'd be demanding a biscuit right now. Yip, yip. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

:D :D :D

Tiassa: I gotta say, MAN was that funny!!!!! You hit the nail right on the head!!! Thank you for the great laugh!

Too good!!

:) Adlerian

One more thing, I was at a meeting at a Charismatic Church with a friend I was trying to convert many years ago. They were screaming an' holler'n and jumping up to Jesus. I turned to my friend in a more somber, quiet part and whispered, "What do you think?"

He said in a loud and very noticeable voice, "Pass me a snake!" Oh God, first I nearly died with embarrassment, then I nearly choked trying to keep back the laughter, especially when the other members started turning around and looking angry at us. We laugh about it till this day!!

Adlerian

[This message has been edited by Adlerian (edited May 18, 2000).]

Originally posted by FyreStar:

Yes, I see postings from others about what their gods say, from time to time. Tony H20 comes to mind. However, Tony posts more than just quotes; he puts forth his interpretations, his opinions, and makes his quotes relevent to the conversation. So, even though our beliefs are almost diametrically opposed, his posts don't annoy me.


Awwww Geeeee FyreStar :o you've gone and made me blush.

I take that as a hugh compliment from you seeing as we are so diametrically opposed :D

It would be great to talk to you more sometime and get to know you better :)

Allcare

Tony

Dave W, :o

Big red face, not blushing but a bit ashamed of the way I vented before. Sorry dude. If you canned the later response from Theword could you recover it and copy at least Flash and me via email, seeing as we were part of the discussion? I would like to know a bit more about what it was that caused the delete, hey I promise not to vent OK?

Tony


Flash,

Thanks for the clear up on the correct post etc... also I hear what your saying ;) nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Later Buddy

tiassa,

If I were a dog, I'd be demanding a biscuit right now. Yip, yip.

Oh, you get cuter and cuter