[Athens]

I never claimed the response was distasteful.

Re: bible thumper = slur. Hardly. Heck, lots of Christians differentiate between "normal" Christians and bible thumpers.

And if I had a page with such an annoyingly obvious agenda, and someone said "what, did fags hack your page?", I don't think it would be out of line!


And btw, I don't buy for one second your claim that your specific faith is as innate as sexuality (which is biological). Christianity is a creation of man, one particular expression of faith. While faith itself may be innate to you (just as it is not to me), Christianity specifically is something you learned. Had you been born in, say, India, you would probably be equally faithful, but to a different religion.



Anyhow, I think it's time to close this, since this thread has squarely moved into the topic of the nature of religion, clearly a topic for the PL. If any of you wish to continue this discussion, start a thread there.

tooki

Rest of the drama located here http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=279610&page=7

Tooki I agree with you, in my opinion its a choice, but I also am open to them its not. I think tolerance means being able to understand some ones point of view in there eyes. In there eyes its not a choice and I accept that and wont argue it. As I said before I get the im a fag by choice thing all the time so i can appreciate what its like to be told that.

[Athens]

Kevin (Posting on his behalf as he can't post in the PL

Originally Posted by tooki

Re: bible thumper = slur. Hardly.

I guess "butt humper" wouldn't be a slur then either? Come on tooki...

Heck, lots of Christians differentiate between "normal" Christians and bible thumpers.

Care to give some examples? I am sure I probably know more Christians than you, And I've never heard them.

But regardless, that is a bad excuse. Lots of black people call each other niggahs, but I would never call one that.

And if I had a page with such an annoyingly obvious agenda, and someone said "what, did fags hack your page?", I don't think it would be out of line!

Didn't you once tell me that there was "NO REASON" to use that word ever?

And btw, I don't buy for one second your claim that your specific faith is as innate as sexuality (which is biological).

Which you think is biological. So are you saying homosexuality is genetic tooki? If so, there is no proof of that. So what you are basically telling me is, your "idea" is right, and my "idea" isn't because you don't believe in it.

Which is fine, but you have a monopoly on the truth.

Not that I have any clue what causes homosexuality. Nor would I try to say I did. Because NO ONE KNOWS.

Christianity is a creation of man

Yes, Jesus was a man. By dying on the cross, he created Christianity.

one particular expression of faith. While faith itself may be innate to you (just as it is not to me), Christianity specifically is something you learned.

I am not talking about Christianity itself. I am talking about my spirituality, my faith. WHICH DOES have to do with my religion. When I speak of religion, I am speaking of a way of life. Not a name of a religion.

Had you been born in, say, India, you would probably be equally faithful, but to a different religion.

I am not talking about such type of religion.

Doesn't matter what religion you are. I believe faith and spirituality are ingrained.

Some just choose to stay in the closet.

[segovius]

Personally, my problem is not with Christianity but with fundamentalism and extremism.

All genuine spirituality is based on tolerance, love and harmony and this (imo) precludes attempts at 'conversion' and 'hating' or demonizing other faiths or people's chosen lifestyles. In fact, it not only precludes doing these things - it precludes actually having such a capability in your heart.

It seems pretty clear to me that this MU page is in fact an attempt at 'conversion' although a very low-key one but nevertheless it derives from someone with such a mindset.

There is worse though: this is a sign of the times. Militant Christianity is on the march and this would not be possible a few years ago. The climate has changed and things are starting to have a very peculiar smell.....

We may only be a few years away from book-burings and an fundie inquisition. We already have the Crusades....

[Athens]

I dont see it as conversion, I missed its meaning completely so did others who thought it was a UFO. I think they where just trying to broadcast there support on the Christian holidays.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by segovius

Personally, my problem is not with Christianity but with fundamentalism and extremism.

I guess I'd have to take issue with lumping the two; "fundamentalism" and "extremism" together. I'm a fundamentalist in that I believe in the fundamentals of Scripture. This includes the notion that the wage of ONE sin is death. My sexual lustful thoughts are not somehow "less offensive" than someone else's homosexual behavior according to Scripture, to look upon another is the same as acting upon it. The fact is that in my doctrine, all are in the same boat. A boat that has been given grace for those who choose to accept it. This requires change I will admit, but it is not up to me to change you or to legislate against you, or to move others in legislating against you. It is about me changing myself through the strength afforded me in spiritual resolve. God gave me freewill, an allowance to "sin", why would I; a mere mortal man, seek to impose my will on you? i.e. tolerance. I have seen a bit of a shift lately though I won't call it "Christianity on the march". I'll address that in a moment.

All genuine spirituality is based on tolerance, love and harmony and this (imo) precludes attempts at 'conversion' and 'hating' or demonizing other faiths or people's chosen lifestyles. In fact, it not only precludes doing these things - it precludes actually having such a capability in your heart.

I cringe whenever I see the word "tolerance" and I'll tell you why. I'm not entirely sure you're tolerant of fundamentalist Christians by virtue of the fact that you have somehow lumped them in with "extremists" which I presume you feel the need to do something about. After all, who wants a bunch of extremists around? The ideal of tolerance is always subject to the one indicting the other of not having all the while illustrating quite well, what intolerance really is.

It seems pretty clear to me that this MU page is in fact an attempt at 'conversion' although a very low-key one but nevertheless it derives from someone with such a mindset.

In context it would appear that "conversion" is a nasty word. Would you agree there are homosexuals who would like to "convert to heterosexuality? Should they not have the opportunity of seeking this out? We have to respect the wishes of the ones involved don't we in the interest of tolerance?

There is worse though: this is a sign of the times. Militant Christianity is on the march and this would not be possible a few years ago. The climate has changed and things are starting to have a very peculiar smell.....

I'm not sure I understand what this all means. Suffice it to say if it seems Christians have been awaken from their slumber it's because they fear the same slippery slope you do.

We may only be a few years away from book-burings and an fundie inquisition. We already have the Crusades....

We may only be a few years away from having to worship in our basements and having Bibles smuggled in by missionaries.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by segovius

Personally, my problem is not with Christianity but with fundamentalism and extremism.

All genuine spirituality is based on tolerance, love and harmony and this (imo) precludes attempts at 'conversion' and 'hating' or demonizing other faiths or people's chosen lifestyles. In fact, it not only precludes doing these things - it precludes actually having such a capability in your heart.

It seems pretty clear to me that this MU page is in fact an attempt at 'conversion' although a very low-key one but nevertheless it derives from someone with such a mindset.

There is worse though: this is a sign of the times. Militant Christianity is on the march and this would not be possible a few years ago. The climate has changed and things are starting to have a very peculiar smell.....

We may only be a few years away from book-burings and an fundie inquisition. We already have the Crusades....

Damn, somebody knows what they're talking about here.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by segovius

Personally, my problem is not with Christianity but with fundamentalism and extremism.

Wow... you sound just like your "islamaphobe" buddies.

I personally felt that my ass was about to get probed when I saw the MU page.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by pooka

Wow... you sound just like your "islamaphobe" buddies.

I personally felt that my ass was about to get probed when I saw the MU page.

Perhaps to you I do but then that would be more a description of your own perception than of objective reality. Or maybe not - difficult to say as I can't understand what you're talking about.

I'm not sure what your ass and any possible probing has to do with it (and please don't enlighten me further) but unfortunately the sad facts are that as all the great religions are founded on principles of harmony and spirituality, those inclining towards disharmony and hate have to resort to extremes and distortion in order to stay 'in the fold'.

Sad, but there it is.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I guess I'd have to take issue with lumping the two; "fundamentalism" and "extremism" together. I'm a fundamentalist in that I believe in the fundamentals of Scripture.

Well this may be a problem - it is by no means sure that there are such fundamentals. Not only is Biblical scripture contradictory in places (because it has been adjusted, not because it is 'false') but this dichotomy leads to people choosing which bits they adhere 'fundamentally' to.

In my experience those I would call 'fundies' tend to focus on the vengeance/intolerant motifs rather than the forgiveness ones. A generalisation but unfortunately it has been known to happen. That's why I lump them together with extremists.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This includes the notion that the wage of ONE sin is death. My sexual lustful thoughts are not somehow "less offensive" than someone else's homosexual behavior according to Scripture, to look upon another is the same as acting upon it. The fact is that in my doctrine, all are in the same boat. A boat that has been given grace for those who choose to accept it. This requires change I will admit, but it is not up to me to change you or to legislate against you, or to move others in legislating against you. It is about me changing myself through the strength afforded me in spiritual resolve. God gave me freewill, an allowance to "sin", why would I; a mere mortal man, seek to impose my will on you? i.e. tolerance. I have seen a bit of a shift lately though I won't call it "Christianity on the march". I'll address that in a moment.

This is I cannot believe. You are certainly free to and you may be right - I don't know, all I know is I don't believe it but believe something else. Something that also may be right. I don't know.

If someone tells me that they do know they are right and if that thing contradicts my belief and they don't respect mine......well, we could have a problem. That was the impression I got from some of the link on the site.

Btw - the reason I cannot accept the above is that is is illogical and bad theology - not that it is impossible or anything else. It is not coherent within the Christian framework, but to go into that would be to digress.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I cringe whenever I see the word "tolerance" and I'll tell you why. I'm not entirely sure you're tolerant of fundamentalist Christians by virtue of the fact that you have somehow lumped them in with "extremists" which I presume you feel the need to do something about. After all, who wants a bunch of extremists around? The ideal of tolerance is always subject to the one indicting the other of not having all the while illustrating quite well, what intolerance really is.

Perhaps I am intolerant of them. I think everyone should have their own beliefs and not try to force them down other's throat. I'm afraid some Christians are guilty of this.

I guess I should tolerate it but I'm not at that level yet and I do genuinely feel that such people will make life very unpleasant for all of us very soon - if only by dragging us back to an intellectual and cultural dark age. Although it could be much worse than that if one considers the Church's track record. Much worse.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

In context it would appear that "conversion" is a nasty word. Would you agree there are homosexuals who would like to "convert to heterosexuality? Should they not have the opportunity of seeking this out? We have to respect the wishes of the ones involved don't we in the interest of tolerance?

I don't know, perhaps there are some such gays. Perhaps there are some straights who would wish to convert the other way.

Perhaps if such people exist then they should have the opportunities you mention - although most Christians would only support 'one way traffic' in the sexuality conversion department I suspect.

And of course there is a higher price than that in the small print - it's not exactly a shagfest once this postulated gay manages to go straight is it? He/she will just be confronted with more sin and more guilt when they wish to indulge their new-0ound sexuality.

I suppose that's why they used to just chop it off in the Church's golden days.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I'm not sure I understand what this all means. Suffice it to say if it seems Christians have been awaken from their slumber it's because they fear the same slippery slope you do.

That's entirely likely but then I don't think they are wrong and want to stop them - they can believe what they want. I just want them to practice their beliefs in isolation and not get on my case - if they try to stop me believing what I want we have a philosophical conundrum....

Originally Posted by ebuddy

We may only be a few years away from having to worship in our basements and having Bibles smuggled in by missionaries.

If that happens than I will oppose the people trying to implement such intolerance and even possibly help with the smuggling - what I won't do is try to prove to those in the basement that my beliefs, which are by no means 'Christian', are correct.

I sometimes look at life like a horse-race - we've all placed our bets and are waiting for the race to start. Some have bet on Christianity, some atheism, some Islam and thousands of other options. At death we will find out which 'horse' won.

Meanwhile, as in any gambler's hang-out, there are some characters running around trying to tell us they 'know for sure' which horse is going to win and that they have 'inside info'.

They may have, maybe not. Nobody knows and they sure as hell don't either. I just wish they'd stop trying to convince others to bet on the same horse they do just to make themselves feel more secure and 'right'.

We'll all find out soon enough.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Athens

Kevin (Posting on his behalf as he can't post in the PL)
1) I guess "butt humper" wouldn't be a slur then either? Come on tooki...

2) Care to give some examples? I am sure I probably know more Christians than you, And I've never heard them.

3) But regardless, that is a bad excuse. Lots of black people call each other niggahs, but I would never call one that.

4) Didn't you once tell me that there was "NO REASON" to use that word ever?

5) Which you think is biological. So are you saying homosexuality is genetic tooki? If so, there is no proof of that. So what you are basically telling me is, your "idea" is right, and my "idea" isn't because you don't believe in it.
Which is fine, but you have a monopoly on the truth.
Not that I have any clue what causes homosexuality. Nor would I try to say I did. Because NO ONE KNOWS.

6) Yes, Jesus was a man. By dying on the cross, he created Christianity.

7) I am not talking about Christianity itself. I am talking about my spirituality, my faith. WHICH DOES have to do with my religion. When I speak of religion, I am speaking of a way of life. Not a name of a religion.

8) I am not talking about such type of religion.

9) Doesn't matter what religion you are. I believe faith and spirituality are ingrained.

10) Some just choose to stay in the closet.

1) Meh, considering how many Christians I've seen use it to disparagingly refer to other Christians, I don't think "bible thumper" is a slur, it's more like a stereotype. It's a good exaggerated mental image for a very specific, narrow type of Christians who are unusually forceful about imposing their beliefs on others.

2) I've heard it over and over from Christians who disagree with those Christians who are unusually forceful about imposing their beliefs on others.

3) If you equate bible thumper with "nigga", then yeah. I think most people don't.

4) I was not suggesting that you use it. I was saying that I would not be in any way surprised if I received very hateful messages after turning my commercial website into a pulpit. If you do something like that, you're gonna get nastygrams.

5) There has been evidence that it's biological. (Not necessarily genetic, but biological, e.g. hormone levels and whatnot, though at least one group has claimed to have found a gay gene.) Combined with the fact that you can't nurture a child to become gay (raising a child to act the opposite sex -- including liking the "opposite" (that is, the same) sex -- has been tried, with horrific failure. There isn't much proof of the biological origins of sexuality, but there's even less that it's non-biological.

6) Exactly. A creation of man, what I said.

7) OK, good. Cuz you said "You cannot deny your sexuality, I cannot deny my beliefs. " Specific beliefs are acquired (learned), spirituality is (I think) not. (If beliefs were innate, there'd be no need for bible study.)

8) "Such type of religion"?!? So those are... different from the spirituality of Christianity?

9) Well, in most people at least. There are us weirdos (we call ourselves atheists) who aren't spiritual.

10)

tooki

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Athens

Kevin (Posting on his behalf as he can't post in the PL


I guess "butt humper" wouldn't be a slur then either? Come on tooki...

Care to give some examples? I am sure I probably know more Christians than you, And I've never heard them.

But regardless, that is a bad excuse. Lots of black people call each other niggahs, but I would never call one that.

Surely you don't mean to suggest that "Bible-thumper" is a general slur for Christians like those are general slurs for homosexuals and blacks. It isn't just a word for "Christian" with a negative feeling to it. It refers to a specific style of preaching and ideology (much in the same way that "white supremacist" is a pejorative for white people, but not all of them).

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Surely you don't mean to suggest that "Bible-thumper" is a general slur for Christians like those are general slurs for homosexuals and blacks. It isn't just a word for "Christian" with a negative feeling to it. It refers to a specific style of preaching and ideology (much in the same way that "white supremacist" is a pejorative for white people, but not all of them).

Yes, God-botherer or Bible-basher is more appropriate if one wants to verge on the offensive.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Surely you don't mean to suggest that "Bible-thumper" is a general slur for Christians like those are general slurs for homosexuals and blacks. It isn't just a word for "Christian" with a negative feeling to it. It refers to a specific style of preaching and ideology (much in the same way that "white supremacist" is a pejorative for white people, but not all of them).

Nail + hammer + impact.

tooki

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I guess "butt humper" wouldn't be a slur then either?

This, like cock-sucker, or nigger, is a vulgar slur.

I think this fundamental difference (vulgarity) between your examples and tooki's statement registers more strongly than the analogy you are trying to draw.

Not that I disagree with your analogy, I just think it's obscured.

Originally Posted by tooki

I don't think "bible thumper" is a slur, it's more like a stereotype.

Labeling someone a stereotype isn't a slur?

Seems like you're splitting some mighty fine hairs.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by tooki

Nail + hammer + impact.

tooki

Penis + Vagina = Pleasure

[Chuckit]

U+Me=Us

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by segovius

All genuine spirituality is based on tolerance, love and harmony and this (imo) precludes attempts at 'conversion' and 'hating' or demonizing other faiths or people's chosen lifestyles. In fact, it not only precludes doing these things - it precludes actually having such a capability in your heart.

So anyone who believes in a universal truth isn't being genuinely spiritual. My, how tolerant of you.

[Dark Helmet]

Is this Jesus thing a joke, a hack or what?

Thanks,
Mark

[email protected]

Mark--

it wasn't a joke! can you believe that?

Thanks for using MacUpdate. Sorry for the delay in writing you back. Thank you for writing.

I do not represent MacUpdate, but i know that they care about serving you. They do care about their users. There will be some changes to the website soon that will benefit you as a MacUpdate user, one who cares enough about the site to write in. They are here for the Mac community. I hope you'll continue to be a part of it.

The page was not done out of disrespect to you, or others that go to the site. I'm sorry that you felt it was inappropriate. this was not our intention. the page was done for Christmas. our intention was to share with you words to let you know that Jesus is real, and he cares about your life. Maybe you've heard otherwise- maybe you dont like christians- maybe you are firm in your beliefs. But he cares about you, and His character no one can fathom.

if you are interested in Jesus (not religion or christianity or right-wing beliefs), then seek Him.

thank you for writing. feel free to write back.

out to love,
allie

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by segovius

Well this may be a problem - it is by no means sure that there are such fundamentals. Not only is Biblical scripture contradictory in places (because it has been adjusted, not because it is 'false') but this dichotomy leads to people choosing which bits they adhere 'fundamentally' to.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by adjusted and would probably need to see the alleged "adjustments" in context. This may help me to gauge the difference between a tolerant fundamentalist and an intolerant one. Usually, it has nothing to do with interpretation of/or religious doctrine in general as it does, straight bastardization of the aformentioned for personal agendas. Obvious ones.

In my experience those I would call 'fundies' tend to focus on the vengeance/intolerant motifs rather than the forgiveness ones. A generalisation but unfortunately it has been known to happen. That's why I lump them together with extremists.

I've seen fights break out at Peace marches, but I wouldn't generally consider them violent affairs. I believe this kind of lumping leads to intellectual laziness and is actually part of the problem with society today, not the solution.

This is I cannot believe. You are certainly free to and you may be right - I don't know, all I know is I don't believe it but believe something else. Something that also may be right. I don't know.

agreed.

I've always thought that when people come to you and ask you why you seem happy or why it is you do the things you do, they will often be more receptive to what you have to say. As a Chrisitian myself I've not been good about representing Christianity at times, but I don't appreciate intolerance and I believe I've always lived up to understanding both sides. Approaching someone in the park and telling them why they're going to hell is more useful for alienating people than it is anything else IMO. That said, I know of no one who would do such a thing and I've been active in my church for some time. It's possible that a majority of Christians are more intelligent than you give them credit. I say this evidenced by your statement that you lump fundamentalists with extremists. There's only a few spokesman for every faith, there are millions of believers.

If someone tells me that they do know they are right and if that thing contradicts my belief and they don't respect mine......well, we could have a problem.
That was the impression I got from some of the link on the site

Tell me how it contradicted your belief or was even disrespectful to it. I did not see what was on the site.

Btw - the reason I cannot accept the above is that is is illogical and bad theology - not that it is impossible or anything else. It is not coherent within the Christian framework, but to go into that would be to digress.

What do you consider bad theology? I wouldn't be too concerned over digression from this thread. Seriously.

Perhaps I am intolerant of them. I think everyone should have their own beliefs and not try to force them down other's throat. I'm afraid some Christians are guilty of this.

I appreciate your honesty. There are those from all walks of life. Some advertisers. Some salesman. Some politicians. Some philanthropic orgs, etc... and I suppose they've met a few people's needs or they wouldn't continue to try. I think the whole "forcing them down your throat" sentiment is a little dramatic personally.

I guess I should tolerate it but I'm not at that level yet

I'm not either. I like to say if you're not growing, you're dying. There are some things that concern me however;

and I do genuinely feel that such people will make life very unpleasant for all of us very soon - if only by dragging us back to an intellectual and cultural dark age.

This statement speaks volumes of your level of fear. This is the type of fear that gives extremism thrust. I want you to think about the Inquisitions and other oppressive acts you like to frequently address and ask yourself what it was that drove them, what it was they drove in others. This is the crux of extremism

Although it could be much worse than that if one considers the Church's track record. Much worse.

Like extremist "tolerance" it seems. I'm afraid to report that the secular record is no better and in fact even when they were good, were not as good as good Christians were. I'm happy to digress.

I don't know, perhaps there are some such gays. Perhaps there are some straights who would wish to convert the other way.

Quite right indeed and of course they've not been denied the right to do so.

Perhaps if such people exist then they should have the opportunities you mention - although most Christians would only support 'one way traffic' in the sexuality conversion department I suspect.

Indeed. This certainly shouldn't surprise you and why wouldn't you want it that way? I'm not going to have a brake specialist work on my transmission.

And of course there is a higher price than that in the small print - it's not exactly a shagfest once this postulated gay manages to go straight is it? He/she will just be confronted with more sin and more guilt when they wish to indulge their new-0ound sexuality.

sex of course being relegated to the likes of water, air, and sustenance. Most people don't care to be involved in "shagfests" there big shooter. Now I know this sounds crazy (anticipating the reactions of those with "suphormones"), but I think if you let go of a sophomoric view of sex you might come to find out there is more to life. By the way, enjoying your life does not end at the threshhold of the heterosexual bedroom. I'm not sure I know who you're talking about or why this point was even relevant, but the two do not have to be mutually exclusive.

To be honest, I've not talked to a recently-converted gay guy to know how he feels. Have you?

I suppose that's why they used to just chop it off in the Church's golden days.

Round 'em up and burn 'em at the stake before we return to the dark ages then right? I mean I'm not sure what else this level of fear is supposed to portray. Extremist/paranoid comes to mind.

That's entirely likely but then I don't think they are wrong and want to stop them - they can believe what they want. I just want them to practice their beliefs in isolation

Interesting you would use the word isolation;
1 : the action of isolating or condition of being isolated <isolation of a virus> <put the patient in isolation>
2 : a segregation of a group of organisms from related forms in such a manner as to prevent crossing
3 : a psychological defense mechanism consisting of the separating of ideas or memories from the emotions connected with them

In this country you have the freedom to exercise your right to worship not in isolation. I dare say the absurd example I provided you early of the "slippery slope" was more realistic than yours judging by the two sides we personally represent.

and not get on my case - if they try to stop me believing what I want we have a philosophical conundrum....

What case is it they are getting on? It might be a good case to address. You see, there are some that can't hear one person tell another person "God Bless You".

If that happens than I will oppose the people trying to implement such intolerance and even possibly help with the smuggling - what I won't do is try to prove to those in the basement that my beliefs, which are by no means 'Christian', are correct.

Fair enough.

I sometimes look at life like a horse-race - we've all placed our bets and are waiting for the race to start. Some have bet on Christianity, some atheism, some Islam and thousands of other options. At death we will find out which 'horse' won.

Meanwhile, as in any gambler's hang-out, there are some characters running around trying to tell us they 'know for sure' which horse is going to win and that they have 'inside info'.

Funny thing is, sometimes they do have inside info. Some may have wished they had access to it.

They may have, maybe not. Nobody knows and they sure as hell don't either. I just wish they'd stop trying to convince others to bet on the same horse they do just to make themselves feel more secure and 'right'.

It all depends on what you consider "trying to convince". It's possible you have not (as you admitted) reached a level of tolerance that allows for reasonable coexistence.

We'll all find out soon enough.

Too true.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I'm not sure I know what you mean by adjusted and would probably need to see the alleged "adjustments" in context. This may help me to gauge the difference between a tolerant fundamentalist and an intolerant one. Usually, it has nothing to do with interpretation of/or religious doctrine in general as it does, straight bastardization of the aformentioned for personal agendas. Obvious ones.

---snip ---

Hi ebuddy, thanks for taking the time to reply - you make some good points and I have been thinking over my position. Possibly it is a bit 'general' and you have made me re-evaluate it a bit so I shall share what I have found.

I think my antipathy here is not towards certain types of Christians as such but towards a form of 'non-thinking' that (rightly or wrongly) I see typified in a brand of Christianity that is now very common.

I suppose this kind of 'non-thinking' is essentially a looking to Scripture for answers to phenomena (scientific, moral etc) and implementing them in the modern world. There is nothing wrong with this per se - in fact it is pretty much what faith actually is - but when this attitude transcends scientific fact or even practice as well as logical thought processes then I feel there is a threat - a threat to regress us to a medieval state.

If you do not believe this can happen then look at Islam - the Islamic civilization was one of the most advanced ever known. The vast majority of western culture is based on it's discoveries in science, medicine, maths, astronomy, chemistry as well as in art and literature. But they lost it all - and for the reasons I am talking about: literalist (and erroneous) interpretation of dogma put over scientific research. Obviously they did not do this at the time of their great civilization but it later developed and that's where the decline set in.

The 'creationism' issue would be one such example of this current process (although please God let's not divert into that) but there are many more - the contradictions in the Bible itself for example as well as the holding of Biblical statements over archaeological facts which disprove them.

I also have a problem with exploitation of the gullible as in cases such as a fraudulent TV evangelist fleecing poor members of his flock but this is not true Christianity and I know the majority of Christians are more sincere than this.

Anyway, you must not think that I am opposing Christianity - I am pointing out a tendency that exists in secular life, religion and academia. I just mention it in this context because we are talking about Christianity but the next time some Islamophobe pops their head up (or if an Islamist ever does - which strangely they don't given their apparent prevalence everywhere) then I would mention it in that context as it is the same thing and is actually a leitmotif of our present age rrather than stemming form any religion: it permeates all religions and all phenomena because those things exist at this time and this disease of 'fundamentalism' ('literalism' is better actually) is all encompassing.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by segovius

Hi ebuddy, thanks for taking the time to reply -

No problem.

I suppose this kind of 'non-thinking' is essentially a looking to Scripture for answers to phenomena (scientific, moral etc) and implementing them in the modern world. There is nothing wrong with this per se - in fact it is pretty much what faith actually is - but when this attitude transcends scientific fact or even practice as well as logical thought processes then I feel there is a threat - a threat to regress us to a medieval state.

There are those who would seek to hijack the disciplines you mentioned. there are also those who use scientific "facts", with a twist. I find that all too often when science says "it's possible", popular secular media says "it is so". I believe there's a difference, but the intent is the same as the Creationist's; to indoctrinate the minds of those who would not have availed themselves of the facts. This is an unfortunate circumstance of human nature. See, I don't believe scientists are somehow above the human condition, not interested in research grants for fruitless endeavors, notariety through publication, and power over thought through indoctrination. These features exist in religion just as they do in science.

If you do not believe this can happen then look at Islam - the Islamic civilization was one of the most advanced ever known. The vast majority of western culture is based on it's discoveries in science, medicine, maths, astronomy, chemistry as well as in art and literature. But they lost it all - and for the reasons I am talking about: literalist (and erroneous) interpretation of dogma put over scientific research. Obviously they did not do this at the time of their great civilization but it later developed and that's where the decline set in.

I can appreciate your point. While some countries saw immense technological progress, the culture was not as willing to follow along. Philosophies such as looking down upon merchants and philosophies that require service to it over service to advancement consumed significantly large portions of populations on philosophical advancement, not scientific progress. You're correct. World View, philosophy/religion can stifle scientific progress. This has not traditionally been the case among Christians however. Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Georges Cuvier, Lord Rayleigh, John Ambrose Fleming, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Henri Fabre, George Stokes, Sir William Hershel, and many others as pioneers of their fields ranging from Calculus, through Celestial Mechanics to bacteriology and Isotopic Chemistry. When you think of scientific advancement, you think of the European explosion of advancement from 1700 to 1900. This explosion saw a veritible who's who of scientists most of which had noteworthy philosophically-Christian ties. I think the concern here is unfounded by substantial facts.

The 'creationism' issue would be one such example of this current process (although please God let's not divert into that) but there are many more -

There are those adhering to strict Genesis principles and because the Bible is not a scientific book, it is hard to establish for certain whether or not these principles are wholly incorrect. Suffice it to say, there are many more interested in cultural implications of science than they are science itself and this can be unfortunate. These are features not exclusive to the fundamentalist Christian and I'm glad we can agree on that.

the contradictions in the Bible itself for example as well as the holding of Biblical statements over archaeological facts which disprove them.

I'm not aware of the archeological facts that disprove Biblical account Segovius so I'm going to assume you've not provided any info to substantiate the claim because the data is not readily available. I've also seen the second mention of "contradictions" without any quantifications. I've only seen one "contradiction" that required a double-take on my part. The rest have been woefully taken out of context or fail to understand the authentic stylings and original print of the authorship. This would not be the first time I've seen indictments of contradictions lodged by those who've not availed themselves of what is considered among the most historically, exhaustively accurate text available. The problem generally comes into play regarding the "supernatural" instances in the Bible and I'd agree that this is where faith comes into play and there is nothing empirically scientific about these things. These things have been powerful motivators for positive change throughout history however; seeing an end to brutal cultural practices in Rome for example, or in the creation of organized care for the poor, abolishment of slavery, international missions, hospitals, long-term respite care facilities, Universities, etc...

I also have a problem with exploitation of the gullible as in cases such as a fraudulent TV evangelist fleecing poor members of his flock but this is not true Christianity and I know the majority of Christians are more sincere than this.

I appreciate that.

Anyway, you must not think that I am opposing Christianity - I am pointing out a tendency that exists in secular life, religion and academia. I just mention it in this context because we are talking about Christianity but the next time some Islamophobe pops their head up (or if an Islamist ever does - which strangely they don't given their apparent prevalence everywhere) then I would mention it in that context as it is the same thing and is actually a leitmotif of our present age rrather than stemming form any religion: it permeates all religions and all phenomena because those things exist at this time and this disease of 'fundamentalism' ('literalism' is better actually) is all encompassing.

This is an unfortunate circumstance of human nature. We are no different today than we were yesterday. There has been no significant decline in scientific advancement. We're fastly reaching a precipice of capability, but this will soon be transcended again today, just as it had been in the early 1900s.

[Dark Helmet]

[email protected], [email protected]

Allie,

It is a shame you are so insecure about your God he/she is so unimpressive that you feel the need to advertise him on computer related websites.

If your God was so fantastic and caplible of so much you would think I would be drawn to him myself without coercion or advertising.

From what I have witnessed over just the past year Tsunami's, multiple hurricanes and floods with many woman, children and mens lives lost in devastating natural disasters you could understand if I am not drawn to your beliefs. Praying did not help these people find them new homes or bring back missing children. I have never in my life witnessed a positive act of a God. Only what humans have accomplished on their own.

I respect that you have beliefs in whatever you think is "real" but you shouldn't try to sell your beliefs to others on unrelated websites.

Can I ask where the money generated for the click-throughs from all the banners on your Christmas website will be going to? I assume they are going to some hurricane relief fund or at the very least a Christian funds that help others with food or medical expenses.

I found the website that was put up on Christmas unprofessional regardless of specific content.

I cannot believe the Macupdate staff would sanction something like this. I have been a devoted reader and paid subscriber for the past 2 years I will not be returning or re-subscribing to Macupdate.

Thanks,
Mark

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

[email protected], [email protected]

Good, I sent her an email explaining that you're an anti-theist and someone who generally bashes religion and Christianity every chance you get (and attached a copy of your email just so she'll know which looney/fruitcake that I was referring to). Also, I directed her to this thread so she could see for herself, and invited her to search your username(s) so she could see some of your previous comments about the subject.

No doubt your unbiased opinion will shake her to the core.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Good, I sent her an email explaining that you're an anti-theist and someone who generally bashes religion and Christianity every chance you get (and attached a copy of your email just so she'll know which looney/fruitcake that I was referring to). Also, I directed her to this thread so she could see for herself, and invited her to search your username(s) so she could see some of your previous comments about the subject.

No doubt your unbiased opinion will shake her to the core.

Good, everything I wrote them I made public here. No editing nothing. You want me to CC you on any further emails?

[Dark Helmet]

The reply.

Hi Mark,
It's not my intention to continue igniting flames where they don't want to be ignited, nor is it my intention to use logic to prove that other peoples' viewpoints are not well founded and there are huge loopholes in them. So in saying this, I have a few questions for you:

(1) Is it logical to say that because someone says they support one endeavor or another, that they are insecure in what they are supporting? ie - If I say "I like Macintosh. Check them out!" does that mean that I'm insecure in my opinion that Macs are great?

(2) I really like what you said about not seeing any positive acts on earth done by God. That says that (1) you've prayed to God, (2) that you probably believe in God in one form or another. Is it possible for someone to be in a position where they are unaware of certain things happening, but in fact they are happening?

(3) I like that you say that people shouldn't try to sell their beliefs. It's SO much better to see people not being hypocritical and actually living out what they say they believe. If someone has this stance where you shouldn't "sell" your beliefs, should this also apply to everything else in life (such as recommendations for a computer type, or car, or city to live in? Or is this only restricted to religion?


(4) There was no money generated. The ads server was only to help track clicks to see what parts of the page most intrigued people. If money was generated it would certainly not be kept. But at the same time, we wouldn't be parading around saying that we gave money to others. That gives people the message that you're giving in order to get credit and not a gift of grace that has no motive for something in return. I think it's great when people are aware of financial decisions and where money is going. I find it hard when people take the stance and complain about the use of other peoples' money and they themselves aren't writing the check to the Tsunami victims themselves. I'm sure you'd agree....

If you'd like to talk about where the finances go from MacUpdate, it'd be excited to let you know over the phone. There are some really great things happening behind the scenes here that the general public is very unaware of. I'd do this in confidence that you keep this information to yourself though, as I don't need this type of "fake, good PR" -- it doesn't match our motives. My personal cell is: xxx-xxx-xxx


I am personally saddened that you don't want to visit MacUpdate again. I really hope you reconsider. MacUpdate has proved is reputation as being the most accurate and up-to-date Macintosh software site on the Internet. It took eight years to achieve this, and I hope that a simple 1-day splash screen doesn't overshadow 8-years of working to be here for the Macintosh community.

Thanks Mark, and I appreciate you CC'ing your reply for Allie to me,

-Joel Mueller
www.macupdate.com

My reply:

Joel,

Thanks for the reply. I am not going to argue any aspects of religion with you. I am sure you must have know that this 1 day site would be considered offensive and unprofessional.

You mentioning macintosh computers does not make you insecure as it is relevant to the sites content. As is any other computer related material. Creating a website with an email address of REALGOD, mentioning Jesus and Steve Jobs is offensive. Do you understand that other people do not believe in your God and perhaps in their own?

Macupdate used it viewers to take the opportunity to recruit people to a religion that you support. If Apple had done this it would be just as shocking. I came to your site to find software not a bait and switch to a religious group.

I also cannot understand what the point of all of it was. Do you actually believe that you recrouted new people? If anything I think you:

a) Confused a lot of people
b) Made yourselves look really unprofessional
c) Didn't do anything positive, even if you did don't you think a page devoted to a "Christians childrens fund" would have been more appropriate? Even though I am not Christian I wouldn't have found this offensive in the least.
d) If you converted anyone to match your beliefs is it worth all the people that were offended by it? Is 1 new recruit to your beliefs worth the many people offended?
e) An email from someone assuring me that Jesus is "Real" doesn't make it any more real then if I sent you an email saying the Easter bunny was real.

Simple fact is there are other sites that offer the same services as you do. This one act was so unprofessional I can't image me wanting to contribute any more hits or money to a company like this. I've already removed the RSS streams and changed my bookmarks to versiontracker after getting Allies reply. I really did enjoy Macupdate for the past few years up until this incident.

Again, this has nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion, simply that it was unprofessional to a degree I have never witnessed before from a site I once held in high regard.

Thanks for your time.
Mark

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Good, everything I wrote them I made public here. No editing nothing. You want me to CC you on any further emails?

Just wanted her to know who/what she's dealing with, and better understand your agenda.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Just wanted her to know who/what she's dealing with, and better understand your agenda.

Good, doesn't bother me in the least. As you can see in my emails the fact is I don't care if it was Christian, Buddhist whatever. If they would have put up a Children's Christian Fund I might have even donated money, they just wanted some people to follow their believes and did it in a sneaky and unprofessional manner.

Why give money to a company that has offended me?

[Chuckit]

Do you people seriously feel injured by this? Would you be complaining the same if an Indian shopkeeper had up a statue of her god? Or if a Jew put up a menorah in his window during the holidays?

I don't get it. It was weird and kind of creepy (just because of the design of the page), but not religiously offensive.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Do you people seriously feel injured by this? Would you be complaining the same if an Indian shopkeeper had up a statue of her god? Or if a Jew put up a menorah in his window during the holidays?

I don't get it. It was weird and kind of creepy (just because of the design of the page), but not religiously offensive.

Again, NO.

It was the fact that it was a combination of REAL GOD, Steve Jobs and recruiting. If this was a Christian related website then go nuts. Macupdate doing this was not relevant to the sites content, generated money off the ad clicks for the multiple religious banners.

Imagine you are Christian and one day Apple.com is supporting and recruiting people to become Muslim. Out of place and unprofessional.

I don't walk into the corner store to buy a coke, see a statue of Christ, get offended and run out. I respect that they are religious and go about doing my thing. Now if I get to the cash and they give me a speech about finding a REAL GOD and yadda yadda I would take my business elsewhere.

[Sky Captain]

If this flash page was celebrating Vishnu, Chanakuah or Rhamadan, the radical left would have never peeped up. At all.

[Sky Captain]

I firmly believe that is the splash page was honoring Vishnu, Chaunakuh or Ramadahn, the radical left would have never peeped up. At all.

[Sky Captain]

I firmly believe that is the splash page was honoring Vishnu, Chaunakuh or Ramadahn, the radical left would have never peeped up. At all.

[Sky Captain]

I firmly believe that is the splash page was honoring Vishnu, Chaunakuh or Ramadahn, the radical left would have never peeped up. At all.

[Sky Captain]

I firmly believe that is the splash page was honoring Vishnu, Chaunakuh or Ramadahn, the radical left would have never peeped up. At all.

[Sky Captain]

I firmly believe that is the splash page was honoring Vishnu, Chaunakuh or Ramadahn, the radical left would have never peeped up. At all.

[Sky Captain]

I firmly believe that is the splash page was honoring Vishnu, Chaunakuh or Ramadahn, the radical left would have never peeped up. At all.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

I don't walk into the corner store to buy a coke, see a statue of Christ, get offended and run out.

That's what happened, and yes you did.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

That's what happened, and yes you did.

Fine, if that is what you think I don't care.

[Athens]

its true

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens

its true

yup.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

yup.

What's funnier than all this is most merchants (after they send the "no, please don't go" email) are actually thinking; "eesh, who has this kind of time?" It's entirely about Christianity.

I don't believe in Zeus. If I was visiting a privately-owned merchant's site and they produced a splash screen with facts regarding the Real God Zeus, proselytizing on his behalf, at most I might laugh. I'm certainly not going to take the time to craft some silly email to the host regarding how offensive their (non-existent) Zeus god is.

This is the result of some inner-convictions and WAY too much time, plain and simple. Either you believe or you don't. To go around acting as if you've been emotionally raped is just absurd and dramatic. You know what they say about idle hands...

It was Christmas man. Chill. If you insist on moving your eyes to and fro to remove any bastion of Chrisianity on Christmas day, you'll likely pull out the remainder of your hair.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This is the result of some inner-convictions and WAY too much time, plain and simple. Either you believe or you don't. To go around acting as if you've been emotionally raped is just absurd and dramatic. You know what they say about idle hands...

Absolutely. The atheists who yell the loudest, are the ones feeling the most conflicted. Over time, they often become some of religion's greatest supporters (C.S. Lewis, Antony Flew, Josh McDowell, William Murray, etc.).

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I don't believe in Zeus. If I was visiting a privately-owned merchant's site and they produced a splash screen with facts regarding the Real God Zeus, proselytizing on his behalf, at most I might laugh. I'm certainly not going to take the time to craft some silly email to the host regarding how offensive their (non-existent) Zeus god is.

So, you wouldn't be bothered if a site promoted Satan?

And if you saw the (non-existant ) god Zeus' following grow to a large size, would you not be disturbed then?

[Doofy]

:yawn:

Bloke posts something on his site. Lefties get their panties in a twist over nothing. Again.

I'm glad I'm not a leftie. Must be kinda tough having to go through life with panties that far up one's butt.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dakar

So, you wouldn't be bothered if a site promoted Satan?

I wouldn't, poor fella (Samael) has it bad enough as it is. It's got to be the toughest job in the universe.

As for Zeus, there is a large following. That pantheon is still a viable egregore with ~1,000,000 participants.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

I wouldn't, poor fella (Samael) has it bad enough as it is. It's got to be the toughest job in the universe.

I'd figure Hell's janitor has it the worst.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I'd figure Hell's janitor has it the worst.

Nah, like a modern range, it's self-cleaning.

<-- Not a believer in a literal/physical Hell.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Nah, like a modern range, it's self-cleaning.

<-- Not a believer in a literal/physical Hell.

I won't pretend to be very well versed in the Bible, but after my years of Catholic schooling, and the opinions I've formed on the Christian God, I always considered Hell to be a myth, a religious boogey-man of sorts.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dakar

So, you wouldn't be bothered if a site promoted Satan?

No, because the site would likely apply to less than 5% of the market share and would quickly fizzle out on it's own. That said; they have the right to espouse whatever it is they personally feel is worthy of promotion. If I don't appreciate it, I can go elsewhere or I can do what it was I intended to do there which I believe was not hampered by the splash screens right?

And if you saw the (non-existant ) god Zeus' following grow to a large size, would you not be disturbed then?

This is secularism at it's finest. It's everywhere and growing don't you think? If I'm bothered by the site, I either don't visit it or do on that site what I intended to do and leave. I don't craft some silly email and send it to the webmaster to let them know how bothered I am by their personal convictions. That is, unless I had some agenda to squelch their freedom to do so.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No, because the site would likely apply to less than 5% of the market share and would quickly fizzle out on it's own.

That's not what I said at all. If MacUpdate had a support Satan splash, I don't think you'd laugh it off like a Zeus one. Correct?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

That said; they have the right to espouse whatever it is they personally feel is worthy of promotion. If I don't appreciate it, I can go elsewhere or I can do what it was I intended to do there which I believe was not hampered by the splash screens right?

I'm not arguing that point at all.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

If I'm bothered by the site, I either don't visit it or do on that site what I intended to do and leave. I don't craft some silly email and send it to the webmaster to let them know how bothered I am by their personal convictions. That is, unless I had some agenda to squelch their freedom to do so.

So, if you liked the site before, wouldn't you tell them why you're not using their service any more?

I don't think it's silly to say, "I like my [x], message free." It may be unreasonable to expect them to change, but what is the harm in telling them YOUR view in response to their having broadcast theirs?