Matthew on 19/9/2006 at 14:49
Quote Posted by Dr Sneak
I only use it for the real nutcases, helps to clear the air.:)
Forgive me for saying this though, it just appears to a third party that you tend to use it willy-nilly against anyone you find mildly offensive. CommChat is, for good or ill, the sort of place where rather stinging attacks are made and then soon forgotten about, being generally intended to be without rancour, but if we all put every such attacker on the Ignore List, it'd be a quiet place.
Stitch on 19/9/2006 at 14:57
Besides, you're either part of this party or you're not. How can you contribute to a thread if you don't necessarily know everything that's been said?
Dr Sneak on 19/9/2006 at 15:18
Quote:
CommChat is, for good or ill, the sort of place where rather stinging attacks are made and then soon forgotten about, being generally intended to be without rancour, but if we all put every such attacker on the Ignore List, it'd be a quiet place.
I dont think stinging attacks are really necessary for discussing different issues, if you disagree you can say so without cursing or degrading someone else or sniping. Some people dont seem to get that and I'd rather not fool with them. If you dont like me for that-ignore me as well, I wont be offended. Perhaps I shouldnt have said I was ignoring the guy, I wont annouce such moves in the future. Dont worry, RL stuff is demanding that I get off the net right now and I dont post in this area often anyways. Trust me, I have no desire to become a part of Comm-Chat culture-I was just talking about an issue I was interested in and felt GBM's questions were good ones to respond to.
Oh as for comments about my courage, I find that very amusing-I see statements made here everyday that none of you would dare make in person to another member. If someone is an idiot to me, I just laugh and walk away in RL on most occasions and if I have something to say-I have the decency to say it face to face instead of hiding behind a keyboard so I dont think I'm being hypocritical at all.:)
Rug Burn Junky on 19/9/2006 at 15:34
Quote Posted by Dr Sneak
I was just talking about an issue I was interested in and felt GBM's questions were good ones to respond to.
No, you plainly were not "just" doing that, since you decided to take the extra step of publicly pointing out that you were ignoring me.
A) Now, the cowardice part stems from the fact that a few bad words and an expression of disdain for Jenesis means you have decided that you simply can't handle reading what I write. It has nothing to do with the whole internet tough guy "why don't you say it to my face" thing, which in and of itself is such a ridiculous non-sequitur that I don't have time to explain why it makes you look even more foolish. You are so unable to handle mere words that not only do you have to hide yourself from them, but you have to take the public step of pointing out that you are hiding from them.
B) The hypocrisy? Well, that's easy and it's two fold. i) The point of the ignore list, if there is one, is to, as you put it "laugh and walk away." Which, I may point out, you simply aren't doing. Rather, By
pointing out that you are ignoring someone, you are using it as cowardly (see (A) above) way to get a parting shot in. Instead of using it as a way to truly keep those who you find distasteful out of your presence, you are using it as a way to impotently
take a shot back.
ii) It's really just an educated guess on my part, but one that comes with experience. Since your goal isn't truly to ignore me, but rather to make a public statement about me by pointing out that you're using the ignore list (see (B)(i) above) I have little doubt that you click on the little link that lets you see my post. Especially since you know that I'm insulting you and pointing out that you're just being a little bit of a cunt. So, if your goal is to truly ignore me, adding me to the list just means you have to take an extra step to read the post that you were going to read anyway, and, by doing so, are blatantly contradicting your public sentiments.
Now, back to my original point, which is that if someone decides to express a point such as Jenesis's, which in and of itself is hypocritical and insulting, they have pretty much given up their right to complain, and, by proxy, your right to complain on their behalf, when someone calls them on it, and insults them in exactly the same manner. In fact, due to the patent stupidity inherent in his post, which is ridiculous on its very face, he
deserves any disapprobation or degradation sent in his direction.
As do you, as his fucking knight in shining armor, you big giant cumstain.
CyberFish on 19/9/2006 at 19:35
Wait, so how does this relate to Papal Infallibility? He can't admit to being wrong, because when it comes to religious matters he's <i>incapable of being wrong</i> according to the Catholics.
Either that or I've misunderstood something.
Paz on 19/9/2006 at 19:40
<strike>A wizard did it.</strike>
It's all part of God's plan.
d0om on 19/9/2006 at 19:46
The pope is only infallible when he talks "ex cathedra" literally, "out of his chair."
He has to specially specify he is doing so, or it doesn't count. This is based on the unbroken line of Popes dating back to St Paul, so the authority of Paul is bestowed upon his successor etc.
I don't know what would happen if the pope were to say ex cathedra that he wasn't infallble. Maybe the world would asplode.
CyberFish on 19/9/2006 at 20:51
Well, since omnipotence must by definition include the ability to relinquish that power, the same thing probably applies for infallibility. If he says he no longer has infallibility, it will be so. Not sure if it would apply to every Pope after him, though.
Jenesis on 19/9/2006 at 22:27
On the question of the depth of Jesus' sacrifice: much as we use the word 'pride' to represent two different concepts for which other languages such as French have two separate words, there are two types of sacrifice. For the question of 'what did Jesus give up that made his sacrifice a big one', people have already mentioned that he knew he'd rise from the dead again, and so on, so what's the big deal? The way to think of Jesus' sacrifice is in the more literal sense - one creature being killed in place of another. The concept of a guilt sacrifice in the OT is straightforward: you have sinned, and hence deserve death, but you are sacrificing this creature instead, which dies in your place. It's the same with Jesus - he died in our place. Because he was divine, he was perfect and sinless, and so could take our burden of sin upon himself, rather than being punished for his own sin. In this way, the sin which God in his goodness and perfection could not ignore is dealt with. What makes Jesus' sacrifice big and significant is what it achieved. It is because 'sacrifice' is meant in this sense that Jesus is often pictured as a sacrificial lamb.
Indeed, it is clear in the context of the New Testament that the sacrifices of the OT did not themselves take away sin. Rather, the sacrifices were pointing forwards to the death of Jesus that was to come, on which basis God forgave sins in the same way as he does now. The necessity of repentance is also clear in the OT - it's not the sacrifices themselves that prompt forgiveness, but the turning from sin.
RBJ - A metaphorical middle finger? Vaughan Roberts wasn't standing on a box shouting 'You're all going to Hell!' He was there to communicate with people, not antagonise them. Evangelism is only evangelism if people are actually listening. I don't know the precise reason he chose that spot (which wasn't right outside the mosque, as I recall, just nearby) - I only heard him mention the episode when he came to speak at a Cambridge Christian Union meeting - but if you want to reach a large number of non-Christians it's an obvious place to stand. It may well have been a major thoroughfare for shoppers as well or something.
Jesus really wasn't keen on hypocrites, and I have no desire to be one. You've accused me of hypocrisy, and I'd be grateful if you'd elaborate.
Printer's Devil on 19/9/2006 at 22:39
Dude, the guy's a lawyer. He'll elaborate for pages and pages.
