I'm on the verge of banishment at RR

[Flaherty]

I have been participating in RR discussions for about 3 weeks now without much incident. But now I have run into an administrator with a bee in her bonet.

In a Bible code thread (http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1425162#post1425162), user 2scoops began by asking for opinions on the veracity of the idea. Several users said they were bogus. One even cited CSICOP articles to support her position.

I responded to "FTM" who said he doubted any secular book could yield something similar to the Bible codes. Naturally, I responded by linking to the Moby Dick (http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html) page.

Then Christine, an administrator, said my comments were not appropriate to that forum; they should be moved elsewhere. This baffled me since equally skeptical posts had already been made, yet no objection to those posts was indicated.

[Flaherty]

It appears that after exposing the arbitrary absurdity of their policy, RR has now changed my status to a "read only" user.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Flaherty
Then Christine, an administrator, said my comments were not appropriate to that forum; they should be moved elsewhere.

You have been tagged as a non-sharer-of-their-faith, so now you are supposed to post exclusively in the Apologetics forum, which is presumably somewhere on their website.

Originally posted by Flaherty
This baffled me since equally skeptical posts had already been made, yet no objection to those posts was indicated.
Well, Catholics can tell Pope jokes to each other, but they probably don't like to hear them coming from non-Catholics. It's the same kind of thing over there.

That's what you get for playing it straight. You could have posed as an over-the-top Christian. Then they would never have known for certain whether you were a strong supporter or a clever critic.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

They just love to exercise control over the heathens, don't they?

~~ Paul

[The idea]

I found the following at Rapture-Ready:


As far as non-Christians posting here? We welcome you with open arms. Feel free to open any topic you like to discuss, challenge and even debate whatever is on your mind. The one thing that we ask is that you do respect that this is a Christian message board, and being such, we will not tolerate Michael Drosnin being mocked here. The board is at your disposal, so post away, but that is one line that cannot be crossed.

Actually, I made one change to the original text, but everything should be much clearer this way.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Flaherty
It appears that after exposing the arbitrary absurdity of their policy, RR has now changed my status to a "read only" user.

Hmmm, I read through the thread and seems to me after repeated requests to bring it to Apologetics you still didn't get it.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
They just love to exercise control over the heathens, don't they?

~~ Paul

Since it is a private boards with rules, why not?

[frisian]

Originally posted by The idea
I found the following at Rapture-Ready:


Actually, I made one change to the original text, but everything should be much clearer this way.

:D

That is comical, although not accurate.

[frisian]

Originally posted by The idea

You have been tagged as a non-sharer-of-their-faith, so now you are supposed to post exclusively in the Apologetics forum, which is presumably somewhere on their website.


Well, Catholics can tell Pope jokes to each other, but they probably don't like to hear them coming from non-Catholics. It's the same kind of thing over there.

That's what you get for playing it straight. You could have posed as an over-the-top Christian. Then they would never have known for certain whether you were a strong supporter or a clever critic. [/B]

Get for playing it straight?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Flaherty
I responded to "FTM" who said he doubted any secular book could yield something similar to the Bible codes. Naturally, I responded by linking to the Moby Dick (http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html) page.

I remember another poster who was banned on the same topic of Michael Drosnin, Moby Dick etc. That was however in the Apologetics.

[shrugs]

Wusses

[frisian]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth


I remember another poster who was banned on the same topic of Michael Drosnin, Moby Dick etc. That was however in the Apologetics.

[shrugs]

Wusses

Really? Who? I don't recall that. If indeed THAT is true. I would like to see that and bitch about it.

Oh an hey Ems.

:D

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by frisian


Since it is a private boards with rules, why not?

Of course they may, but that doesn't reflect too well on their philosophy

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by frisian


Really? Who? I don't recall that. If indeed THAT is true. I would like to see that and bitch about it.

Oh an hey Ems.

:D

Oh, hey Frisian.

Here's sth to bitch about (http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119308&perpage=50&pagenumber=2) :D

[frisian]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth


Of course they may, but that doesn't reflect too well on their philosophy

Which philosophy?:p

They are not even mainstream Christianity over there... ya' know.

Seriously though, which philosophy?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by frisian


Which philosophy?:p

They are not even mainstream Christianity over there... ya' know.

Seriously though, which philosophy?

Dunno how to put it

perhaps zealous non-mainstream Christian

Edited to add:

Take that tongue in cheek. It doesn't matter what philosophy in particular it is, it can't be too good however

[frisian]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth


Oh, hey Frisian.

Here's sth to bitch about (http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119308&perpage=50&pagenumber=2) :D


Hmmm, I was part of that thread, yet didn't recall. I think Lyra had been warned via other issues previously, not certain though. I believe Sparklecat took a liking to Lyra's posts. Yeah that did seem rather sensitive to take merely that one post and decide someone was gone.

Of course I always am in agreement with board policies over there.

;)

[frisian]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth


Dunno how to put it

perhaps zealous non-mainstream Christian

Edited to add:

Take that tongue in cheek. It doesn't matter what philosophy in particular it is, it can't be too good however

Gotcha.

As you are perhaps aware I have battled the defining the rules thing over there before.

[The idea]

Originally posted by frisian
Get for playing it straight?
Get=Obtain outcome (attention from administrator)
For=As compensation for (For example, you use the word "for" that way if you say "this is what I get for all my hard work.")
Playing it straight=Directly saying what you believe

Some alternatives to playing it straight:
(1) Studying the stimulus-response behavior of other posters and posting messages to elicit some particular response or to reveal the more subtle aspects of the stimulus-response mechanism
(2) Posing as an over-the-top Christian
(3) Asking questions without yourself expressing any beliefs

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by frisian
As you are perhaps aware I have battled the defining the rules thing over there before.

No, not really. If it wasn't in Apologetics, it is very likely to have escaped me, because that is the forum I read mainly. I'm not a Christian after all, so what should I do in the other forums? ;)

Care to elaborate or point me in the right direction?

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by frisian


Hmmm, I read through the thread and seems to me after repeated requests to bring it to Apologetics you still didn't get it.

I refused to move my comments for 2 reasons:

1. Others had made identical comments and we not singled out. I refuse to be treated differently than others, period.

2. The rules state that non-believers are to put critiques of Christian faith in the Apologetics forum. Bible codes are not an article of Christian faith, therefore I had violated no rule.

[c4ts]

Wow. They actually warned you. They just banned me without saying anything.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth


No, not really. If it wasn't in Apologetics, it is very likely to have escaped me, because that is the forum I read mainly. I'm not a Christian after all, so what should I do in the other forums? ;)

Care to elaborate or point me in the right direction? Just remind them that Jesus liked to hang out with the sinners and publicans. ;)

Hmm ... Or maybe they were the "re-publicans?" :D

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by The idea

You have been tagged as a non-sharer-of-their-faith, so now you are supposed to post exclusively in the Apologetics forum, which is presumably somewhere on their website.[/B]

I noticed that at the same time I was banned, the Apologetics forum vanished. I thought somehow I was not able to view it because I had been banned, but if you can't then maybe it was taken down. Interesting. So, even if I had immediately complied I would have had no place to post. I hope they enjoy the power rush.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth


No, not really. If it wasn't in Apologetics, it is very likely to have escaped me, because that is the forum I read mainly. I'm not a Christian after all, so what should I do in the other forums? ;)

Care to elaborate or point me in the right direction?

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125159

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121199

[frisian]

Originally posted by The idea

Get=Obtain outcome (attention from administrator)
For=As compensation for (For example, you use the word "for" that way if you say "this is what I get for all my hard work.")
Playing it straight=Directly saying what you believe

Some alternatives to playing it straight:
(1) Studying the stimulus-response behavior of other posters and posting messages to elicit some particular response or to reveal the more subtle aspects of the stimulus-response mechanism
(2) Posing as an over-the-top Christian
(3) Asking questions without yourself expressing any beliefs

Roight. I understand definitions and interpretations of symbols, thanks.

How do you define integrity?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Flaherty


I noticed that at the same time I was banned, the Apologetics forum vanished. I thought somehow I was not able to view it because I had been banned, but if you can't then maybe it was taken down. Interesting. So, even if I had immediately complied I would have had no place to post. I hope they enjoy the power rush.

You didn't comply immediately, you desired to stomp your feet first.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Flaherty


I refused to move my comments for 2 reasons:

1. Others had made identical comments and we not singled out. I refuse to be treated differently than others, period.

2. The rules state that non-believers are to put critiques of Christian faith in the Apologetics forum. Bible codes are not an article of Christian faith, therefore I had violated no rule.

Where are articles explicitly defined on their site? Missed that.

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by frisian


Where are articles explicitly defined on their site? Missed that.

I don't know. The administrator quoted a section of it to me, saying, "We welcome the discussion of matters of our faith by those who do not share our faith, but ask that they remain in the Apologetics forum which was created for that purpose."

Since Bible codes are not an article of Christian faith, it seems reasonable to me to be able to discuss it outside the Apologetics forum, especially when others in the same thread were just as critical of it as I was and the thread's author openly solicited opinions of the Bible code idea.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by frisian
Hmmm, I was part of that thread, yet didn't recall. I think Lyra had been warned via other issues previously, not certain though. I believe Sparklecat took a liking to Lyra's posts. Yeah that did seem rather sensitive to take merely that one post and decide someone was gone.


I believe the administrators had been watching her for awhile. She didn't exactly make an attempt to get along with people there, but seemed nice to me all the same :)

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by frisian


http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125159

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121199

Thanks. I indeed realized these threads, but the second one (mock God) was some time ago and slipped my memory. I had already dipped a little bit into the first. But as the answer to your opening post only seems too clear and concise to me, I hadn't bothered to read the whole thing thoroughly. I didn't however realize that causing ohters to doubt has anything to do with board rules. And I feel like I am missing some preceeding incidents

[Kopji]

I might be able to get you skeptical RR visitors some discount prices on whips and chains for the self flagellations if ya like. :D

An interesting social study I'd like to read is the one on how many questions or answers it takes to identify a skeptic.

Just being able to spell is probably a dead giveaway. We need a reverse "coherent text" to "mis-spelling & bad grammar" program to convert a meaningful paragraph into partial gibberish.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Flaherty


I don't know. The administrator quoted a section of it to me, saying, "We welcome the discussion of matters of our faith by those who do not share our faith, but ask that they remain in the Apologetics forum which was created for that purpose."

Since Bible codes are not an article of Christian faith, it seems reasonable to me to be able to discuss it outside the Apologetics forum, especially when others in the same thread were just as critical of it as I was and the thread's author openly solicited opinions of the Bible code idea.

Point is, they then explained for whatever reason, that they disagreed with you, and that if you liked you were welcome back to attack the issue in Apologetics.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Kopji
We need a reverse "coherent text" to "mis-spelling & bad grammar" program to convert a meaningful paragraph into partial gibberish.

That's what Babelfish is for.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Kopji
An interesting social study I'd like to read is the one on how many questions or answers it takes to identify a skeptic.


Declarations are relatively easy ways to find out...

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat


I believe the administrators had been watching her for awhile. She didn't exactly make an attempt to get along with people there, but seemed nice to me all the same :)

That's correct. Figured you would recall better than I.

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat


Declarations are relatively easy ways to find out...

Perhaps one is looking for federal grant money to conduct a study?

You know, those ones that enlighten the masses?

[frisian]

Originally posted by c4ts
Wow. They actually warned you. They just banned me without saying anything.

They didn't say anything? Or you didn't say anything?

My candlelight vigil and hunger strike marches on.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by sparklecat


I believe the administrators had been watching her for awhile. She didn't exactly make an attempt to get along with people there, but seemed nice to me all the same :)

But ... you are simply ... disarming. :P

But she just seemed honest to me and when discussions tend to revolove around basically one topic, it's quite inevitable that it seems as if one side of the fence doesn't get get along with the other.

[The idea]

Originally posted by frisian
How do you define integrity?
Milgram's experiment was presented as a test of learning, not obedience. Was the study worth conducting? Would accurate results have been obtained if the experimental subjects had been told that it was a test of their obedience?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Kopji
I might be able to get you skeptical RR visitors some discount prices on whips and chains for the self flagellations if ya like. :D

Hmm ... just how discount exactly? Can you deliver large quantities? Does anybody know how to realize a simple and cheap online store?

[frisian]

Originally posted by The idea

Milgram's experiment was presented as a test of learning, not obedience. Was the study worth conducting? Would accurate results have been obtained if the experimental subjects had been told that it was a test of their obedience?

Haven't really considered it, how does it relate?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth


Hmm ... just how discount exactly? Can you deliver large quantities? Does anybody know how to realize a simple and cheap online store?


Being seen is the key, via search engines.

How much capital do you have to invest?

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth


But ... you are simply ... disarming. :P

But she just seemed honest to me and when discussions tend to revolove around basically one topic, it's quite inevitable that it seems as if one side of the fence doesn't get get along with the other.

*smiles*

I don't really like to talk about people when they're not around to defend themselves, but my impression was simply that she could have tried a bit harder to get along with others, particularily the mods. Survival if nothing else.

[Kopji]

Heh heh heh, torture device sales for religion site visitors would make a nice satire site.

The RR strategy seems patterned after Beliefnet.org, where there is a 'mix it up' area and one of non conflict. Except maybe, for the lack of a 'mix it up' forum on RR. :p

I have a bit of cynicism about hearing people are being ousted from a religion board, when a well posted policy of the supposedly evil JREF is that people are not tossed for their views.


"Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?" - Galatians 4:16

[frisian]

Originally posted by Kopji
I have a bit of cynicism about hearing people are being ousted from a religion board, when a well posted policy of the supposedly evil JREF is that people are not tossed for their views.


Really. So I can say anything?

[The idea]

Originally posted by frisian
Really. So I can say anything?
Are you asking about what range of ideas you are permitted to communicate or are you asking about the use of obscenities in formulating "ideas"?

[frisian]

Originally posted by The idea

Are you asking about what range of ideas you are permitted to communicate or are you asking about the use of obscenities in formulating "ideas"?

I was thinking of using obscenities within the range of my ideas. Why does that offend someone?

So if my view is better expressed using obscenities, I am not allowed to do so?

[The idea]

Originally posted by frisian
So if my view is better expressed using obscenities, I am not allowed to do so?
If your view is better expressed using obscenities, then it's probably not worth expressing.

[frisian]

Originally posted by The idea

If your view is better expressed using obscenities, then it's probably not worth expressing.

Worth? Language has values?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by frisian


I was thinking of using obscenities within the range of my ideas. Why does that offend someone?

So if my view is better expressed using obscenities, I am not allowed to do so?

You are allowed. In the case of some obscenities you should use f*cking asterisks, or similar *****, however.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth


You are allowed. In the case of some obscenities you should use f*cking asterisks, or similar *****, however. :D

[Kopji]

Yeah, just try to use an obscenity on a religious forum. An LDS missionary wrote a phrase something like 'mental copulation' on a forum and all hell broke loose. Fun to watch (munch munch).

My view on obscenities is that I should always try to write clearly and simply what I mean. An idea expressed accurately has an elegance that is lost by the addition of swearing.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Kopji
Yeah, just try to use an obscenity on a religious forum. An LDS missionary wrote a phrase something like 'mental copulation' on a forum and all hell broke loose. Fun to watch (munch munch).

My view on obscenities is that I should always try to write clearly and simply what I mean. An idea expressed accurately has an elegance that is lost by the addition of swearing.

Indeed that is your view.

Seems a matter of perception to me and rather relative.

[The idea]

Originally posted by frisian

------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The idea

Milgram's experiment was presented as a test of learning, not obedience. Was the study worth conducting? Would accurate results have been obtained if the experimental subjects had been told that it was a test of their obedience?
-------------------------------------------------------

Haven't really considered it, how does it relate?
If you review the discussion, you will see that you asked how I define integrity, but I didn't use the word "integrity", so perhaps you could explain how my definition of that word arises as an issue.

Do you believe one of the following?
(1) There is some general principle of integrity that mandates various kinds of behavior. That principle can be applied to various situations and there is a way to show that it does apply to behavior on the Rapture Ready forum and to show that my suggestion lacked integrity.

(2) Integrity is a specific concept that cannot be defined without mentioning the Rapture Ready forum.

The ball is now in your court. However, I am curious about your concept of integrity.

Suppose a Young Earth Creationist (henceforth to be known as "YEC#1") is teaching in a public school. If a student asks a question about the age of the Earth and YEC#1 wants to have integrity, then how should YEC#1 to respond?

(1) Never refer to the age of the Earth as such, but instead identify at least one group of people and speak of what they believe about the Earth's age.

(2) Refer to the age of the Earth, but don't give the standard age. Give your own personal belief as the truth.

(3) Refer to the age of the Earth and give the standard age, but ensure that you tell your students that you don't believe it.

(4) Refer to the age of the Earth and give the standard age without indicating your own beliefs.

(5) Other

[gnome]

Originally posted by The idea
Suppose a Young Earth Creationist (henceforth to be known as "YEC#1") is teaching in a public school. If a student asks a question about the age of the Earth and YEC#1 wants to have integrity, then how should YEC#1 to respond?

(1) Never refer to the age of the Earth as such, but instead identify at least one group of people and speak of what they believe about the Earth's age.

(2) Refer to the age of the Earth, but don't give the standard age. Give your own personal belief as the truth.

(3) Refer to the age of the Earth and give the standard age, but ensure that you tell your students that you don't believe it.

(4) Refer to the age of the Earth and give the standard age without indicating your own beliefs.

(5) Other

I would say it depends whether the hypothetical teacher is the student's SCIENCE teacher. If not, I imagine the teacher should be free to mention their own belief, as long as it didn't reach the level of interfering with the actual science teacher. They shouldn't fight intellectual wars with the students as pawns, is what I mean.

If the teacher is the student's science teacher... for integrity's sake they should stick with option 4 in their lessons, IMO, assuming they agreed to teach the curriculum before becoming the science teacher.

If they feel a need to teach a religious-scientific stance there are plenty of private schools they could seek a job at.

[frisian]

I would think that one with integrity would not alter their behavior related to how other perceive them or how they are treated by others.

For example, I post my views on a website, they explain where my views are allowed. I don't adhere to their rules and they ban me from partaking in the discussion. Therefore my lesson learned is that I should appear differently than I am in order to express my views.

Changing how you appear intentionally would be a lack of integrity to me. You are in essence saying I will bow down to your environment and "survival" has a greater value than honesty.

[frisian]

Of course integrity is relative. If one values survival on a message board more so than honesty, than it would be imperative if one is to have integrity to ensure your survival first and not let a worry of whether or not you are honest get in survival's way.

[The idea]

Originally posted by frisian
Changing how you appear intentionally would be a lack of integrity to me. You are in essence saying I will bow down to your environment and "survival" has a greater value than honesty.
Suppose I believe that the World Trade Center collapsed because of explosives that were planted in the building before the planes hit the towers. If I say that the planes caused the collapse, then am I being dishonest? If I present evidence that the planes caused the collapse, then am I being dishonest? If I refrain from mentioning my belief about the planted explosives, then am I being dishonest?

Originally posted by frisian
I would think that one with integrity would not alter their behavior related to how other perceive them or how they are treated by others.

For example, I post my views on a website, they explain where my views are allowed. I don't adhere to their rules and they ban me from partaking in the discussion. [...]
What if there is not a single set of rules that are applied without bias? What if administrators classify posters into at least two categories and apply rules that depend on which classification the poster falls into?

Suppose that there is a particular issue that has not been raised and one considers it worthwhile for people to tackle it. Suppose that if an outsider raises the issue then the issue will be ignored and the outsider will be banned. Suppose that if an insider raises the issue, then the issue will be tackled and the insider will not be banned. Why wouldn't one seek status as an insider?

[frisian]

Originally posted by The idea

Suppose I believe that the World Trade Center collapsed because of explosives that were planted in the building before the planes hit the towers. If I say that the planes caused the collapse, then am I being dishonest? If I present evidence that the planes caused the collapse, then am I being dishonest? If I refrain from mentioning my belief about the planted explosives, then am I being dishonest?


What if there is not a single set of rules that are applied without bias? What if administrators classify posters into at least two categories and apply rules that depend on which classification the poster falls into?

Suppose that there is a particular issue that has not been raised and one considers it worthwhile for people to tackle it. Suppose that if an outsider raises the issue then the issue will be ignored and the outsider will be banned. Suppose that if an insider raises the issue, then the issue will be tackled and the insider will not be banned. Why wouldn't one seek status as an insider?

Ok, not that I think it is sensical but this is how I see it there.

Apologetics is an area for non-believers and believers to interact and express views. Even there though non-believers views are under the rules of what the mods or admins have deemed acceptable.

Other areas of the board are called Christian chat, End times something or another... what they are doing in separating "areas" is attempting to shelter some people who want to merely share views with believers. I think some there think that a non-believer could have no insight into ANYTHING. I disagree with that, as I have understood "things", even biblical concepts better having someone critically "attack" my viewpoints and others viewpoints. Otherwise one can become complacent and too sheltered by some sort of group think which to me causes one to become critically dormant as if you have learned all you need to know and are only safe around those that share your views.

The funny thing (of many) is that there are a myriad of views on many issues there even within the Christian community. However there is a "feeling" of safety to them (or so I think) in having one thing in common to bond them, which is belief in Christ as their savior... how a non-believer citing a reference to Moby Dick and how that could be used the same way as Bible Codes tears apart a believer's "salvation" is beyond me.

What I do know is that it is a private forum, only needs to make sense to them. Take it or leave it, mock it or infiltrate it. Work within their rules or be banned.

[The idea]

You didn't actually answer the questions. Why not start with these?

Suppose I believe that the World Trade Center collapsed because of explosives that were planted in the building before the planes hit the towers. If I say that the planes caused the collapse, then am I being dishonest? If I present evidence that the planes caused the collapse, then am I being dishonest? If I refrain from mentioning my belief about the planted explosives, then am I being dishonest?

[frisian]

Originally posted by The idea
You didn't actually answer the questions. Why not start with these?

Suppose I believe that the World Trade Center collapsed because of explosives that were planted in the building before the planes hit the towers. If I say that the planes caused the collapse, then am I being dishonest? If I present evidence that the planes caused the collapse, then am I being dishonest? If I refrain from mentioning my belief about the planted explosives, then am I being dishonest?

Yes.

No.

No.

[The idea]

Suppose I believe that the World Trade Center collapsed because of explosives that were planted in the building before the planes hit the towers. If I say that the planes caused the collapse, then am I being dishonest?

You say "yes"--so even though what I would be saying would actually be true, you would accuse me of dishonesty for saying it?

[frisian]

Originally posted by The idea
Suppose I believe that the World Trade Center collapsed because of explosives that were planted in the building before the planes hit the towers. If I say that the planes caused the collapse, then am I being dishonest?

You say "yes"--so even though what I would be saying would actually be true, you would accuse me of dishonesty for saying it?

Yes. Because you believe one thing and state another.

[The idea]

Originally posted by frisian
Yes. Because you believe one thing and state another.
On the other hand, I know that I am not infallible. What if I say a particular person is innocent until proven guilty even though I believe that he is actually guilty?

[frisian]

Originally posted by The idea

On the other hand, I know that I am not infallible. What if I say a particular person is innocent until proven guilty even though I believe that he is actually guilty?

Without proof how would you determine his guilt? Or do you have proof of guilt, thus his/her innocence is no longer a viable assertion?

[The idea]

Originally posted by frisian
Without proof how would you determine his guilt?

I can believe that he is guilty without having proof.

Originally posted by frisian
Or do you have proof of guilt, thus his/her innocence is no longer a viable assertion?
Even if I were very familiar with the accused and had been an eye-ear-and-nose-witness, if I were considered by a court to lack credibility, then -- in the eyes of the court -- I would not have proof.

[frisian]

Originally posted by The idea

I can believe that he is guilty without having proof.


Even if I were very familiar with the accused and had been an eye-ear-and-nose-witness, if I were considered by a court to lack credibility, then -- in the eyes of the court -- I would not have proof.

How can you believe someone is guilty without having proof?


Just because you aren't deemed a credible witness does not mean you don't have proof, just means that it is not permitted in the scope of the case.

[The idea]

Originally posted by frisian
How can you believe someone is guilty without having proof?

Are you kidding? People believe all kinds of weird things.

You can find people who will respond to relatively simple mathematical problems with confident but incorrect answers. For example, here's a problem: I have one cup of wine and one cup of water, each in its own two-cup vessel. I take one tablespoon of wine from the vessel of wine and mix it into the vessel of water. Then I take a tablespoon of the mixture and pour it into the vessel of wine. Now, is there more wine in the water vessel or more water in the wine vessel?

People get firmly convinced of one answer--and the two most popular answers are both wrong.

[The idea]

On the other hand, a belief in someone's guilt is not necessary unfounded or unreasonable even though it might be false.

[frisian]

Originally posted by The idea

Are you kidding? People believe all kinds of weird things.

I am not kidding, people have all sorts of standards of what they define in their head as proof, thus belief.

[LizardPeople]

It has been my experiance so far that anything vaguely confrontational is shuffled off to apologetics. I've had one thread moved to apologetics and have been told to "take it to apologetics" in yet another thread. Sucking up to the mods seems to help quite a bit.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth


You are allowed. In the case of some obscenities you should use f*cking asterisks, or similar *****, however.

Just keep in mind that the rule against obscenities is not because they might offend someone, but because filter software will block websites that contain obscenities, thus making these forums unreadable to those who use filter software.

In order to keep the forum available to as many as possible, the monitors prohibit the use of obscenities. Modified obscenities like ***** and a$$ will pass.

[LizardPeople]

Made the mistake of trying to defend you and got told to "take it to apologetics". Good grief!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by LizardPeople
Made the mistake of trying to defend you and got told to "take it to apologetics". Good grief!

what is apologetics anyway, I don't see it anywhere.

[frisian]

Originally posted by RussDill


what is apologetics anyway, I don't see it anywhere.

You need to be a registered member in order to see it.

[frisian]

Originally posted by LizardPeople
Made the mistake of trying to defend you and got told to "take it to apologetics". Good grief!

:rolleyes:

[RussDill]

Originally posted by frisian


You need to be a registered member in order to see it.

ok, I registered (Psalms 139:22), I still don't see an apologetics board

[frisian]

Originally posted by RussDill


ok, I registered (Psalms 139:22), I still don't see an apologetics board

http://www.rr-bb.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=18

If you are "signed in" you should be able to see it with the link above.

If you just registered you have to wait for the authorization email and all that.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by frisian


http://www.rr-bb.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=18

If you are "signed in" you should be able to see it with the link above.

If you just registered you have to wait for the authorization email and all that.

I got the email, I'm logged in, I'm still not allowed to view that link

[frisian]

Originally posted by RussDill


I got the email, I'm logged in, I'm still not allowed to view that link

hmmm, that's weird.

http://www.rr-bb.com/index.php?s=

from the link above can you see the members only "portion"?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by frisian


hmmm, that's weird.

http://www.rr-bb.com/index.php?s=

from the link above can you see the members only "portion"?

nope, but at the top, it says "Welcome back, Psalms 139:22"

[LizardPeople]

Okay, now I'm gone too. What do we win?

[frisian]

Originally posted by LizardPeople
Okay, now I'm gone too. What do we win?

They used to give Kent Hovind DVD collections as parting gifts.

[LizardPeople]

Originally posted by frisian


They used to give Kent Hovind DVD collections as parting gifts.

Dang. I wanted a T-shirt, or at least some of that good soap they keep talking about.

[RussDill]

I like how all their solutions involve ignorance. Ban posters, close threads, don't read non-theistic books, etc.

[The idea]

quote:
--------------------------------------
Originally posted by The idea
Suppose I believe that the World Trade Center collapsed because of explosives that were planted in the building before the planes hit the towers. If I say that the planes caused the collapse, then am I being dishonest?

You say "yes"--so even though what I would be saying would actually be true, you would accuse me of dishonesty for saying it?
--------------------------------------
Originally posted by frisian
Yes. Because you believe one thing and state another.

Okay, suppose I believe that the World Trade Center collapsed because of explosives that were planted in the building before the planes hit the towers. There are some questions that I want someone to ask.

I go to the trouble and expense of hiring someone. I hire someone who tells me--and puts in writing-- a statement of beliefs. The statement says that my prospective employee believes that there were no planted explosives that caused the World Trade Center collapse. I pay for my employee to buy a commercial email address. My employee uses it to register at a bulletin board. Then my employee posts various messages, establishing his/her system of beliefs. Finally, my employee posts the questions and prints out the responses that are received.

Suppose that during the period of employment I meet a friend of my employee and keep in touch. After the contract ends, the friend tells me that the employee never actually had the required beliefs but actually believes as I believe: that the World Trade Center collapsed because of explosives planted in the building before the planes hit the towers.

Now, if I am to behave with integrity, what should I do? That is a serious question and I'm looking forward to a serious reply.

Should I register on the bulletin board, explain that the questions were asked as part of an employment contract, and issue a disclaimer letting people know that the person who posted the questions did not actually believe what he/she claimed to believe? On the other hand, how do I know that the friend of my former employee is telling the truth? Should I try to sue my former employee or get a court to determine what my employee's beliefs were at the time that the questions were posted?

[LizardPeople]

Originally posted by RussDill
I like how all their solutions involve ignorance. Ban posters, close threads, don't read non-theistic books, etc.

I like the three page topic where they can't figure out why they've been labeled intolerant by a couple of the net filters.

We're not intolerant!
There must be some mistake.
Not us! How are we intolerant?
Maybe it's the raging homophobia, etc...
Go away, you non-Christian nut! Who needs you!
Now... why do they think we're intolerant?
I can't figure it out. Can you?
I don't know. I just don't know...

Originally posted on Rapture Ready by Charity4Ever
This thread needs to be CLOSED.

I'm so proud! I was a Subdermal Irritant!

[Ralph]

Originally posted by RussDill


I got the email, I'm logged in, I'm still not allowed to view that link

It may take more time------they have to further activate your account or some such thing.

I've been posting over...trying very hard to be polite------and I was also "banished" to apologetics..............It doesn't take much.
You'll probably last about 5 minutes over there.

If this keeps up----they'll be nothing but heathens over there.

[TruthSeeker]

Shhh...don't tell anyone...but...I've been posting over there for months but only on the "we that struggle" board. I argue against things like spousal abuse, refusing to seek medical/psychiatric care in favour of prayer and telling one's family members and colleagues they are going to hell.

I don't have much real success but I like the idea that maybe I am planting one or two little seeds....

[frisian]

Originally posted by The idea
quote:
--------------------------------------
Originally posted by The idea
Suppose I believe that the World Trade Center collapsed because of explosives that were planted in the building before the planes hit the towers. If I say that the planes caused the collapse, then am I being dishonest?

You say "yes"--so even though what I would be saying would actually be true, you would accuse me of dishonesty for saying it?
--------------------------------------


Okay, suppose I believe that the World Trade Center collapsed because of explosives that were planted in the building before the planes hit the towers. There are some questions that I want someone to ask.

I go to the trouble and expense of hiring someone. I hire someone who tells me--and puts in writing-- a statement of beliefs. The statement says that my prospective employee believes that there were no planted explosives that caused the World Trade Center collapse. I pay for my employee to buy a commercial email address. My employee uses it to register at a bulletin board. Then my employee posts various messages, establishing his/her system of beliefs. Finally, my employee posts the questions and prints out the responses that are received.

Suppose that during the period of employment I meet a friend of my employee and keep in touch. After the contract ends, the friend tells me that the employee never actually had the required beliefs but actually believes as I believe: that the World Trade Center collapsed because of explosives planted in the building before the planes hit the towers.

Now, if I am to behave with integrity, what should I do? That is a serious question and I'm looking forward to a serious reply.

Should I register on the bulletin board, explain that the questions were asked as part of an employment contract, and issue a disclaimer letting people know that the person who posted the questions did not actually believe what he/she claimed to believe? On the other hand, how do I know that the friend of my former employee is telling the truth? Should I try to sue my former employee or get a court to determine what my employee's beliefs were at the time that the questions were posted?

Confront the friends together. Ask the former employee in front of the friend what his beliefs were while under contract. If the former employee asserts that they lied about their beliefs register on the bulletin board and explain.

[The idea]

Originally posted by frisian
Confront the friends together. Ask the former employee in front of the friend what his beliefs were while under contract. If the former employee asserts that they lied about their beliefs register on the bulletin board and explain.
Well, what if I didn't feel like registering on the bulletin board and explaining? After all, I would have already taken reasonable precautions. Furthermore, by looking at the posted messages, how can anyone distinguish between the wrong-thinking employee and an ideal employee? If I was perfectly satisfied with a job well done, why should I be concerned about hearsay concerning my former employee's beliefs?

[Soapy Sam]

It certainly is an interesting site.
Speaking of sites, we all know the most important factor in buying a house is location. Taking the phrase about "many mansions" at face value, RR present some chosen homes.
(I think the presenter is being a bit tongue in cheek here, but it's hard to tell.)

http://www.raptureme.com/photo/mansions/mansions.html

[RussDill]

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125498

religion, Psychology, and mythology oh my! Amazing the actual *fear* of learning new ideas. Imaging what would happen if he accidentally started thinking critically.

Edited to add: account still not activated, too bad, that kind of stuff would be fun to respond to.

[Ralph]

What the hell do these people do on halloween??

Lock their doors & draw down the shades so they won't be "corrupted" by 10 year olds wearing plastic masks......


I like Jacobs comment about "consider it to be information gathering--a good soldier knows his enemy".

Somebody becomes an "enemy" because they teach a mytholgy course!!!!!!!!!!!

They don't need God in their life as much as they need a little haloperidol............................

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by RussDill
[url]Edited to add: account still not activated, too bad, that kind of stuff would be fun to respond to.

It took four days for me and some people here who have registered were never activated.

And quite frankly, with that username of yours, I'd be rather surprised if you made it. :p

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth


It took four days for me and some people here who have registered were never activated.

And quite frankly, with that username of yours, I'd be rather surprised if you made it. :p

its the inspired word of god...Its not like I'm quoting the koran or anything. But, all kidding aside, they do seem to pick and choose from their book.

[GroundStrength]

I've been waiting for four weeks to be activated. I have sent three e-mails to the site admin address. Nothing back. My first username attempt was "Hunh?" no action at all for that one. My second is "DownTrodden", we'll see how it goes.

I really would like to post there I spent 22 years in the "Church of Christ" and would like to touch on some of the issues that led me out of the insanity.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by GroundStrength
I really would like to post there I spent 22 years in the "Church of Christ" and would like to touch on some of the issues that led me out of the insanity.

Really? I spent 20 years in "a" church of christ. They always wanted to make it clear that they weren't "the" church of christ, which is aparently an entirely different thing (organized vs unorganized)

[GroundStrength]

Originally posted by RussDill


Really? I spent 20 years in "a" church of christ. They always wanted to make it clear that they weren't "the" church of christ, which is aparently an entirely different thing (organized vs unorganized)

I was a member of a small "anti" congregation. Elders, deacons, multi-cupper, no kitchen or buses and NO giving the lord's money to orphanages.

Took me many years to get over the constant fear of going to hell. I must admit though, seeing people go down front and hearing their "SINS!!!!" was midly amusing on Sundays.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by GroundStrength

I was a member of a small "anti" congregation. Elders, deacons, multi-cupper, no kitchen or buses and NO giving the lord's money to orphanages.


Sounds about right, except add "no musical instruments"


Took me many years to get over the constant fear of going to hell. I must admit though, seeing people go down front and hearing their "SINS!!!!" was midly amusing on Sundays.

eh, never really bothered me, I grew up in it, never believed enough to get babtized, went off to college and at some point, had to answer whether or not I believed in god.

[BroodingSkill]

I thought I'd never say this but I feel sad for those people over there at RR. I was looking at the link that frisian posted and looked at their "We that Struggle" forum and was just shocked at their vision of the world.


The sticky on that forum explaining things to us well meaning non-christians who want to give them advice, almost says it all:

"We appreciate the non-Christians that come here and want to help. However, those approaching life from a secular angle do not have the experience or the ability to understand what it means to walk with Christ. Therefore, advice based on that approach is simply not helpful this forum. Please keep that in mind when posting here"

I find this rather offensive, but it's their board so, whatever...

I found a lot of posters there that complained about medical problems, attributed them to the devil. I mean lets not look at our medical problems as consequences of something else. :rolleyes:



Then there's this little gem:
"I need to take a World Religions Class, Forensic Psychology, and Greek and Roman Mythology this coming semester.

I feel like I'm going to be placing myself deep into satan's territory"

I mean learning new things and other viewpoints is not what I went to college for. sheesh!

One more thing...[in Jacky Chan Adventures, "Uncle" voice]


I'm well aware I'm not pointing out anything that the rest of you haven't already seen, but everytime someone here posts a link to there I can't help but look, and I come away astonished everytime.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Flaherty

1. Others had made identical comments and we not singled out. I refuse to be treated differently than others, period.


It amused me immensely that she had "Attack the argument, not the person" in her signature, which she clearly hadn't read...

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by BroodingSkill

"We appreciate the non-Christians that come here and want to help. However, those approaching life from a secular angle do not have the experience or the ability to understand what it means to walk with Christ. Therefore, advice based on that approach is simply not helpful this forum. Please keep that in mind when posting here"

I find this rather offensive, but it's their board so, whatever...

I found a lot of posters there that complained about medical problems, attributed them to the devil. I mean lets not look at our medical problems as consequences of something else. :rolleyes:






One of the things that work is to attribute or link common sense to Jesus. So instead of the standard "exercise and eat right", you have to say "Jesus always seemed to be walking places and was strong enough to cleanse the temple...he must have been fit and gotten lots of exercise. He asked us to imitate his actions as well as his words" [not a real example. don't want to blow my cover]

Stuff like that.

It's tricky but I'm naive enough to think it helps.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
One of the things that work is to attribute or link common sense to Jesus. So instead of the standard "exercise and eat right", you have to say "Jesus always seemed to be walking places and was strong enough to cleanse the temple...he must have been fit and gotten lots of exercise. He asked us to imitate his actions as well as his words" [not a real example. don't want to blow my cover]

Stuff like that.

It's tricky but I'm naive enough to think it helps.
You are a devil, TruthSeeker! (Which is good, very very good! :D )

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Yahweh

You are a devil, TruthSeeker! (Which is good, very very good! :D )


It's a sort-of-covert (or perverted) WWJD. I knew you'd appreciate it. ;)

[c4ts]

Originally posted by BroodingSkill

I'm well aware I'm not pointing out anything that the rest of you haven't already seen, but everytime someone here posts a link to there I can't help but look, and I come away astonished everytime.

You are too easily amused. Look, a blue car!

[darling]

Originally posted by RussDill
I got the email, I'm logged in, I'm still not allowed to view that link Probably because they did the smart thing and read this thread where you announced your intentions and username and gave your a one-way ticket to ban city.

It wouldn't be the first time someone from here have gone there under false pretences with the intention of causing trouble (even if you yourself weren't) so I don't really blame them at all.

[The idea]

Originally posted by budddyh
Probably because they did the smart thing and read this thread where you announced your intentions and username and gave your a one-way ticket to ban city.

It wouldn't be the first time someone from here have gone there under false pretences [...]
False pretenses (Law), false representations concerning
past or present facts and events, for one or more of the following purposes: (a) defrauding another; (b) causing another to think outside the Bible box.

[BroodingSkill]

c4ts said

"You are too easily amused. Look, a blue car!"


Yea me and Homer Simpson. Whoo Hoo! a birdy. ( runs and chases bird over the horizon):D

[BroodingSkill]

c4ts said

"You are too easily amused. Look, a blue car!"


Yea me and Homer Simpson. Whoo Hoo! a birdy. ( runs and chases bird over the horizon):D

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by The idea

False pretenses (Law), false representations concerning
past or present facts and events, for one or more of the following purposes: (a) defrauding another; (b) causing another to think outside the Bible box.

What other kinds of pretenses are there?