Aren't you guys quite the mature individuals posting things you KNOW are offensive to other board members??

[rolleyes]

Pubescence - some NEVER get past it.

[rolleyes]

Relax, G-man. You hit the nail on the head. Let it roll off yer backside.

[b]

Can't we all just get along?

Apparently NOT, Rodney.

[}:D]

Well... uptight Christians are why I fled from the 'kingdom' to begin with. They tend to take things (and themselves) way too serious.

Ever hear the joke about the Christian who laughed at a joke?

Me neither.

From a person who referred to a black man as a "jungle bunny" I think that you should get with your own program.

To paraphrase the one person [b]you[/b] respect:

“We’re not immature – We’re just PoliticalCorrectness-challenged.” [;)]

-Velveeta

Not that I support what BenDover posted, but I do find it ironic that someone who has proclaimed himself as politically incorrect---which is, by definition, someone who doesn't care if his words or beliefs offend others (and rightly so IMHO)---is now criticizing others for posting something offensive...

Feeding frenzy! Feeding frenzy!

Hey VelVEETa, if you only knew what G-man was describing...

You misundersatand.

Political incorrectness is admirable.

Intentionally posting stuff for its shock value with prior knowledge that it WILL offend, and that its only purpose is TO OFFEND, is NOT admirable.

I've been offended plenty in this forum, but by you and others who did so within the scope of a logical argument. That I welcome.

this childish attempt to just rag on people is nothing of the sort. As is their hijacking of ARlady's thread.

I would think even you would agree with this.

I would think so.

Explain.  I am not sure what exactly you are referring to. Everyone talks in half sentences and riddles anymore.

-Velveeta

Don't bother Wobblin. Its a waste of time.

I explained ad nauseum to Fake Cheese why I used the term.

he doesn't care. He just wants to beat on me. And like you advised, I just let the Fake Cheese roll of my back.

LOL!

Well, I do agree.  I think Ben's joke was in poor taste...and I also think your little aside that "I would think EVEN you would agree with this" is in poor taste, though in a different way.  
But I also think that some of your comments (not on this thread, but on some others) have been meant for purely shock value, not as some political statement.

“misunder[B]SATAN[/B]d”?  Well, well, well..I was not aware that those few links would turn you to the darkside so quickly.  We call that a Freudian slip.  

I disagree.  I am not sure why it would be more admirable or less admirable than any other opinion.  Being politically incorrect just for the sake of being politically incorrect is just stupid.

What do you think most “Politically incorrect” posts are made for?  

Yes, we must be politically correct.

No need to say it twice baby.

-Velveeta

I [size=6]SWEAR [/size=6] that was NOT intentional.

But thanks for pointing my faux pas out.

TOO FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!

[:D]

Mock ye not, lest ye be mocked, or some such notion.  "Golden rule" and all... I hear it's a cherished belief among some.

Where's that infernal "Myron" when you need him?  [:D]

Well that is another lie.  You TRIED to explain yes but you got caught up in more lies and looked foolish when you started to make fake accusations.  Then you deleted the thread to save what little dignity you feel you have.

-Velveeta

Vel,

The term "Jungle bunnies" refers to the group of black individuals between the ages of 18 and 25 that beat a lone white man. The reason? The white guy (age 23) had next game (basketball) and wouldn't give it up to the aforementioned black individuals.

I am no racist, but describing those people who did that as "jungle bunnies" is being kind. With the amount of blood I left on the court that day, I think I am "qualified to clarify" this for you.

Got MiLK?

Oh, please, PLEASE come call me a liar to my face. PLEASE.

Oh, that's right. You're just a keyboard commando that would ONLY dare do that anonymously, at hundreds of miles away.

[rolleyes]

I can define God very simply: a unique being of infinite power.  From that definition, we can deduce certain properties of God (i.e., he has the power to transcend time, space, logic and everything else).  But since God transcends logic, we can't reason our way to the answers to any other question about him (i.e., if he communicates with us, if he's going to destroy the world tomorrow, if he likes human sacrifices, etc.).  


If I disbelieve in God, then the details of his (non-)existence don't matter to me.

If I do believe in God, then I believe in the minimum set of properties (uniqueness and omnipotence) which define him.  To admit that I don't know anything else about God is illogical only in the sense of being pointless -- hence the need for additional leaps of faith to make theism worthwhile.

That was very well put AR-lady.  Kudos.  Planerench out.

[size=5][b]WWJD??[/b][/size=5]

Good enough definition - for you.  However, others may include more modifiers in their definition, ones that you may not think fit in your definition of God.  To each his own?


It's a minor disagreement about semantics I think.  If you say you [u]don't[/u] believe in "&%@#", I would need more definition/descriptions of what it is you don't believe.

The term "God" has certain connotations for some (maybe less for you) and more for others (they might include His intentions for us, too). Like I said, I think we're just differing on semantics here.

So the term “Jungle Bunnies” refers to a group of black individuals and is not racist?  Are you saying he would have called a bunch of white guys jungle bunnies?

Your blood has nothing to do with this conversation.  What does have something to do with this conversation is garandman is trying to throw his holier than thou attitude around when it has already been shown that he uses racist and offensive posts when he wants.
Of course if you noticed he “Politically Corrected” his mistake. [;)]

Well yes, oddly I do. [;)]

-Velveeta

Well you DID lie. That is a fact.  I am not sure if you are trying to threaten me, but I am not impressed if you are.  Of course yet again it seems very un-Christian.  [;)]

The same could be said for you. [;)]

-Velveeta

Oh great!!
Not another "he's a liar" rant.  Did someone just clone Belloc? [%|]

Yes The_Macallan they may.  But The_Macallan you said that the additional definitions were NECESSARY not that others may include more modifiers.  Yes, some people may describe their God(s) in painstaking detail and others may have a more general ambiguous description.  I feel all fall into the definition posed by Renamed.  


-Velveeta

i was wondering about that too.  'cept i wasn't wondering if he was cloned, but if they were one and the same.  (said half in jest!)

i think the irony with belloc's posts was that he was obsessed with the actual act of lying.  not with correcting the information contained within the alleged lie.  poor fool, i guess he didn't realize that's why he looked so silly.  ("i don't care what somebody said about me, i just care that they lied and i want everybody else to know it too!)

okay, guys, since this is my thread, i politely ask you to keep it on topic.  if the topic's run its course, then let it fall back in the pages.  let's not turn it into the other thread (which by the way, i'm sort of ashamed for my behavior, stooping that low.  ) i'd like to avoid doing that again, and i'd like to avoid having that happen in my thread.

IF you wanna hurl names and insults (thinly veiled, of course) use the email functions or IM that GB gave us.  that's what they're there for.

I have corrected information.  I was called stupid for it by garandman even though I was right and could prove it.  He just abandoned the discussion and eventually deleted it.  I am not sure why people here protect him….is there something I should know?  Is he SLOW or something?  

But it is OK for YOU to call me names….[rolleyes]

-Velveeta

the point of this thread was not to claim that faith is a wonderful thing.  it was to bring to light the irony that those belittling or otherwise discrediting faith were also guilty of having a little bit of their own.



and who here said that faith was a substitute for logic?  is that what you think faith is?  no wonder you think so little of it.  faith supercedes logic.  faith is what is required when logic and rational thought cannot provide an explanation.  (let me add, that i personally think that faith and logic/rational thought are completely separate, belonging in two different realms.  it is impossible to use logic/rational thought to explain a supreme being.  and it is foolish to rely on faith alone to explain a scientific principle.)



baloney.  i think you're confusing faith with blind faith (willful ignorance).  the two aren't the same.



the answer to your question is FAITH.  that's it.  what part of that do people have the problem with.  no person is "so sure" of something, they have faith.  you're trying to explain a person's faith (believing they know the truth) with logic and rational thought.  you can't.  that's what defines faith.  when a person has no "scientific" reason for believing something, but does anyway.



oh, i forgot.  Christians are weak-minded, scared little people who feel a need to find some sort of justification for their puny little lives, is that it?  why do you people always resort to this line of questioning? it would be my educated guess that the majority of Christians do not believe based on fear, guilt, obligation, or even duty.  secondly, would you care to explain to me what else a person is supposed to base a belief system that involves a supreme being upon if not faith?  do you have something other than faith that can shed some light on the question?

in what way?  how much more honest can one be with oneself if he/she doesn't admit that there are going to be certain things beyond his/her comprehension and that, to believe them to be true (or untrue), is to have faith?



yeah, as a matter of fact, i have quite a few thoughts on the subject.  and, no, they are not simply my interpretations of anything anybody has every said, thought, wrote, explained before.

do you think that people of faith are mindless, incapable of thinking for themselves?



and every one of these things could have been negated in your little teenager head with just a little logic and rational thought.

i think you miss the point of the post.  but then again, so have a few others.

Jen.....you have opened yet ANOTHER...bottomless pit.........[argue]

first off, i don't give a shit about your little pissing match with garandman.  from the little i can glean about it, you're making a mountain out of a molehill, much like that little snot belloc was doing.  if you've got nothing better to do with your time than continually kick a dead horse, so be it.  but why is it that both belloc, and apparently you, are more obsessed with the fact that someone supposedly lied as opposed to the content of their lie?  neither one of you are really interested in the truth if all you're worried about is proving to the world that you're right and the other guy is wrong.

all i was asking is for the personal pissing matches to be taken elsewhere.




in my thread? hell yeah.  [;D]  in all seriousness, i didn't say you couldn't call anybody names.  i only ask that you do it elsehere.  i really don't want my thread to turn into some flamefest from a bunch of teenage-minded group of guys who don't have anything of substance to contribute.  i happen to like this topic and for the most part value what other people have to say about it.

what i don't what is the mindless drivel that constituted the last 4 pages of the other thread.  THAT i can do without.

by the way, where exactly did i call you a name?  and what was it?  i'm not denying i did it (though it's not something i regularly do around here, so i wonder about your accusation), but i do not remember having an exchange with you which ended up with me calling you a name(s).

I didn’t ask for Mr. High and mighty to come in and say something stupid.  I just pointed it out.  If you have a problem with something I said then please show me what it is.
Your thread?  First off just because you start a thread does not make it yours.  Yes you can delete it but it is a public forum.  Delete it if you like.  Take your ball and go home.  Call me some more names. But then afterwards ask yourself if you can control a conversation you start like you expect to control this one.  
I believe I contributed substance to this thread.

Nobody here makes you read anything.  

A few posts up you practically said I was Belloc and from the way it was said I guess it was not a compliment.  I am not here to ruin your thread but I like irony and hypocrites.  Something that seems to be in no shortage here.  

-Velveeta

first things first.  velveeta, nothing i said in the post comparing your compaint with lying to belloc's actions was meant to be offensive or disrespectful.  i just thought it was funny how you both seemed more concerned about the ACT of lying rather than the content of the lie itself.  no, i never seriously thought you were belloc.  most of your posts are coherent and pertinent.  i can't say the same for his.  as for it being my thread, yeah, i think i do have some ownership in it. and as an active participant in my own thread, feel i have every right to ask that certain behaviors be curbed.  



sorry.  but it sure sounded like you had a very low opinion of faith and the people who have it.



it was meant as an objective observation.  there was no ulterior motive behind it.  nor was there any attempt to influence others.  just wanted to point out the obvious (to me) irony that everybody's belief system, whether or not that includes a supreme being, is based on faith.  at the most basic level, faith that one is correct in one's belief system.  that's all.



not directly, but by saying that people who have faith stop thinking and do not use logic, common sense, or rational thought, you made it seem that you have little regard for people with faith.  i'm not sure how you meant it, if not that way.  i'm sorry if i mistook your meaning though.



oh, stop it.  i'm rebutting your points.  period.  it's not about winning or being ahead.  i fully expect you to rebut mine.  that's the nature of debate and discussion.  



ooooooh, [i]that[/i] stings. [rolleyes]  



i'd be curious to see what you come up with.  i've deliberately tried to avoid revealing my location relative to the fence (since in most cases, it didn't matter anyhow).  however, it doesn't really matter which side of the fence i'm on.  my views on this subject wouldn't change.



i'd be willing to continue this through email as well.  the board code will come with time, it's simple enough, but it's one of those things you kind of have to do before you really completely understand it.  or maybe that was just me.

What's the difference?

OK, I am sorry I misunderstood.  

Well actually I am concerned about both.  First I am concerned because this person has painted himself to be morally superior because he is Christian but frequently acts in what I find to be an immoral and non-Christian way. Just stating you are a Christian does not mean you are more moral or less moral than anyone else.  Secondly he  tried to tell me that the term “Jungle Bunny” was not a racist term.  He tried to tell me the person was not even black.  The problem is his friend had already stated that this individual was black.  The term “Jungle Bunny” is not used to refer to White people that I know of.  This brings up the point of why I mentioned it here.  He again tried to play the morally and intellectually superior victim by saying:


In response to a post that linked Jesus.com.   Of course you cannot find the thread where he posted his racist remarks because Mr. "I'm not abrasive - I'm just PoliticalCorrectness-challenged."
Politically corrected himself. Which of course I found amusing.[;)]
Do you consider the term "Jungle Bunny" racist?

You do have every right to ask that certain behaviors be curbed.  Just as you would have that right if it were not a thread initiated by you.  What I am saying is that you do not own the thread.  Can you “own” a conversation?  When you are speaking with a group of people do they always talk about what you want to talk about if you started the conversation?  Do you or they consider you the owner?  

-Velveeta

I think there is a difference.   Believing something you know is not true is willful ignorance.  Believing in something that fits in with you belief system is faith.  

Examples: If you say you can swim across the North Atlantic from New York to Norway and attempt it knowing there is no chance you will make it half a day that is willful ignorance.  

You say that God will do what is best. Your child gets in an awful accident and is in the hospital.  You know that your child can live if your child is given some medicine made from aborted fetuses, but you find this morally reprehensible and even find it to go against your religious beliefs.  So you refuse the treatment and pray to God to save your child.  That is faith.  You do not know if your child will live or die but you know that God will do what is best.  You trust your God.

I hope this is coherent.  I am not really that good at analogies.  

-Velveeta

VelVEETa, you asked me so I told you. Don't say my blood has nothing to do with this conversation.

Quoted:

"So the term “Jungle Bunnies” refers to a group of black individuals and is not racist? Are you saying he would have called a bunch of white guys jungle bunnies? Your blood has nothing to do with this conversation."

BTW Vel, if a group of white guys did this to me, I would probably say they were white trash, a bunch of assholes, a gaggle of zits on penises, or whatever.

Don't play the race card like that. It is insulting to everyone, not to mention people who either got the shit kicked out them over a basketball game or those who witnessed it.

BTW again, if we are so interested in truth, why did 12 other black people stand and watch three of their own nearly kill somebody (white or black)?

That's what I'd like to know.

OK, I think I see the distinction.

I don't know if it's possible to believe in something that you know is not true, but you could accept something and then refuse to consider the possibility that it might not be true.  That would be "blind faith".

exactly, and faith is what makes one say, "yeah, i know there are things that seem to contradict what i believe, and no, i don't have an explanation for that difference, but i still believe in....."  

This is a profound thought! The [s][i]something[/i][/s] is none other than the Creator of the very order and balance that you see.
My arguing with someone over the existence of God does nothing for either one of us...Except to get my blood pressure up!
It is kinda like arguing which gun is the best!
I prefer 1911's but others prefer other guns. Either would serve the purpose of self-defense and it would be just personal preference.

I can still agree with you about our "God given RKBA" and not agree with you on whether you T-bone steak and baked potatoes!

I don't have to agree with everything you believe or say but we can still be friends, countrymen (or countrywomen) and Americans!

BigDozer66

If somebody found rock-solid proof that there is no God, where's he hiding? I'd like to see the proof. Absent that, I would not characterize faith in God as a situation where "contrary to facts, this type of faith is willful ignorance."

No one can prove or disprove the existence of a Supreme Being. Faith simply means BELIEVING that there is one.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for , the evidence of things not seen.
Without faith it is impossible to please HIM for he that cometh to God must first believe that HE is, and that HE is a rewarder of them that dligently seek him. By faith Noah, being warned of God of things no seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house by the which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is b faith.
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he shold after receive for an inheritance, obyed; and he went out, not kowing whither he went. By faith he sojouned in the land of promise, as in a strange contry, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with hiim of the same promise. Hebrews 11.....these all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embeace them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
But now their desire is for a better country that is a heavenly country wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God

There are many kinds of faith...habitual faith...knowing the sun will most likely come up in the morning..because it always has
Faith in ones own strength...I have overcome therefore I shall again.. (the faith of young men who havent seen much lol)
The faith of the positive thinker...(If I think good thoughts they are as likely to come true as not therefore good thought thinking is more desireable than bad or defeatist thought thinking)
And faith that comes from outside of man...a gift of mercy from the creator of all life... the God of Isaac Abraham and Jacob
The faith of a Christian is that God became man and died in mans place ..took his punishment ..enabling man a way out of his sin and the consequences there of..the faith itself is a gift to those God chooses to give it to...this gift enables one to see ahead.. to see the future as its already is..waiting up ahead...
Without the "gift" of faith from God...one cannot see..and then the faith of the believer is simply foolishness to the unbeliever..who will never be convininced that the believer sees the truth..but is deceived..the un-believer may be liberal and believe that both are equally deceived or the un-beliver might simply believe the believer to be completely wrong..and as such have a kind of faith in his un-belief...
But then we get to the faith inspired by the evil one...who wishes to garner all souls unto himself in hell...whose suicidal journey from the fall to now to the fate that awaits him..wishes to inspire those who oppose God ..
The faith of the believer invites him to check out the promises of God and the history of believers who went before..its in the Bible..and either by the grace of God one believes that ...or one doesnt...but if one does...rest assured it is a gift of God himself to you...and the fact that He bothers with any of us...is mind boggling.. for He could so easily unmake us...in a heartbeat...our atoms non existant...the law of thermodynamics does not apply to the one who created that law as an artists tool for himself..we could easily be un-made as if we never had even existed..with no history nor evidence in the universe of our passing.. so why does He bother with us
Love...he loves us inspite of ourselves...he is loyal to us..inspite of our arrogance and enmity with him...he calls us to peace with him..to be reconcilled with Him..but this can only happen in the faith in the substitue death of His son Jesus Christ...and that very faith ..the faith the comes by hearing and hearing the word of God..is a gift...without faith it is impossible to please Him..without Christ ..it is impossible to be with Him in eternity..
As Russia comes into the middle east and China and Islam prepares for its final clash against God's people..its easy to comtemplate ones end..and ones future