Nav…
Whatchoo got against David’s?   
OMG–you were an officer? Former-GSM2/E-5 SoulFrost ready for inspection, Sir! Nah…nevermind…I think that’s why I didn’t re-up in the first place.
-Da Udder David
Nav, brother, it is always a joy and blessing to read your posts. 
Maybe we should continue the “In the Grip of Grace” study here that kinda fell by the wayside in the LBBB? I’m half-joking, but only half
“7But all these things that might have helped me, I call them all nothing, because of Christ. 8Yes, I call them all nothing, because to know Christ Jesus my Lord is much better. It is for his sake that I have given them all up and call them just dirt.”
Phil. 3:6-8
tubadiva - re Lib: I think he meant with, rather than in, cars.
-re death threats to MBagnall: I’m obviously no fan of his, but that’s way over the line. Throw the book at the perpetrator - but only if it’s about as heavy as the Oxford Unabridged.
fuzzy - thanks!
Samurai - I have to second Baloo: part of the point of conversation is often understanding. In the “Why Pray?” thread, for instance, I don’t recollect that any views were changed, but Gaudere, Polycarp, several others, and myself wound up understanding each others’ beliefs (and objections) a lot better.
Sometimes a good conversation is what it takes to help one person learn that a person who disagrees with them is nonetheless a viable human being, rather than an infidel to be slain. This is a good thing, IMO.
The salty language? I’m from NY (Hi, Nish!) and immune to it.
Although all this jargon does bring back a memory of my first “curse word.” I was playin’ some game out in the street, and I got so furious at one of my friends [he was a WHOLE YEAR older}, and I was fuming!!!
“Ohhhh!!! You…You…[then a sudden flash of brilliance in the brain enabled me to call forth…]You…OBITUARY!!!”
I was quite pleased with myself for having pronounced to the world my new grown-up status, but simultaneously very confused as to why he was falling down laughing.
Well, now that we have the facts straight about acceptability v. non-acceptability on either of the boards, what are we debatin’?
Okay Sake Samurai – heave to and prepare to be boarded.
I was going to stay out of this, but yer characterization of Jesus as the bastard son of God revealed ignorance, hostility, arrogance, and naivete that is shocking even in the midst of this odd drama ye people insist on exacerbating. Would ye walk into a discussion of Shinto denying yer own birthright by way of being inflammatory?
Your attitude is even more arrogant, content-free, and totalitarian than that of those ye seek to take to task. Ye imply that the “blind beliefs and pontifications” of those ye disagree with are somehow beneath yer dignity, and thus should be kept in a pen where you can monitor them from afar. Ye call faith irrational and yet speak of inflated ego in the same sentence.
Now, I’m just about as far away from adherence to any organized religion as a person can get, but I nonetheless challenge and delight in any intelligent theological or teleological argument that can be raised. I’ll hazard that I could hold my own in a serious debate of any doctrine ye’ve got at hand, from Krishna to Shang Ti to Augustine and back again.
All ‘religious’ discussions end up boiling down to making distinctions between the definition of good, the nature of evil, and the meaning of justice. There is not a thread on this board that does not, in its own way, either make or invite one of these judgments. To hold yerself somehow above or outside religion of any fashion is not only to ignore the underlying morality judgments that organized religions demand be made, but is also to make such judgments in the same breath.
In dismissing with a wave of yer hand you both self-deceive and self-negate, while forging yer arrogance into a religion of its own by simple declaration.
No intelligent person wants or needs to be preached at, as many here have correctly declared – but that dictum extends to the preaching of blanket condemnations based on nothing more than zestful intuition and political adherence. I would almost admire yer intuitive intellectual counter-skepticism if ye presented the first clue that ye were, for example, deliberately repudiating the Lutherian repudiation of philosophical theodicy. Instead ye jerk yer knee and suck yer thumb and stamp yer foot. This isn’t argument, it’s enforcement, which ye claim to be above.
You present no better argument than the one you condemn, and demand that your condemnation be taken on the faith that you are right and on the strength of yer declaration that others are therefore wrong. My four-year-old daughter makes stronger arguments in at least declaring that dessert is a form of food.
As I said, I have no religion, and personally believe in god not at all. I come from no particular ideological base and present no pre-determined agenda. But even an idiot child understands that some reasonable content presupposes the dualism of the early cosmologists, who found it to be a necessity in human affairs to separate the good from the bad.
The various forms, from religion to law, that this dualism has evolved into are topics of endless fascination and debate to billions of yer fellow humans, and it’s worth noting that nobody has yet erected a cathedral to atheism (the Pentagon aside). You need not believe in anything at all, but ye are not empowered to dismiss belief as a means of ending debate.
Dr. Watson.
“I do not pretend to know, where many ignorant men are sure – that is all agnosticism means.” -C. Darrow
Avast ye’self, C & R! I be battening down the hatches and fending ye off me vessel!
[Bastard Son comment] Are you telling me that Christian dogma does not hold that Jesus is the son of Mary (who was lawfully married to Joseph) by means of God’s impregnation EXACTLY like the dozens of lascivious Greek/Sumerian/Indian/etc Demigod births? Or are you just claiming that I presented the truth in an overly harsh light?
[The Irrational & Ego] I fail to see how what I’m saying is contradictory or how my statements have formed some new religion - please elaborate.
When I REALLY want to bang my head against a wall, nothing beats teleology! I’m in the
mood right now, so how’s about we debate how ethics and morality pertains to nihilism? There’s an arguement with a good resolution.
How about This one over here?
The rest of your post a bit odd to me, for I was not arguing anything. Had I wished to argue that this kind of debate is futile and that no one has ever changed their core faith based on discourse I would have quoted every single damn thread on this board and every other board where these matters have been discussed (or in real life, back to the greek sophists). In 99% of them, the discussion simply degenerates horribly into hollow quotations, insults and pity. That
1% remains civil (but still entrenched).
What I AM doing is sharing my opinion to see if others share it or have reasonable objections.
I thank you for your reasonable response.
Aside: I do not find duality to be universal OR the basis for all religions, please verify that this is what you’re saying
Hell is Other People.
TubaDiva wrote:
I see people are accepting this claim as gospel.
I will not believe it until I see it.
Where are these E-Mails? Can we see them? Do they exist?
Wally, I accept everything that TubaDiva says. She has not lied to me yet, so if she says that Baggins claims to have received such threats, I believe her. I also believe that she and the administration are taking appropriate actions in recards to these claims.
Good point, Wally. While I don’t think we need to see the emails ourselves (I’m willing to trust our admins and mods), it’s worth carefully reading Diva’s words:
He claims to have received death threats, and TubaDiva was awaiting copies.
In other words, no substantiation as of the time of Diva’s post. Given Mike Bagnall’s track record so far, I think skepticism on this score is warranted, until our admins have seen convincing proof of said threats.
Any news, TubaDiva?
Exactly. It was not TubaDiva I was doubting, but mbagnall’s claim.
That’s how I read you, Wally. Again, thanks for causing me to take a closer look at what she’d said. I’m kicking myself for not picking that up the first time around…must be one of them senior moments.
I missed it the first time around as well, Rufus.
I think they call it a brain fart.
I caught it. I just didn’t think it warranted mention.
Really.
Trust me.
Navigator when did you register? This will be fun NOW!
Ummm… GG, click on the little profile thingy… it says when I registered.
Peace.
† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13
Navigator, do you have a groupie?
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Yes, it SHOULD be fun with Navigator here.
See, he ain’t the type to spam the board, quote scripture without backing it up with his own interpretations, and better yet, swell with pride and conceit over how he’s right about everything and everyone else burns in a lake of fire.
Yes, it should be fun, because Navigator is the ONE LBMB member who did not close his mind, make judgments on his fellow posters, and in general act like an idiot.
'Gator, welcome aboard!
PS - Don’t let the name fool you. I’m not a bad guy. Really…
Yer pal,
Satan
Satan has returned! rejoice! Kill the fatted tofu and feast!
Seriously, welcome back.
I also agree with your assessment of our new friend Navigator. He is a well-read man who can answer a question or pose a thought-provoking question of his own. And he doesn’t have to torture a defenseless verse until it says what he wants it to say in order to make a point.
Just a quick thought on the fatted tofu, I got an email from some site (that will remain nameless) that said men who eat a diet with soy as their main source of protein have lower cholestrol levels.
Weeeellll… DUH! soy don’t got no Cholestrol, only animal products. Geeeessshh.
Oh, and I’m humbled by the comments, but can’t take all the credit, I have a helper.
Peace.
† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13
Satan said:
Yeah, but you still owe us a buck…