Christian Discussion Thread II

[Madredia]

I've told you twice now, stop cropping my arguments out of my quotes. It's against the rules.

No, it really isn't. There's no rule which requires me to respond to more of your post than I choose to.
But, feel free to report me if you think I'm breaking the rules.

You seem to be going to extreme lengths to avoid the fact that as we've both stated and argued for, the discussion of faith by students is not unconstitutional, and is in fact, guaranteed by the constitution.

[Dyakovo]

Actually, it is. Freedom from religion is an integral part of freedom of religion.

No, it's not. Freedom of Religion protects you from State and the State only, it doesn't protect you from individuals, who don't represent the state, from bombarding you with their own religion.

1: Yes it is.
2: I never said it did.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I've told you twice now, stop cropping my arguments out of my quotes. It's against the rules.

No, it really isn't. There's no rule which requires me to respond to more of your post than I choose to.
But, feel free to report me if you think I'm breaking the rules.

I prefer only to involve Mods if I have to. I think we can be civil.
From the Rules thread:
Quote Editing: Changing what someone said in a quotation without indicating that a change has been made, especially when it casts the person in a bad light and changes his or her meaning will be treated as flamebaiting or, if appropriate, trolling. The tradition here is to indicate the ORIGINAL words changed by reproducing them and using the strike tags and adding the changes in blue or some other color -- so that the original context is clearly visible. The tradition is also to add the word "fixed" to the post. Note that doing this in such a way as to make us thing you're trying to annoy someone may well end in moderation getting involved.


It's not that you're only responding to part, you're editing out my supporting arguments which are pertinent.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No, it's not. Freedom of Religion protects you from State and the State only, it doesn't protect you from individuals, who don't represent the state, from bombarding you with their own religion.

1: Yes it is.
2: I never said it did.

You keep saying yes it is but offer no substantive argument.

[Madredia]

No, it's not. Freedom of Religion protects you from State and the State only, it doesn't protect you from individuals, who don't represent the state, from bombarding you with their own religion.

1: Yes it is.
2: I never said it did.

Your 1 and 2 contradict each other. What exactly are you saying because you're making absolutely no sense. We've just proved that freedom from religion or religious influence is not a constitutional right, and you respond by saying "Yes it is." with no argument whatsoever?

[Dyakovo]

No, it really isn't. There's no rule which requires me to respond to more of your post than I choose to.
But, feel free to report me if you think I'm breaking the rules.

I prefer only to involve Mods if I have to. I think we can be civil.
From the Rules thread:
Quote Editing: Changing what someone said in a quotation without indicating that a change has been made, especially when it casts the person in a bad light and changes his or her meaning will be treated as flamebaiting or, if appropriate, trolling. The tradition here is to indicate the ORIGINAL words changed by reproducing them and using the strike tags and adding the changes in blue or some other color -- so that the original context is clearly visible. The tradition is also to add the word "fixed" to the post. Note that doing this in such a way as to make us thing you're trying to annoy someone may well end in moderation getting involved.


It's not that you're only responding to part, you're editing out my supporting arguments which are pertinent.

I'm well aware of the rules. I disagree that the parts I'm snipping are relevant.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I prefer only to involve Mods if I have to. I think we can be civil.
From the Rules thread:
Quote Editing: Changing what someone said in a quotation without indicating that a change has been made, especially when it casts the person in a bad light and changes his or her meaning will be treated as flamebaiting or, if appropriate, trolling. The tradition here is to indicate the ORIGINAL words changed by reproducing them and using the strike tags and adding the changes in blue or some other color -- so that the original context is clearly visible. The tradition is also to add the word "fixed" to the post. Note that doing this in such a way as to make us thing you're trying to annoy someone may well end in moderation getting involved.


It's not that you're only responding to part, you're editing out my supporting arguments which are pertinent.

I'm well aware of the rules. I disagree that the parts I'm snipping are relevant.

I'm saying they are, and since my posts aren't walls of text, don't snip them, or at least indicate you have snipped.

[Dyakovo]

1: Yes it is.
2: I never said it did.

You keep saying yes it is but offer no substantive argument.

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstate ... omfrom.htm
Admittedly biased, but read through.

[Madredia]

You keep saying yes it is but offer no substantive argument.

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstate ... omfrom.htm
Admittedly biased, but read through.

Dude really? Your source is your own downfall. I read through and this is a quote directly from the link you posted.

"Freedom from religion does not mean, as some mistakenly seem to claim, being free from seeing religion in society. No one has the right not to see churches, religious expression, and other examples of religious belief in our nation — and those who advocate freedom of religion do not claim..."

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You keep saying yes it is but offer no substantive argument.

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstate ... omfrom.htm
Admittedly biased, but read through.

Actually, I thought that article was very middle of the road. But I'd argue all of what it claims to be "Freedom from Religion" is covered under the Free Exercise. what many proponents of FFR argue, is that they have a right to insulate themselves from Religion. You have advocated it by saying students should have their first amendment rights suppressed.

[Madredia]

You keep saying yes it is but offer no substantive argument.

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstate ... omfrom.htm
Admittedly biased, but read through.

What FFR would mean, sensibly, would be freedom from being made to observe religious practices. It DOES NOT mean freedom from seeing religious practices.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Anyway back to Christian Discussion. Enough Threadjack.

[Madredia]

Indeed. I take it you're a Christian Tarsonis?

[Vazdania]

Anyway back to Christian Discussion. Enough Threadjack.

What is your view on O________O Revelation! DUN DUN DUUUUUN!

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Anyway back to Christian Discussion. Enough Threadjack.

What is your view on O________O Revelation! DUN DUN DUUUUUN!

The world's gonna end, eventually, but I'm not gonna waste my time trying to "read the signs"

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Indeed. I take it you're a Christian Tarsonis?

I am. I'm a bit of a black sheep though, I was born Methodist, but wasn't really a fan. I was an atheist,looked at Wicca and Paganism. But through a series of Deductions and "Revelations," I became a Baptist, and have been for Ten Years. My journey though has colored me interestingly. I think I might investigate Catholicism. I'd look into Orthodox, but I can't give Distruzio the satisfaction.

[Madredia]

What is your view on O________O Revelation! DUN DUN DUUUUUN!

The world's gonna end, eventually, but I'm not gonna waste my time trying to "read the signs"

I agree, however John does write that whoever reads Revelation is blessed. Anyway. He that has ears let him hear I guess.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The world's gonna end, eventually, but I'm not gonna waste my time trying to "read the signs"

I agree, however John does write that whoever reads Revelation is blessed. Anyway. He that has ears let him hear I guess.

Oh I'm not saying don't read it, just Christ also said it is not for us to Know when it will happen, soooooo, I'll just wait and see.

[Vazdania]

Indeed. I take it you're a Christian Tarsonis?

I am. I'm a bit of a black sheep though, I was born Methodist, but wasn't really a fan. I was an atheist,looked at Wicca and Paganism. But through a series of Deductions and "Revelations," I became a Baptist, and have been for Ten Years. My journey though has colored me interestingly. I think I might investigate Catholicism. I'd look into Orthodox, but I can't give Distruzio the satisfaction.

BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I am. I'm a bit of a black sheep though, I was born Methodist, but wasn't really a fan. I was an atheist,looked at Wicca and Paganism. But through a series of Deductions and "Revelations," I became a Baptist, and have been for Ten Years. My journey though has colored me interestingly. I think I might investigate Catholicism. I'd look into Orthodox, but I can't give Distruzio the satisfaction.

BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

it wasn't that funny

[Vazdania]

BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

it wasn't that funny

underlined is hilarious to me

[Tarsonis Survivors]

it wasn't that funny

underlined is hilarious to me

nothing is undelined...

[Need a Name]

Sometimes I feel called to christianity, but I change religions a lot as of late. I don't know how to change it and it bothers me.

I was the exact same way for awhile; you feel called to Christianity most likely because you were raised in it (at least, that's the way it was for me), but if you're like me, you'll be an atheist rather soon. Not a single religion has any shred of evidence for it, so you should just deconvert altogether, you'll be better for it. Trust me.

Actually there's a ton for Christianity.

[Vazdania]

underlined is hilarious to me

nothing is undelined...

well I guess that didn't work.....

[Blasveck]

I was the exact same way for awhile; you feel called to Christianity most likely because you were raised in it (at least, that's the way it was for me), but if you're like me, you'll be an atheist rather soon. Not a single religion has any shred of evidence for it, so you should just deconvert altogether, you'll be better for it. Trust me.

Actually there's a ton for Christianity.

Here we go....