TOTALLY GEEKED!

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

RE: Dear Abby: We Don't Approve of Cohabitating Daughter

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
You won't get a straight answer from her.
flan

MWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA
That's rich coming from you.

-- Edited by lilyofcourse on Friday 8th of May 2015 07:38:29 AM

Has she answered chille's question yet?

flan

chillepeppa · Regular

Tinydancer wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
I didn't say she was a Muslim. I am saying the only people I know who hold that particular belief are Muslims.
You didn't say she was but your compared her to. Do you get that that is a really bad insult to a Christian? Never mind, Christians don't deserve even the least courtesy because she's a Christian after all .
Mellow Momma compared OhFour's level of commitment to her faith to the level of commitment to their faith of the devout Muslims she knew. They also find being in the same room with the opposite sex without an chaperon inappropriate coincidentally. There is a difference between saying "someone is like X" and "someone is as faithful to their cause as X is to theirs".
But how does one separate what your perceive what MM said from your "deviants and weirdos" comments? How is one worse (or better) than the other?
BRAVO!
flan
Oh bull. If you're going to insult people at least admit what you're doing. The old "we're just trying to understand" excuse for doing it is lame too.
I don't understand. Is it the same or not?
You won't get a straight answer from her.
flan
Unlike you flan I am not afraid to answer a question. I just don't understand what question is being asked.

I'm just trying to understand (really) why it is acceptable for you to refer to deviants and weirdos but got highly offended at MM post about her only knowing Muslims who also avoided from being in the same room alone with someone of the opposite sex?

Tinydancer · Guru

The only ones who think following God's word means you're an obedient robot are those who don't follow his word.

Tinydancer · Guru

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
You won't get a straight answer from her.
flan

MWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA
That's rich coming from you.

-- Edited by lilyofcourse on Friday 8th of May 2015 07:38:29 AM
Has she answered chille's question yet?
flan

Again, one more time flan. What is the question? What she wrote makes no sense as a question so....

Tinydancer · Guru

chillepeppa wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
I didn't say she was a Muslim. I am saying the only people I know who hold that particular belief are Muslims.
You didn't say she was but your compared her to. Do you get that that is a really bad insult to a Christian? Never mind, Christians don't deserve even the least courtesy because she's a Christian after all .
Mellow Momma compared OhFour's level of commitment to her faith to the level of commitment to their faith of the devout Muslims she knew. They also find being in the same room with the opposite sex without an chaperon inappropriate coincidentally. There is a difference between saying "someone is like X" and "someone is as faithful to their cause as X is to theirs".
But how does one separate what your perceive what MM said from your "deviants and weirdos" comments? How is one worse (or better) than the other?
BRAVO!
flan
Oh bull. If you're going to insult people at least admit what you're doing. The old "we're just trying to understand" excuse for doing it is lame too.
I don't understand. Is it the same or not?
You won't get a straight answer from her.
flan
Unlike you flan I am not afraid to answer a question. I just don't understand what question is being asked.
I'm just trying to understand (really) why it is acceptable for you to refer to deviants and weirdos but got highly offended at MM post about her only knowing Muslims who also avoided from being in the same room alone with someone of the opposite sex?

I didn't call any one a deviant or a weirdo, I said if we were deviants or weirdos we'd get some sympathy but as we are Christians it's fine to ridicule and belittle. Trying to pretend I said something I didn't is just another example.

Tinydancer · Guru

See flan, that's how you answer a question. You should try it sometime...hahahahahahaha

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
But, Lily, why were we given the ability to reason if God wanted obedient robots?

(And I am NOT saying that this is what Christians are, I'm just posing a question, and thinking of how Jesus treated Thomas.)

flan

We have gone over this repeatedly.

Free will.

Even His Heavenly host have free will.

God wants you to choose to Him. Not be the robot.

chillepeppa · Regular

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Agnostic (courtesy of Google search): noun, a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Agnostics are interested in finding GOD too.

Well, according to this definition, if you believe nothing is known or can be known, then how is an agnostic "interested in finding God"? That doesn't make sense. If God cannot be known, then that is Impossible.
The "known" referred to here is scientifically, or empirically. As you said, that is impossible, BUT, level of acceptable proof is different for everyone.
People are known to accept dreams and even signs (and this could be anything) as evidence for anything supernatural ranging from deities all the way to aliens.
Agnostics aren't so much interested in finding a deity as they are willing to change their stance once evidence is presented.
You are changing the definition. Nothing IS known or CAN be KNOWN. That pretty much ends it. If you want to redefine the word, then that is a whole other discussion. So, that cannot be "agnostic" by definition.

When I used the word known, I was referring to the known in the sentence "God can be known". He cannot be known scientifically, can He?

Not sure how my post changed the definition at all. Care to clarify?

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

chillepeppa wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Agnostic (courtesy of Google search): noun, a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Agnostics are interested in finding GOD too.

Well, according to this definition, if you believe nothing is known or can be known, then how is an agnostic "interested in finding God"? That doesn't make sense. If God cannot be known, then that is Impossible.
The "known" referred to here is scientifically, or empirically. As you said, that is impossible, BUT, level of acceptable proof is different for everyone.
People are known to accept dreams and even signs (and this could be anything) as evidence for anything supernatural ranging from deities all the way to aliens.
Agnostics aren't so much interested in finding a deity as they are willing to change their stance once evidence is presented.
You are changing the definition. Nothing IS known or CAN be KNOWN. That pretty much ends it. If you want to redefine the word, then that is a whole other discussion. So, that cannot be "agnostic" by definition.
When I used the word known, I was referring to the known in the sentence "God can be known". He cannot be known scientifically, can He?
Not sure how my post changed the definition at all. Care to clarify?

That isn't what it says. It says God CANNOT be KNOWN. It doesn't specify the "knowing".

chillepeppa · Regular

Tinydancer wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
My Bible dictates my values. You make them up as you go along...
Can you explain how you got to this conclusion about me and my values? Does the fact that I disagree with you on religion tell you that much about my character? My values? How I treat other. Other than the "the book" comment, have I shown any disrespect toward anyone here?
The way you disregard our values as from "just a book". The way you have more sympathy for deviants and weirdos than you do some poor little couple running a bakery who don't want to compromise their values (because they are not your values). The way you have sympathy for everyone but the people who are just trying to do what they think is right. All of those show me where your values come. from

I'm sorry Tinydancer if I misunderstood your meaning, but I just reread the bolded, and it still means what I thought it did before your clarification.

chillepeppa · Regular

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Agnostic (courtesy of Google search): noun, a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Agnostics are interested in finding GOD too.

Well, according to this definition, if you believe nothing is known or can be known, then how is an agnostic "interested in finding God"? That doesn't make sense. If God cannot be known, then that is Impossible.
The "known" referred to here is scientifically, or empirically. As you said, that is impossible, BUT, level of acceptable proof is different for everyone.
People are known to accept dreams and even signs (and this could be anything) as evidence for anything supernatural ranging from deities all the way to aliens.
Agnostics aren't so much interested in finding a deity as they are willing to change their stance once evidence is presented.
You are changing the definition. Nothing IS known or CAN be KNOWN. That pretty much ends it. If you want to redefine the word, then that is a whole other discussion. So, that cannot be "agnostic" by definition.
When I used the word known, I was referring to the known in the sentence "God can be known". He cannot be known scientifically, can He?
Not sure how my post changed the definition at all. Care to clarify?
That isn't what it says. It says God CANNOT be KNOWN. It doesn't specify the "knowing".

Ok, maybe I represented myself wrong here. Apologies for that.

I was just trying to clarify why your were right when you said the "Agnostics are interested in finding GOD too" is inaccurate. Their stance is that knowing is impossible. Maybe my inference to the stance change is because all the agnostics I know is willing to commit one way or the other if presented with compelling evidence.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I disagree. Agnostics want to FULLY know God. God can be known. We "know" people to varying degrees. I know you. But, obviously I know my spouse to a much greater degree. God can be known. We can see the hand of God everywhere we look. We see the person of Jesus Christ. If you choose to know God, you can know Him. If not, then you can spend your life saying "I don't know enough". But, what they really mean is "I won't believe unless I can know God to the nth degree which is impossible". So, they really aren't seeking because the knowledge is already there.

Tinydancer · Guru

chillepeppa wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
My Bible dictates my values. You make them up as you go along...
Can you explain how you got to this conclusion about me and my values? Does the fact that I disagree with you on religion tell you that much about my character? My values? How I treat other. Other than the "the book" comment, have I shown any disrespect toward anyone here?
The way you disregard our values as from "just a book". The way you have more sympathy for deviants and weirdos than you do some poor little couple running a bakery who don't want to compromise their values (because they are not your values). The way you have sympathy for everyone but the people who are just trying to do what they think is right. All of those show me where your values come. from
I'm sorry Tinydancer if I misunderstood your meaning, but I just reread the bolded, and it still means what I thought it did before your clarification.

My meaning was very clear. You would have more sympathy for deviants and weirdos than for Ohfour because her values are not your values. I've seen the sympathy for people who deviate from accepted behavior but the contempt shown because Ohfour is doing what she thinks is right is just mind boggling.

Tinydancer · Guru

chillepeppa wrote:
Oh, yeah, the book. Right...

So then this was not a jab at me because I believe in the Bible. Yes you have values but you make them up. They are not from God so they are flawed.

chillepeppa · Regular

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
I disagree. Agnostics want to FULLY know God. God can be known. We "know" people to varying degrees. I know you. But, obviously I know my spouse to a much greater degree. God can be known. We can see the hand of God everywhere we look. We see the person of Jesus Christ. If you choose to know God, you can know Him. If not, then you can spend your life saying "I don't know enough". But, what they really mean is "I won't believe unless I can know God to the nth degree which is impossible". So, they really aren't seeking because the knowledge is already there.

The bolded, that is up for each and every one of them to decide. A blanket statement like that is not applicable to everyone. I know I have no interest as are most if not all of my agnostic and atheist friends and quintessences.

As for knowledge, that can mean a lot of things. For me, I guess I would go with the more practical meaning of the word.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

You will never fully know anything. So, we can either spend our lives sitting on the fence or live our lives going forward.

chillepeppa · Regular

Tinydancer wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
My Bible dictates my values. You make them up as you go along...
Can you explain how you got to this conclusion about me and my values? Does the fact that I disagree with you on religion tell you that much about my character? My values? How I treat other. Other than the "the book" comment, have I shown any disrespect toward anyone here?
The way you disregard our values as from "just a book". The way you have more sympathy for deviants and weirdos than you do some poor little couple running a bakery who don't want to compromise their values (because they are not your values). The way you have sympathy for everyone but the people who are just trying to do what they think is right. All of those show me where your values come. from
I'm sorry Tinydancer if I misunderstood your meaning, but I just reread the bolded, and it still means what I thought it did before your clarification.
My meaning was very clear. You would have more sympathy for deviants and weirdos than for Ohfour because her values are not your values. I've seen the sympathy for people who deviate from accepted behavior but the contempt shown because Ohfour is doing what she thinks is right is just mind boggling.

Can you please clarify where I had this apparent misplaced sympathy? And also how I once denounced OhFour's values.

chillepeppa · Regular

Tinydancer wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Oh, yeah, the book. Right...
So then this was not a jab at me because I believe in the Bible. Yes you have values but you make them up. They are not from God so they are flawed.

It was not aimed at you, but could be deemed disrepectful, dependent on the side of the fence you are, and I owned up to it ages ago.

I also fail to see why I need to have any gods in my life to be able to know right from wrong. I have found that I manage fine so far.

chillepeppa · Regular

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
You will never fully know anything. So, we can either spend our lives sitting on the fence or live our lives going forward.

Sitting on the fence? I don't understand.

Dona Worry Be Happy · Vette's SS!!

So it us okay for the Christians to openly mock the rest of us as having no values, values based on nothing etc. Oh, and the snide comments about my relationship are apparently okay too.
But ANY criticism of a Christian is 'Christian bashing' and soooooo meeaaaan!
Right.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I guess I am saying that none of us will ever KNOW God fully. Nobody will. You will never even know your spouse fully. But, still you can make a choice to love your spouse and not say "well I can't love you until I fully know you".

chillepeppa · Regular

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
I guess I am saying that none of us will ever KNOW God fully. Nobody will. You will never even know your spouse fully. But, still you can make a choice to love your spouse and not say "well I can't love you until I fully know you".

That is true about not knowing someone fully, but for some, myself included, real people are just a bit more... real. Don't get me wrong, if it works for you, or anyone else, have at it. Just be sure that resistance is certain if you try to include me in that relationship, specially after my stance on the matter is known. We can talk about it, but there is no "we" in that.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

chillepeppa wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
I guess I am saying that none of us will ever KNOW God fully. Nobody will. You will never even know your spouse fully. But, still you can make a choice to love your spouse and not say "well I can't love you until I fully know you".
That is true about not knowing someone fully, but for some, myself included, real people are just a bit more... real. Don't get me wrong, if it works for you, or anyone else, have at it. Just be sure that resistance is certain if you try to include me in that relationship, specially after my stance on the matter is known. We can talk about it, but there is no "we" in that.

Huh?

chillepeppa · Regular

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
I guess I am saying that none of us will ever KNOW God fully. Nobody will. You will never even know your spouse fully. But, still you can make a choice to love your spouse and not say "well I can't love you until I fully know you".
That is true about not knowing someone fully, but for some, myself included, real people are just a bit more... real. Don't get me wrong, if it works for you, or anyone else, have at it. Just be sure that resistance is certain if you try to include me in that relationship, specially after my stance on the matter is known. We can talk about it, but there is no "we" in that.
Huh?

Boils down to not believing in deities does not mean I am looking for one.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

chillepeppa wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
I guess I am saying that none of us will ever KNOW God fully. Nobody will. You will never even know your spouse fully. But, still you can make a choice to love your spouse and not say "well I can't love you until I fully know you".
That is true about not knowing someone fully, but for some, myself included, real people are just a bit more... real. Don't get me wrong, if it works for you, or anyone else, have at it. Just be sure that resistance is certain if you try to include me in that relationship, specially after my stance on the matter is known. We can talk about it, but there is no "we" in that.
Huh?
Boils down to not believing in deities does not mean I am looking for one.

Um, I am not the one who said Agnostics are seeking God. Hello. hmm

chillepeppa · Regular

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
I guess I am saying that none of us will ever KNOW God fully. Nobody will. You will never even know your spouse fully. But, still you can make a choice to love your spouse and not say "well I can't love you until I fully know you".
That is true about not knowing someone fully, but for some, myself included, real people are just a bit more... real. Don't get me wrong, if it works for you, or anyone else, have at it. Just be sure that resistance is certain if you try to include me in that relationship, specially after my stance on the matter is known. We can talk about it, but there is no "we" in that.
Huh?
Boils down to not believing in deities does not mean I am looking for one.
Um, I am not the one who said Agnostics are seeking God. Hello.

I know...

Nevermind...

Mary Zombie · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Mary Zombie wrote:
Well said NJN.
Thanks Mary! You should hang out here more often! Hey, want to come on the next girls night out DN and I have?

that would be fun!

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
So it us okay for the Christians to openly mock the rest of us as having no values, values based on nothing etc. Oh, and the snide comments about my relationship are apparently okay too.
But ANY criticism of a Christian is 'Christian bashing' and soooooo meeaaaan!
Right.

Preach it!

flan

huskerbb · Guru

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
So it us okay for the Christians to openly mock the rest of us as having no values, values based on nothing etc. Oh, and the snide comments about my relationship are apparently okay too.
But ANY criticism of a Christian is 'Christian bashing' and soooooo meeaaaan!
Right.

I, for one can recognize that not everyone will have the same values that I do. I can disagree with them without shunning them or refusing to interact with them--but then, I'm a more modest and open minded person than some.