|
So...
May 17, 2019 11:59:54 GMT
Post by geode on May 17, 2019 11:59:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 17, 2019 5:38:43 GMT
So the likely Jewish author of this piece about Jews wishes to avoid calling them Jews?
"Homeless couple attacks synagogue worshippers in Buenos Aires"
My comment was meant for its specific circumstance that the same people, Clinton and Obama, were acknowledging one religion (Islam) but not the other (Christianity). So this example isn't the same. First, the author does call them Jews within the article even if they aren't mentioned in the title, and second, has the same author written a separate article about another religion being attacked in a similar circumstance but chose not to call them by their religion? If so, it would imply the author is refusing to acknowledge that specific religion because they are somehow okay with acknowledging others The example I gave is identical. In the case of Obama and Clinton their entire messages were tweets. In other places both have used "Christians" in referencing followers of Christ. But the usage appears not to even come from either of them, they simply were using the same term that the AP had used earlier, an article carried by several other media sites including the Washington Post. Unlike the right-wing conspiracy types trying to make a case for agitation over this, they simply were offering condolences with no political agenda.
|
|
|
So...
May 17, 2019 2:19:27 GMT
Post by geode on May 17, 2019 2:19:27 GMT
|
|
|
So...
May 16, 2019 20:15:53 GMT
Post by geode on May 16, 2019 20:15:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 16, 2019 16:07:41 GMT
Absolute dreck. One of the worst things ever made. When it came out I told a co-worker that I did not understand its appeal. She said that was because I was not a teenage boy. She had two teenage sons at the time.
|
|
|
So...
May 16, 2019 16:03:04 GMT
Post by geode on May 16, 2019 16:03:04 GMT
In honor of the lamest thread in the world...to be found elsewhere on this very page. link
|
|
|
So...
May 16, 2019 8:58:04 GMT
Post by geode on May 16, 2019 8:58:04 GMT
|
|
|
So...
May 15, 2019 15:53:44 GMT
Post by geode on May 15, 2019 15:53:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 14, 2019 17:04:11 GMT
One of the alli-time best baseball movies in my opinion. Here is a new article about the ending, and how it was accomplished. link
|
|
|
So...
May 14, 2019 11:06:34 GMT
Post by geode on May 14, 2019 11:06:34 GMT
|
|
|
So...
May 13, 2019 16:02:33 GMT
Post by geode on May 13, 2019 16:02:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 13, 2019 14:41:24 GMT
I can't find who said the quote. I think it is this guy....the Bishop of Tarnow.
|
|
|
So...
May 13, 2019 4:44:18 GMT
Post by geode on May 13, 2019 4:44:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 11, 2019 14:18:12 GMT
Look at the criticism President Obama received when he called out the Crusaders as doing horrendous things. He was attacked and many said it proved he was not a Christian. I posted my thoughts that I am most bothered by acts of violence done in the name of religion. It bothers me when people ignore the teachings of their own faith, or pervert them to suit their views. As a Christian I am especially appalled by wrongs done in the name of Christ. They should be called out for what they are, a mockery to Christ and the faith. This is true of Christians in the past who committed evil deeds. I think doing so is an apology, in a way, by saying what was done was wrong and should never have happened. I don't think it's the same thing. To say that the Crusades were wrong is not any weightier coming from me as it is a theophobiac and thus not even an apology of sorts. The only difference is the weight of responsibility people of no concern to me place on me for stuff that happened during the Crusades. I do not agree. I think it is the responsibility of any Christian to denounce evil and wrongdoing, but especially necessary if such things are done in the name of Christ. It is necessary to speak out to defend humanity in any case, but in the case of Christians doing wrong it is also defending Christianity from being misunderstood. As such any of us can apologize for wrongs done in the name of our faith, and it think it holds more weight coming from Christians.
The Crusades happened long ago, so it is difficult to apologize to victims, or even their progeny. But what about more recent atrocities committed using Christ as a rationalization? I grew up as a Mormon in an era where you would get in trouble with the church to bring up the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It was covered up for decades, and then a lone scapegoat executed. Relatives of the victims were bitter that Mormon leadership would not accept responsibility for what had been done. Finally after 150 years an apology was issued. Better late than never I guess. The church did not apologize for the actions of their past "prophet" Brigham Young. I doubt he actually was culpable in ordering the murders, but many do. On the other hand he clearly was involved in the cover-up.
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 11, 2019 11:34:04 GMT
Perhaps so. Should Christians of this time apologize for him? They should apologise for carrying out 1000s of years of horrible atrocity on a group. If I were a Christian I will accept that many people of my religion were horrible human beings and did things that no decent humans will do and I will pledge that I won't carry the same thoughts and actions. If one takes pride in good things about one's community then she/he should also accept mistakes and condemn those mistakes made by followers of their religion. Look at the criticism President Obama received when he called out the Crusaders as doing horrendous things. He was attacked and many said it proved he was not a Christian. I posted my thoughts that I am most bothered by acts of violence done in the name of religion. It bothers me when people ignore the teachings of their own faith, or pervert them to suit their views. As a Christian I am especially appalled by wrongs done in the name of Christ. They should be called out for what they are, a mockery to Christ and the faith. This is true of Christians in the past who committed evil deeds. I think doing so is an apology, in a way, by saying what was done was wrong and should never have happened.
|
|
|
So...
May 10, 2019 8:20:07 GMT
Post by geode on May 10, 2019 8:20:07 GMT
And what is wrong with this thread? Nothing. Forget it. Feel free to turn narc if it suits you.
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 10, 2019 7:30:02 GMT
Since you have given no thoughts of your own about this article, I have to wonder why you posted it at all? It clearly is on the wrong board as it has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. Why not post this on a board about science and technical matters? It does however have a little to do with faith let’s be honest. No, it does not.
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 10, 2019 7:27:47 GMT
I have repeatedly pointed out off-topic threads in the past by multiple people. Just ask a resident poet if this is not the case. Yes, those threads are off-topic and shouldn't be here. However, you seemed to specifically been attacking science...but without the honesty to make a case. Your threads were at the top as well so I commented upon them. In addition I worked as a scientist for decades, and have published in a technical journal having gone through a peer review process. I also saw changes in journals through time. I already posted how one of your posted articles is hogwash. I didn't give my thoughts on the other because you had not. So, why don't you post your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 9, 2019 20:22:20 GMT
Since you have given no thoughts of your own about this article, I have to wonder why you posted it at all? It clearly is on the wrong board as it has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. Why not post this on a board about science and technical matters? A) To elicit discussion on a interesting topic. B) Because I care more for the opinions of the posters on this here board whom I’m familiar with. So post it on a more proper board. If you really wish to elicit discussion you might offer your own thoughts about the subject. That is the intellectually honest thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 9, 2019 20:18:33 GMT
This is off-topic and does not belong on this board. However, I find the attempt of predicting poor published scientific articles through using statistical formulas to be pointless. Actually it does since there has been an important relationship between religion and science throughout much of history, including confrontations going on since before Galileo to past Al Gore. Science and rationalism has shaped many Christian apologist arguments for many hundreds of years (at times proactively and others reactively). I disagree because no attempt has been made to maker a case to tie this article to religion. It is about the quality of published scientific studies. It is not about the history of science, which is what your argument is about. Therefore I stand on my statement. Unless an attempt is made to tie this in with religion in some way. it is off-topic and should not have been posted here.
|
|