Smacktard of the day...

[Stripes]

Yeah, in those three cases, perhaps he's a bad judge of character. Because they say he's all-forgiving too, so he probably does.

Oooh, so that means (him being all-forgiving) that even if he does disagree with gays and lesbians bonking, he will forgive them and still love them. But then, that argument leads onto one that you can do anything you want and he'll still forgive you, which doesn't give a strong base to a religion which tries to make you be nice and good and not covet your neighbour's ass. I can see how I defeat my own arguments

[SR]

Originally Posted by Stripes

...and not covet your neighbour's ass.

No problems there. Have you SEEN my neighbours ass?

[Mythor]

Originally Posted by Stripes

that even if he does disagree with gays and lesbians bonking, he will forgive them and still love them.

As I understand the all forgiving bit, it only works if you repent and confess your "sin".

And that's why people occasionally call for confessional admissions to not be protected by law - they're using it to protect child molestors, for example.

[Stripes]

Originally Posted by SR

No problems there. Have you SEEN my neighbours ass?

No, but I'm sure it can't be a very ugly donkey.

Originally Posted by Mythor

As I understand the all forgiving bit, it only works if you repent and confess your "sin".

And that's why people occasionally call for confessional admissions to not be protected by law - they're using it to protect child molestors, for example.

I don't know either. So I think I should find out a bit about the actual words before I argue. But still, either way, I think Bush and the religious leaders are all a bit wacky if they think that they can control people's choices and lifestyles like this. If their God is the kind sort of entity he is shown to be, it isn't for them to discriminate against queers in his name.

[stubbadub]

Smarktards for today: NRL.

I won't go into too much detail because the incident has been talkmed about before, but they way the NRL handles scandles is shocking. They always seem to make things worse.

Now they are sending PI's up there to muddy the waters even further.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1054528.htm

Police say Bulldogs probe hindered

AM - Friday, 27 February , 2004 08:11:59

Reporter: Alison Caldwell

[Munchkin]

The suicide bomber who went of prematurely and just blew himself up. Does he still get his 100 virgins in heaven?


Yes they're all smacktards and it's good that this one failed

[hails]

Originally Posted by Munchkin

The suicide bomber who went of prematurely and just blew himself up. Does he still get his 100 virgins in heaven?

bahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *gigglegigglegiggle*

[sara]

Umm sorry to go back to the christian thing when we all seemed to have moved on, but well as a christian i just wanted to have my say because everyone seems pretty confused. Most christians i know actually agree with the opinions that you guys have. It's not our place to judge other people. i mean someone's homosexuality is no worse in God's eyes than my being bitchy to someone or lying or doing general shit. God loves us all no matter what we do. Only thing is that sin is sin and we can't go to heaven unless we ask for forgiveness, that's just the deal. So yeah you are forgiven for everything you do, but you have to ask for forgiveness and actually mean it. i guess a lot of the generalisations about christianity's judgemental and hypocritical side come from the fact that it's the really outspoken and often way to judgemental christians who get heard in out society.

[Cherryish]

Originally Posted by sara

i guess a lot of the generalisations about christianity's judgemental and hypocritical side come from the fact that it's the really outspoken and often way to judgemental christians who get heard in out society.

Unfortunately the outspoken and overly judgemental Christians are usually the leaders of Churches or hold high positions within the community so a lot of people will follow their example regarding homosexuality and other such issues.

You'll find alot of the younger Christians have the opinion of "It's not my place to judge others" and don't see it as such a big deal, I suppose, because they're used to the idea.

To say what is or isn't okay, or what is worse in God's eyes, is a very hard thing to do because well, I'm not God, and I'm pretty sure no one else on this board is. :P
And of course, as (I think) hails said, its very hard to be sure that the Bible is completely the word of God and not the words of some 'cranky monk in the Middle Ages'.

*goes back into hiding*

[Goldilocks]

Mythor: Well, if you think I’m still missing the point, I can’t change that. And if you’re just stirring me then ‘yeah, yeah…’.

Munchkin & Gutter Monkey: Thank you for helping me to realise that the context in which I was thinking in is different from Mythor’s context. Mythor is right from his viewpoint that I have missed the point, so I can’t say he is wrong because he was applying everything I had written into the context of the quote and the current issue at Redfern.

From your perceptive questions of ‘Without these (definitions/descriptions), then how do we define ourselves, who are we?’ and ‘Are you aware of the context of that quote?’ respectively. (And yes I have read the book). I realise that I was bringing a quote (and this could have been any quote), which held in some people’s minds a very specific intent, into a 'Zen-like' state of being, which is something very abstract, and I trying very unsuccessfully to illustrate it.

You may be familiar with the concept of Zen? In this concept, the idea of definitions and descriptions can often be like cages or barriers which prevents our minds from experiencing an awareness of the state of things as they are beyond a concrete world. For instance, one can call me ‘poor’ or ‘not poor’, or by any other descriptions/definitions, but I would still be who I am. The ‘am’ is not dependant upon a description/definition of itself in order to know that it ‘is’. But, I also am not ‘am’ because if I ‘am’, that is in itself a description defining me as something - ‘am’.

So in the context of Zen, the actual idea of minority/majority does not exist because there are no descriptions or definitions to define anything, let alone define a minority or majority.

I agree Munchkin that if one sought for a description/definition of one’s ‘self’, then one would find oneself placed in a minority/majority. But what if one stops the search, and let one’s ‘self’ be (in 'Zen-like' concept and not ‘empty head space’). In ‘being’, one’s ‘self’ does not cease to exist or to be what is, just because one stops applying descriptions/definitions to define one’s ‘self’.

To know oneself is very different from defining oneself. And it is okay to define oneself because this is needed in order to first get a glimpse of one’s ‘self’ through the eyes of the concrete world, but once one has done that, let the definition go. Don’t hang on to it as though it really is who one ‘is’.

I think Terry also was hinting at this duality of thought (knowing and defining) in the part where Vimes went to see if he could get his ‘coat of arms’. The ‘coat of arms’ being, in my mind, a metaphor for the shields which we erect around ourselves to define who we are, and therefore how other people will see us (if I am wrong, let me know).

Reality is what one makes of it. A thought in the mind is like a seed which will ‘flower’. How it flowers, and what it ‘is’ is entirely up to you.

I concede, with all that I wrote before, I got carried away with the moment so ended up lost.

Gutter Monkey: It wasn’t in my intent to imply that Terry was anything of the sort. I apologise if it read that way.

Re your last line (just to be cheeky), absolutely, I am a Despot.

[SR]

Smacktard of the day: that stupid bitch on the coach home last night who should have been spayed at birth.

Woman, having children is a privilege, not a right. You don't let your two disobedient little brats run around a coach, distracting the driver and screaming at the top of their lungs whilst you spend the entire ride trying to hit on the bloke sitting beside you, ignoring them.

It is not up to the coach driver to discipline your brats, as your lax skillz as a responsible parenting resulted in. And further to disciplining your children, finally giving them a 'stern' talking to when we are within a minute of our destination is not only pointless, but stupidly irresponsible because by this stage they have already run riot on a moving coach for an hour and a half, spending at least half of the time up the back of the coach far from their uncaring mother's sight, no doubt harassing the poor passengers back there.

I don't like children. I choose not to go near them unless I have to. I am not intending on having children.

And I don't appreciate being inflicted with your brats.

I don't appreciate them staring at me, or grabbing at my belongings and then having to tell them off myself, because their mother is too busy acting the whore.

I don't appreciate having to crank up my music to drown out their obnoxious and incessant squealing.

I certainly don't appreciate developing a throbbing pain in my skull because my music has to be that loud so I don't have to listen to their racket.

Yes, I could have turned my music down. But then I would have screamed at you how much of an irresponsible, stupid parent you are. Or screamed at your brats to shut the fuck up which I am sure you wouldn't have appreciated at all. Or maybe you would, since you proved in less than two hours that you have no intention of disciplining your spawn until you are absolutely forced to.

[hails]

smacktard incident number one: mobile phones are not toys, nor are they portable music devices. please refrain from scrolling through all of your ear-piercingly high pitched ringtones whilst in an otherwise quiet train carriage. with much hatred, your fellow commuter.

smacktard incident number two: the adult equivalent of "i've got a secret...but i can't tell you." enough said, i think.

[Munchkin]

Originally Posted by hails

smacktard incident number two: the adult equivalent of "i've got a secret...but i can't tell you." enough said, i think.

"ner ner ner ner I know something you don't know"

It's pretty much all round childish.

[SR]

Originally Posted by Munchkin

"ner ner ner ner I know something you don't know"

It's pretty much all round childish.

Or people who say they know something an=bout someone or something, but then say they can't tell you.

Why the fuck did you bring it up in the first place then?!

[Munchkin]

I thought the quotes and italics would be sufficient to illustrate that I was quoting a silly childish comment to illustrate my opinion of it all being a rather silly thing.