Since there's so much talk about sin on the Suicide board I created this one for other types of sin, views on it and so on.

Eating meat on Fridays during Lent is an abomination. All rational people see that. Eat a cheeseburger on Good Friday and you are going to Hell you sinner you.

I find it hard to beleive that any intelligent being, which God alledgedly is, would judge you ONLY by the last thing you did before you bit the big one. I mean, what if your last act was one of those, 'smack myself on the forehead cause I was so stoopid' moments that we all have, but you didn't get the chance to smakc yourself on the forehead cause your head is some twenty feet away from the rest of you? I think it's better to judge some by the sum total of their life's experiences. That keeps Hitler out of the big rave, but let's the rest of us have a shot at the dance floor!

::I find it hard to beleive that any intelligent being, which God alledgedly is, would judge you ONLY by the last thing you did before you bit the big one.:: Dude

God is not a weights and measures monitor. All it takes is one bad thing you never repented of and were never truly sorry you did in the first place.

To Jwb52z's explanation I would add "arbitrary" between "one" and "bad."

Sooo...let's say I accept Jesus Christ as my Savior. I believe that He died for my sins, and rose again. I live my hardest to follow the will of God. My neighbor runs over my dog. I say "Boy, I hate that guy!" The next thing you know, I suffer a heart attack and die. By that logic, I would go to Hell as the last thing that happened before I died was an angry remark. That doesn't strike me as right.

MikeC,

This is religion. Logic does not enter into it.

::I say "Boy, I hate that guy!":: MikeC

Thoughts are just as bad as actions. If you truly hate that person for doing something bad toward you and are not sorry for it, I believe it is at the very LEAST possible to go to Hell for it. BTW, there are some things I don't like either, but that doesn't stop me from thinking they are correct.

Jwb, remind me to stay away from your church, should I ever decide to become a Christian.

DISCLAIMER: Not that that will ever happen, of course... I'm quite happy with my religion.

This is religion. Logic does not enter into it.
*high-fives Berry*

Thoughts are just as bad as actions.
Um, no. Sure, they may seem just as bad but thoughts alone don't cause anything to happen; actions do. Thinking of doing something won't make it happen. Actually doing it will. So you could have all the good or bad thoughts you like, they won't matter. Your actions will. (And yes, I know I'm repeating myself; I'm funny that way.)

::Um, no. Sure, they may seem just as bad but thoughts alone don't cause anything to happen; actions do. Thinking of doing something won't make it happen. Actually doing it will. So you could have all the good or bad thoughts you like, they won't matter. Your actions will. (And yes, I know I'm repeating myself; I'm funny that way.):: MarkN

You'd be right if morality were truly relative. I don't really think that it is. For you, I guesss I should preface things by saying, for example, "To God, it's all the same."

Yeah, I believe that thoughts can be sinful like actions. I agree that thinking "I hate that guy!" is a sinful way of thinking. But if I immediately die of a heart attack, which prevents an opportunity for repentance (which in some cases, can take up to days--people aren't made of stone--remember Jonah--took him 40 days), and I'm truly a believer, I just don't believe God's like "Yes, you believed in me and accepted Christ as your savior. Unfortunately, you never asked me for forgiveness for this. You are the weakest link. Goodbye."

Thoughts may not be AS bad as actions, but they can be bad. One (or two) of the Commandments forbids coveting, which I was taught was the wanting of something someone else has. So God did consider the thoughts of people when He made the Commandments. I think though, that God is smart enough to make the distinction between, "Gee, Bobby's new car is really nice. I wish I had it," and, "Bobby's new car is really nice. I've got to get my hands on it."
(It's not what I really wanted to say, but my brain is melting at the moment, so it's the best I could come up with.)

Margie, you are right. There is a big difference between, "I want a car like Bob has." and "I want Bob's car."

Also, Jesus stated that having lustful thoughts was equivalent to adultery. So yes, God does put emphasis on your thoughts--He wants you to be totally devoted to Him, not just give the outward appearance of being so.

---

Quote:

This is religion. Logic does not enter into it.

---

---

Quote:

You'd be right if morality were truly relative. I don't really think that it is. For you, I guesss I should preface things by saying, for example, "To God, it's all the same."

---

---

Quote:

::I say "Boy, I hate that guy!":: MikeC

Thoughts are just as bad as actions. If you truly hate that person for doing something bad toward you and are not sorry for it, I believe it is at the very LEAST possible to go to Hell for it. BTW, there are some things I don't like either, but that doesn't stop me from thinking they are correct.

---

CC,
I know you weren't looking for an answer from me, but think about it a minute. (You've proven you can.)

Morality isn't set in stone, Jwb. It's different for all of us. My morality is different from yours, Berry's, and Mark's (though mine seems to be similar to his). -- CC

It is set stone for Jwb52z. He believes his morality is the morality. Period. That is not special to Jwb52z. I can name several people (Myself, MarkN, and you included)* who have posted to this board that think that their morality applies to everyone. The difference depends on definitions of "morality"

All the same to God? So is eating shellfish the same level of sin as adultery? Is wearing clothes of two different threads equal to murder? -- CC

Those are reasonable questions, CC. Reasonable questions. You want to argue reason in the realm of faith? I put an emoticon after, "This is religion. Logic does not enter into it," because it sounds like an insult but, it is true. Logic comes from reason. Reason has as much to do with faith as cars with bacteria. Jwb52z and you believe what you believe because you believe it.

*incase you are curious the position I think you and MarkN espouse is morality is relative, for everyone.

::Also, Jesus stated that having lustful thoughts was equivalent to adultery.:: MikeC

This is one of the examples of when I said that thoughts are just as bad as actions.

::Morality isn't set in stone, Jwb. It's different for all of us. My morality is different from yours, Berry's, and Mark's (though mine seems to be similar to his).:: Hannah F.

I am talking about absolute right and wrong, not just what someone thinks is ok or not.

::All the same to God? So is eating shellfish the same level of sin as adultery? Is wearing clothes of two different threads equal to murder?:: Hannah F.

Besides the fact that those things are no longer prohibited anymore, I would still say that all sin is the same to God. As I said before, humans are the ones that make the distinctions.

::All in all, I think I'd be forgiven.:: Hannah F.

If you were sorry for it, yes.

I would comment on reason in religion myself, but I don't think there would be a point.

This is my basic feelings on sin/repentance.

A person cannot really go anywhere in dealing with sin unless he first has some capstones to build on (this is about believers, so assume the person believes in God/Jesus, and has accepted Him):

1. The person has to have faith that God will come through on His promised rewards. Otherwise, there's no point.

2. The person has to really love God, and not try to operate out of a "earn your way to Heaven" mindset. Otherwise, a relationship with Christ becomes a job.

3. The person has to have confidence in his salvation. I'm sorry for disagreeing, but I think this is important. If I had to live in fear that any action or step out of the bounds results in my name being erased from the Book of Life, well, I'd go crazy. A person has to recognize that he is not bound by the old way of everytime you sinned, you repented again and again and again via sacrifice.

You might be saying, "Mike, that sounds like you're saying it doesn't matter what we do." I'll let Paul take it:

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning? By no means! We died to sin, how can we live in it any longer...For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace...You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to human righteousness.

About the best I can do in describing this in layman's terms is:

"The law does not apply to a believer, but a believer has to recognize that is only because of God's grace, and thus, follow God's law in faith anyway."

Does that make sense?

Yeah, Mike, that makes sense.

Just a side note:

J, from what you've said on here and the Suicide board, it seems that you're making God out to be a being of fury and punishment--no more. What about unconditional love for the believers? And all of mankind?

We all sin, in one way or another, don't we? God deemed eating shellfish a sin. He said it was an acceptable practice that a man sell his daughter into slavery, knowing she will not go free as a male slave would. In this day and age, we are more enlightened than that. Yet it is in the Bible. Is it still sin in God's eyes? Or does he know of our enlightenment and not think of it as going against His Word?


another side note: I find it extremely amusing that I'm posting on a religious board while listening to Marilyn Manson, Metallica, etc. MP3s.

::"The law does not apply to a believer, but a believer has to recognize that is only because of God's grace, and thus, follow God's law in faith anyway."

Does that make sense?:: MikeC

I know what you're saying, but Grace alone does not save us. It's not the only important thing.

::J, from what you've said on here and the Suicide board, it seems that you're making God out to be a being of fury and punishment--no more. What about unconditional love for the believers? And all of mankind?:: Hannah F.

A parent, as God is supposed to be our Father, still loves his or her child even though he or she punishes the child. Discipline, punishment, is done because you love your child/children, not in spite of the fact that you love your child/children. I believe God is both a being of love and of fury and punishment at the same time.

::We all sin, in one way or another, don't we? God deemed eating shellfish a sin. He said it was an acceptable practice that a man sell his daughter into slavery, knowing she will not go free as a male slave would. In this day and age, we are more enlightened than that. Yet it is in the Bible. Is it still sin in God's eyes? Or does he know of our enlightenment and not think of it as going against His Word?:: Hannah F.

As far as slavery is concerned, God just said it was ok if it was done. He didn't say it must be done. There was a long discussion here once on slavery and the Bible. Just for your information, I don't really think God thinks much of our supposed "enlightenment" on most things. The Bible does say something to the effect that the Wisdom of God is the foolishness of Man. That's where I think alot of the problems come in. People begin to think they know better than God because of a number of reasons, one being that they simply would rather do things a certain way or they simply don't like God's way.

::another side note: I find it extremely amusing that I'm posting on a religious board while listening to Marilyn Manson, Metallica, etc. MP3s.:: Hannah F.

I'd rather listen to the "Hair bands" of the 80s myself .

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast."--Ephesians

So what else saves us?

All of it is important even though it is not direct, MikeC. I thought you knew that.

All of what is important? We may be running on the same wavelength but with different semantics. It's just that when I hear "grace alone does not save us," that doesn't seem to go with Ephesians.

MikeC, would you agree that God wants certain things from people and it is a sin not to do them? If so, it would require repentance. Not repenting would warrant going to Hell. BTW, one example I would say that goes along with grace is our own faith in God itself. The Bible says that without faith it is impossible to please God. If you don't please God, you're not likely to go to Heaven, right?

On a TECHNICAL level, I agree with you. On a THEOLOGICAL level, I disagree with you. Let me try to make sense of that (he said, knowingly):

God wants certain things from people (following His commands). It is a sin to disobey. A person should repent. In fact, if a person keeps on sinning without repenting at all, it is likely that person has not accepted God's grace nor has faith else the person would not continue blithely in sin.

However, I tend to disagree with what you are saying regarding not repentance equals hell. The impression that I get (please correct me if it is wrong) is that you say when a person sins, his/her name is moved from "Heaven" to "Hell," and is only moved back when the person "repents." My own view is that when Jesus died, He paid the price right there for our sins. We should recognize when we have done a sin, and strive to correct it and move on, but I don't believe we have to live in fear that we must repent or we'll lose our salvation on the spot.

::but I don't believe we have to live in fear that we must repent or we'll lose our salvation on the spot.:: MikeC

That's where we disagree. If God won't send you to Hell for a sin you commit after you are saved, that you never repent of and are not sorry for having done, then it is like it doesn't matter what you do. I don't know how else to say that idea.

If God won't send you to Hell for a sin you commit after you are saved, that you never repent of and are not sorry for having done, then it is like it doesn't matter what you do. Jwb52x

This, I think, is the heart of our failure to come to an agreement. Mike and I believe that Paul, in both the Ephesians passage Mike quoted above, and the Roman passage I quoted on the suicide page, says that the strict adherence to the letter of the Law is not a concern in Christians' lives because 1) it is not possible, and 2) even if it were possible, it is not enough . Instead, God has provided a different way to Salvation. One based solely on accepting our own powerlessness to save ourselves and His Grace in freely offering salvation.

But this freedom from the law does not mean freedom to sin. Part of the process of Salvation is the indwelling Spirit transforming our natures. Part of our faith in God's Salvation is working with the Spirit to effect that tranformation. This does not mean that we will no longer be tempted, but we will gain the strength needed to resist the temptation. It does not mean we won't stumble and fall, but we will regret and repent. But Yes, it does mean we do not have to fear that one thoughtless act could undo all the work that the Spirit of God has done in our lives and set our feet once more on the road to Hell.

Theoretically, under the new system of Grace it is concievable that someone commits a sin he never repents, is not sorry for, etc. but Mike and I believe that in a more practical, loving sense, God assures that it never happens.

Yes, it is possible to point out examples where some moral leader and pillar of the community has done just that, but Mike and I say that it is quite likely that that person was never saved to begin with. We never knew his heart, and were only able to judge his actions. But God knew his heart and because he was not willing to turn over his entire life to the Spirit of God at the time of his profession of faith, it was not sincerely made.

How do you interpret the two passages, if they are not saying this?

::but Mike and I believe that in a more practical, loving sense, God assures that it never happens.:: TomM

That would be taking away free will if there's no way to lose your salvation once you have it. I simply disagree with you if you believe that there's no way for a real Christian to lose his/her soul to Hell. I believe a person can fall from Grace.

Yes, it is possible to point out examples where some moral leader and pillar of the community has done just that, but Mike and I say that it is quite likely that that person was never saved to begin with. We never knew his heart, and were only able to judge his actions. But God knew his heart and because he was not willing to turn over his entire life to the Spirit of God at the time of his profession of faith, it was not sincerely made.

This seems slightly contradictory. "We never knew his heart," and yet "it is quite likely that that person was never saved to begin with?" Let's either have one or the other, please. I don't think you can say, in one breath, "We can't know enough to truly make a judgment," and then go ahead and try to do it anyhow.

This seems slightly contradictory. "We never knew his heart," and yet "it is quite likely that that person was never saved to begin with?" Let's either have one or the other, please. I don't think you can say, in one breath, "We can't know enough to truly make a judgment," and then go ahead and try to do it anyhow. Matthew Patterson

So much in religious philosophy is or appears to be "slightly contradictory." We simply do not have all the information needed to fully understand all the proper relationships.

But in this case, there are two "outs." First, to the extent that my example was somewhat hypothetical, I can in this case say that he was never saved because that was the criterion I used to choose him. If an actual, living example were chosen (Jimmy Swaggart, Bill Clinton, etc.) it would not be quite as clear.

Second, although we do not know their hearts, we can see their actions. As long as their actions are consistent with having been saved, or it is only the occassional "slip,"we cannot tell if the Spirit is working in their lives or not, though we would accept their statement that they have believed. When they continue to sin and show no repentence, we can point out that they are no longer acting consistently with their claim that God is working in their lives.

That would be taking away free will if there's no way to lose your salvation once you have it. Jwb52z

Not so much God "taking away" our free will, as our freely chosen decision to surrender our will to His. Even then He does not subjugate our will to Him. That is why we are still tempted and still fall. But, because our nature has begun its transformation, the Spirit of God assures us that we know and regret the trangression and repent of the sin. We could still at this point resist the Spirit and refuse to repent, but that brings us back to the question of whether we surrendered to Him in the first place.

On a risk of oversimplication and being banal, if a believer were to refuse to repent, Jwb would say that believer has lost salvation. Tom (and me) would say that believer may not be a believer.

Jwb-

Even more on point to the question of whether a believer can lose his salvation than the Romans and Ephesians passages (which you still haven't explained your interpretaions of) is 1 Corinthians 3:11-15

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Paul is clearly saying here that everyone who builds on the foundation of faith in Jesus will be saved, even when what he builds is not worthy of heaven and needs to be destroyed by the fire.

::When they continue to sin and show no repentence, we can point out that they are no longer acting consistently with their claim that God is working in their lives.:: TomM

Why is it so hard for you and MikeC to understand that a person can truly mean something when they do it and then just chuck it some time later because they decide to not do it anymore or change their mind? Under the ideas you two have, it would be possible for a person to be saved once and then reject God later and still go to Heaven. I know you probably don't think so, but that's really what is logically true.

::We could still at this point resist the Spirit and refuse to repent, but that brings us back to the question of whether we surrendered to Him in the first place.:: TomM

I'll ask again. Why is it so hard for you to believe that it is impossible to lose your soul once you are saved just because you really meant it at the time you were saved. Rejecting it would seem to be a good way to lose your soul even if you meant it at first.

:: On a risk of oversimplication and being banal, if a believer were to refuse to repent, Jwb would say that believer has lost salvation. Tom (and me) would say that believer may not be a believer.:: MikeC

At least, I would say that they are not a believer anymore even though they were and chose not to be anymore. The other part you surmised would be correct also.

::Paul is clearly saying here that everyone who builds on the foundation of faith in Jesus will be saved, even when what he builds is not worthy of heaven and needs to be destroyed by the fire.:: TomM

The passage you quote does not say that you are guaranteed Salvation. See, the thing is that a guarantee like you and MikeC believe in would negate faith. As the Bible says, Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Nowhere does the Bible say that anything is 100 percent assured. All we can ahve is faith that it will be a certain way. Faith is not a guarantee.

Because if a person REALLY understood and knew God/Jesus/salvation, they wouldn't leave it. That's like turning your back on the best, richest gift in the world! I understand that people can change their religion, come up with different beliefs, convert. Certainly my ideas about religion have changed throughout my life.

But I believe that when a person accepts Jesus as their Savior, this is serious business. This isn't like buying a new car or a new hosue. It's pretty hard to reverse it, in my book. I think it can be done--that yeah, you can leave the church and lose your faith. I've seen that happen. I always end up pondering two questions:

1. Did they really accept God/Jesus then?
2. If so, would they still go to Heaven?

I don't know the answers to those questions. All I know is that the passage that Tom quoted states that not all believers are going to be equal in terms of "morality" and "faith." In fact, some are going to be "worse" than others. Yet they will all enter Heaven. My church doctrine is that we will be rewarded in Heaven based on what we have accomplished (kind of like the talent parable--work with what you have, and you will be rewarded, great power comes great responsibility).

When a person truly accepts God/Jesus, they will be saved. That's what the Bible says. God is not a god of technicalities ("Hmm, Dr. Graham, I see that you ran over an ant colony with your bike, and didn't repent for it. Sorry."), He is a god of justice and fairness.

Jwb-

We may be inching, ever so slightly, toward agreement. (Though we still have a long way to go.

Under the ideas you two have, it would be possible for a person to be saved once and then reject God later and still go to Heaven. I know you probably don't think so, but that's really what is logically true.

Yes, it is theoretically possible. Because once you accept the gift of God's forgiveness, you are no longer subject to the Law. But we believe that the work of the Spirit in our lives assures that we will not, even at our most willful moments, get to the "point of no return."

Rejecting it would seem to be a good way to lose your soul even if you meant it at first.

Rejecting the gift of God, and repudiating Him is, indeed a variation on the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Spirit, or if not a variant, a close relation. If someone can do this, he is indeed condemned. But how can someone who is daily re-dedicating his life to God suddenly get to that point? (Obviously I'm not including a temporary emotional reaction to a tragedy or the onset of mental illness although even then, I believe someone so attuned to God's grace would not be as likely to completely reject everything they believed in.)

::Because if a person REALLY understood and knew God/Jesus/salvation, they wouldn't leave it. That's like turning your back on the best, richest gift in the world! I understand that people can change their religion, come up with different beliefs, convert. Certainly my ideas about religion have changed throughout my life.:: MikeC

People turn their backs on good things they once liked and wanted all the time. Why not God?

::But I believe that when a person accepts Jesus as their Savior, this is serious business. This isn't like buying a new car or a new hosue. It's pretty hard to reverse it, in my book. I think it can be done--that yeah, you can leave the church and lose your faith. I've seen that happen. I always end up pondering two questions:

1. Did they really accept God/Jesus then?
2. If so, would they still go to Heaven?:: MikeC

Now you're closer to what I was talking about all this time.

::When a person truly accepts God/Jesus, they will be saved. That's what the Bible says. God is not a god of technicalities ("Hmm, Dr. Graham, I see that you ran over an ant colony with your bike, and didn't repent for it. Sorry."), He is a god of justice and fairness.:: MikeC

He's also a God of Fire and a God of Wrath.

::Yes, it is theoretically possible. Because once you accept the gift of God's forgiveness, you are no longer subject to the Law. But we believe that the work of the Spirit in our lives assures that we will not, even at our most willful moments, get to the "point of no return.":: TomM

I can't believe God would allow things like you all say and still allow the person into Heaven.

God can do anything he likes, can't he? And he doesn't have to justify it to any puny, insignificant person, either. Nor does he have to let any of us know what he's up to, and no doubt most of the time doesn't anyway, I'd suppose.

I can't believe God would allow things like you all* say and still allow the person into Heaven. Jwb52z

Neither can I. The difference is that you seem to think that the first condition happens (namely there are believers who do those things), and so you limit God's power to do the second, whereas I believe in God's power and love, and so don't believe that a believer can do those things

* actually we don't say that, you did as a counter-example. We just admitted that your logic seems more or less correct on a theoreticl level, but we don't think there can be an actual real-life example, because once someone believes and dedicates himself to God's will There is nothing that can turn him around that completely. (Note: when I say we here, I mean I. I'm not using the "royal we," I'm just trying to be consistant with Jwb's use of the plural "you all.")


-------

God can do anything he likes, can't he? And he doesn't have to justify it to any puny, insignificant person, either. MarkN

While that's true (and God said pretty much the same thing at the end of the book of Job), we do believe that He has decided to "let us in on" the basic outline of His plan for our Salvation. And even some of the details.

But he showed different details to different people who then focussed on the parts they understood. In addition, the authors, who wrote in their natural style were often given to hyperbole in emphasizing
one aspect of the truth over another. So if we do not consider everything that all the scriptures have to say on an issue, we might come to the wrong conclusions.

God's a God of Wrath, but He does play fair. He's not a god that just waiting to nail you.

::God can do anything he likes, can't he? And he doesn't have to justify it to any puny, insignificant person, either. Nor does he have to let any of us know what he's up to, and no doubt most of the time doesn't anyway, I'd suppose.:: MarkN

You're exactly right.

::Neither can I. The difference is that you seem to think that the first condition happens (namely there are believers who do those things), and so you limit God's power to do the second, whereas I believe in God's power and love, and so don't believe that a believer can do those things.:: TomM

If a believer can't, just because he or she is a believer, that means they no longer have free will which I refuse to believe God would change a person SO much that they would not ever do anything like you say they "can't".

::So if we do not consider everything that all the scriptures have to say on an issue, we might come to the wrong conclusions.:: TomM

Exactly.

::God's a God of Wrath, but He does play fair. He's not a god that just waiting to nail you.:: MikeC

Yes, He's probably not "waiting to nail you," but I doubt he will be hesitant to do so if you've done something wrong.

We're starting to venture into a slightly area of topic. I think that people can turn their backs on God. I'm going to say, though, and I might be wrong on this (personal opinion) that when a person accepts Christ, they have salvation unless they suddenly reject it (which in my mind, would be blaspheming the Holy Spirit). So would that be losing salvation? Or would that person never have had it? Now, we're getting into predestination. My brain hurts.

(All of Mike's last post)

I agree!

You're exactly right.
Of course I'm right! I'm always right! heh heh Ok, I'm kidding (well, sort of). I'm just a bit overwhelmed that Jwb would finally agree with me on something.

Can we please not talk about predestination? That would be way too involved.

Exactly. Just as we don't fully understand how predestination and free will can both be true, we don't fully understand how God's Grace can keep a believer from the kind of acts that you'd described (assuming that they would cause him to lose his Salvation) and still leave him with his free will intact.

::Exactly. Just as we don't fully understand how predestination and free will can both be true,:: TomM
You had to go and do it. I don't think both ARE true, but I don't wanna talk about it because it is just a headache. Argh.....

Jwb, out of curiosity, what sect/denomination are you a member of (you're not a Catholic, you don't seem like a Calvinist...)?

MikeC, I am a member of a conservative congregation of the Church of Christ. We're not like some other groups of the same name though, so we don't always "fall in line" with others who call their congregation the same name. It's all kinda complicated. I don't always know how to explain everything.

LOL. Original sin being committed constantly before our eyes.

Lame. The bible doesn't mention any apple and God told them not to eat from ONE TREE...not from all trees of the same fruit.

Yeah, the video is a joke, Rene.

Er, I mean, Lisa.

A lame one.

Who is Rene?

No one. Slip of the tongue. I meant to say "Lisa".

Ok...whatever. Let me in on the joke someday....

Wouldn't that be a slip of the fingers?

Rene..

I.....

I.....

I.....

mean Lisa; the joke wasn't that it's an apple. It was that a snake (or at least a guy in a bad snake suit) told them to eat some fruit and so many did it. Given that our culture is still so big into Christian mythology & history it's funny that so many didn't even notice the reference to the biblical story of creation.

BTW if you really aren't Rene I'll tell you. Rene was a right-wing guy who used to post here. He was a really nasty lil guy who used to insult anyone who he disagreed with and was banned for it. Luigi's joke/reference was that you just popped up and started arguing some right wing political points in a style that Luigi thought was like his. He probably knows better than I as he's a roving moderator and can see your IP address, I myself can not.

If you say so

It was a bit more detailed than that, Brian, in that I noticed about four specific traits in Lisa's posts that were recognizable as Rene's. If it were just "nasty" or "right wing", I could've just as easily have compared her to Peter Cuthbertson.

Well I did say "in a style that Luigi thought was like his"

Ok. If you think so

Brian: Well I did say "in a style that Luigi thought was like his"
Luigi Novi: It was more along the lines of specific similarities, which are easier to measure or quantify than a "style", which is more aesthetic and subjective.

Pick pick pick pick pick

Seriously, do you people have to adapt Phil's manerisms in his books? That's just lame.

Have you contributed *ANYTHING* except trolls to the discussions in which you've participated?

Using a search of posts, I have determined the answer to Scott's question is...yes.

Check the Enterprise boards.

The only trolling I've done is having a right wing opinion. If that is considered trolling, you people are more intolerant than a thought. I believe you could even call it...discrimination

No, you're trolling because you're making inflammatory assertions without backing them up, and dismissing counterarguments without answering them.

So in other words because I'm disagreeing with you

No, not because you're disagreeing with me. Heck, I disagree with most of the people here.

What you have done, using the Homosexuality board as an example:

Lisa: Homosexuality is a behavioral problem.
Luigi: No it's not, {cites many many sources)
Lisa: Yes it is, those are just PC-ness (no sources cited).


If you provide sources for your assertions, I and most everyone here will be glad to discuss them. Until you do so, it's just trolling.

Because I am disagreeing with you.

And what happened to ignoring me? lol

I hold the opinion homosexuality is a sin. Nothing you can do to change that. And no amount of name calling (homophobe, bigot, and any other PC-term) will change that

But... no one called you any of those.


Oh yeah -

Wouldn't want to forget that.

I hold the opinion homosexuality is a sin.

That's fine. Nobody begrudges your opinion. However, you may not state your opinion as fact ("Homosexuality is a behavioral disorder, and those who disagree are just PC") without backing evidence, unless you want to be called on it.

And again, no. Disagreeing with me doesn't make you a troll. Heck, even if you agreed with my position, your unsupported assertions, and the manner in which you make them would make you a troll.

Seriously, do you people have to adapt Phil's manerisms in his books? That's just lame.?

Yea because it's not like many of us ended up here because of his books, like what he did with said books or just wanna make a simple joke about the books & guy who are paying for us to be here.

If you people can state your opinions as fact, so can I, Scotty.

Josh : "But... no one called you any of those."

The intolerant Mario Brother, holy-than-thou, with the answers to the mysteries of life, who feels humans are infalible, and can never make mistakes did so in the other thread.

But hey, I've always known he was a hypocrite. Of course, nothing will be done about his personal attacks, but mine will be quickly rebuked. It's the beauty of holding a "right wing" opinion.

Both David and MikeC have held many "right wing" opinions now and in the past without being rebuked.

Lisa, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. There have been several conservative posters (both in terms of religion and of social outlook (politics, philosophy of sociology, etc.) who have been on these boards and have been very well recieved.

Everyone, I will be cleaning up the "Homosexuality" and "Sin" boards this weekend. I will be deleting any posts that are more insulting than informative, and any posts that directly respond to those posts. I will be deleting them, not editing them. If there is a point that you wish preserved that you have made in a post I am likely to delete This is your chance to repost it civilly.

Predictable

So it's "predictable" that I give you a chance to re-state your case more civilly? You would rather I just delete your posts?

And it's not just your posts, but everyone's that will be deleted if they overstepped propriety or answered back uncharitably. I am aiming to be fair-handed.

The reason I am waiting until the weekend to do the cleanup is that I want to carefully consider which posts step over the line and should be deleted. It would be easy just to wipe out the whole exchange, but that might not be fair. And you are one of the ones it might not be fair to.

I don't consider myself as having that many "right wing" opinions--religiously conservative, I guess, but I don't know about right-wing.

Ok then. You just said you were deleting all the posts, so I assumed it meant the entire thing.

Don't forget to delete Luigi's posts about those who believe in the bible being bigotted. That was very offensive.