it was just sorta surprising that after all this time he had some hate-blue-balls going then he finds out and then is like "oh, pfft, that's not even a real religion anyway and you aren't really religious" and he used that as a way to dismiss everything i said that was angering him
it was sorta cute in its own way
I dislike his whole philosophy where he gets to be the arbiter of everyone else's identity.
I really get where he is coming from (because daaamn, so much of what people who call themselves Christian has absolutely nothing to do with the scripture it's crazy) but I respond to it differently. Basically, I think Quingu just needs to do some more research about the early history of the religion and especially the various branches it through in the first 300 years. The range of beliefs people stuff into that label nowadays isn't anything new and should not be taken as some kind of neologism or insult.
It's hilarious because the very notion that the religion is founded upon the religious texts is relatively recent.
it was just sorta surprising that after all this time he had some hate-blue-balls going then he finds out and then is like "oh, pfft, that's not even a real religion anyway and you aren't really religious" and he used that as a way to dismiss everything i said that was angering him
it was sorta cute in its own way
I dislike his whole philosophy where he gets to be the arbiter of everyone else's identity.
I really get where he is coming from (because daaamn, so much of what people who call themselves Christian has absolutely nothing to do with the scripture it's crazy) but I respond to it differently. Basically, I think Quingu just needs to do some more research about the early history of the religion and especially the various branches it through in the first 300 years. The range of beliefs people stuff into that label nowadays isn't anything new and should not be taken as some kind of neologism or insult.
It's hilarious because the very notion that the religion is founded upon the religious texts is relatively recent.
and not applicable to most other religions!
when people use "religion" when they mean to say "Christianity" it's a giant pet peeve of mine (especially as a non-Christian religious dude!) and i often point it out
every time i do, Qingu dismisses me as if it's unimportant
the problem Qingu has with religion debates is not one exclusive to him
it's actually really common on the internet!
and that's people who can only really argue against religion if it stays rigidly defined in the box they have built for it
if a person isn't a literalist about their stated religion, for example, or don't follow the entirety of all doctrines associated with that religion, and whathaveyou
they sorta lose their ability to argue against it because they aren't sure what they are arguing against anymore
now, some people might see this as the chance instead to ask people stuff about what they believe and address that individually
but some just say "Well, pfft, you aren't really one of those people, then."
that's what Qingu does
he's got his preconceived notions of what religion is and what religious people think and when he has evidence to the contrary, he just dismisses it as being outside the terms he believes he is the authority on defining
I agree. But I would add that Quingu's "preconceived notions" are based on a much better than average knowledge of the bible. Where he gets in trouble is when people are believing things that have no biblical basis or are flatout contradicted therein but still calling themselves Christian / Catholic / whatever.
He sees that as dishonest. I see it as ... well at least as part of a long and time honored tradition that goes right back to the very beginnings of the religion.
but some just say "Well, pfft, you aren't really one of those people, then."
that's what Qingu does
he's got his preconceived notions of what religion is and what religious people think and when he has evidence to the contrary, he just dismisses it as being outside the terms he believes he is the authority on defining
That's fine so long as he has a rigid and constant definitino of what religion IS.
Because then one can point out internal contradictions and nail him.
pointless, because he's lined up his definition in such a way that anything that contradicts it can easily be dismissed as not falling into it
even if they are defined by most other people as falling into it
he basically claims authority over definitions and as long as a person does that it's sorta impossible to talk tot hem
it was just sorta surprising that after all this time he had some hate-blue-balls going then he finds out and then is like "oh, pfft, that's not even a real religion anyway and you aren't really religious" and he used that as a way to dismiss everything i said that was angering him
it was sorta cute in its own way
I dislike his whole philosophy where he gets to be the arbiter of everyone else's identity.
I really get where he is coming from (because daaamn, so much of what people who call themselves Christian has absolutely nothing to do with the scripture it's crazy) but I respond to it differently. Basically, I think Quingu just needs to do some more research about the early history of the religion and especially the various branches it through in the first 300 years. The range of beliefs people stuff into that label nowadays isn't anything new and should not be taken as some kind of neologism or insult.
It's hilarious because the very notion that the religion is founded upon the religious texts is relatively recent.
and not applicable to most other religions!
when people use "religion" when they mean to say "Christianity" it's a giant pet peeve of mine (especially as a non-Christian religious dude!) and i often point it out
every time i do, Qingu dismisses me as if it's unimportant
it's so ethnocentric it is mind-blowing
Another way to look at is that, for an atheist, the way one encounters religion most often is when people are using it as an excuse to legislate stupid bullshit. And, given that this is an English language board, that means some form of Christianity (or, in some places, Islam).
the problem Qingu has with religion debates is not one exclusive to him
it's actually really common on the internet!
and that's people who can only really argue against religion if it stays rigidly defined in the box they have built for it
if a person isn't a literalist about their stated religion, for example, or don't follow the entirety of all doctrines associated with that religion, and whathaveyou
they sorta lose their ability to argue against it because they aren't sure what they are arguing against anymore
now, some people might see this as the chance instead to ask people stuff about what they believe and address that individually
but some just say "Well, pfft, you aren't really one of those people, then."
that's what Qingu does
he's got his preconceived notions of what religion is and what religious people think and when he has evidence to the contrary, he just dismisses it as being outside the terms he believes he is the authority on defining
I agree. But I would add that Quingu's "preconceived notions" are based on a much better than average knowledge of the bible. Where he gets in trouble is when people are believing things that have no biblical basis or are flatout contradicted therein but still calling themselves Christian / Catholic / whatever.
He sees that as dishonest. I see it as ... well at least as part of a long and time honored tradition that goes right back to the very beginnings of the religion.
yep
there's it right there
he hates literalists and fundamentalists because they inevitably believe contradictory and illogical things and their arguments are easily dismantled but they refuse to see reason
but then he hates non-literalists because he doesn't know how to argue with them and sees them as dishonest for not being something he can dismantle with simple knowledge of passages
it's a No True Scotsman reverse suplex
the definition only exists as something he can criticize, everything that he can't falls outside the definition, and he considers himself the final say on the subject
to have the dude straight up say "you're not religious, that's not a religion" to me was pretty amazing to see
it was like "okay man now you are a cartoon character"
It's actually not that bad. I picked it up off ebay for 99 cents and no shipping/handling and it was worth every penny.
Okay. It is worth exactly that much money, I will give you that.
Occasionally I'll go on ebay and put a 99 cent bid on a few of the games that look decent. I almost always fail (like ME2 a week after it came out... I just happened to be the first person to bid on it) but sometimes I win on obscurer/older titles. That's how I got Blood Will Tell, too... I know I've won one or two other games that way, but I can't remember.
Anyway, I see it as the sort of thing I'll never get hugely into, but it'd be fun to pick up once a month or so and play a few matches. Definitely worth how little I payed for it from that perspective.
Another way to look at is that, for an atheist, the way one encounters religion most often is when people are using it as an excuse to legislate stupid bullshit. And, given that this is an English language board, that means some form of Christianity (or, in some places, Islam).
sure, i get that, but in that case
stop the faffing about
if you want to pick a fight with Mormons over prop 8
do that
stop using "religion" to say "Christianity"
if your primary experience is with one religion and you know a great deal about it and it infuriates you the way that religion gets bludgeoned about in your society to do stupid bullshit, it's okay to be opinionated and even angry about it
but don't lose perspective
and when people call you out on it, don't pull a No True Scotsman to exclude them from your faffing about
then act surprised when they're more than a little insulted by your ignorance and manipulation of the truth
(the general "you" in this post, not you specifically of course)
Pony on
0
Options
BobCescaIs a girlBirmingham, UKRegistered Userregular
edited March 2010
My problem with Subway has never been the food which, over here, is ok; it's always been that it's really expensive for what it is. Seriously, there's a place in town where I can get a hot, crispy baguette with roast meet and appropriate sauce (e.g. roast chicken and stuffing) for 99p.
it was just sorta surprising that after all this time he had some hate-blue-balls going then he finds out and then is like "oh, pfft, that's not even a real religion anyway and you aren't really religious" and he used that as a way to dismiss everything i said that was angering him
it was sorta cute in its own way
I dislike his whole philosophy where he gets to be the arbiter of everyone else's identity.
I really get where he is coming from (because daaamn, so much of what people who call themselves Christian has absolutely nothing to do with the scripture it's crazy) but I respond to it differently. Basically, I think Quingu just needs to do some more research about the early history of the religion and especially the various branches it through in the first 300 years. The range of beliefs people stuff into that label nowadays isn't anything new and should not be taken as some kind of neologism or insult.
It's hilarious because the very notion that the religion is founded upon the religious texts is relatively recent.
I would strongly disagree with that statement. The written Tanakh has been important to Judaism since the reign of King Josiah. And it is absolutely central to Rabbinic Judaism (which got started right around the same time as Christianity).
Written scriptures were important to Christianity starting in at least the 2nd century and probably dating back to the time of the Judean War. The idea of a written Canon of scriptures (that includes some writings while excluding others) dates back to the debates with the Marcian "heretics" (who created their own Canon first forcing the proto-orthodox to do so as a response) in the late 2nd and early third century.
After the conflicts with the Marcians, the proto-orthodox would define themselves around what written texts they do and do not believe in (each with their own attendant theologies). And every single form of Christianity still in existence today is descended from the proto-orthodox school of thought.
So Eddie Izzard is hands down one of the funiest comedians ever.
yes.
and one of the cleverest and just over all amazing.
Seriously, the guy can do a stand up show of over an hour in another language and still make it work. He is truly great. And he raised a crap load of money for charity by running all over the UK.
BobCesca on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
My problem with Subway has never been the food which, over here, is ok; it's always been that it's really expensive for what it is. Seriously, there's a place in town where I can get a hot, crispy baguette with roast meet and appropriate sauce (e.g. roast chicken and stuffing) for 99p.
See, that doesn't exist in America.
Five dollar foot long is pretty much a great deal over here and that's at basically half your British money.
Posts
It's hilarious because the very notion that the religion is founded upon the religious texts is relatively recent.
the pictures don't capture most of it
i slept in the same bed as him... he seriously has a SUPER thick mat of hair on his chest, shoulders, and back
it's like a luxurious rug
It's actually not that bad. I picked it up off ebay for 99 cents and no shipping/handling and it was worth every penny.
and not applicable to most other religions!
when people use "religion" when they mean to say "Christianity" it's a giant pet peeve of mine (especially as a non-Christian religious dude!) and i often point it out
every time i do, Qingu dismisses me as if it's unimportant
it's so ethnocentric it is mind-blowing
Okay. It is worth exactly that much money, I will give you that.
I fairly recently shorn myself. So, sorry about that. I wasn't at my hairiest.
Wait.
So it's interpretive...and he's the only one who can correctly interpret it?
Fuck that noise.
Don't forget soft. I have very soft fur.
the roulette is fun
I agree. But I would add that Quingu's "preconceived notions" are based on a much better than average knowledge of the bible. Where he gets in trouble is when people are believing things that have no biblical basis or are flatout contradicted therein but still calling themselves Christian / Catholic / whatever.
He sees that as dishonest. I see it as ... well at least as part of a long and time honored tradition that goes right back to the very beginnings of the religion.
Man, I miss the commie dance. Does anyone have that thing saved somewhere? I lost my copy somewhere in the ages.
pointless, because he's lined up his definition in such a way that anything that contradicts it can easily be dismissed as not falling into it
even if they are defined by most other people as falling into it
he basically claims authority over definitions and as long as a person does that it's sorta impossible to talk tot hem
It's evening where I am.
YOU ARE WRONG!
NO ONE GETS TO GO TO SUBWAY AND EAT FRESH NOW!
What about Quiznos?
I see. Oh well, Chu's story made up for it.
While I was doing laundry some people were talking about working at subway, and it made me want to eat subway.
Not sure what the fuck was wrong with me at that moment, but luckily I did not give in.
Another way to look at is that, for an atheist, the way one encounters religion most often is when people are using it as an excuse to legislate stupid bullshit. And, given that this is an English language board, that means some form of Christianity (or, in some places, Islam).
yep
there's it right there
he hates literalists and fundamentalists because they inevitably believe contradictory and illogical things and their arguments are easily dismantled but they refuse to see reason
but then he hates non-literalists because he doesn't know how to argue with them and sees them as dishonest for not being something he can dismantle with simple knowledge of passages
it's a No True Scotsman reverse suplex
the definition only exists as something he can criticize, everything that he can't falls outside the definition, and he considers himself the final say on the subject
to have the dude straight up say "you're not religious, that's not a religion" to me was pretty amazing to see
it was like "okay man now you are a cartoon character"
I swear to god I will backhand the shit outta you.
Subway sammiches are meh.
Their cookies however, are
Occasionally I'll go on ebay and put a 99 cent bid on a few of the games that look decent. I almost always fail (like ME2 a week after it came out... I just happened to be the first person to bid on it) but sometimes I win on obscurer/older titles. That's how I got Blood Will Tell, too... I know I've won one or two other games that way, but I can't remember.
Anyway, I see it as the sort of thing I'll never get hugely into, but it'd be fun to pick up once a month or so and play a few matches. Definitely worth how little I payed for it from that perspective.
The problem is that every Subway I have ever entered smells like vomit.
I can't find a good knife
I need one to cut this cheese
Having not entered a Subways in the same country you have, this is not a problem for me.
That's their fresh bread.
night
I'm gonna go play ME2 in fact.
sure, i get that, but in that case
stop the faffing about
if you want to pick a fight with Mormons over prop 8
do that
stop using "religion" to say "Christianity"
if your primary experience is with one religion and you know a great deal about it and it infuriates you the way that religion gets bludgeoned about in your society to do stupid bullshit, it's okay to be opinionated and even angry about it
but don't lose perspective
and when people call you out on it, don't pull a No True Scotsman to exclude them from your faffing about
then act surprised when they're more than a little insulted by your ignorance and manipulation of the truth
(the general "you" in this post, not you specifically of course)
he really, really is
I would strongly disagree with that statement. The written Tanakh has been important to Judaism since the reign of King Josiah. And it is absolutely central to Rabbinic Judaism (which got started right around the same time as Christianity).
Written scriptures were important to Christianity starting in at least the 2nd century and probably dating back to the time of the Judean War. The idea of a written Canon of scriptures (that includes some writings while excluding others) dates back to the debates with the Marcian "heretics" (who created their own Canon first forcing the proto-orthodox to do so as a response) in the late 2nd and early third century.
After the conflicts with the Marcians, the proto-orthodox would define themselves around what written texts they do and do not believe in (each with their own attendant theologies). And every single form of Christianity still in existence today is descended from the proto-orthodox school of thought.
yes.
and one of the cleverest and just over all amazing.
Seriously, the guy can do a stand up show of over an hour in another language and still make it work. He is truly great. And he raised a crap load of money for charity by running all over the UK.
See, that doesn't exist in America.
Five dollar foot long is pretty much a great deal over here and that's at basically half your British money.
general targets are bad
if you are going to bitch about a sort of folk who are doing a thing that piss you off
that is okay
but be specific
hate being included in bitching that doesn't even apply to me