If you're Christian and you know it, pack your bags

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed May 25, 2011 1:18 am

Didn't he predict Armageddon for 1991 as well? Now twice in a year?

It ought to be possible to extrpolate the curve to predict when he will forecasting Armageddon every day.

Crazy thing is that some will no doubt go on believing him. Presumably because they've now invested so much in him they can't face the image of themselves being that wrong.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 25, 2011 3:27 am

Three, Two, One, NOW! ..... Three, Two, One, NOW! ..... Three, Two, One, NOW! ..... dammit ... Three, Two, One, NOW! .....

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 25, 2011 6:10 am

littleCJelkton;1360267 wrote: I know you don't have to go that far, there are some here on FG that have this same fervor for their religion that are either Drive by spammers or out right crusaders of their certain interpretation of "the word" or "what god tells them"

You can't talk to them though, they get upset if you interupt their rant.

Catch them young and you have them for life and not just the jesuits

YouTube - ‪Eye2EyeIIV's Channel‬‏

Leaving aside in this instancce you have someone who doesn't realise harry potter is actually not real I would ban all religious schools, not religious teaching but schools where the catchment is based on their parents religion.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu May 26, 2011 8:32 am

gmc;1360278 wrote: You can't talk to them though, they get upset if you interupt their rant.

Catch them young and you have them for life and not just the jesuits

YouTube - ‪Eye2EyeIIV's Channel‬‏

Leaving aside in this instancce you have someone who doesn't realise harry potter is actually not real I would ban all religious schools, not religious teaching but schools where the catchment is based on their parents religion.

I agree. Only the gummint should be allowed to indoctrinate the kids.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu May 26, 2011 12:11 pm

LarsMac;1360346 wrote: I agree. Only the gummint should be allowed to indoctrinate the kids.Schools are actually the most prolific purveyors of indoctrinating.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 26, 2011 1:02 pm

LarsMac;1360346 wrote: I agree. Only the gummint should be allowed to indoctrinate the kids.

The only part they should play is in setting the curriculum and monitoring the external exams. You need as broad an education as possible and teach pupils to think for themselves rather than just recite what they are told.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu May 26, 2011 7:22 pm

Ahso!;1360371 wrote: Schools are actually the most prolific purveyors of indoctrinating.
They seem to be.

I am glad my grandkids don't seem to swallow the kool-aid. They get good grades, most of the time, but they have all been labeled "troublemakers" my daughter says I am a bad influence.

gmc;1360377 wrote: The only part they should play is in setting the curriculum and monitoring the external exams. You need as broad an education as possible and teach pupils to think for themselves rather than just recite what they are told.

That would be lovely. do you have schools that do that in Scotland?

I had a couple of great teachers when I was a kid.

One science teacher had a sign on his desk that said simply, "Think about it."

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 26, 2011 11:19 pm

posted by larsmac

That would be lovely. do you have schools that do that in Scotland?

There used to be, a broad based curriculum with later specialisation at university. The idea being to produce a broad based type of education and people who could think for themselves. Goes back to John Knox and the protestant reformation, every child should be able to read the bible so education was compulsory for children up to age 12 or so. Roberts burns was educated along with all the children in his village by the local minister. In the churc iof scotland to be a minister yo had to be a university graduate. Literacy rate in scotland at the time was over 90%, the highest in europe in the 18th century. Good grief they even educated girls. It's one of the reasons when you look back there are so many scots scientists and engineers shaping the world we live in and scots were stroppy bastards.

They are mucking about with it now in the pursuit of producing more "relevant" qualifications with emphasis shifting from study for it's own sake and towards more vocational subjects like drama and dance. Science is the most expensive area to teach so if you want to cut costs quickly get rid of the expensive subjects to teach, like science and if you want to get a school up the league tables of how many exam passes keep the subjects simple and discourage subjects where the pass rates might be poor, like maths and such. My wife's a science teacher so her pass rate is not as good as the home economics department and they do comparisons on pass rate rather than looking at what the actual subject is or what kind of catchment are a school is in. Politicians and the people running education deopartments are not necessarily terribly bright, they just think they are.

In eurpe you leave school with a general qualification that will get you in to university and is not subject specific

European Baccalaureate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat May 28, 2011 8:04 pm

Sounds a lot like the States.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon May 30, 2011 3:44 am

LarsMac;1360509 wrote: Sounds a lot like the States.

Not really, we're allowed to laugh at religion and any politician making a big thing of his faith and how it guides his vote would probably not get elected. One scottish politician that tried to openly go after the religious vote got himself in trouble with all sides not to mention being laughed at.

Church of Scotland hits out at Labour 'party of faith' claim - Scotsman.com News

When was the last time an american politician had the **** taken out of him by being asked about his liknks with heaven? The power of religion to terrorise and cause tension is still thing of the past and no one really wants it back. If we could just do away with religious schools. Sadly Blair has made that so much harder in england by encouraging them.

I suppose suggesting you should ban them in America and put an end to home schooling would not be popular in the states.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon May 30, 2011 10:49 am

I was speaking specifically to the education system and its tendency towards results-based teaching, rather than education for its own sake.

as for the religious aspects, in the real world America, we remain fairly diverse. The world gets to hear from the noisiest of us, which seems lately to be the religious extreme who make all of us look like a bunch of idiots.

I think the moderates, and the more progressive side of the country has about had its fill with these bozos, and will soon be marching to the polls in record numbers to get a handle on affairs. ( at least I hope so.)

If I am wrong, hang on to your hats, folks 'cause it's gonna get bumpy.

We (America) really do NOT tolerate these kinds of shenanigans for too long.

As for Schooling. Let the religious schools be. Natural selection will take care of them before long. And Home-schooling, Well, my daughter took up home schooling because the school system where she lives has been in the bottom five for as long as I can remember (which goes back to the fifties)

I was a bit worried when she started, but after decade of home schooling, my grandson is far advanced for his age group, and scored in the 98th percentile in national testing, and is qualified to enter college at 16.

I have to say that at least in this case, home-schooling has been a resounding success.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 30, 2011 10:55 am

LarsMac;1360587 wrote: I have to say that at least in this case, home-schooling has been a resounding success.So long as his social skills have kept up with those of his peers, yes.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon May 30, 2011 11:20 am

spot;1360588 wrote: So long as his social skills have kept up with those of his peers, yes.The social-fear argument is a canard. Social skills of home-schooled kids far exceeds those of their institutionally educated peers most of the time.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon May 30, 2011 11:23 am

LarsMac;1360587 wrote: And Home-schooling, Well, my daughter took up home schooling because the school system where she lives has been in the bottom five for as long as I can remember (which goes back to the fifties)

I was a bit worried when she started, but after decade of home schooling, my grandson is far advanced for his age group, and scored in the 98th percentile in national testing, and is qualified to enter college at 16.

I have to say that at least in this case, home-schooling has been a resounding success.This is the outcome 9 out of 10 times for non-religious home-schooled kids.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 30, 2011 12:02 pm

Ahso!;1360591 wrote: The social-fear argument is a canard. Social skills of home-schooled kids far exceeds those of their institutionally educated peers most of the time.

You need to be careful to compare like with like. Home-schooled compared with institutionally educated peers from the same social class and economic background. If most home-schooled are from a higher social class and economic background than the average student then of course they'll come out higher-rated on those measures compared to the average. The average isn't their peer-group. I doubt what you say if we include the peer constraint.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon May 30, 2011 12:32 pm

Noted.spot;1360588 wrote: So long as his social skills have kept up with those of his peers, yes.Would you mind elucidating this statement?

Post by **spot** » Mon May 30, 2011 12:54 pm

Ahso!;1360605 wrote: Noted.Would you mind elucidating this statement?

Maybe reading Home schooling - WikEd would show that there are varied opinions. I chose that page because it has an extensive "testimony" section with first-hand accounts. Some say most home-schooled children fit in socially once they reach college, others say the reverse, but at least they're speaking from what they've seen. The other relevant quote from the page is "How many poor or single parent families can afford to home school?". The group selection eliminates a large proportion of inherently anti-social children.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon May 30, 2011 2:39 pm

I can only speak to and critique the American Educational System. I've been told by some Europeans the kids there are treated more adult-like. For example, one foreign exchange student told me he was amazed that a pass was required to go to the bathroom here in the US. Our school system is about control and nothing else really.

I feel bad for educators because many really are well-intentioned people stuck in a system that is in permanent-neutral due to politics, religion and patriotism. However, the difficulty is that even the well-intentioned teachers don't realize the root of the problem because they were brought up in the same system. They say: "I went through it and I'm okay!". No they're not, they are advocating a a worn out and invalid school system.

I've had several conversations over the years with people who advocate physical punishment for children and other animals and their arguments inevitably become : 'I was hit as a kid and I turned out okay.', to which I rely: 'No you didn't, you think it's okay to hit kids.'

This jumped out at me (one of many quotes);Factors to Consider

Does your child want to be homeschooled? We should then ask our kids if they want to be schooled traditionally too. If the answer is 'no' and home-schooling is off the table as well then where does that leave us? Parents need to decide this question.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon May 30, 2011 9:35 pm

Ahso!;1360592 wrote: This is the outcome 9 out of 10 times for non-religious home-schooled kids.

Interesting statistic.

I need to point out that my daughter began this because of her religious viewpoints as much as a lack of faith in the school system.

She, did, however work very hard at finding curricula that challenged the children and taught them more about how to think than what to think.

Religion and education can actually co-exist.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue May 31, 2011 3:22 am

posted by ahso

I can only speak to and critique the American Educational System. I've been told by some Europeans the kids there are treated more adult-like. For example, one foreign exchange student told me he was amazed that a pass was required to go to the bathroom here in the US. Our school system is about control and nothing else really.

I can only speak to the scottish system, which is actually very different from the Emglsh one.

Part of the rationale behind the compulsory primary ediction was to counteract the influence of the catholic church - if you can read the bible for yourself you are less influenced by the priest interpreting it for you.

posted by larsmac

Religion and education can actually co-exist.

They can but how do you feel about muslim schools if they were preaching a doctrine of intolerance and bigotry or christian schools if they taught the same? That's why I object tp religious schools, they perpetuate an attitude of we are different and better than those others. If you isolate them as children from those around them you perpetuate bigotry.

Loyalist mobs terrorise first day schoolchildren! - PPRuNe Forums

Wake up to the terrorist threat, says Muslim MP - Telegraph

Why is it any different from insisting on th forced integration of black and white schools in the sicties? I dare say there are those who would still keep black seperate from white but as a society you decided they were wrong.

What do you say to religious parents who think it is OK to beat their children as punishment because of their religion or believe in forced marraige and children should not disobey their parents.

Most people accept that in some circumstances society has to intervene between parent and child for the sake of the child so the principle is acceptable it's when that shpuld be that is up for discussion. Personally I think religion should be kept out the schools and if parents want to teach their kids evolution is nonsense and and everyione who does not believe as they do is going to hell at least give the kids the chance and knowledge necessary to make up their own minds rather than let them be brainwashed.

No doubt someone will argue secularism is just another form of religion but that says more about a mentality that seeks conflict rather han any kind of sense.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue May 31, 2011 4:35 am

LarsMac;1360638 wrote: Interesting statistic.It's a SWAG, but I think you knew that. It's probably close enough though.

LarsMac;1360638 wrote: I need to point out that my daughter began this because of her religious viewpoints as much as a lack of faith in the school system.

She, did, however work very hard at finding curricula that challenged the children and taught them more about how to think than what to think.

Religion and education can actually co-exist.That all depends on one's interpretation of each. Generally speaking, many, perhaps a majority of people tend to overcompensate, thus fundamentalism.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue May 31, 2011 8:48 am

gmc;1360657 wrote: posted by ahso

I can only speak to the scottish system, which is actually very different from the Emglsh one.

Part of the rationale behind the compulsory primary ediction was to counteract the influence of the catholic church - if you can read the bible for yourself you are less influenced by the priest interpreting it for you.

posted by larsmac

They can but how do you feel about muslim schools if they were preaching a doctrine of intolerance and bigotry or christian schools if they taught the same? That's why I object tp religious schools, they perpetuate an attitude of we are different and better than those others. If you isolate them as children from those around them you perpetuate bigotry.

Loyalist mobs terrorise first day schoolchildren! - PPRuNe Forums

Wake up to the terrorist threat, says Muslim MP - Telegraph

Why is it any different from insisting on th forced integration of black and white schools in the sicties? I dare say there are those who would still keep black seperate from white but as a society you decided they were wrong.

What do you say to religious parents who think it is OK to beat their children as punishment because of their religion or believe in forced marraige and children should not disobey their parents.

Most people accept that in some circumstances society has to intervene between parent and child for the sake of the child so the principle is acceptable it's when that shpuld be that is up for discussion. Personally I think religion should be kept out the schools and if parents want to teach their kids evolution is nonsense and and everyione who does not believe as they do is going to hell at least give the kids the chance and knowledge necessary to make up their own minds rather than let them be brainwashed.

No doubt someone will argue secularism is just another form of religion but that says more about a mentality that seeks conflict rather han any kind of sense.

Ahso!;1360665 wrote: It's a SWAG, but I think you knew that. It's probably close enough though.

That all depends on one's interpretation of each. Generally speaking, many, perhaps a majority of people tend to overcompensate, thus fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism, of ANY philosophy or belief system seems to be an entrenchment of the basic ideal.

The champions of the philosophy feel under attack, and develop a defensive posture around their point of view, and all that might challenge it is considered evil, and must be rejected.

Certainly the Church has exhibited such behavior often enough to become the supreme example, but there are far more examples.

Fundamentalism usually breeds in the minds of the members of a religion who have not really studied the texts or have only a narrow grasp of the intent of that religion. They cling to a few literal notions, and throw up the walls to keep anything that might give cause for doubt away from their inner sanctum.

One thing to note about the Muslims: Do you know what percentage of Muslims read, speak and understand Arabic?

Do you know that most Muslims are taught that to read the Qur'an in any language besides Arabic is sinful?

Given that, can you imagine how few Muslims actually grasp the actual meaning of the Qur'an?

Many can recite many of the suras yet few really know what they are saying.

They only know what the muftis tell them.

Oddly similar, in the US. there are millions who have read, and do read the bible, every day, in their native language, and even so, understand little of the real meaning of the words they read.

They, like their Muslim Brothers, only know what their pastors tell them.

The problem is not religion, per se' but the inherent tendency most humans have to be led rather than figure things out for themselves.

As for education, I personally feel that whatever public education is, it should be required that ALL children attend public school, and any religious "training" they receive should be at home, or in the particular house of that religion.

Public school is more about (in my opinion, at least) children learning to socialize in the larger domain, than learning the tenets of the society. It also introduces them to dealing with the bureaucratic mindset ( a far more important skill-set, this day and age).

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue May 31, 2011 9:20 am

posted by larsmac

The problem is not religion, per se' but the inherent tendency most humans have to be led rather than figure things out for themselves.

I'd agree with you there but the best defence is education. The catholic church used tp burn people for heresy for daring to print the bible in the native tongue so that people could read it for themselves. Once the printing press made available large quantities of the bible that was when the protestant reformation started kicking off. For the same reason as the old catholic church fundamentalist muslims don't want people reading the koran and interpreting it for themselves, it breaks the hold of the priest.

As for education, I personally feel that whatever public education is, it should be required that ALL children attend public school, and any religious "training" they receive should be at home, or in the particular house of that religion.

You can't ignore religion or pretend it doesn't exist but people need to get away from this I am going to heaven you are not way of looking at things. Bit of christian tolerance would help. Incidentally the problem between catholic and protestant in Northern Ireland isn't simply christian fundamentalists having a go at each other there are perfectly good historical reasons for the hatred. If there was ever a fundamentalist christian right wing takeover in the states after they had imprisoned the homosexuals and anyone else their god told them was evil (harry potter fans for instance) they would turn on the catholics and other more liberal of the protestant denominations.

Oddly similar, in the US. there are millions who have read, and do read the bible, every day, in their native language, and even so, understand little of the real meaning of the words they read.

Bet that gets you in a lot of arguments if you say it to the wrong crowd.

YouTube - ‪Dave Allen's thoughts about Adam and Eve‬‏

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue May 31, 2011 6:02 pm

gmc;1360688 wrote: posted by larsmac

I'd agree with you there but the best defence is education. The catholic church used tp burn people for heresy for daring to print the bible in the native tongue so that people could read it for themselves. Once the printing press made available large quantities of the bible that was when the protestant reformation started kicking off. For the same reason as the old catholic church fundamentalist muslims don't want people reading the koran and interpreting it for themselves, it breaks the hold of the priest.

gmc;1360688 wrote:

You can't ignore religion or pretend it doesn't exist but people need to get away from this I am going to heaven you are not way of looking at things. Bit of christian tolerance would help. Incidentally the problem between catholic and protestant in Northern Ireland isn't simply christian fundamentalists having a go at each other there are perfectly good historical reasons for the hatred. If there was ever a fundamentalist christian right wing takeover in the states after they had imprisoned the homosexuals and anyone else their god told them was evil (harry potter fans for instance) they would turn on the catholics and other more liberal of the protestant denominations.

We tend to be safe from such a thing, simply because we are so diverse. It is hard enough to get a dozen people to agree on what's the right way to do things here. No single sect can garner enough support to actually take control of the country. I am reminded of the Italian parliament. I do understand the Irish thing, as well as one who is as detached from the whole thing might be.

gmc;1360688 wrote:

Bet that gets you in a lot of arguments if you say it to the wrong crowd.
Yup, it has, and probably will again.

YouTube - ‪Dave Allen's thoughts about Adam and Eve‬‏[/QUOTE]

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:58 am

LarsMac;1360722 wrote: We tend to be safe from such a thing, simply because we are so diverse. It is hard enough to get a dozen people to agree on what's the right way to do things here. No single sect can garner enough support to actually take control of the country. I am reminded of the Italian parliament. I do understand the Irish thing, as well as one who is as detached from the whole thing might be.

Yup, it has, and probably will again.

YouTube - ‪Dave Allen's thoughts about Adam and Eve‬‏

I'm not suggesting you need a single sect you just need a concensus with a big enough group to play the system or a big enough active power group to get their way. If you look at the attacks on abortion, gay marraige and the constant harping on about then decline in moral values and the success they appear to be having despite most people in the US probably not agreeing with them.

You don't need mass concensus you just need to play the system and once you get your way it takes a massive effort to correct things. Take prohibition for instance. Was that not the result of political manipulation by a vocal and determined minority?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jun 01, 2011 6:36 am

LarsMac;1360682 wrote:

The problem is not religion, per se' but the inherent tendency most humans have to be led rather than figure things out for themselves. .How do you define this 'inherent tendency'? And, why do you consider it a problem it a problem?

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Jun 01, 2011 4:08 pm

gmc;1360745 wrote:

I'm not suggesting you need a single sect you just need a concensus with a big enough group to play the system or a big enough active power group to get their way. If you look at the attacks on abortion, gay marraige and the constant harping on about then decline in moral values and the success they appear to be having despite most people in the US probably not agreeing with them.

You don't need mass concensus you just need to play the system and once you get your way it takes a massive effort to correct things. Take prohibition for instance. Was that not the result of political manipulation by a vocal and determined minority?

Well Bush showed what can be done, but even so, the people finally called a halt to a lot of the shenanigans.

I do not believe that the religious folks have enough to make anything stick.

Back in the day of Tricky Dick and Spiro, we were introduced to the "Silent Majority" and those folks are still out there.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:09 pm

LarsMac;1360776 wrote: I'm not suggesting you need a single sect you just need a concensus with a big enough group to play the system or a big enough active power group to get their way. If you look at the attacks on abortion, gay marraige and the constant harping on about then decline in moral values and the success they appear to be having despite most people in the US probably not agreeing with them.

You don't need mass concensus you just need to play the system and once you get your way it takes a massive effort to correct things. Take prohibition for instance. Was that not the result of political manipulation by a vocal and determined minority?

Well Bush showed what can be done, but even so, the people finally called a halt to a lot of the shenanigans.

I do not believe that the religious folks have enough to make anything stick.

Back in the day of Tricky Dick and Spiro, we were introduced to the "Silent Majority" and those folks are still out there.

What, you are now out of Iraq and afghanistan and all the tax breaks he gave to already wealthy people have been overturned and the civil rights removed with the patriot act have been restored? Actually given the way Obama has gone after wikileaks he's worse than bush in some ways.

The silent majority just get on with their lives and it's human nature to live and let live until they waken up and realise that things have been changed without them knowing it, then they get annoyed and change things back. Mass protest isusy=ually in response to what has been done when no one is looking.

Rachel Maddow Show

Looks like the religious will have their belief systems forced on everybody whether they want it or not. Don't know how you feel about abortion but if they ban the pill the next stage in all contraception so you can't stop god's plan for you. I gaher they have already cut funding for family planning clinics - great way to cut the number of inp[lanned pregnancies. The moral majority sometimes exist only in their own minds.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:53 pm

gmc;1360830 wrote:

What, you are now out of Iraq and afghanistan and all the tax breaks he gave to already wealthy people have been overturned and the civil rights removed with the patriot act have been restored? Actually given the way Obama has gone after wikileaks he's worse than bush in some ways.

The silent majority just get on with their lives and it's human nature to live and let live until they waken up and realise that things have been changed without them knowing it, then they get annoyed and change things back. Mass protest isusy=ually in response to what has been done when no one is looking.

Rachel Maddow Show

Looks like the religious will have their belief systems forced on everybody whether they want it or not. Don't know how you feel about abortion but if they ban the pill the next stage in all contraception so you can't stop god's plan for you. I gaher they have already cut funding for family planning clinics - great way to cut the number of inp[lanned pregnancies. The moral majority sometimes exist only in their own minds.

No doubt we are in a tight spot with some of these nitwits having their 15 minutes of fame, but I can tell you that a lot of the tea baggers who put these clowns in office really swallowed their line that all they cared about was cutting gummint fat. Now they show their true colors, and they moral asses will be back on the street come next election.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:50 am

LarsMac;1360840 wrote: No doubt we are in a tight spot with some of these nitwits having their 15 minutes of fame, but I can tell you that a lot of the tea baggers who put these clowns in office really swallowed their line that all they cared about was cutting gummint fat. Now they show their true colors, and they moral asses will be back on the street come next election.

I'd like to think so, for your sake. It's your military spending that's the biggest problem imo. Mind you we can't be smug in the UK we elected Blair and the bunch of numpties we have now would depress anyone. We're now bombing Libya with planes that were about to be mothballed and pilots about to be made redundant while Royal Marines are getting killed because they don't have the armoured vehicles they are supposed to but hey we're replacing trident just in case someone wants to nuke us and our politicians want a seat at tne tables of power. Who needs libraries and schools anyway. There was a brilliant one liner from the time of the act of union in the UK - on expressing an opinion of government moving to London might mean - it was that having them so far away was a bad idea because you couldn't throw stones at them so easily. We're too polite to our politicians and live in a time when we have professional politicians that take their right to govern for granted.

I think it says a lot about their character that they wait until they hold office before making their intentions known. Yet they have the moral superiority that allows them to lie and niot see anythuing wrong with it - they do god work I suppose. Hitler thought he did as well.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:41 am

gmc;1360859 wrote: We're too polite to our politicians and live in a time when we have professional politicians that take their right to govern for granted.

bobmielke · Post by **bobmielke** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:57 am

Believe it or don't I actually got kicked off a forum for just mentioning that two of my friends were Christians. It would seem that I broke some hidden rule against talking religion on the site. I pointed out to the moderator that being an American that we are guaranteed freedom of speech and religion. He frowned on that.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:00 am

bobmielke;1360955 wrote: Believe it or don't I actually got kicked off a forum for just mentioning that two of my friends were Christians. It would seem that I broke some hidden rule against talking religion on the site. I pointed out to the moderator that being an American that we are guaranteed freedom of speech and religion. He frowned on that.

Mods here are pretty easy-going, for the most part.

And welcome to FG.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 1:29 am

bobmielke;1360955 wrote: Believe it or don't I actually got kicked off a forum for just mentioning that two of my friends were Christians. It would seem that I broke some hidden rule against talking religion on the site. I pointed out to the moderator that being an American that we are guaranteed freedom of speech and religion. He frowned on that.

It's the right forum if you like arguing about religion and politics, just please don't get upset and sulk or take it personally if someone disagrees with you.

bobmielke · Post by **bobmielke** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:57 am

gmc;1361097 wrote: It's the right forum if you like arguing about religion and politics, just please don't get upset and sulk or take it personally if someone disagrees with you.

"just mentioning that two of my friends were Christians" What part of this didn't you understand? You're reading your own intentions into a simple statement. This doesn't seem to be an argument to me. If you're intent is to incite me it will take more than that.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:15 pm

bobmielke;1361102 wrote: "just mentioning that two of my friends were Christians" What part of this didn't you understand? You're reading your own intentions into a simple statement. This doesn't seem to be an argument to me. If you're intent is to incite me it will take more than that.

Where is the attempt to incite? gmc just confirmed that you won't have any such problems on this site if you wish to discuss the subjects. As a matter of personal experience with some (previous) members he added a rider hoping that, if you did, you would not take offence at alternative opinions. I think that, in this instance, you're reading more into his post than was there.

bobmielke · Post by **bobmielke** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:39 pm

Can we PLEASE drop this topic before it causes stink?

BeccaRachel · Post by **BeccaRachel** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:02 pm

bobmielke;1361151 wrote: Can we PLEASE drop this topic before it causes stink?

psssst, Bob, this is an anti-American and anti-Christian board. Do some reading.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:16 pm

BeccaRachel;1361155 wrote: psssst, Bob, this is an anti-American and anti-Christian board. Do some reading. :)Ah, the sweet sound of conservative whining. How i love this sound. Either buck up or get out of the thread, crybabies.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:55 pm

BeccaRachel;1361155 wrote: psssst, Bob, this is an anti-American and anti-Christian board. Do some reading.

I would agree with you, but it is a little more specific about what type of American and what type of Christian, or just what type of person in general the board has an ANTI-stance with

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:42 pm

...and she rather disappointingly left out the Anti-Zionist.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:53 am

bobmielke;1361102 wrote: "just mentioning that two of my friends were Christians" What part of this didn't you understand? You're reading your own intentions into a simple statement. This doesn't seem to be an argument to me. If you're intent is to incite me it will take more than that.

Unfortunately I can't post smillies for some reason. It wasn't intended to cause offence. There has been the odd poster wgho took disagreeing with them as being a personal attack and others who seem to think religion shopuld not be discussed unless you happen to share the same belief system, most just have fun arguing with each other. It's an anonymous forum so how anyine can take things personally is an attutude I can never quite understand. As a rough guide most of the europeans are secular in outlook and closet communists. The canadians are hippies and the americans I dare not cmment on in case I get accused of being anti american ( that's a joke, you will no doubt get used to british humour, unless you don't find monty pythin remotely funny in which case we're in stook).

psssst, Bob, this is an anti-American and anti-Christian board. Do some reading

If you are a protestant does that mnean you are anti mary? smiley smiley

bobmielke · Post by **bobmielke** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:42 am

Hint! Have you tried the old fashioned Colon followed by a right parentheses? I'm old fashioned.

I hope you understand my paranoia after being bumped for a simple descriptive adjective on that other forum. Thank goodness I didn't use "fat", "ugly" or "black". LOL

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:03 am

bobmielke;1361185 wrote: Hint! Have you tried the old fashioned Colon followed by a right parentheses? I'm old fashioned.

I hope you understand my paranoia after being bumped for a simple descriptive adjective on that other forum. Thank goodness I didn't use "fat", "ugly" or "black". LOL

:guitarist:-3:sneaky::sneaky::yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Sometimes I can use the smilies, like now, sometimes I can't, I've just never bothered finding out what is happening or what I am doing to make a difference. I'm so old fashioned I didn't even know you could do that.

Sounds like you're not missing anythng by being bumped from the other forum if they are that sensitive. What is the point of a discussion forum unless it is to discuss things with people who share a different viewpoint from your own? Forum mystery, if someone finds a subject matter offensive or boring why do they look at those threads? I've never looked at any of the knitting threads.

bobmielke · Post by **bobmielke** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:38 am

The person who owns & runs the forum is a proclaimed atheist.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:04 pm

bobmielke;1361220 wrote: The person who owns & runs the forum is a proclaimed atheist.

You'd think he'd welcome the chance to discourse with the reigious. You can't really discuss religion with an atheist if you are one - I don't believe in god, neither do I end of conversation. It's no fun with fundamentalists either really, they end up just wanting to hit you, reading about all that smiting in the bible affects them I think.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:06 pm

bobmielke;1361220 wrote: The person who owns & runs the forum is a proclaimed atheist.

We've had times when people have been banned on this site but we made a conscious choice at the end of last year to delete posts from, and ban, nobody but lawsuit-threateners, spammers, IP abusers, poachers and anyone asking who the moderators are[1]. It will be interesting to see whether we can stick to it indefinitely but it's lasted a half year so far. It's far more interesting to discuss ideas than retreat behind a big stick.

[1] that last entry is an in-joke here.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:17 pm

spot;1361230 wrote: We've had times when people have been banned on this site but we made a conscious choice at the end of last year to delete posts from, and ban, nobody but lawsuit-threateners, spammers, IP abusers, poachers and anyone asking who the moderators are[1]. It will be interesting to see whether we can stick to it indefinitely but it's lasted a half year so far. It's far more interesting to discuss ideas than retreat behind a big stick.

[1] that last entry is an in-joke here.

Footnoting jokes, that a new one. I may need to use this method[1]

[1] Just kidding.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:10 pm

YZGI;1361236 wrote: Footnoting jokes, that a new one. I may need to use this method
You know perfectly well that if I'd not annotated it there'd be some prat later on who'd think it was true.

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:51 am

I'm delighted to note that Harold Camping 89 has won this year's IgNobel Prize for Mathematics, along with others in the same line of business.

Cited "for teaching the world to be careful when making mathematical assumptions and calculations",

Dorothy Martin of the US who predicted the world would end in 1954

Pat Robertson of the US who predicted the world would end in 1982

Elizabeth Clare Prophet of the US who predicted the world would end in 1990

Lee Jang Rim of Korea who predicted the world would end in 1992

Credonia Mwerinde of Uganda who predicted the world would end in 1999

Harold Camping of the US who predicted the world would end in 1994 and then later in 2011

BBC News - Beetle's beer bottle sex wins Ig Nobel Prize

Is he Harold Camping 90 yet, or has the wicked and ungodly seducer of credulous minds gone to his just reward?

Did he ever make a statement or apology about his continual embarrassing abuse of Christianity?