Give over. Calling the winter holiday a holiday season has nothing to do with white man's guilt. It has everything to do with Christianity not having a monopoly on deciding the given names for holiday periods that are observed across religious and secular groups.
Politically correct is not meaningless, it's polite. And not offending people needlessly is actually a pretty good thing to aspire to. It's probably in your book somewhere, messed in amongst the blood and carnage.
In the interests of not offending people who aren't called Crowley, I shall now call you Forum Member.
If you're actually addressing the crowd, then calling them Crowley just plain doesn't make any sense, though if anyone were to be offended by the association I wouldn't take it personally. Calling a crowd of forum members "Forum Members" would actually be quite appropriate
Of course, you aren't addressing the crowd, you're trying to deflect the argument with a facile brush off that doesn't bear any relevance to anything.
If you're actually addressing the crowd, then calling them Crowley just plain doesn't make any sense, though if anyone were to be offended by the association I wouldn't take it personally. Calling a crowd of forum members "Forum Members" would actually be quite appropriate
Of course, you aren't addressing the crowd, you're trying to deflect the argument with a facile brush off that doesn't bear any relevance to anything.
Sorry, no dice.
Not really.
Not offending people is a good thing? Not if you're an atheist. People often derive pleasure by offending others; it's part of human nature. An atheist may decide to amuse himself thus by offending others; so may a Christian, but for the Christian, he knows that there are consequences. The atheist may offend to his heart's content and keep his head in a moral vacuum.
You may choose not to be offended at not being called your name, but I think you would get pretty irritated if everyone decided not to address you by your name in any shape, way or form.
It's supposed to be about that. But I have a small number of friends who want everyone to celebrate it, Christian or not. One guy in a club I'm in went around one holiday season complaining that it's not the holiday season, it was the Christmas season. We tried to explain that there are a number of major religious holidays during that season, but his head was up where it shouldn't be.
The point is that it's pronounced by pretty much everyone as chrismiss, not Christ's Mass. How many people say that they're putting up the Christ's Mass tree? Yes, it's subtle, but it's there.
At least we agree it's a Christmas Tree and not a Holiday Tree.
Actually it comes from Pythagoras. It isn't about rhythm. It's all about harmony. Rhythm came later.
Perhaps he discovered the mathematical definition of harmony, but it hardy predates rhythm. I can imagine African tribes with their dance, drums and melodic vocals existing eons before the Greek philosophers.
It's supposed to be about that. But I have a small number of friends who want everyone to celebrate it, Christian or not. One guy in a club I'm in went around one holiday season complaining that it's not the holiday season, it was the Christmas season. We tried to explain that there are a number of major religious holidays during that season, but his head was up where it shouldn't be.
The point is that it's pronounced by pretty much everyone as chrismiss, not Christ's Mass. How many people say that they're putting up the Christ's Mass tree? Yes, it's subtle, but it's there.
At least we agree it's a Christmas Tree and not a Holiday Tree.
Not in Crowley's books; it's much too offensive. Holiday Tree it is for him.
Not offending people is a good thing? Not if you're an atheist. People often derive pleasure by offending others; it's part of human nature. An atheist may decide to amuse himself thus by offending others; so may a Christian, but for the Christian, he knows that there are consequences. The atheist may offend to his heart's content and keep his head in a moral vacuum.
You may choose not to be offended at not being called your name, but I think you would get pretty irritated if everyone decided not to address you by your name in any shape, way or form.
But... no one is doing that? Why would anyone do that? How is that in any way analagous to people with no religious faith referring to the winter holiday as "the winter holiday" (or any other non-denominational synonym)? Christians can call it Christmas, no one is stopping them, just like no one is stopping Jews from calling their holiday Hannekah, Pagans from calling it solstice, or Costanzas calling it Festivus. All are fine. And together they're the winter holidays, for all faiths. And for people who don't believe in any of them, it's just the winter holidays, nothing else required.
You've gone bonkers with this not calling me Crowley weirdness, it makes no sense as an analogy at all.
Regarding your first paragraph, you're keeping your own head in a vacuum if you think that Christians are a higher form of life when it comes to not offending people. And atheists can be principled about not offending people. Indeed, since you seem to be of the opinion that all this political correctness is coming from a liberal, secular place, then it would seem that we're very much leading the way.
Not in Crowley's books; it's much too offensive. Holiday Tree it is for him.
I don't find either at all offensive. The "holiday period" terminology isn't about not being offensive, it's about being inclusive, something you apparently have a problem with given your various supremacist rants recently.
And atheists can be principled about not offending people.
An atheist can be whatever he wants to be. Being principled about not offending people is a lifestyle choice for him. He may change his mind about it one day, then change it back the next.
The Christian doesn't have a choice. That's why most Christians fail at being Christians, though they may try, and why it's called a narrow path.
Ah, so they're not true Christians if they don't hit the bullseye. That's your argument. Gotcha.
Bullshit, obviously. People who believe in the Christian god still have the free will to be a "good" Christian (just as subjective a definition as any other measure of good) or to be an asshole. They still believe in God either way, and the fact that so many still manage to be assholes should be indicative of the unimportance of faith in God to being a moral person.
And yes, atheists can change their mind. So what? That's the measure of reason and rationality, the ability to change your mind about what the right thing is, and what you should do. It's also a large part of the measure of a person, the choices that they make. I have absolutely no idea why you think you can paint free will and the conscious decision to be a good person as in any way a bad thing.
So yes, an atheist can be principled about not offending people. So can a Christian. It's ridiculous to claim anything different.
Give over. Calling the winter holiday a holiday season has nothing to do with white man's guilt. It has everything to do with Christianity not having a monopoly on deciding the given names for holiday periods that are observed across religious and secular groups.
Politically correct is not meaningless, it's polite. And not offending people needlessly is actually a pretty good thing to aspire to. It's probably in your book somewhere, messed in amongst the blood and carnage.
To what end? Once you start walking backwards and giving in to offended people they will continue to push you back. What are you going to do when they say "your complexion offends us?"
How was Jesus, a caucasian man, able to find a bunch of other caucasian men with names like Matthew, John, Peter, and Simon in the Middle East 2000 years ago? And they were all native to the Middle East, right?
Ah, so they're not true Christians if they don't hit the bullseye. That's your argument. Gotcha.
No, that's not what I said. A Christian strives for perfection and fails. We all fail; no-one is perfect.
Bullshit, obviously. People who believe in the Christian God still have the free will to be a "good" Christian (just as subjective a definition as any other measure of good) or to be an asshole. They still believe in God either way, and the fact that so many still manage to be assholes should be indicative of the unimportance of faith in God to being a moral person.
Your argument here is flawed. You're letting your emotions get the better of you by flinging out the term 'assholes,' which means nothing. Aside from that, your argument is also illogical. The fact that many Christians still manage to be bad isn't indicative of faith itself being unimportant to morality; that is a logical fallacy.
And yes, atheists can change their mind. So what? That's the measure of reason and rationality, the ability to change your mind about what the right thing is, and what you should do. It's also a large part of the measure of a person, the choices that they make. I have absolutely no idea why you think you can paint free will and the conscious decision to be a good person as in any way a bad thing.
There are certain things that many people believe are moral absolutes. Christians believe that this is because of our faith. Others may think that there are moral absolutes which exist as part of our humanity, but separately from God. But both of these possibilities state that there is no room for choice, because they are absolutes. An atheist may feel the same. But he may not. As you say, he exercises the right to change his mind as he so desires. You may choose to be a good atheist, or you may not.
So yes, an atheist can be principled about not offending people. So can a Christian. It's ridiculous to claim anything different.
Give over. Calling the winter holiday a holiday season has nothing to do with white man's guilt. It has everything to do with Christianity not having a monopoly on deciding the given names for holiday periods that are observed across religious and secular groups.
Politically correct is not meaningless, it's polite. And not offending people needlessly is actually a pretty good thing to aspire to. It's probably in your book somewhere, messed in amongst the blood and carnage.
It's a shame you grew to hate that which you were forced to do, but I understand how that can happen.
Did you actually memorise the whole Bible? Which version?
I didn't say hate. Although the intended result was not the actual outcome, repeated bible study made me a really good reader. My opinion is that the bible is full of doubtful assertions and outright lies, but just because I don't believe in it doesn't mean I hate it. Likewise with classical music. Countless years of piano lessons failed to make me appreciate what I consider to be pompous, aristocratic, overly complicated fanfares of opulent excess, not enjoyable music, but I do get dragged to a symphony from time to time. I don't hate it, it just isn't my cup of tea.
Below is an image of the most recent texts I've studied. And like any rote memorization, it goes in but then slowly fades. So yeah, I memorized the whole book numerous times, but since I no longer study, it is mostly a distant memory except when arrogant zealots start spouting nonsense, then it quickly comes back to mind, so I can counter verse for verse when I get annoyed with idiots.
How was Jesus, a caucasian man, able to find a bunch of other caucasian men with names like Matthew, John, Peter, and Simon in the Middle East 2000 years ago? And they were all native to the Middle East, right?
Well to start you should realize that his name wasn't Jesus. There are a few different opinions on the matter. One is it was something like Yahushua.
It's a shame you grew to hate that which you were forced to do, but I understand how that can happen.
Did you actually memorise the whole Bible? Which version?
I didn't say hate. Although the intended result was not the actual outcome, repeated bible study made me a really good reader. My opinion is that the bible is full of doubtful assertions and outright lies, but just because I don't believe in it doesn't mean I hate it. Likewise with classical music. Countless years of piano lessons failed to make me appreciate what I consider to be pompous, aristocratic, overly complicated fanfares of opulent excess, not enjoyable music, but I do get dragged to a symphony from time to time. I don't hate it, it just isn't my cup of tea.
Below is an image of the most recent texts I've studied. And like any rote memorization, it goes in but then slowly fades. So yeah, I memorized the whole book numerous times, but since I no longer study, it is mostly a distant memory except when arrogant zealots start spouting nonsense, then it quickly comes back to mind, so I can counter verse for verse when I get annoyed with idiots.
The harmonic scale, which is called the Pythagorean Scale or the musica mundana, which is C, D, E-flat, E, G, A, B-flat, B, D. That's Aristotle's interpretation of his scale for The Music of The Spheres, a Pythagorean concept.
I'm sure as someone involved with Christianity, you're familiar with that, of course.
But the one most people are familiar of his is the other Pythagorean Scale, the musica instrumentalis. This is the scale used for many centuries. He discovered the arithmetic relationships between harmonic intervals. The major and chromatic scales. The major, what we think of as the white keys, and the sharps and flats between them, the black keys, all together are the chromatic scale.
Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat years ago. Is that what happened?
Comments
Give over. Calling the winter holiday a holiday season has nothing to do with white man's guilt. It has everything to do with Christianity not having a monopoly on deciding the given names for holiday periods that are observed across religious and secular groups.
Politically correct is not meaningless, it's polite. And not offending people needlessly is actually a pretty good thing to aspire to. It's probably in your book somewhere, messed in amongst the blood and carnage.
In the interests of not offending people who aren't called Crowley, I shall now call you Forum Member.
If you're actually addressing the crowd, then calling them Crowley just plain doesn't make any sense, though if anyone were to be offended by the association I wouldn't take it personally. Calling a crowd of forum members "Forum Members" would actually be quite appropriate
Of course, you aren't addressing the crowd, you're trying to deflect the argument with a facile brush off that doesn't bear any relevance to anything.
Sorry, no dice.
If you're actually addressing the crowd, then calling them Crowley just plain doesn't make any sense, though if anyone were to be offended by the association I wouldn't take it personally. Calling a crowd of forum members "Forum Members" would actually be quite appropriate
Of course, you aren't addressing the crowd, you're trying to deflect the argument with a facile brush off that doesn't bear any relevance to anything.
Sorry, no dice.
Not really.
Not offending people is a good thing? Not if you're an atheist. People often derive pleasure by offending others; it's part of human nature. An atheist may decide to amuse himself thus by offending others; so may a Christian, but for the Christian, he knows that there are consequences. The atheist may offend to his heart's content and keep his head in a moral vacuum.
You may choose not to be offended at not being called your name, but I think you would get pretty irritated if everyone decided not to address you by your name in any shape, way or form.
At least we agree it's a Christmas Tree and not a Holiday Tree.
Perhaps he discovered the mathematical definition of harmony, but it hardy predates rhythm. I can imagine African tribes with their dance, drums and melodic vocals existing eons before the Greek philosophers.
It's supposed to be about that. But I have a small number of friends who want everyone to celebrate it, Christian or not. One guy in a club I'm in went around one holiday season complaining that it's not the holiday season, it was the Christmas season. We tried to explain that there are a number of major religious holidays during that season, but his head was up where it shouldn't be.
The point is that it's pronounced by pretty much everyone as chrismiss, not Christ's Mass. How many people say that they're putting up the Christ's Mass tree? Yes, it's subtle, but it's there.
At least we agree it's a Christmas Tree and not a Holiday Tree.
Not in Crowley's books; it's much too offensive. Holiday Tree it is for him.
Not really.
Not offending people is a good thing? Not if you're an atheist. People often derive pleasure by offending others; it's part of human nature. An atheist may decide to amuse himself thus by offending others; so may a Christian, but for the Christian, he knows that there are consequences. The atheist may offend to his heart's content and keep his head in a moral vacuum.
You may choose not to be offended at not being called your name, but I think you would get pretty irritated if everyone decided not to address you by your name in any shape, way or form.
But... no one is doing that? Why would anyone do that? How is that in any way analagous to people with no religious faith referring to the winter holiday as "the winter holiday" (or any other non-denominational synonym)? Christians can call it Christmas, no one is stopping them, just like no one is stopping Jews from calling their holiday Hannekah, Pagans from calling it solstice, or Costanzas calling it Festivus. All are fine. And together they're the winter holidays, for all faiths. And for people who don't believe in any of them, it's just the winter holidays, nothing else required.
You've gone bonkers with this not calling me Crowley weirdness, it makes no sense as an analogy at all.
Regarding your first paragraph, you're keeping your own head in a vacuum if you think that Christians are a higher form of life when it comes to not offending people. And atheists can be principled about not offending people. Indeed, since you seem to be of the opinion that all this political correctness is coming from a liberal, secular place, then it would seem that we're very much leading the way.
Not in Crowley's books; it's much too offensive. Holiday Tree it is for him.
I don't find either at all offensive. The "holiday period" terminology isn't about not being offensive, it's about being inclusive, something you apparently have a problem with given your various supremacist rants recently.
And atheists can be principled about not offending people.
An atheist can be whatever he wants to be. Being principled about not offending people is a lifestyle choice for him. He may change his mind about it one day, then change it back the next.
The Christian doesn't have a choice. That's why most Christians fail at being Christians, though they may try, and why it's called a narrow path.
Ah, so they're not true Christians if they don't hit the bullseye. That's your argument. Gotcha.
Bullshit, obviously. People who believe in the Christian god still have the free will to be a "good" Christian (just as subjective a definition as any other measure of good) or to be an asshole. They still believe in God either way, and the fact that so many still manage to be assholes should be indicative of the unimportance of faith in God to being a moral person.
And yes, atheists can change their mind. So what? That's the measure of reason and rationality, the ability to change your mind about what the right thing is, and what you should do. It's also a large part of the measure of a person, the choices that they make. I have absolutely no idea why you think you can paint free will and the conscious decision to be a good person as in any way a bad thing.
So yes, an atheist can be principled about not offending people. So can a Christian. It's ridiculous to claim anything different.
To what end? Once you start walking backwards and giving in to offended people they will continue to push you back. What are you going to do when they say "your complexion offends us?"
Dear Biblical Scholars,
How was Jesus, a caucasian man, able to find a bunch of other caucasian men with names like Matthew, John, Peter, and Simon in the Middle East 2000 years ago? And they were all native to the Middle East, right?
Thanks,
DroidFTW
Ah, so they're not true Christians if they don't hit the bullseye. That's your argument. Gotcha.
No, that's not what I said. A Christian strives for perfection and fails. We all fail; no-one is perfect.
Bullshit, obviously. People who believe in the Christian God still have the free will to be a "good" Christian (just as subjective a definition as any other measure of good) or to be an asshole. They still believe in God either way, and the fact that so many still manage to be assholes should be indicative of the unimportance of faith in God to being a moral person.
Your argument here is flawed. You're letting your emotions get the better of you by flinging out the term 'assholes,' which means nothing. Aside from that, your argument is also illogical. The fact that many Christians still manage to be bad isn't indicative of faith itself being unimportant to morality; that is a logical fallacy.
And yes, atheists can change their mind. So what? That's the measure of reason and rationality, the ability to change your mind about what the right thing is, and what you should do. It's also a large part of the measure of a person, the choices that they make. I have absolutely no idea why you think you can paint free will and the conscious decision to be a good person as in any way a bad thing.
There are certain things that many people believe are moral absolutes. Christians believe that this is because of our faith. Others may think that there are moral absolutes which exist as part of our humanity, but separately from God. But both of these possibilities state that there is no room for choice, because they are absolutes. An atheist may feel the same. But he may not. As you say, he exercises the right to change his mind as he so desires. You may choose to be a good atheist, or you may not.
So yes, an atheist can be principled about not offending people. So can a Christian. It's ridiculous to claim anything different.
I never claimed otherwise.
I agree.
It's a shame you grew to hate that which you were forced to do, but I understand how that can happen.
Did you actually memorise the whole Bible? Which version?
I didn't say hate. Although the intended result was not the actual outcome, repeated bible study made me a really good reader. My opinion is that the bible is full of doubtful assertions and outright lies, but just because I don't believe in it doesn't mean I hate it. Likewise with classical music. Countless years of piano lessons failed to make me appreciate what I consider to be pompous, aristocratic, overly complicated fanfares of opulent excess, not enjoyable music, but I do get dragged to a symphony from time to time. I don't hate it, it just isn't my cup of tea.
Below is an image of the most recent texts I've studied. And like any rote memorization, it goes in but then slowly fades. So yeah, I memorized the whole book numerous times, but since I no longer study, it is mostly a distant memory except when arrogant zealots start spouting nonsense, then it quickly comes back to mind, so I can counter verse for verse when I get annoyed with idiots.
Dear Biblical Scholars,
How was Jesus, a caucasian man, able to find a bunch of other caucasian men with names like Matthew, John, Peter, and Simon in the Middle East 2000 years ago? And they were all native to the Middle East, right?
Well to start you should realize that his name wasn't Jesus. There are a few different opinions on the matter. One is it was something like Yahushua.
Lol. You sound like my brother.
Sorry I took so long just got back from dinner.
The harmonic scale, which is called the Pythagorean Scale or the musica mundana, which is C, D, E-flat, E, G, A, B-flat, B, D. That's Aristotle's interpretation of his scale for The Music of The Spheres, a Pythagorean concept.
I'm sure as someone involved with Christianity, you're familiar with that, of course.
But the one most people are familiar of his is the other Pythagorean Scale, the musica instrumentalis. This is the scale used for many centuries. He discovered the arithmetic relationships between harmonic intervals. The major and chromatic scales. The major, what we think of as the white keys, and the sharps and flats between them, the black keys, all together are the chromatic scale.
Lol. You sound like my brother.
Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat years ago. Is that what happened?
I understand what the term Christ's Mass means. Do you?
Oh, and I said that in a post THAT YOU REPLIED TO. The first sentence. It shows that you don't understand what I'm saying.