Just got banned from Christianity forum

Tim Robbins

Just got banned from Christianity forum for questioning their views on Luke 19:27.
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." KJV.
I can't even post the link in here as I can't even access the forum, and from my last look, they made sure they got the last word in.
If anything this is more evidence how some Christians just don't like some questions.
I wish you posters better luck.

rediguana

It's the bible - I don't think you're supposed to take it seriously.

Anyway, there is another poster who encountered resistance on the Vegetarian forum when he started a thread entitled "Cows Need Us To Eat Them". Sometimes people set themselves up for a fall.

Tim Robbins

rediguana wrote:

It's the bible - I don't think you're supposed to take it seriously.

I am incapable of taking the Bible seriously and like other atheists who frequent boards, I challenge those who do.

If I may just say, in this post
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53078754#post53078754

Brian ended by saying:

"Tim you are equating Christianity with suffering. This is definite Christian bashing and you are on the verge of being banned."

This was not the case. I was actually questioning this view not advocating it.

And in this discussion:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53078803#post53078803

PDN ended by saying
"That means He (Jesus) did not advocate killing nor did He endorse killing people."

Well this view is not consistent with scripture. Jesus certainly advocated killing in the aforementioned quote from Luke.

Apologies for putting a Christianity forum realated thread here BTW, it's just annoying being cut off like that.

Zillah

Tim Robbins wrote:

Just got banned from Christianity forum for questioning their views on Luke 19:27.
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." KJV.
I can't even post the link in here as I can't even access the forum, and from my last look, they made sure they got the last word in.
If anything this is more evidence how some Christians just don't like some questions.
I wish you posters better luck.

Were they maintaining that the quote does not advocate the destruction of one's enemies?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i'mm banned from xtianity too... i dont know why

just tried to get in a while ago and wasn't allowed

I think they're just scared

Zillah

Oh I've been banned for years.

Scofflaw

I think a couple of Christians have also been banned recently - part of a tougher moderation policy.

Also a couple of the newer Christian posters are more touchy about atheist interventions than has been the case, and a good deal more vocal about it too.

I admit that I can see where they're coming from - we are intervening rather a lot at the moment. There's not many threads that don't get some sort of atheist post challenging the interpretation of the Bible, or pointing out where Scripture contradicts itself.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well to be fair to them, they deserve it

if they didn't talk such obvious bull****, they would have people flocking into to point out their mistakes

same with the paranormal forum

'i think i'm psychic because sometimes Ithink about a tv show, then the next day I wturn on the tv and there is the show I was thinking about'

you can't make that **** up

the_syco

Mordeth wrote:

same with the paranormal forum

'i think i'm psychic because sometimes Ithink about a tv show, then the next day I wturn on the tv and there is the show I was thinking about'

you can't make that **** up

Dude, that made my day:D

=-=

OP, trolling the Christainity forum is like dead baby jokes. Everyone likes doing it, but it'll still get you banned.

Scofflaw

Mordeth wrote:

well to be fair to them, they deserve it

if they didn't talk such obvious bull****, they would have people flocking into to point out their mistakes

same with the paranormal forum

'i think i'm psychic because sometimes Ithink about a tv show, then the next day I wturn on the tv and there is the show I was thinking about'

you can't make that **** up

Hmm. I must admit I only respond from an atheist point of view if people are taking swipes at atheism or science. Otherwise, I don't have an objection to the theist stuff any more than I do to my two-year old's occasional nonsense. Er, in fact I find it almost endearing, in much the same way.

Most people are theists. That's life. There's obviously a lot in it for them, given the bizarre things they are called on to believe. If they're not actually lying, all one gets out of challenging their faith is a bad-tempered scrap.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. I must admit I only respond from an atheist point of view if people are taking swipes at atheism or science. Otherwise, I don't have an objection to the theist stuff any more than I do to my two-year old's occasional nonsense. Er, in fact I find it almost endearing, in much the same way.

Most people are theists. That's life. There's obviously a lot in it for them, given the bizarre things they are called on to believe. If they're not actually lying, all one gets out of challenging their faith is a bad-tempered scrap.

cordially,
Scofflaw

They'd have a point if all I was doing was calling them names but I asking them tough questions based on their scripture. IT's bad day for the Christianity forum if when a tough question comes along they just ban the poster, shows a lot about their faith really.
Check this last post out from Jackass, ( I got the link by logging out),

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53079586#post53079586

Jakkass

I take it Tim Robbins is satisfied with my interpretation of Luke 19:27 then, as he clearly has nothing to come back with it.

How can I come back if I barred from the forum?
There's objectivity for you: 3 (PDN, Jackass and BC) against 1 and all they can do is bar me for no good reason.
What gives the right to play....

Bobser

Go back and ask for forgiveness. Loosely quoting Homer Simpson "They have to do it, it's part of their religion. Otherwise God will punish them". And if Homer didn't say that, then maybe he should have.

Tchocky

IT's bad day for the Christianity forum if when a tough question comes along they just ban the poster, shows a lot about their faith really.

Nah, says more about the modding atmosphere and personalities. Couldn't have less to do with their faith or beliefs. You seem to be looking for a spot for a wedge

Asiaprod

Tim Robbins wrote:

How can I come back if I barred from the forum?
There's objectivity for you: 3 (PDN, Jackass and BC) against 1 and all they can do is bar me for no good reason.
What gives the right to play....

Ahem, I took the liberty:

Asiaprod wrote:

I am sure when he comes back from vacation he will have something to say:)

By the way, It would be uncharacteristic for Brian not to give a reason for a ban.

Fallen Seraph

Frankly I must say that it's a farce you were banned in that thread. I'll not say that things weren't being stirred up, but PDN, Jakkass and Brian were behaving AT LEAST as badly. What asshattery.

Tim Robbins

Asiaprod wrote:

Ahem, I took the liberty:

Thanks for pointing that out. Perhaps you could explain why?
Where did I break the charter?

By the way, It would be uncharacteristic for Brian not to give a reason for a ban.

Well that's good to hear.

As far as I am concerned all I was asking was a tough question, the scripture does say that, I didn't make it up.

Mr. Presentable

Mordeth wrote:

you can't make that **** up

Actually, you can. And some nice folk are making a lot of money out of it - have been for a couple of thousand years

raido9

In fairness Tim, you were there for one reason only, and that was to stir **** with christians. I don't think they were at all out of line in banning you as you're really not going to add anything productive to that forum at all.

Can someone please explain to me what alot of atheists (not just on this forum) get out of trying to knock someone else's beliefs. If they're not affecting you directly why not just let them believe in their stories if it keeps them happy.

biko

raido9 wrote:

Can someone please explain to me what alot of atheists (not just on this forum) get out of trying to knock someone else's beliefs. If they're not affecting you directly why not just let them believe in their stories if it keeps them happy.

Yeah, I've seen this happen a few times. I'm atheist too but don't go spoiling for a fight with the believers.

CerebralCortex

raido9 wrote:

In fairness Tim, you were there for one reason only, and that was to stir **** with christians. I don't think they were at all out of line in banning you as you're really not going to add anything productive to that forum at all.

Can someone please explain to me what alot of atheists (not just on this forum) get out of trying to knock someone else's beliefs. If they're not affecting you directly why not just let them believe in their stories if it keeps them happy.

Yes. I'm not a believer in any organised religion so atheist/agnostic views don't challenge/bother me but the people on this forum are so smug.
It makes me laugh

Asiaprod

Tim Robbins wrote:

Thanks for pointing that out. Perhaps you could explain why?
Where did I break the charter?

That one is between you and Brian. I did not ban you, he is the mod of the forum and he does not reach for the ban button easily. I would suspect you were seen as being too aggressive, or you might have been attacking their God a little too hard.

Tim Robbins wrote:

As far as I am concerned all I was asking was a tough question, the scripture does say that, I didn't make it up.

You are aware that the same scripture can have many interpretations:).

I don't think the question was a problem, possibly the way you asked might have been. If you believe that the ban was wrong PM him. If after that you still do not agree and feel it was unfair feel free to PM me.

Tim Robbins

Asiaprod wrote:

That one is between you and Brian.

Sorry I'm a bit confused, it sounded like it was you who banned me when you said:
'Ahem, I took the liberty:'

As for
raido9

Can someone please explain to me what alot of atheists (not just on this forum) get out of trying to knock someone else's beliefs. If they're not affecting you directly why not just let them believe in their stories if it keeps them happy.

People can believe in harry the hoover cleaner for all I am care.
However, I, you or anybody should be allowed to challenge, or debate any belief system. That includes my own. I would encourage that. There are some extremly violent passages in the Bible, both NT and OT. Violence is clearly advocated by Jesus / God in the scripture. I am interested how they as scripture based Christians reconcile the dichotomy of vengeful violence with the happy uplifting parts? Do they just ignore those parts of scripture, or have some rationalisation for them?

raido9

Tim Robbins wrote:

People can believe in harry the hoover cleaner for all I am care.
However, I, you or anybody should be allowed to challenge, or debate any belief system. That includes my own. I would encourage that. There are some extremly violent passages in the Bible, both NT and OT. Violence is clearly advocated by Jesus / God in the scripture. I am interested how they as scripture based Christians reconcile the dichotomy of vengeful violence with the happy uplifting parts? Do they just ignore those parts of scripture, or have some rationalisation for them?

But what exactly do you get out of challenging their belief system? Would the time not be better spent developing your own? And you weren't exactly debating, more attacking their faith in my opinion.

There's plenty of violence in the bible, but this is a book written thousands of years ago. I doubt that any of the christians that you are "debating" with are performing similar acts of violence today.

There's no doubt that the bible is full of inconsistencies,but this is an old trick and your attacking an easy target.

If you dont believe me google "inconsistencies" and see what pops up

r3nu4l

Guys, if this forum was full of Christians slagging you off for not believing and constatntly criticising you all you wouldn't like it.

Are you so unsure of your lack of belief that you feel you have to knock the belief of others? I doubt it, so why do you constantly attack

Protelysing (attempts to convert someone to a religion) is banned on most religious fora on boards.ie, likewise I feel that it should be a bannable offence to attempt to convince Christians that they are wrong and should be athiests.

How many of you post on the Muslim forum taking quotes from the Qu'ran and aggressively asking them to defend their faith. It's a bannable offence there but some of you guys seem more interested in calling the Christians fools, than calling the Muslims fools, why is that?

Btw, I'm not really bothered about this, I'm just making an observation tbh and asking you guys some questions, not attacking you.

Tim Robbins

raido9 wrote:

But what exactly do you get out of challenging their belief system?

Good question. Answer:
1. I enjoy a debate so do many people on boards.
2. By challenging their beliefs, I am challenging my own, if they come out with an argument I can't refute well then I've learnt something.
3. I don't like living in a bubbles, I don't think they are stimulating or healthy or interesting.
I like to find people who have different views to me and exchange views
I am hoping the can challenge my way of thinking.

I would like to see more debates between people of all faiths, in real life, I think it's healthy.

Would the time not be better spent developing your own? And you weren't exactly debating, more attacking their faith in my opinion.

See above.

There's plenty of violence in the bible, but this is a book written thousands of years ago. I doubt that any of the christians that you are "debating" with are performing similar acts of violence today.

That doesn't excuse it. Neither the Buddah nor Socrates advocated any violence (at least I can't find a reference to any) in their ancient literature.
Christians like to think the violence is part of the Old Testament not the New Testament - they claim the NT contains an accurate historical account of Jesus and sometimes they go on to claim the moral high ground. Well if the scripture is accurate then they must accept the fact that the scripture states that Jesus did advocate killing and murder in Luke 19:27, or else they must refine their opinion that not all of the canonical Gospels are accurate in their depiction of Jesus.

R3nu4l, I think the problem with the Christian forum is that it contains some extreme fundamentalist Christians who really don't like any part of scripture or their faith being challenged. If I was name calling or arguing without evidence you would have a good point, but I wasn't it, I challenged their view using their evidence i.e. their scripture. I am not trying to convert anybody to atheism, as I said believe in Harry the hoover if you want, but let's not be afraid to exchange views and live in respective bubbles.

Asiaprod

Tim Robbins wrote:

Sorry I'm a bit confused, it sounded like it was you who banned me when you said:

What:eek:, me, I am as gentle as a lamb (ooops wrong animal). No, I took the liberty of informing Jackass that you could not answer due to a technical glitch. Matter of fact, I have only ever banned 1 person, and he was not an Atheist:), but seemed to like AK47s a lot.

r3nu4l

Without getting into it too much Tim, isn't that verse you quote actually Jesus telling a parable of the King who gives money to three servants to see what they did with it and who could be trusted with mo' money?

I don't have the whole text in front of me (why would I?) but if that's the case then it wasn't Jesus advocating killing at all really.

The problem with lifting quotes from the Bible is that in any big book, you can always lift something and interpret it to suit your own agenda. I'm sure the Christian churches do this but athiests do it a lot too.

Anyway, I see nobody answered my questions...

raido9

Tim Robbins wrote:

So what, neither the Buddah nor Socrates advocated any violence (at least I can't find a reference to any) in their ancient literature.
Christians like to think the violence is part of the Old Testament not the New Testament - they claim the NT contains an accurate historical account of Jesus. Well if it is accurate then they must accept the fact that the scripture states that he did advocate killing and murder in Luke 19:27, or else they must refine their opinion that not all of the canonical Gospels are accurate in their depiction of Jesus.

To be honest, I couldn't give a toss what it says in the bible. For me its more important what people do rather than which faith they subscribe to and what they believe. And I dont see any of these good christians 'bringing forth Gods enemies and slaying them before him'. Fair enough its in the bible but the people reading it have a bit of common sense not to follow it literally.

I think you'd have more success if you challenge their views on a particular subject, rather than taking one line out a whole book and challenging that. One the whole, the bible teaches people to be moral and good. If you think otherwise I'm sure there will be people interested in argueing that. But please dont take one line out of their and use it for your whole arguement.

Tim Robbins

Asiaprod wrote:

What:eek:, me, I am as gentle as a lamb (ooops wrong animal). No, I took the liberty of informing Jackass that you could not answer due to a technical glitch. Matter of fact, I have only ever banned 1 person, and he was not an Atheist:), but seemed to like AK47s a lot.

Asiaprod as a moderator, do you think I should I have been banned? actually I would be interested in other people's opinions on this. I see this as a threat to free speech and critical thinking. It should at least be stated in those threads, that I have been banned and why. Maybe they should include links in the charter to examples of where people got banned, so it is clear what is acceptable and what is not.

Crucifix

raido9 wrote:

To be honest, I couldn't give a toss what it says in the bible. For me its more important what people do rather than which faith they subscribe to and what they believe. And I dont see any of these good christians 'bringing forth Gods enemies and slaying them before him'. Fair enough its in the bible but the people reading it have a bit of common sense not to follow it literally.

I think you'd have more success if you challenge their views on a particular subject, rather than taking one line out a whole book and challenging that. One the whole, the bible teaches people to be moral and good. If you think otherwise I'm sure there will be people interested in argueing that. But please dont take one line out of their and use it for your whole arguement.

I think non-christians find it interesting that parts of the bible can be taken to be divine word of God, and parts of it are just rubbish. How to decide which is which? I agree about common sense of course, but I have to wonder why not abandon the text and just use common sense...

Woah, sorry getting off topic there.

InFront

r3nu4l wrote:

How many of you post on the Muslim forum taking quotes from the Qu'ran and aggressively asking them to defend their faith. It's a bannable offence there but some of you guys seem more interested in calling the Christians fools, than calling the Muslims fools, why is that?

Actually, I've noticed that too. Most atheists are perfectly polite and get on fine in Islam, and then you read their posts in Christianity and it's a whole other story.
I would have thought if you were an atheist who feels that God is a myth, surely you'd find both religions ultimately as daft as one another. So why do Christians get it hardest? I don't know, but at a guess I'd say that some people just harbour a grudge against them.
Threads like this just make everyone look like a bunch of isolated playground groups looking over and bitching about one another.

Beruthiel

Tim Robbins wrote:

Asiaprod as a moderator, do you think I should I have been banned? actually I would be interested in other people's opinions on this. I see this as a threat to free speech and critical thinking. It should at least be stated in those threads, that I have been banned and why. Maybe they should include links in the charter to examples of where people got banned, so it is clear what is acceptable and what is not.

All those questions have nothing to do with this forum.
You should be directing your questions via PM to the Mod who banned you or taking it to Feedback if you feel you were unfairly banned.
Asia did not ban you and it's not his job to answer for the Mod who did.

Dades

TimRobbins, I've just read the first three posts of that thread and, sorry, but I don't have much sympathy for you.

That's not to say you don't have valid arguments - just that (for me) they had no place whatsoever appearing in that thread where they did.

r3nu4l wrote:

How many of you post on the Muslim forum taking quotes from the Qu'ran and aggressively asking them to defend their faith. It's a bannable offence there but some of you guys seem more interested in calling the Christians fools, than calling the Muslims fools, why is that?

InFront wrote:

Actually, I've noticed that too. Most atheists are perfectly polite and get on fine in Islam, and then you read their posts in Christianity and it's a whole other story.
I would have thought if you were an atheist who feels that God is a myth, surely you'd find both religions ultimately as daft as one another. So why do Christians get it hardest? I don't know, but at a guess I'd say that some people just harbour a grudge against them.
Threads like this just make everyone look like a bunch of isolated playground groups looking over and bitching about one another.

Obviously people aren't going to appear challenging Islam in that forum as it is a bannable offence. Whereas the Christianity charter does not bar the challenging of faith subject to a few rules.

Even if the above wasn't true, bear in mind that most posters here are ex-Christian and so obviously would consider themselves most qualified to challenge/debate theology with a Christian slant.

Are either of the above comments unclear?

Of course Christians, Muslims, Scientogolists, Raelians etc. are all welcome here to share their views.

Stephen

It might come from this being Ireland, so many of us come from Christian backgrounds. I'm certainly more familiar with the ins and outs of catholicism, having been raised a catholic, than I am with Islam, not having been a muslim.

edit: snap!

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

People can believe in harry the hoover cleaner for all I am care.
However, I, you or anybody should be allowed to challenge, or debate any belief system. That includes my own. I would encourage that. There are some extremly violent passages in the Bible, both NT and OT. Violence is clearly advocated by Jesus / God in the scripture. I am interested how they as scripture based Christians reconcile the dichotomy of vengeful violence with the happy uplifting parts? Do they just ignore those parts of scripture, or have some rationalisation for them?

I agree with challenging faith, but it's more a question of whether we have to debate every single thing they ever say.

These guys aren't just "Christians" - they are also just people who post here. Sometimes all they want to do is have a debate with others who share their belief system about their beliefs. Why does that have to be challenged?

InFront wrote:

Actually, I've noticed that too. Most atheists are perfectly polite and get on fine in Islam, and then you read their posts in Christianity and it's a whole other story.
I would have thought if you were an atheist who feels that God is a myth, surely you'd find both religions ultimately as daft as one another. So why do Christians get it hardest? I don't know, but at a guess I'd say that some people just harbour a grudge against them.

Possibly, for some posters. However, it's also because we live in a Christian country, went to Christian schools, learned Christian history, meet Christians every day...etc etc. Christianity is our local theism, and forms the basis of a lot of our local culture, so we have the necessary familiarity to breed contempt...

[edit]snap again![/edit]

Tim Robbins wrote:

1. I enjoy a debate so do many people on boards.
2. By challenging their beliefs, I am challenging my own, if they come out with an argument I can't refute well then I've learnt something.
3. I don't like living in a bubbles, I don't think they are stimulating or healthy or interesting.
I like to find people who have different views to me and exchange views
I am hoping the can challenge my way of thinking.

I would like to see more debates between people of all faiths, in real life, I think it's healthy.

Surely, if we atheists want to challenge Christians (which we do), it would be better to do it by starting threads of our own on the Christianity forum? I know that we're mostly reluctant to do so (and I know it's going to upset some of the posters if we do), but it's probably better than stepping into every single inter-Christian thread...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Tim Robbins wrote:

Asiaprod as a moderator, do you think I should I have been banned?

Forgive me for this, but yes. I hope you can accept this, its meant to help. You got rather overheated in ALL your posts. The post by PDN at the joy he had just experienced did not merit your comeback, in another thread, yes. That is why I said Brian does not over-react. You asked for it. Your questions, while valid, could have been posed less aggresivley. I would do the same thing here on this forum, or any I moderate.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Maybe they should include links in the charter to examples of where people got banned, so it is clear what is acceptable and what is not.

Common sense should be enough to know where to draw the line. Like I said, PM Brian.

r3nu4l

[QUOTE=The Atheist Even if the above wasn't true, bear in mind that most posters here are ex-Christian and so obviously would consider themselves most qualified to challenge/debate theology with a Christian slant.

Are either of the above comments unclear?
[/QUOTE]

That argument doesn't really hold as surely your problem is with belief in God, regardless of religion. The fact that you are more familiar with one version of belief in God shouldn't even come into play tbh.

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

TimRobbins, I've just read the first three posts of that thread and, sorry, but I don't have much sympathy for you.

That's not to say you don't have valid arguments - just that (for me) they had no place whatsoever appearing in that thread where they did.

You smile for not having much sympathy for me and then agree I have a valid argument but in the wrong place

I explained later in the thread why I put my post in the thread that I did. So Why the lack of sympathy then? For me posting in the wrong thread or me having the "valid" argument?

Tim Robbins

r3nu4l wrote:

That argument doesn't really hold as surely your problem is with belief in God, regardless of religion. The fact that you are more familiar with one version of belief in God shouldn't even come into play tbh.

Stop hijacking this thread

Asiaprod, thanks for your comments, I would like more info on what you mean by less aggresie, as far as I was concerned the question was valid and tough. Maybe you could PM or post here where my turn of phrase was aggresive.

Asiaprod

Tim Robbins wrote:

Stop hijacking this thread

Asiaprod, thanks for your comments, I would like more info on what you mean by less aggresie, as far as I was concerned the question was valid and tough. Maybe you could PM or post here where my turn of phrase was aggresive.

Hi Tim, am not going to post any more on this issue here, as Beruthiel alredy said...
If you would like to talk about it I would rather it stayed private. I am happy to converse with you by PM.
PS. Ride the ban out:)

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

and then agree I have a valid argument but in the wrong place

I think most people would agree you have a valid argument but that thread was the wrong place.

Us atheists already get enough stick from those pesky Christians for seeming like we just pop over there to high jack threads with out us, well, high jacking threads

If a poster says something you strongly object to by all means comment. But wait until they have actually said something you object to before you do this. Don't goat them into say it, or comment on something you yourself bring up, so that you can then object to them

Thats entrapment, you just look like you are itching for a fight. And it makes baby Jesus cry.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

I think most people would agree you have a valid argument but that thread was the wrong place.

Us atheists already get enough stick from those pesky Christians for seeming like we just pop over there to high jack threads with out us, well, high jacking threads

If a poster says something you strongly object to by all means comment. But wait until they have actually said something you object to before you do this. Don't goat them into say it, or comment on something you yourself bring up, so that you can then object to them

Thats entrapment, you just look like you are itching for a fight. And it makes baby Jesus cry.

It's subjective if a post is in the wrong place and I justified why I put it there even if I am in a minority on that issue. More pertinent though is, if that's my only crime does putting a post in the wrong thread justify banning the poster?

Beruthiel, I am posting this here as I am interesting in other people's opinions who may have been banned or warned in that forum and this is probably the best place to look.

Based on that I would hope to escalate the issue so that they at least update their charter or something constructive can be taken from this.

Cactus Col

Tim Robbins wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53079586#post53079586

Jakkass

How can I come back if I barred from the forum?

Surely you were banned a good hour and a half after he had posted a reply to your post. In fact you had replied to posts later than his.


Anyway, I don't usually bother with the religious boards, just wandered onto the atheists section and saw this thread.

I do think your questions were completely inapporpriate for that thread. Also I would say that your posts were overly combatative. Instead of encouraging any kind of debate or discussion I would say your posts would make readers more defensive and unwilling to accept any (valid) arguments you may make.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

It's subjective if a post is in the wrong place and I justified why I put it there even if I am in a minority on that issue. More pertinent though is, if that's my only crime does putting a post in the wrong thread justify banning the poster?

Well I don't think that is really the point.

As I said there is a growing feeling on the Christianity forum that us atheists posters are only interested in arguing with Christians. I think we should all be collectively working away from that perception.

I'm assuming of course that most of don't simply want to argue with Christians. I personally am not interested in arguing with Christians for the sake of it.

I am interested in balancing a lot of the ideas that Christians seem to take, and post, for granted, in areas such as science, morality and where Christianity overlaps with the rest of society.

I think that goal is far easier to sustain if the Christians themselves are prepared to listen and debate with us. If we alienate all the Christians on the forum then that goal becomes impossible since we will simply be ignored.

And at the end of the day if we are simply ignored on the Christianity forum then what is the point of posting there?

So Glad

Yes, the Christianity is an oasis of ignorance, there are so many threads locked, questions evaded, members banned. Let them do it, I'm sure they make believe hard enough they won't see the posts in the first place. Like a human firewall.

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

I agree with challenging faith, but it's more a question of whether we have to debate every single thing they ever say.

A fair point. It can even be interesting just to sit back and see where their own discussion will take them – in the absence of a strong atheist challenge, would any Christians emerge to say ‘that’s not how we see it’.

For the sake of argument, the Pope seems to be intent of ripping up the Penny Catechism and speaking with incredible frankness for a religious authority figure about the basis for faith (or absence of a basis, to be more accurate). I think it’s interesting to wonder how letting the light in like that is going to impact on Christianity – particularly as the scriptural literalist outlook is utterly incompatible with that kind of approach. I’m not suggesting not yielding to the temptation to post on that – I’ve done it myself. But I think what’s of more interest is how Christians react to the Pope leaning towards our side of the discussion. We probably should just limit ourselves to smug grins from the sidelines.

.

r3nu4l wrote:

That argument doesn't really hold as surely your problem is with belief in God, regardless of religion. The fact that you are more familiar with one version of belief in God shouldn't even come into play tbh

I’ve read Islamic literature and made challenging posts on threads in the Islam forum. As people are saying, the main problem is just lack of knowledge – the Quran and particularly the Hadith (collections of sayings attributed to the Prophet valued as a source of religious law, but not actually the direct word of God) have plenty of senseless stuff to occupy the Atheist with an eye to widen the scope of disbelief. (I personally recommend doing an advanced google search with the domain limited to ‘islamonline.net’ as a quick way for the busy infidel to balance work and family responsibilities with the search for evidence that all religions are bunk.)

The general case for improbability of divine existence obviously applies to all faiths. But, obviously, you need some kind of relevant knowledge to be able to engage in discussion on a specific faith. How many Irish atheists will even have heard of the massacre of the Banu Qurayza, let alone be able to form any kind of coherent comment on the significance that might be drawn out of it? And why make the effort to find out, if its all bunk anyway? I’d say the main reason I started reading about Islam was simply because of the whole political context and curiousity to see what was fact and what was fiction. As happens, the study then sort of grew a life of its own for a while. But I doubt if many are going to study the Quran solely to inform themselves enough to be able to debunk it.

Tim Robbins

Schuhart wrote:

How many Irish atheists will even have heard of the massacre of the Banu Qurayza, let alone be able to form any kind of coherent comment on the significance that might be drawn out of it? .

A valid argument but in the wrong thread, watch it or you could get banned
What Islam books have you read by the way, this one isn't bad,

A short history, Karen Armstrong:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Islam-Short-History-Universal/dp/1842125834/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6/026-5610430-1458047?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176811880&sr=8-6

Can we stick to the OP before we get banned for hijacking

Splendour

r3nu4l wrote:

Without getting into it too much Tim, isn't that verse you quote actually Jesus telling a parable of the King who gives money to three servants to see what they did with it and who could be trusted with mo' money?

I don't have the whole text in front of me (why would I?) but if that's the case then it wasn't Jesus advocating killing at all really.

The problem with lifting quotes from the Bible is that in any big book, you can always lift something and interpret it to suit your own agenda. I'm sure the Christian churches do this but athiests do it a lot too.

Anyway, I see nobody answered my questions...

You're absolutely right r3nu4l, it's a parable told by Jesus in Matthew 18,23-35.

23"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents[g] was brought to him. 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

26"The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' 27The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

28"But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii.[h] He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.

29"His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'

30"But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

32"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

35"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."

Haven't looked at Christian forum to see what prediciment you've gotten into Tim, but sorry to hear you're banned.

Scofflaw

r3nu4l wrote:

That argument doesn't really hold as surely your problem is with belief in God, regardless of religion. The fact that you are more familiar with one version of belief in God shouldn't even come into play tbh.

Not at all. You are assuming that the atheist has a problem "with belief in God, regardless of religion". I certainly don't. Belief in God is a harmless and indulgable idiosyncracy unless it negatively influences social policy.

Since we live in a democracy (poor abused thing that it often is), the powers that be take note of what the people think and believe. So if a majority of people believe that homosexuality is wrong, or that science is incorrect, or that other religions should be suppressed because they're inventions of the Devil, that has an effect.

Muslims don't have that sort of influence in Ireland - it's 95%+ Christian. So, it's because I don't actually have a problem with belief in God per se that I argue first and foremost against the locally hegemonic deity - because it's belief in that God that influences social policy around here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Splendour wrote:

You're absolutely right r3nu4l, it's a parable told by Jesus in Matthew 18,23-35.

Well I got it from Luke 19:27, this is far more constructive than just banning someone!
Perhaps I am wrong, I got the argument from Sam Harris BTW.
And I am now beginning to think the argument appears flawed. Well at least I can admit when I'm wrong
- well done r3nu4l. I would be interested to hear other opinions on it or what is the theological take on Luke 19:27.

Here is the entire text:

(http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/19_11-27.htm)
Luke 19:11-27

[11] While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. [12] He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. [13] So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'

[14] "But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

[15] "He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

[16] "The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

[17] " 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

[18] "The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

[19] "His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

[20] "Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. [21] I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'

[22] "His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? [23] Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

[24] "Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

[25] " 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

[26] "He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. [27] But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.' "

r3nu4l

Right or wrong, there's no doubting the inconsistencies in the Bible

We should remember (Christians and Athiests alike!) that the Bible is a mish-mash of scriptures, letters and pamphlets (<-- so not the right word there) written across hundreds (or thousands) of years and that it has all been flung together almost like a compilation of 'best-bits' that were best suited to 'opinion' of the various churches hierarchies.

All churches and a lot of the rules are man-made interpretations of translations of these texts, there's bound to be a right amount of confusion there.

/all of the above is only my opinion