Trolling Tide Turning? God-people trolling

Sarky

How awful, to never be able to take credit for your successes. If you keep it up long enough it must surely case all sorts of insecurity issues.

philologos

Zombrex: Christianity is about encouraging people to abandon sin, not to remove sinners from civil society. That would be more Pharasaic. Also, Paul never encourages Christianity as a dominating force in civil politics, but rather as a grass-roots movement which works within civil society. This is evident in a number of passages. Christ died to save sinners (1 Timothy 1, Romans 5), not to exclude them from living.

robindch: No, I didn't. I said that Christianity didn't produce it. There's a difference. There's no need to make a habit of intentionally taking my posts out of context

Doctor DooM

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: Christianity is about encouraging people to abandon sin, not to remove sinners from civil society.

Well, if your sin is to have children out of wedlock, it seems not to long ago this is basically what a certain Christian establishment did in Ireland, not so long ago.

philologos

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Well, if your sin is to have children out of wedlock, it seems not to long ago this is basically what a certain Christian establishment did in Ireland, not so long ago.

And you expect me to defend this, why? The same response that applies to Uganda also applies in that context as far as I see it.

It takes people on boards.ie a long time to realise this - I only defend one thing on boards.ie - That's the Gospel. Institutions and whatever else have you aren't my consideration. I'm the wrong man to ask to be an apologist for the RCC and of many other churches.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: Christianity is about encouraging people to abandon sin, not to remove sinners from civil society.

Well no, it is about both those things.

As Anti points out it is in keeping with the message of the Old Testament to remove sin, often by death (in the Old Testament, not suggesting the NT tells people to kill sinners, but in both the emphasis is on the removal of the corrupting influence of sinners) from the community.

The issue, as I stated above, is that when Paul is instructing people to remove themselves from the presence of sinners to avoid corrupting themselves this was in a time when Christianity was tiny. That act meant becoming insular and waiting for the (soon to come) apocalypse.

I very much doubt Paul gave much thought to how his instructions would be interpreted when huge areas of society would be Christian and the sinners would be the persecuted minority, not the other way around.

The problem of course is when instructions are taken as, well, gospel.

philologos wrote: »

Also, Paul never encourages Christianity as a dominating force in civil politics, but rather as a grass-roots movement which works within civil society.

Well yes, that is my point. Paul never thought about Christianity as a dominating force in society because you were all supposed to be in heaven by now.

The instructions Paul gave only make much sense in terms of a small cult like system, and are in fact common among cults.

Firstly isolate yourselves from the corrupting influences of the outside world.
Secondly invite those who are willing to repent to join your group.
Lastly remove those who continue to sin lest their corrupt spreads and causes others to sin.

Basically bunker down and wait for the end times.

The problem of course is that when the end times don't come people start re-interpreting these passages to apply to a wider society when Christianity has become the primary religion of society and instead of an insular small cult you have a whole society trying to figure out how to remove sin from their group (which now is basically all of society)

philologos wrote: »

This is evident in a number of passages. Christ died to save sinners (1 Timothy 1, Romans 5), not to exclude them from living.

Anyone can come into the religion. But you must be in the religion. Outsiders who have not repented, who have not accepted the religion, are to be shunned lest their continuous sinful behaviour corrupts others.

You mention the Pharisee, but the difference between them was not the shunning of sinners. It was that the Pharisee's offered no hope of entering the religion, no hope of redemption.

This is what was appealing about Christianity, that you could seek redemption, it wasn't an exclusive club that most could not join.

But you still had to join. And once you did you were part of the group. But if you didn't then you were someone to be preached to but not associated with.

Sam Vimes

philologos wrote: »

What is trolling in your view? Is it simply criticising atheism or something more?

Yes of course he calls any criticism of atheism trolling :rolleyes:

ffs don't you ever get sick of straw manning

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

The political demonisation of LGBT people in Uganda is a distortion of the Christian gospel. Jesus died for our sins, why on earth would I or any other Christian have the authority to put anyone else to death as a result. Any Christian I feel who would be advocating this view needs to be reminded of Christ's grace.

only in uganda? what about here and in the states?

robindch

philologos wrote: »

I only defend one thing on boards.ie - That's the Gospel. Institutions and whatever else have you aren't my consideration.

You haven't explained why you debate your religious views, but refuse to debate their inevitable consequences.

philologos wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

It takes people on boards.ie a long time to realise this

On the contrary, people do realize that it's your position and rightly call you out on it.

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

Well yes, that is the point. Some of the blame for this sort of behaviour rests on the Bible.

For example, when the Oregon School Board fire a teacher for being gay they are not distorting the message of the Bible. They are in fact following it.

The first thing you must estabish is your hierarchy. Paul is addressing a specific group of people: Christians. That is: those in Christ (and who have signed up to what that means) vs. those not in Christ (and who haven't signed up to what that means)

If the OSB and the teacher are both Christians (in the God/Paulian sense of the word) and matter is a church one (and we are assuming, for the sake of discussion, that the teacher is a practicising homosexual) then they (the OSB) would indeed appear to be following the NT teaching. What of it?

If the situation is other (either the OSB and/or the teacher aren't Christians (in the God/Paulian) sense of the word then that's another matter. The Christian (OSB) might, for example, might prefer to withhold a position from the non-Christian gay teacher based on his being a practicing homosexual rather than his being a disobedient Christian.

Well God doesn't exist, so I agree we cannot blame him for this

We can though critically look at how separationist dogma leads, unsurprisingly, to people being separated and persecuted. Christians may say something like "Oh its ok, it is what God wants so it is fine" but that, needless to say, means nothing to me or a great deal of people.

That's okay. But you were addressing your arguments at someone who believes there is a guiding truth that is other than the truth this person, that person or the other person adheres to.

When you say 'critical' you are really only saying "according to the truth as I and others like me see it". This can't be expected to hold any kind of universal sway.

I appreciate that all our discussions will boil down so but at least let's recognise it and not go pretending to build 'objective' sounding points on our relative positions.

That is again the point, the authors of the Bible didn't want their fellow Jews or Christians to tolerate sinful behaviour. They wanted it removed, often violently, from society so that it would not corrupt others.

Again, the lack of common ground scuppers both our arguments. For instance, the authors of the bible drew a distinction between Christian (a.k.a. spiritual 'Jew') and non-Christian (Jew, Hindu, atheist, etc). And between OT and NT. It's nigh on impossible to discuss with one who draws lines otherwise - for example, by throwing OT and NT into the one pot.

Ellis Dee

philologos wrote: »

What is trolling in your view? Is it simply criticising atheism or something more?

Given that Christianity is growing worldwide - I wouldn't say it's disappearing just yet by any means.

Unfortunately, it looks like it will stay around for quite a while. It's a bit like the poor, who it seems will always be with us.:rolleyes: All the more reason for us to expose its falsehoods and fallacies whenever and wherever we can.

However, the parts of the world where christianity is growing most are quite backward in other respects as well - really not too far removed from bone-in-the-nose superstition. Africa is a good example. With so little progress and development there, no real democracy, widespread corruption and crushing poverty, it is hardly surprising that with little hope of improvement in this world, people delude themselves that they will have a better life with the sky fairy when they get to the big paradise in the sky.;)


As for the god-botherers trolling, there is no doubt that some of them try it on, but they rarely succeed in fooling many people. For that they would need imagination, and who needs imagination when you have the whole sky fairy story in great detail laid out for you and all you have to do is blindly believe it?:D

robindch

philologos wrote: »

robindch: No, I didn't. I said that Christianity didn't produce it. There's a difference.

You claim that the more religious a society is, the fewer social problems there are.

While selective readings of certain religious texts and religious believers might claim otherwise, all independent available evidence suggests exactly the opposite.

Why don't you investigate the evidence before making up your mind?

sephir0th

But they're not true Christians!

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The first thing you must estabish is your hierarchy. Paul is addressing a specific group of people: Christians. That is: those in Christ (and who have signed up to what that means) vs. those not in Christ (and who haven't signed up to what that means)

If the OSB and the teacher are both Christians (in the God/Paulian sense of the word) and matter is a church one (and we are assuming, for the sake of discussion, that the teacher is a practicising homosexual) then they (the OSB) would indeed appear to be following the NT teaching. What of it?

If the situation is other (either the OSB and/or the teacher aren't Christians (in the God/Paulian) sense of the word then that's another matter. The Christian (OSB) might, for example, might prefer to withhold a position from the non-Christian gay teacher based on his being a practicing homosexual rather than his being a disobedient Christian.

Well yes, again that is the point. Firing the teacher for being gay and not wanting his gayness to corrupt the children of the school is perfectly in line with Christian teaching according to a lot of Christians (obvious it is impossible to verify what is or isn't the 'true' or 'correct' interpretation of any Bible passage, so we are left with how Christians act based on these passages).

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's okay. But you were addressing your arguments at someone who believes there is a guiding truth that is other than the truth this person, that person or the other person adheres to.

When you say 'critical' you are really only saying "according to the truth as I and others like me see it". This can't be expected to hold any kind of universal sway.

Well no, we all (I would imagine) in this example see the school teacher getting fired. I hope this isn't going to turn into another But how do we know the teacher really got fired, how do we know the teacher even exists discussion, we have one of those going on in another thread

antiskeptic wrote: »

I appreciate that all our discussions will boil down so but at least let's recognise it and not go pretending to build 'objective' sounding points on our relative positions.

The current employment status of the teacher is not relative. Neither for that matter is the status of a gay Ugandan (ie living or dead)

antiskeptic wrote: »

Again, the lack of common ground scuppers both our arguments. For instance, the authors of the bible drew a distinction between Christian (a.k.a. spiritual 'Jew') and non-Christian (Jew, Hindu, atheist, etc). And between OT and NT. It's nigh on impossible to discuss with one who draws lines otherwise - for example, by throwing OT and NT into the one pot.

You threw them into the one pot, I was merely agreeing with you.

God's interest in separating his people from depravity runs as strongly under the new convenant as it did when mirrored by the old. In the old he wiped out nations, in the new he instructs those who wilfully engage in depravity be excised. For the good of the flock.

The methods are different, the theme is the same.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

You claim that the more religious a society is, the fewer social problems there are.

Where did I say that? - What I do say, is if people follow Jesus earnestly, one can see dramatic changes in peoples lives. If everyone followed Him, then yes, I believe the world would be a significantly better place to live in.

robindch wrote: »

While selective readings of certain religious texts and religious believers might claim otherwise, all independent available evidence suggests exactly the opposite.

Again, given that I've not even made that claim I don't see what the basis for this post is. People can be "religious" yet do what is completely immoral. Reading one of the Gospels will tell you that much. If I was to sum up my sentiments:

James 1:26-27 wrote:

If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

robindch wrote: »

Why don't you investigate the evidence before making up your mind?

Evidence for what claim? - I don't defend corrupt institutions and I don't see why you are so insistent that I do given that all I claim to advocate is Biblical Christianity.

Ellis Dee: And the claim that I blindly believe it simply isn't true given how much thought I actually put in to becoming a follower of Jesus. It's amazing the stereotypes that anti-theists like you like to whip up about people like me.

Gordon

ed2hands wrote: »

That wasn't trolling though. Taken up wrong more like..

Your opinion, my opinion more like.. My opinion and years of watching out for trolls, banning trolls, and even in some cases in my past: being a troll, states that the linked post is a troll, this is a fact in my opinion. Although my sensitivities on the global trolling is something I'm open minded about, as I mentioned in my first post (please read it if you haven't).

RichieC wrote: »

not new. anyone who follows science news and watches science videos on youtubr knows they get into the comments and destroy any useful discussions with their anti science rubbish.

That happens on both sides though, no? But I haven't noticed a great deal of religious trolling, meself.

Dades wrote: »

I'm not sure I've seen a big increase recently. There's a few regulars that have been cropping up in the last couple of years.

Adds a certain 'balance' to the place in that freedom of speech is seen to be given to all.

Indeed, I'm not doubting that! Interesting to see you haven't seen an increase, maybe it's just me.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Set your antennae to 'subtlety detection' and you might avoid spamming the forum with false troll alerts. (this statement being an example of an actual Trollism)

Haw haw!

robindch wrote: »

One side-effect of this tendency towards extremism is an increased sense of the necessity for propagation, for outgroup persecution (qv, Dana's bullet-ridden car tyre) etc. Another side effect of this lack of social restraint, is that small, unhinged religious groupings, such as the 9/11 hijackers, are going to continue to engage in what I suppose could be referred to, drily, as "indiscriminate high-profile actions". I think it was in Algeria, where one group of religious extremists determined that every citizen in the state was an apostate and cheerfully murdered as they wished (up until, AFAIR, they imploded when one group member realized that everybody else in the group was an apostate, and killed the lot).

Interesting! Do you reckon that there is never to be an escape from extremism? The further something's half-life reduces the whole, the closer it gets to imploding in a hail of extremism?

dixiefly wrote: »

Wow!
You attempt to conclude from a thread written to wish seasons greetings that religion is finally on the way out. The words jumping to conclusions spring to mind!

Wow!

I fear the hopscotch over to Conclusion Land has been enacted by your fair self dixiefly. My opening post stated that I felt I noticed a rise in trolling by religious people. Maybe I didn't clarify enough, I mean, on boards and web forums in general. I've seen (on boards.ie) posts on Feedback and Afterhours by more religious people in the past year than I remember last year, and the years before. It's a trend that I have noticed personally, globally, on the internet arenas that I frequent.

Is this not the kind of approach to making a conclusion based on tenuous information that atheists have a big problem with?

I refer you to your tenuous hopscotch links above. I have no idea what your agglomerative collective of 'atheists' have a problem with, is there a big book that atheists adhere to or something?

Also, if you had a problem with the other thread could you not just post your points on that thread?

I would be thread spoiling, as, if you had read my opening post fully you'd see that I'm noticing a trend generally, I'm not specifying one thread in order to jump to conclusions, I gave an example.

philologos wrote: »

I only defend one thing on boards.ie - That's the Gospel.

I totally respect that dude.

sephir0th wrote: »

But they're not true Christians!

But they're not truly trolling!

the_dark_side

as a former Troll, I used to comment in the Spirituality forums and generally make a pest of myself in the name of atheism, but since I joined Trolls Anonymous I have now ironically, discovered God . After spending some time abroad I am now cringing as I read over some of what I used to post on boards. I know I have also caused considerable embarresment to one friend in particular whos pc I was using
Anyways, all is forgotten now and I am using my time to spread some positivity and good. And my biggest regret is the endless hours I spent on boards, which was a sinful waste of my time.

Peace to all.

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

Well yes, again that is the point. Firing the teacher for being gay and not wanting his gayness to corrupt the children of the school is perfectly in line with Christian teaching according to a lot of Christians (obvious it is impossible to verify what is or isn't the 'true' or 'correct' interpretation of any Bible passage, so we are left with how Christians act based on these passages).

As I say, what of it (assuming the firer is a Christian grouping and the firee either a Christian/non-Christian considered to be promoting the idea that gayness is okay)?

Well no, we all (I would imagine) in this example see the school teacher getting fired. I hope this isn't going to turn into another But how do we know the teacher really got fired, how do we know the teacher even exists discussion, we have one of those going on in another thread

I suppose I don't see the issue yet.

The current employment status of the teacher is not relative. Neither for that matter is the status of a gay Ugandan (ie living or dead)

What is relative is whether firing someone who has an influence on kids or someone getting killed because of their gayness is a bad or good thing.

I don't see the former as necessarily a bad thing (in the context of church discipline is it fine - whether the person is an 'unrepentent' gay Christian or an 'unrepentant' gay non-Christian) and the latter as always bad

You threw them into the one pot, I was merely agreeing with you.

God's interest in separating his people from depravity runs as strongly under the new convenant as it did when mirrored by the old. In the old he wiped out nations, in the new he instructs those who wilfully engage in depravity be excised. For the good of the flock.

The methods are different, the theme is the same.

True. Holiness, holiness uber alles.

Sonics2k

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I say, what of it (assuming the firer is a Christian grouping and the firee either a Christian/non-Christian considered to be promoting the idea that gayness is okay)?

It's called bigotry, hate and homophobia.

Actually quite recently a teacher was fired from a school for being gay here in Ireland. This person had never officially come out to the school officials, and the students didn't know. But he was sighted with his partner of numerous years, holding hands walking around doing shopping.

What happened to "Jesus loves everyone".

yawha

philologos wrote: »

Given that Christianity is growing worldwide - I wouldn't say it's disappearing just yet by any means.

Is the number of people just calling themselves Christians growing, or is the number of genuine Christians increasing? (e.g. given how Ugandan Christians appear to be, as you say, distorting the message of the gospel, growth of the numbers of people calling themselves Christians in Uganda can hardly be counted in any meaningful statistic about the growth of Christianity worldwide.)

Sonics2k

yawha wrote: »

Is the number of people just calling themselves Christians growing, or is the number of genuine Christians increasing? (e.g. given how Ugandan Christians appear to be, as you say, distorting the message of the gospel, growth of the numbers of people calling themselves Christians in Uganda can hardly be counted in any meaningful statistic about the growth of Christianity worldwide.)

It does amuse me they claim that the religion is growing, but also claim the places where it is mainly growing (most of Africa) aren't 'proper' Christians.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I say, what of it (assuming the firer is a Christian grouping and the firee either a Christian/non-Christian considered to be promoting the idea that gayness is okay)?

The what off it is that it is ostracising people, something that originally was claimed Christianity didn't do.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What is relative is whether firing someone who has an influence on kids or someone getting killed because of their gayness is a bad or good thing.

That is relevant but we haven't got to that question yet.

There is still debate over whether Christians do this or not and when they do that it is or isn't Christian to do so (not hang gays in Uganda, but ostracise sinners for society)

I take it you accept they do.

ed2hands

Gordon wrote: »

Your opinion, my opinion more like.. My opinion and years of watching out for trolls, banning trolls, and even in some cases in my past: being a troll, states that the linked post is a troll, this is a fact in my opinion.

With all respect to your obvious experience in making judgements on posts, i'm still not seeing what for me was a friendly christmas wish from a regular poster to their fellow regulars, as trolling.
A tad unfair IMO to hold up that post as an example for your thread topic. In my opinion of course.

Gordon wrote: »

Although my sensitivities on the global trolling is something I'm open minded about, as I mentioned in my first post (please read it if you haven't).

Yeah, i read it the first time. Interesting outlook, but not one i'd see any common ground on. Can't really agree with your conclusions or jumps in logic tbh.

philologos

Sonics2k wrote: »

It does amuse me they claim that the religion is growing, but also claim the places where it is mainly growing (most of Africa) aren't 'proper' Christians.

Here's what I said:

Christians in Uganda are Christians in Uganda. Some may have the wrong idea about forcing all those around them to believe everything, that tends to have disastrous results, rather than recognising that Christianity is a grass-roots movement people try to make Christianity a political entity.

robindch wrote: »

You haven't explained why you debate your religious views, but refuse to debate their inevitable consequences. On the contrary, people do realize that it's your position and rightly call you out on it.

You've repeatedly ignored my posts now. It's not just a little bit frustrating.

I don't believe that those actions are the consequences of Christianity. Such behaviour isn't consistent with Jesus' teaching and example.

It's pretty much the same reason I won't expect you to defend Mao, Stalin or Hoxha despite the fact that they all were atheists.

yawha

philologos wrote: »

You've repeatedly ignored my posts now. It's not just a little bit frustrating.

I don't believe that those actions are the consequences of Christianity. Such behaviour isn't consistent with Jesus' teaching and example.

It's pretty much the same reason I won't expect you to defend Mao, Stalin or Hoxha despite the fact that they all were atheists.

But, as I said, you will gladly count them as Christians when giving statistics to show Christianity is growing worldwide.

dixiefly

Gordon wrote: »

Wow!

I fear the hopscotch over to Conclusion Land has been enacted by your fair self dixiefly. My opening post stated that I felt I noticed a rise in trolling by religious people. Maybe I didn't clarify enough, I mean, on boards and web forums in general. I've seen (on boards.ie) posts on Feedback and Afterhours by more religious people in the past year than I remember last year, and the years before. It's a trend that I have noticed personally, globally, on the internet arenas that I frequent.

But they're not truly trolling!

Of course you can make your own conclusions from what you observed & I accept that. I just thought that you were expanding that to a conclusion relating to the demise of religion. Thats not to say that religion is not on the wane in this country as it most certainly is, I was just questioning the linking of the 2.

philologos

yawha wrote: »

But, as I said, you will gladly count them as Christians when giving statistics to show Christianity is growing worldwide.

Have you actually read my posts? I never said anything of the sort. What I did say a number of posts ago now is quoted below.

Christians in Uganda are Christians in Uganda. Some may have the wrong idea about forcing all those around them to believe everything, that tends to have disastrous results, rather than recognising that Christianity is a grass-roots movement people try to make Christianity a political entity.

I'm sure that there are plenty of Bible believing Christians in Uganda. Likewise I'm sure there are plenty of Bible believing Christians all over the globe.

Please read all of my posts in the thread before posting.

Simply put, all believers of Jesus Christ are Christians. I have no issue in saying that much. I defend the Gospel, I don't defend institutionalism and I have no interest to. I'll stick to defending the Gospel itself.

Sarky

philologos wrote: »

Here's what I said:




You've repeatedly ignored my posts now. It's not just a little bit frustrating.

u mad bro?

philologos

Perhaps, but people do need to take more care as to what exactly I'm saying rather than what they would like me to say for expedience

By ignoring, I mean ignoring the content of my actual posts.

pH

philologos wrote: »

I'm sure that there are plenty of Bible believing Christians in Uganda. Likewise I'm sure there are plenty of Bible believing Christians all over the globe.

Please read all of my posts in the thread before posting.

Simply put, all believers of Jesus Christ are Christians. I have no issue in saying that much. I defend the Gospel, I don't defend institutionalism and I have no interest to. I'll stick to defending the Gospel itself.

Which is fair enough, but there are Christians in Uganda who think homosexuals should be hanged, as did the majority of Christians in Europe for the last one thousand nine-hundred years (or at least their rulers and spiritual advisers).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

Given that as far as we know (and no Christian is really claiming) there have been no further revelations from God since God "inspired" Paul to write a few letters - we have to accept that whatever tolerance has crept in (starting with the abolition of the death penalty in 1860 in the UK for example) it's not inspired by or as a result of Christianity, and on an honest viewing of the facts seems very much despite it.

I was going to say that Christians seem to be at various times as happy with hanging homosexuals as they are with allowing them to marry, but sadly I'm wrong, as yet there seems little evidence of as much enthusiasm for the latter from even modern day Christians.

Sarky

Maybe you could answer his questions, phil (Can I call you phil? Splendid!)? They look pretty valid to me. you do say christianity is growing worldwide, and you do imply that the places where it's growing are doing it wrong when they kill people in the name of jebus.

You can't have your cake and eat it, you know.