HappyCetacean
New member
What's up with that?
3. Thou SHALL NOT be intentionally blasphemous
What would be considered blasphemy? Like what, using the Lord's name in vain or as part of a cuss-word? I am interested in knowing, since I don't want to be banned.
:think:Does my thinking that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are not real qualify as blasphemy enough to be banned? How does an atheist contribue to this forum if the very essence of their thinking might be considered blasphemious?
The real question is ... how come you showed up just as punishment got banned? :think:
I'd say argue what you will but keep your insults, personal attacks, and other general disrespect limited to people and not the sacrosanct and you should be just fine :thumb:
No one is going to ban you for being an atheist and espousing atheist positions. That said, calling the apostle Paul an "old Roman cult leader" and using the word "damn" in an inappropriate way all in the same sentence may be overstepping the lines of propriety, as Punisher recently learned.
:think:
Why would anyone want to deny Christ?
I guess if you had good reasons for denying Christ and were willing to share them in a constructive and thoughtful way then you wouldn't likely be banned for saying He was never alive.
But why would you want to deny Christ?
Why would I want to deny Christ? What does that question mean? I can nominally agree that Christ was a historical human who lived on this planet about 2000 years ago. I deny that he was the son of god, or god himself, or that he was resurrected three days after being dead via crucifixtion.
Take this, for example. The statement itself won't get you banned or even reprimanded. But the fact that you mis-spelled 'crucifixion' runs the risk of really getting Lighthouse's pants in a knot. :chuckle:
Dudeman, it's 4:02 AM where I am at, and I've had probably a little too much white wine to drink on account of a party at my house, so forgive me if I misspelled crucifixion.
Don't get me wrong. It's no skin off my back. It's just that that kind of thing (or really spelling problems of any kind) have a tendency to completely throw Lighthouse into an emotional tailspin. :chuckle:
***It's a joke, HC. You'll see what I mean after you've been around for a while.
Well this lighthouse person is just going to have to deal with a sassy chick like me. I've read some of his posts and he is what I'd call a nutjob. I hope that is not blasphemy.
Blasphemy? no.
I'd classify it more as cogent observation though he does have his moments as do most around here. Some have more or less than others but almost all have something useful or enlightening to say at some point or another.
...then there's squeaky :think:
Wow. For a drunk chick you certainly can philosophise with the best of them ...As a rational person, I would view your skepticism as a function of randomness working in concert with humanity's propensity for selection bias to produce false evidence for a link between me and Punisher1984.
Oh. So you don't deny Christ, you just think He was a perennial liar.Why would I want to deny Christ? What does that question mean? I can nominally agree that Christ was a historical human who lived on this planet about 2000 years ago. I deny that he was the son of god, or god himself, or that he was resurrected three days after being dead via crucifixtion.