Org Mobile Site
.
When I started the thread about the Pope condoning condoms I did not intend to attack the institution or the dogmas of the Catholic Church, or incite others to do that. I wanted the man's words, mindset and its possible outcomes to be discussed. I deliberately used the Pope's human name, although I'm aware that practically it won't make much difference.
If the thread is reopened, this post would better be merged in...
.
When I started the thread about the Pope condoning condoms I did not intend to attack the institution or the dogmas of the Catholic Church, or incite others to do that. I wanted the man's words, mindset and its possible outcomes to be discussed. I deliberately used the Pope's human name, although I'm aware that practically it won't make much difference.
If the thread is reopened, this post would better be merged in...
.
The man's words are dictated by religious dogma, so I guess in that case, it doesn't really make any difference.
When someone becomes Pope, he's Pope. His ideas and opinions, when expressed publicaly, are to be taken as the Church's ideas and opinions. The Pope is a public figure, the representative of the Catholic Church.
When someone becomes Pope, he's Pope. His ideas and opinions, when expressed publicaly, are to be taken as the Church's ideas and opinions. The Pope is a public figure, the representative of the Catholic Church.
I don't think it was your fault Mouz, though your title might have been better chosen. The Pope did condemn more than just condoms (To be fair, the Pope condemns a lot of things.)
I feel like this thread will devolve into the same sort of endless argument even though it is meant to be a posted statement.
Unfortunately every time a religious topic is created people will come to claim it is bashing their religion in order to drown opposing arguments.
On the other hand, making sure you do not pi$$ on anyone's tea is a very difficult task when discussing religion so we often end up hurting people's feelings with our posts.
I think that even the mods are a bit confused at the moment.
Your statement is noted and I think it is very fair and if you want my 2 cents I believe you did very well to quote his human name and not involve the church or a god.
Unfortunately every time a religious topic is created people will come to claim it is bashing their religion in order to drown opposing arguments.
On the other hand, making sure you do not pi$$ on anyone's tea is a very difficult task when discussing religion so we often end up hurting people's feelings with our posts.
I think that even the mods are a bit confused at the moment.
Your statement is noted and I think it is very fair and if you want my 2 cents I believe you did very well to quote his human name and not involve the church or a god.
Originally Posted by rasoforos:
I feel like this thread will devolve into the same sort of endless argument even though it is meant to be a posted statement.
Unfortunately every time a religious topic is created people will come to claim it is bashing their religion in order to drown opposing arguments.
On the other hand, making sure you do not pi$$ on anyone's tea is a very difficult task when discussing religion so we often end up hurting people's feelings with our posts.
I think that even the mods are a bit confused at the moment.
Your statement is noted and I think it is very fair and if you want my 2 cents I believe you did very well to quote his human name and not involve the church or a god.
No blame attaches to Mouza's original post and the early discussion was well conducted and constructive.I feel like this thread will devolve into the same sort of endless argument even though it is meant to be a posted statement.
Unfortunately every time a religious topic is created people will come to claim it is bashing their religion in order to drown opposing arguments.
On the other hand, making sure you do not pi$$ on anyone's tea is a very difficult task when discussing religion so we often end up hurting people's feelings with our posts.
I think that even the mods are a bit confused at the moment.
Your statement is noted and I think it is very fair and if you want my 2 cents I believe you did very well to quote his human name and not involve the church or a god.
I may well be confused (this is a permanent state of affairs according to my wife) but on one thing I am crystalline in my clarity: treating others with respect is the cornerstone of this Backroom and its future.
Religious topics have been, and are, discussed in this forum to great interest and with mutual understanding. All it takes is to respect one's opponent and their viewpoint, however misguided it may seem to your world view. There are plenty of examples where members disagree but do so in a learned, constructive and respectful manner.
There is absolutely no need to make generalisations, barbed commentaries, or be downright insulting just because one has a diametrically opposed world view. People with religious faith genuinely hold that faith to be sacred and are not unthinking because of that belief. People with no faith can develop very genuine moral systems and are not unethical just because they don't have a supernatural guide.
All sides can learn a great deal if they just get past the baiting and trolling and listen. I long ago lost my faith, but find some of the theological discussions held here illuminating to my own ethical philosophy. When one knows a subject is very sensitive to others in one's community, good manners dictates that one behaves with care and understanding.
That's all we ask for: good manners in all things, be it religion or octosquids.
Thank you kindly.
Originally Posted by :
Unfortunately every time a religious topic is created people will come to claim it is bashing their religion in order to drown opposing arguments.
On the other hand, making sure you do not pi$$ on anyone's tea is a very difficult task when discussing religion so we often end up hurting people's feelings with our posts.
Actually, posting an opposing view point or critique absent the venom/malice/condescension isn't that difficult. Using a little forethought and less incendiary/implied insult wording *absence of malicious intent* goes a long way. Example: substituting stupid with misguided when describing someone's idea/belief etc... takes disrespect out of the dialog.Unfortunately every time a religious topic is created people will come to claim it is bashing their religion in order to drown opposing arguments.
On the other hand, making sure you do not pi$$ on anyone's tea is a very difficult task when discussing religion so we often end up hurting people's feelings with our posts.
Way to give the poor guy he is doing something wrong chapeau 
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Way to give the poor guy he is doing something wrong chapeau
Way to give the poor guy he is doing something wrong chapeau
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito:
Actually, posting an opposing view point or critique absent the venom/malice/condescension isn't that difficult. Using a little forethought and less incendiary/implied insult wording *absence of malicious intent* goes a long way. Example: substituting stupid with misguided when describing someone's idea/belief etc... takes disrespect out of the dialog.
Very true, although even using a term such as misguided might offend someone. When it comes to religion, there has to be mutual understanding of one-another before any dialogue is even uttered, or the conversation is likely to descend into name calling.Actually, posting an opposing view point or critique absent the venom/malice/condescension isn't that difficult. Using a little forethought and less incendiary/implied insult wording *absence of malicious intent* goes a long way. Example: substituting stupid with misguided when describing someone's idea/belief etc... takes disrespect out of the dialog.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Oh common, if someone was offended by the way he put it someone made a choice to be offended, why ponder on how it might just be offensive, it isn't. Basta.Originally Posted by Fragony:
Oh common, if someone was offended by the way he put it someone made a choice to be offended, why ponder on how it might just be offensive, it isn't. Basta.
I don't think Seamus was expressing concern at possible offense, just querying what on earth you meant. The sentence you wrote just doesn't make sense.Oh common, if someone was offended by the way he put it someone made a choice to be offended, why ponder on how it might just be offensive, it isn't. Basta.
I took the sentence as something like....
Way to give the poor guy credit, he is doing something wrong...
Then it finishes with some foriegn looking word...
Although im not sure it makes sense like that... its the way i read the post...
Way to give the poor guy credit, he is doing something wrong...
Then it finishes with some foriegn looking word...
Although im not sure it makes sense like that... its the way i read the post...
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
I don't think Seamus was expressing concern at possible offense, just querying what on earth you meant. The sentence you wrote just doesn't make sense.
No blame attaches to Mouza's original post and the early discussion was well conducted and constructive.I don't think Seamus was expressing concern at possible offense, just querying what on earth you meant. The sentence you wrote just doesn't make sense.
I may well be confused (this is a permanent state of affairs according to my wife) but on one thing I am crystalline in my clarity: treating others with respect is the cornerstone of this Backroom and its future.
Religious topics have been, and are, discussed in this forum to great interest and with mutual understanding. All it takes is to respect one's opponent and their viewpoint, however misguided it may seem to your world view. There are plenty of examples where members disagree but do so in a learned, constructive and respectful manner.
There is absolutely no need to make generalisations, barbed commentaries, or be downright insulting just because one has a diametrically opposed world view. People with religious faith genuinely hold that faith to be sacred and are not unthinking because of that belief. People with no faith can develop very genuine moral systems and are not unethical just because they don't have a supernatural guide.
All sides can learn a great deal if they just get past the baiting and trolling and listen. I long ago lost my faith, but find some of the theological discussions held here illuminating to my own ethical philosophy. When one knows a subject is very sensitive to others in one's community, good manners dictates that one behaves with care and understanding.
That's all we ask for: good manners in all things, be it religion or octosquids.
Thank you kindly.
Quite possibly the best org speech ever because of a non-issue, what a waste of energy.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Quite possibly the best org speech ever because of a non-issue, what a waste of energy.
A Moderator calmly explaining, for the millionth time, the importance of respect in communications, is wasted energy?Quite possibly the best org speech ever because of a non-issue, what a waste of energy.
I disagree.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
A Moderator calmly explaining, for the millionth time, the importance of respect in communications, is wasted energy?
I disagree.
There is such a thing such as making something out of something that it's not; a pat on the back 'no problem you silly' would do, who could possibly be offended by Mouz's post. Instead a rousing speech on etiquette. Confusing.A Moderator calmly explaining, for the millionth time, the importance of respect in communications, is wasted energy?
I disagree.
I see. Just remember, not everyone has been here 6 years or more, like you (and I; and Mouz).
This event made for a perfect "teachable moment", and the GreenGuys seized the opportunity. Can hardly blame them.
Thanks for explaining your first comment. I've known your writing style for quite awhile, but even I was a bit confused on that one. :)
This event made for a perfect "teachable moment", and the GreenGuys seized the opportunity. Can hardly blame them.
Thanks for explaining your first comment. I've known your writing style for quite awhile, but even I was a bit confused on that one. :)
Ah well, BG acted a little annoyed now at least he understands why he should be.
//runs
//runs
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Ah well, BG acted a little annoyed now at least he understands why he should be.
//runs
I'm sorry if I came over as annoyed - I thought I was just explaining why my colleague used the inquisitive smiley.Ah well, BG acted a little annoyed now at least he understands why he should be.
//runs
And my original post was in reply to rasoforos, who seemed concerned that we are unable to have a civilised discussion on religion, not as a response to Mouza.
And you should never run. It engages the hunting instinct.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
And my original post was in reply to rasoforos, who seemed concerned that we are unable to have a civilised discussion on religion, not as a response to Mouza.
I am not excluding the possibility of a civilized discussion. I cannot find anything in your reply that I would disagree with.And my original post was in reply to rasoforos, who seemed concerned that we are unable to have a civilised discussion on religion, not as a response to Mouza.
I am just pointing the failings and the difficulty of keeping such a discussion civilized. It goes beyond merely a careful choice of words or good intentions even.
Originally Posted by rasoforos:
I am not excluding the possibility of a civilized discussion. I cannot find anything in your reply that I would disagree with.
I am just pointing the failings and the difficulty of keeping such a discussion civilized. It goes beyond merely a careful choice of words or good intentions even.
True.I am not excluding the possibility of a civilized discussion. I cannot find anything in your reply that I would disagree with.
I am just pointing the failings and the difficulty of keeping such a discussion civilized. It goes beyond merely a careful choice of words or good intentions even.
"My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend" is a tough conversation to manage. I mean no offense to those with imaginary friends.
My own imaginary friend tells me she is not offended, since she is the TRUE one. :)Still, we must respect the investment humans make in their IF's, if for no other reason than acknowledging that no (zero, nada, none, kine) man knows for certain what happens after he dies. It's all speculation. Learned speculation, for sure; but speculation nevertheless. But the ideas of right and wrong that are driven by that speculation have fueled human progress for these millenia.
Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't murder, respect your Ancestors, take a day off 4 times per moon... that is all good advice, no matter which IF's dogma prescribes it.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
True.
"My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend" is a tough conversation to manage. I mean no offense to those with imaginary friends. My own imaginary friend tells me she is not offended, since she is the TRUE one. :)
Still, we must respect the investment humans make in their IF's, if for no other reason than acknowledging that no (zero, nada, none, kine) man knows for certain what happens after he dies. It's all speculation. Learned speculation, for sure; but speculation nevertheless. But the ideas of right and wrong that are driven by that speculation have fueled human progress for these millenia.
Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't murder, respect your Ancestors, take a day off 4 times per moon... that is all good advice, no matter which IF's dogma prescribes it.
To some people it's much more than an imaginary friendTrue.
"My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend" is a tough conversation to manage. I mean no offense to those with imaginary friends.
My own imaginary friend tells me she is not offended, since she is the TRUE one. :)Still, we must respect the investment humans make in their IF's, if for no other reason than acknowledging that no (zero, nada, none, kine) man knows for certain what happens after he dies. It's all speculation. Learned speculation, for sure; but speculation nevertheless. But the ideas of right and wrong that are driven by that speculation have fueled human progress for these millenia.
Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't murder, respect your Ancestors, take a day off 4 times per moon... that is all good advice, no matter which IF's dogma prescribes it.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
To some people it's much more than an imaginary friend
Absolutely, I agree. To some people it's much more than an imaginary friend
Originally Posted by :
...we must respect the investment humans make in their IF's
I don't mean to denigrate god's influence or importance. If god is God (however one imagines him/her/it) I think he/she can handle any reference to him/her....we must respect the investment humans make in their IF's
'Cuz the bottom line is that we all decide what, and in whom, we will believe - individually. In the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, that's covered by the concept of 'free will'. Buddihsm and Hinduism (reduced to their basics) use the mechanism of 'karma'. Animist's use 'nature'. et cetera
Adherents of those religions will take me to task, explaining in great detail, how their faiths more closely comply with their IF's (which they assume are everybody's else IF's too) wishes.
And that's plenty o'fun. But I'm unswayed - we individual humans decide what we believe, say I, based on the evidence presented to us, and our own desired outcomes. That evidence, and those outcomes, are irrelevant, in the final analysis, in disproving the idea that me, you, John, Ivan, Abdul, JianDao, M'beke... all of us, in the dark of night, or in a time of trouble, hope for a some way out of, or an inspired way though, some problem. Be it a battlefield, a kitchen table, or a back-water gaming site's off-topic forum.
I think we build our own gods.
Sometimes they come close to others' conceptions of him/her. Sometimes not.
That's up to us.
That's because you're an atheist.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
That's because you're an atheist.
That's because you're an atheist.
Thanks, Man. :)
You want my world view, you can have it. 
I entirely respect your worldview.
Because it's your's.
Because it's your's.
I'm not sure, I feel like I lost my worldview about three years ago.
I'm not sure who's I have these days.
I'm not in this gig for the salvation, or the chirpy songs; it's what makes me so dangerous.
I'm not sure who's I have these days.
I'm not in this gig for the salvation, or the chirpy songs; it's what makes me so dangerous.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
I'm not sure who's I have these days.
Yours'. As it's always been, of course.I'm not sure who's I have these days.
The salvationiststas, and the chirpy songstresses's: peripheral, as you've figured already.
You've (maybe secretly) made up your own mind about you and god. So have those salvationists and songers; they all have value, something to contribute, to our greater understanding of things/persons/gods bigger than us.
The Church's line on condoms is biblically consistent. The rationale is there and it is distinct from secular rationale.
He is not saying that people should have sex without condoms, he is saying that people should not have sex unless in monogamous, committed relationships. Condoms are viewed as false security, coaxing people into engaging in risky behaviour counterindicated by Biblical instruction.
It's a catch 22.
If people would actually listen and adhere to the message, they wouldn't need condoms. It is a The perpetually aghast secular critics claim people adhering to the message are the problem when it is precisely the opposite.
He is not saying that people should have sex without condoms, he is saying that people should not have sex unless in monogamous, committed relationships. Condoms are viewed as false security, coaxing people into engaging in risky behaviour counterindicated by Biblical instruction.
It's a catch 22.
If people would actually listen and adhere to the message, they wouldn't need condoms. It is a The perpetually aghast secular critics claim people adhering to the message are the problem when it is precisely the opposite.
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
he is saying that people should not have sex unless in monogamous, committed relationships.
He sure says that but why wouldn't you.he is saying that people should not have sex unless in monogamous, committed relationships.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO