Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by Fin D, Dec 3, 2010.
neither is MORE offensive....
the third one makes no ****ing sense if you look at the history of the country we committed treason against the world's biggest empire at the time to gain our own freedom.
Stupid sign is ignorant american. Ignorant american is all too commonplace.
The asian one I just don't understand. The other two are eh pretty equally offensive I'd say. I think people should learn to just leave others alone and stop antagonizing one another.
The 6th Ave Electronics one is far more offensive!!!!
I would select B. Plus I do not understand. How not become asian?
Sorry, I LOL'd reading that as an "Asian" would say it!!!!
Mark it down. On this day we agree.
(it says taunt, but I think you know what this means)
(right, looking through a window of Ice Cream store)...what, did you think???
asian is lowercase. is this some sort of code that converted Asians are aware of? does it have some other meaning? or is it just stupidity? stupidity isnt offensive, so long as i dont have to see it lol
B: offensive to asians i suppose
id imagine the only people offended by (A) are the ones dumb enough to believe (C)
I don't like (A), even though I happen to agree with it.
Making a billboard to tell people their beliefs are wrong, is no different than a religion doing the same thing.
The first one makes me sad. Why take out a billboard just to intentionally attack people? Donate to a food pantry, a homeless shelter, whatever. Mixing the Epiphany imagery with antagonizism is horribly sad.
Add me to the list of folks who don't get the second one. At first I thought it could be a terrible ad for one of those places that surgically changes the eye fold. Then I saw the "ministry" and now I am confused??
The third is the one one that makes me reiterate my regular prayer, "God save me from the people on my side!" It is horrible theology and worse politics. As has been pointed out it also makes for lousy history. Reminds me of the pictures of Nazis putting up big swastika flags in German Cathedrals.
As a praticing Christian and knowing that the third one makes my calling to proclaim the Gospel even more difficult, the third one offends me most.
The middle one doesn't make any sense because it's photoshopped. Here's the original.
I am curious what you estimate the actual percent of those "on your side" to be that follow the general line of thinking represented by that sign? Not that particular syllogism (if I am using that term correctly), but the type of thinking that leads to those types of rules to be applied to others?
OOOOOOOOO Now I understand. The zealots on the gay/lesbian side seem to believe that all gay/lesbians come to that understanding the same way and none can ever "change". Zealots on the anti-gay/lesbian side seem to think it is a switch they can turn on and off. I think both sides are wrong.
The only positive side to that ad is the sense it is offering "help" only to those who wish it. It is not trying to attack those folks who are happy in their self understanding. It is a subtle difference but imo an important one.
It is still offensive, though to me falls short of the other two.
I am not trying to duck your question but I honestly don't know. There are a significant number of folks who have morphed Christianity into a civil religion. It goes back to colonial times here in America. If you are asking about that then unfortunately the number would be very high.
If the question is how few Americans understand their own history then the number is even higher! That would be especially true in recent years with revionists rewriting all sorts of things under the guise of fact.
But I am not entirely forlorn. I see regularly Christians who examine national issues in the light of their faith and yet come to varying conclusions who work dilligently for the common good.
But, But....the 3rd one makes fun of Lawyers!!!!
D. All of the Above.
My favorite part about it is that it calls out lunatic atheists with a lunatic message.
Kind of like saying, "Stop cussing you ****er!"
the sign isnt telling anyone that their beliefs are wrong. it says " you KNOW its a Myth." thats true. we all know its a myth.
im reminded of a quote that said, " history is a myth men agree to believe." very fitting here. religious stories are about 6,000 years old. none of us were alive back then. therefore it is in fact a Myth. many people agree to believe it. some dont. believing in it does not make it real history
i understand some people might get offended by billboard A, because of their own ignorance. but that doesnt mean the billboard itself is offensive. those people will probably see the word myth and think fairy tale. the people who made the billboard are not responsible for the lack of intelligence or education of those that view it.
they are merely trying to help others "see the light." just as the believers do. and the score is like 999,999,999,999,999 to 29, as far as bill boards go. so seeing one in favor of reason doesnt bother me at all. i appluad it.
Myth). a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
Aah it finally comes. The voice of "reason" using a semantic excercise to tell all Christians we are stupid or fools or deluded. And then justifing it by saying Christians do it more often so it is all right to do it to them.
Along with the three bill boards I find that offensive.
History is a myth
Tell that to Holocaust victims or POW
History is written by winners but it is not a myth.
Wow.....perhaps the most rediculous concept I have ever read on these forums. If we werent alive therefore its not HISTORY its MYTH? Ignorant, unintelligent, or uneducated those are the choices? I always wondered when a fitting time would appear to use this video and apply it to a post.....ladies and gentlemen, today is that day.
To be fair, he may have been alive to know the Holocaust wasnt a myth...but if he wasnt born yet, his only option is that its a Myth. LOL....
wow. you guys missed the point. im literally amazed at how much, several of you didnt get it.
the quote is "history is a myth men agree to believe." that isnt the same as saying "documented history of 50 years ago didnt happen."
you cant compare something that happened 50 years ago to something that you believe happened 6,000 years ago.
its impossible. things werent the same 50 years ago and 6,000 years ago.
video footage is more credible than the bible
photographs are more creidbile than the bible
testimonials and accounts from live witnesses are more credible than the bible
its not even a comparison.
saying i dont believe in 6,000 year old religious stories isnt the same as saying the holocaust never happened. id say thats a hell of a stretch for you to make such a tremendous jump. but maybe there is no such thing as a stretch, within the confines of a small mind.
ohiophinphan, the "reason" is not " tell all Christians we are stupid or fools or deluded." that is just you misinterpreting the message.
id say the message is more along the lines of " ask questions. compare answers. choose what makes the most sense to you." or something like, " did we really know more 6,000 years ago, then we know now?"
but hey i can imagine that that message does not work for everyone. i cant really understand it, but i can imagine it.... just like i can imagine santa clause.
for some people maybe a better message is " this is what i was told. so this is what im telling you. dont ask questions or suffer the horrible consquences forever and ever. and yes it really happened that way."
that message doesnt work for me.
for me, it all boils down to conflicting arguments. they can not both be right, if they are not both the same. on the one hand we have a 6,000 year old story. on the other hand we have all the knowledge and experience and achievements and discoveries our civilization has amassed over our "history." the answers the two sides give us are NOT the same. therefore they can not both be true.
well thats where i do some thinking of my own. and maybe a little research and decide for myself which answers i think make the most sense. churches used to teach people that earth was the center of the universe, untill we discovered otherwise. churches used to teach people that the sun revovled around the earth, before we found otherwise. churches used to teach people that the earth was flat untill we found out it wasnt.
im more willing to drop "jesus walked on water" then i am "the earth is round and its surface is roughly 70% water."
im more willing to deny that a snake talked than deny the earth revolves around the sun.
i find it easier to believe we discovered remains of human civilazations dating back 12,000 years, than believe the earth itself was created 6,000 years ago.
im not some devil worshiper that is out to distance people from the lght. neither are the people that made that bilboard. i used to believe in religion once, but i guess i just ask too many damn questions. woe is me, i'll go thorugh life without ALL the answers, just like EVERYONE before me porbably everyone after me. maybe i shall burn in hell for all eternity... after im done living my one and only life. you can keep devoting yours to the people who fed you that story and pray for a better after life. but for me personally, after taking everything into consideration that sounds like an awfully bad investment. or one of the longest odds gambles out there. im not laying my entire life down on that betting line. im just gonna walk away from the table.
i dont remember my science teacher passing around a collection plate. the discovery channle never asked me to send them my money so they could bring religious books to starving children and ask those children to devote their lives to the discovery channle. im not a do what im told guy. im a do what i think is right guy.
you got it bass ackwards dude. really not such a fitting time to apply that video. but hey, you got to use it, so pat yourself on the back for that.
if you did a little homework on your own you might grasp the concept of what my post meant. but you didnt. you got the wrong idea by highlighting just the few words you thought you understood adn squeezing them together.
things arent the same as they were 6,000 years ago. jesus walking on water did not make the evening television news. 30 million people didnt talk about being at his crucifiction on facebook. the way things go down as history today are not the same as back then. people are a lot more informed today. there are a lot more ways to fact check today. im sure a lot more mistakes were made back then. there are still mistakes made today. 6,000 year old religious stories are not as credible as every single thing that happened before THIS exact moment and therefore falls under the broad term "history" some things go down as video evidence. some things go down as hear say. all im really saying is there was WAY more margin for error back then. but you can throw common sense out the window if you want. thats not how i roll.
nobody has ALL the answers. and listening to some one elses opinion or point of view does not make you dumber. it is in fact one of the many ways to make yourself more educated, more intelligent, and less ignorant. so is opening a book. if thats too difficult you might try a dvd case. or a vhs. or a cassette. or a website. what ever the little bit is that you can handle, just do something to learn.
just because you didnt understand what i was saying, or didnt agree with what i was saying, doesnt mean what i said was wrong. it doesnt mean you are dumber for having listened to it.
you could look into and think more about it but thats probably asking too much. getting offended and posting a funny video in oppostion is easier and makes you feel better, makes you feel like the big dog.
I am out of this "discussion". Eric, your level of contempt and condescension makes any further discussion with you ridiculous.
Have a good day
But did you ever stop to think that if there weren't people telling gay people they needed help, there might not be any who weren't happy in their self understanding? The only reason they need "help" is because of all the negativity surrounding them.
If being gay wasn't looked at in such a horrible way in this country, I'm sure the vast majority of those who are gay wouldn't be unhappy.
but the bible says that man shall not lie with man as he does with woman.
that means your rational thinking is irrational and not open for question.
its ok for religion to spread hate, but not ok to question the spread of religion. that would just make you hateful.
That is their belief Eric, and it's their prerogative to hold such a belief. I wasn't questioning the belief itself, I was questioning the idea that gays aren't happy with themselves because of some misguided notion that they don't want to be gay.
I was pointing out that I'd be willing to bet huge sums of money that those who are unhappy are that way because of the stigma that has become attached to being gay through the closed-mindedness of those against it.
Whats more offensive, the dolphins offense, or these signs. discuss.
Since it is you who ask the question, Pagan, I will answer. While we have disagreed often you have never acted in a manner which was intentionally insulting and I hope you can say the same of me.
There is some merit to your question, though certainly the "stigma" against being gay exists well beyond the confines of religion. (and yes I note, you didn't say it did, you were speaking of culture generally) That said, I have counseled a number of folks who were gay/lesbian and who came to me to talk about their orientation. As a group (admittedly both a small sample and a huge generalization) they were unhappy that they were not the normative group. Even if they were happy with themselves and some indeed were/are they recognized that the bulk of any culture around them was not gay/lesbian and being "different" is always going to be hard.
Would it be easier if the culture was more accomadating? Probably. Would the desire to be the same as the mainstream of culture completely go away if the culture was more accomadating? I doubt it.
As a denomination we have worked very hard at meeting people where they are and helping folks on whatever their walk might be. For some of us the Biblical injunctions against homosexual activity are still strong enough to desire to restrict ordination but never acceptance of the person into the fellowship of a congregational family. I work on couples living together to marry also so my personal work is broader than just one topic.
I think God meets us where we are, He just doesn't leave us there. I found/find all three billboards offensive and am offended by someone who believes it is all right to ridicule Christians just as I am offended by someone who ridicules gays or people who disagree regarding political topics.
Are those my only two choices?
you may not agree with my point of view, but i dont recall intentionally being insulting.
Your last post before Ohio answered was a tad condescending, bro.
i THOUGHT it was obvious that it was directed towards bigdogshunt, since i quoted him.
and that ignorant, insulting, post deserved a condescending response.
that video was more insulting, offensive and condescending than anything in here, and it was completely mis-used.
if listening to other people made us dumber, we wouldnt even have a language to speak or listen to. ( i might be pulling this idea out of my ***, or it might make complete sense, IF you think about it)
and its not like i was rambling on and on about some puppy who lost its way and tried to use that story to summarize the industrial revolution.
"history is a myth men agree to believe"
"history is written by the winners""
are both basically the same quote, from which you can draw the same conclusions. yet one works for 'anlgp', and he laughs at the other. both quotes imply the same thing in the real world, yet mean something totally different inside the minds of him and bigdogshunt.
i think everything i have said to this point has made sense, but according to that video, its all been a bunch of " insanely idiotic rambling that doesnt resemble anything close to a rational thought."
ohiophinphan thanked him too, so i assume he agreed with his point of view.
if i havent even come close to a rational thought, according to people in here, then i either must be incapable of wiping myself, or we have some close minded people in here that are quick to make not-so-well thought out responses. and my backside is pretty clean, so if i was a betting man, id lay my money on option 2.
like i said earlier. some people will see the word myth and equate it to fairy tale and then get offended by the billboard,(or my quote) when they are just misinterpreting the message because they dont know the meaning of the word. the word myth is considered dirty when its associated with their faith. it offends them to even entertain the idea that its possible their beliefs are false. they get upset and look to retaliate(against an attack that never happened) and undermine the credibility of the one who suggested so.
im not surprised though. same thing has happened everytime i tried to discuss religion in any way. some one on the other end gets offended and uses personal attacks because thats easier and faster then looking something up or learning something. it makes them immdeiately feel better and they forget all about not having legitimate answers to any questions.
Eric, if it happens "every time I try to discuss religion" is it possible that the problem is your communication style and content? You speak as if the only answer is that everyone else is wrong. If every time I spoke people misunderstood me I would look to my communication and not their ability to listen or understand.
maybe im damaged goods after arguing with people less civil then yourself.
i dont speak as though everyone else is wrong.( and you could basically make that argument for 99.9% of people that believe anything one way or the other) i speak with conviction. and i admit that i dont know everything. i present the idea that we as a society dont know everything. but usually im arguing against some one that keeps repeating scripture and pointing to the scripture itself as evidence, all while vehemetly denying the faintest possiblility that they could be wrong at all. then we dance around in circles and keep coming back the the same points that the story itself is not proof of its truth. and that just the existence of something does not mean it was designed by a creator. those are usually the two biggest and/or only pieces of so called "evidence." but they never stand. yet get submitted repeatedely
Sorry, dont get mad at me for calling out what you wrote and how factually wrong it is. History being written by winners is not "basically" nor "implying" the same as saying History is a Myth, and more to your original point, you claim that since none of us were alive back then, therefore recorded History is in fact a myth.
Either you fail to understand what History is, or what a Myth is...but you fail somewhere either way, if not both.
You still refuse to process the error of your original statement, then claim you meant History is written by winners...which still doesn't mean its a MYTH, simply because a winner recorded it as such.
Does that make it clear?
Again, right off the bat following FinD's statement to your post, you chose to jump into this depth of this thread aggressively with an opinion not based on fact and incorrectly phrased. When FinD, then Ohiophinphan, anlgp, myself, and finally Pagan each challenged you to reconsider and clarify this thought, you claimed from the get go that the only way someone would disagree with your stance was either because of ignorance, lack of intelligence, or lack of education.
And you possibly think you have a communication issue??
As I said, don't get mad when you are called out on these misstatements and attacking statements of yours. If you want to discuss and debate we can, but trust me when I say if we disagree, its not because of 3 reasons you cling to.
P.S. for what its worth, dont read to much into who thanks what and who doesnt on a given post. There are many reasons for these to occur and its not always because of 100% support, but rather a general concept that folks will click thanks on behalf of.
Plus, we all have to click thanks when Pagan types, otherwise he will put a curse on you...atleast thats what Ohiophinpfan told me.