Sad State of Affairs

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
202

[quote]Captain Glanton wrote:
If i can make a suggestion, as someone who very rarely comes to this board:

You guys fighting with steveo are making a basic mistake. Never, ever underestimate the power of ideology. You won’t win; trust me. Ideology is probably the most powerful force in the world, and your being right isn’t going to damage his belief one bit.[/quote]

This guy is the enlightened one. I’ve experienced, and been responsible for this mistake a few times.

Anyone know Freddie Foxxx? “An idea is a dangerous thing, especially if it’s your only one.”

203

Finding truth in the bible may be done, but the whole thing may be apocrypha- a story written by monks, for a purpose.

Quoting the bible is in my opinion a mistake. I personally feel St Thomas is the way forward. Yeshua was a cool guy.

My experience has shown me that prayers don’t come true; hail marys do not repair my catholic sisters’ state of perpetual debt despite very hard work daily; has not brought peace on earth, even in Christian countries, and is in fact a divisive force.

Steve, chill man. If you believe a thing, of faith, it is personal, no? I don’t think this is the right place to talk about the bible.

I have a quote by dead prez “I believe man made god, out of ignorance and fear, if god made man, why the hell would he put us here? I thought he was supposed to be the all-loving, the same god who let hitler put the jews in the oven” which expresses some of the prevalent agnostic theories of modern society.

There are places, where you can preach to the choir. Churches

204

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Politics are when seemingly good ideas get perverted with personal agendas and turn them in to something intrinsically evil. Politics are for people with nothing better to do than to bitch about how they or their ideologies are put upon. Principled people do not need politics and do not need to justify themselves constantly, once is usually more than enough. The media’s purpose in politics is to give importance to unimportant events and circumstances. [/quote]

Wait…are you talking about politics…or religion?

205

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Will there be two or three more pseudo-religious threads tomorrow telling people they will burn and that acting like an ass and ramming your personal beliefs down everyone’s throats is the only way to save yourself? What will you do about your dumbassery?
[/quote]

You just started a thread ranting about pseudo-religious threads! And you are ramming “down everyone’s throats” your personal belief that certain people are acting like asses and engaging in dumbassery! You’re a hoot! And a hypocritical one to boot!

206

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…[/quote]

I agree with you that there are major dumbasses now inhabiting this board, but I think people bring it upon themselves, in a way.

How come the “normal” posters of the board won’t collectively boycott the religious dumbasses? Self restraint is nary in sight on this forum. Don’t reply to every topic and only post when you have something worthwhile to say. If there’s a bad thread, DON’T reply to it.

It seems that the worst threads get the most replies. Anyone else notice this?

[quote]pookie wrote:
When I was young, I used to pray for a bicycle. I’d pray and pray, and never get that bicycle.

Then one day, it dawned on me: It was completely wrong to pray for a bicycle!

So I stole a bicycle, and prayed for forgiveness.

Once you understand how this God works, things really fall into place.
[/quote]

Cripes, that was brilliant! Some real wit still to be found in this place.

207

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Will there be two or three more pseudo-religious threads tomorrow telling people they will burn and that acting like an ass and ramming your personal beliefs down everyone’s throats is the only way to save yourself? What will you do about your dumbassery?

You just started a thread ranting about pseudo-religious threads! And you are ramming “down everyone’s throats” your personal belief that certain people are acting like asses and engaging in dumbassery! You’re a hoot! And a hypocritical one to boot![/quote]

Wow. If that post was even half way serious, you win the stupid fucker of the year award hands down. With JeffR here, that is really saying something. Yes, I started ONE thread on this issue. Let me know when I start another one each day for a week. That would be the only way to compare this to the topic being discussed. Please write back a response. I have no doubt it will be equally hilarious.

208

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…

I agree with you that there are major dumbasses now inhabiting this board, but I think people bring it upon themselves, in a way.

How come the “normal” posters of the board won’t collectively boycott the religious dumbasses? Self restraint is nary in sight on this forum. Don’t reply to every topic and only post when you have something worthwhile to say. If there’s a bad thread, DON’T reply to it.

It seems that the worst threads get the most replies. Anyone else notice this?
[/quote]

I have actually been trying to do just that here lately. That is one reason I started this thread, so I could get that out without boosting some of the other crap to the top of the page. I just wish others would do the same.

210

[quote]dannyrat wrote:

“An idea is a dangerous thing, especially if it’s your only one.”

[/quote]

Cave ab homine unius libri

(“Beware the man of only one book”)

211

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…

I agree with you that there are major dumbasses now inhabiting this board, but I think people bring it upon themselves, in a way.

How come the “normal” posters of the board won’t collectively boycott the religious dumbasses? [/quote]

Perhaps it’s because they are more similar to the religious dumbasses they they would like to admit.

212

[quote]vroom wrote:
Okay, I see a lot of people saying “don’t respond”, but there is a different issue…

When the top twenty threads are all shit, then you aren’t going to dig down and find the threads that are worth responding to.[/quote]

Why not, they are just a mouse click away? Or, like someone has suggested, start a good one of your own.

[quote]
Just as in money, the bad drives out the good. The Internet has a way of sinking to the lowest common denominator if there are no imposed quality metrics.[/quote]
Yeh, I’m sure you’re just the man for the job of imposing quality control here.

213

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Yes, I started ONE thread on this issue. Let me know when I start another one each day for a week. That would be the only way to compare this to the topic being discussed. [/quote]

And in this “ONE thread on this issue” you shoved your own personal belief down everyone’s throats.

Are you implying that you would not mind it if someone like the damnable heretic Steveo shoved his own personal belief down your throat in only ONE thread, rather than MULTIPLE threads (i.e., “one each day for a week”)?

In other words, you don’t mind it if a particular belief gets “shoved down your throat” ONE time, but you would mind it if this same belief was repeatedly shoved down your throat in multiple threads, say one each day for a week?

Then again, I shoved an indisputable fact that you are a hypocrite down your throat ONE time and your reply showed me (and all those who are reading this)that it does not take seven or so times.

Thanks for your quick reply. It means a lot to me and, judging by the adjectives alone, I know it means a lot to you too.

214

[quote]pookie wrote:
When I was young, I used to pray for a bicycle. I’d pray and pray, and never get that bicycle.

Then one day, it dawned on me: It was completely wrong to pray for a bicycle!

So I stole a bicycle, and prayed for forgiveness.

Once you understand how this God works, things really fall into place.
[/quote]

Amen!

Thats the best kind of religion ive heard yet.

215

[quote]orion wrote:

"Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. "
1 Kings 15:5.

David did not sin in the eye of the Lord except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.

Him, having several wives, was obviously not a sin , because the Bible contains no contradictions, right?

Jesus never spoke out against polygamy, I guess you are covered.

In fact he acknowledges it implicitly several times, without speaking out against it.

[/quote]

Odd that steveo hasn’t responded to this.

216

[quote]extol7extol wrote:

And in this “ONE thread on this issue” you shoved your own personal belief down everyone’s throats. [/quote]

I shoved my beliefs down someone’s throat? How did I do that?

[quote]
Are you implying that you would not mind it if someone like the damnable heretic Steveo shoved his own personal belief down your throat in only ONE thread, rather than MULTIPLE threads (i.e., “one each day for a week”)? [/quote]

No, I wouldn’t mind. We have discussed religion on these boards several times over the years. There are several people who participate in this forum who believe in God and only since steveo has started posting has there been such a major downgrade of this entire forum in terms of topics and debate. He isn’t catching flack because of one post. In fact, had he kept it at one post instead of the SEVERAL he threw up, this thread would not need to exist.

[quote]
In other words, you don’t mind it if a particular belief gets “shoved down your throat” ONE time, but you would mind it if this same belief was repeatedly shoved down your throat in multiple threads, say one each day for a week?[/quote]

Posting on a message board that you choose to read the posts of isn’t shoving anything down anyone’s throats. This has never been about whether anyone believes they are FORCED to read Steve’s posts. This is a discussion forum. If anything, the negative being focused on is his poor ability to even argue correctly and the saturation of this one forum with post after post LIKE TROLLS WOULD DO.

The same way trolls are usually not tolerated by the members of any discussion board and they will usually rally around and either have the troll removed from the forum or ignored in majority is the same way people are responding to steveo.

You haven’t shoved anything. You haven’t shown anyone anything other than that you don’t really even understand the issues presented. Hopefully your response to this will be better because the one you just posted wasn’t very good at all.

217

[quote]doogie wrote:
orion wrote:

"Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. "
1 Kings 15:5.

David did not sin in the eye of the Lord except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.

Him, having several wives, was obviously not a sin , because the Bible contains no contradictions, right?

Jesus never spoke out against polygamy, I guess you are covered.

In fact he acknowledges it implicitly several times, without speaking out against it.

Odd that steveo hasn’t responded to this.

[/quote]

Jesus, being an observant Jew, would have never contradicted the Torah, and polygamy was never banned by Jewish law during his lifetime. It was only in the 11th century that European Jews were restricted to only one wife, and even as late as the 20th century some Spanish and Middle Eastern Jews still showed up at the Israeli border with multiple wives and children in tow.

Islam, of course, still allows up to four wives as long as they can all be well provided for and treated equally, in keeping with Quranic…which is to say Mosaic…law.

The Apostle Paul was the first really vocal Christian critic of the practice, as it no doubt offended his Roman sensibilities. His sentiments were echoed by St. Augustine, who wrote, “now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living.”

God’s laws may be eternal, but the laws of men evidently change with the times.

218

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
doogie wrote:
orion wrote:

"Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. "
1 Kings 15:5.

David did not sin in the eye of the Lord except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.

Him, having several wives, was obviously not a sin , because the Bible contains no contradictions, right?

Jesus never spoke out against polygamy, I guess you are covered.

In fact he acknowledges it implicitly several times, without speaking out against it.

Odd that steveo hasn’t responded to this.

Jesus, being an observant Jew, would have never contradicted the Torah, and polygamy was never banned by Jewish law during his lifetime. It was only in the 11th century that European Jews were restricted to only one wife, and even as late as the 20th century some Spanish and Middle Eastern Jews still showed up at the Israeli border with multiple wives and children in tow.

Islam, of course, still allows up to four wives as long as they can all be well provided for and treated equally, in keeping with Quranic…which is to say Mosaic…law.

The Apostle Paul was the first really vocal Christian critic of the practice, as it no doubt offended his Roman sensibilities. His sentiments were echoed by St. Augustine, who wrote, “now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living.”

God’s laws may be eternal, but the laws of men evidently change with the times.[/quote]

Steveo, Zeb?

No?

Thought so…

219

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I shoved my beliefs down someone’s throat? How did I do that?[/quote]

Exactly the point I am trying to make: I don’t see how anyone that posts on T-Nation is shoving their beliefs down anyone’s throat regardless of how many redundant threads they start.

If someone like steveo was continually PMing someone who didn’t want to hear his false message of self-salvation then I would agree that he is harassing them. But if steveo desires to start a thousand threads, preaching his false christ who cannot save–as opposed to the TRUE CHRIST whom I preach who will save ALL for whom He died and will damn to hell ALL for whom He did NOT die–then I don’t see how he would be harassing. You could simply ignore all one thousand threads.

In sum professor x, unless you are getting bombarded with personal messages (or something like that), I don’t see how anyone–let alone steveo–is shoving their beliefs down your throat (i.e., harassing you). IF you’re not shoving your beliefs, THEN neither is anyone else here, including steveo.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

No, I wouldn’t mind. We have discussed religion on these boards several times over the years. There are several people who participate in this forum who believe in God and only since steveo has started posting has there been such a major downgrade of this entire forum in terms of topics and debate. He isn’t catching flack because of one post. In fact, had he kept it at one post instead of the SEVERAL he threw up, this thread would not need to exist.[/quote]

steveo isn’t catching flack from you because of one post, I take it. For he has certainly caught flack from others because of only one post. In one of his posts he caught flack from me for preaching a false god who is not able to control everything he creates. The TRUE GOD of the Bible actively controls all His creation.

Regarding steveo’s SEVERAL posts: So what? Are you the newly appointed moderator in this forum? Steveo is certainly casting forth his putrid dung of self-righteousness in these several threads, but what of it? I will simply hold my nose and contrast his self-righteousness with the righteousness of Jesus Christ:

It is the WORK of Jesus Christ on the cross that makes the ultimate difference between salvation and damnation. Steveo believes that it is the WORK of the sinner that makes the ultimate difference between salvation and damnation. This is the pinnacle of self-righteousness.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Posting on a message board that you choose to read the posts of isn’t shoving anything down anyone’s throats. This has never been about whether anyone believes they are FORCED to read Steve’s posts. This is a discussion forum. If anything, the negative being focused on is his poor ability to even argue correctly and the saturation of this one forum with post after post LIKE TROLLS WOULD DO.[/quote]

I understand. What I TRY to do is post something and if I see that nobody wants to hear it or discuss it, then I move on. And if I choose to start a thread regarding God’s promise to save His people conditioned EXCLUSIVELY on the propitiating (i.e., appeases God’s wrath)blood and imputed righteousness of Christ and I get major flack, then I would shake the dust from my feat and move on as the Apostles did before me. If I continue to preach the aforementioned promise of the Gospel in the face of such opposition and flack, then it is akin to casting pearls before pigs and giving to barking dogs what is sacred.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

You haven’t shoved anything. You haven’t shown anyone anything other than that you don’t really even understand the issues presented. Hopefully your response to this will be better because the one you just posted wasn’t very good at all. [/quote]

I think I am beginning to understand the issue better. You don’t mind if someone posts one time about something offensive to you for example. You don’t mind if someone posts several threads on several different topics. But you do mind if someone posts on the same subject over and over again. Is this correct?

220

[quote]extol7extol wrote:

Regarding steveo’s SEVERAL posts: So what? Are you the newly appointed moderator in this forum? Steveo is certainly casting forth his putrid dung of self-righteousness in these several threads, but what of it? I will simply hold my nose and contrast his self-righteousness with the righteousness of Jesus Christ: [/quote]

Gee, if someone has the right to makes posts like steveo, then someone has the right to make posts about how his posts are childish and inflammatory in approach. That is what free speech is, right? Are you mad because people agree with me?

No, that isn’t correct. We post on similar subjects all of the time around here. I disagree with Steve’s method and have written as such. The same way you think he has the right to keep posting, is the same way you shouldn’t be worried about the thread I made. So, tell me, why are you typing posts to me if you disagree with my thread? Why not just ignore my thread like you think everyone should be doing with Steve?

Who is really the hypocrite?

221

[quote]extol7extol wrote:

Exactly the point I am trying to make: I don’t see how anyone that posts on T-Nation is shoving their beliefs down anyone’s throat regardless of how many redundant threads they start.
[/quote]

It’s called being a pussy.

222

[quote]Professor X wrote:
extol7extol wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Will there be two or three more pseudo-religious threads tomorrow telling people they will burn and that acting like an ass and ramming your personal beliefs down everyone’s throats is the only way to save yourself? What will you do about your dumbassery?

You just started a thread ranting about pseudo-religious threads! And you are ramming “down everyone’s throats” your personal belief that certain people are acting like asses and engaging in dumbassery! You’re a hoot! And a hypocritical one to boot!

Wow. If that post was even half way serious, you win the stupid fucker of the year award hands down. With JeffR here, that is really saying something. Yes, I started ONE thread on this issue. Let me know when I start another one each day for a week. That would be the only way to compare this to the topic being discussed. Please write back a response. I have no doubt it will be equally hilarious.[/quote]

pox, please keep your hard on to yourself.

I’m hetero.

Thanks.

JeffR