[SaltineJesus] What the hell is a Quaker?

[DeletedUser]

Im a Christian and I believe you are too but I dont understand anything you are saying.

 

[DeletedUser]

At least you're honest, which apparently is a rare thing in these parts.

 

[DeletedUser]

Thanks. What kind of denomination are you???

 

[DeletedUser]

...Quaker.

 

[DeletedUser]

Bless ye child, as ye are sacred. Ye. Now SaltineJesus calls to you, it's that time of the day again and he needs his "sponge bath", so best be hasty, as he said he might go rough on you if you are there in a jiffy.

 

[DeletedUser]

I haven't come here to be coverted or informed about any subject other than West. It's like pubs, the rule is no polotics or religion, and if you don't like it then go elsewhere. I could bang on about environmentalism, consumerism, capitalism, atheism etc. till the cows come home. But this is the wrong place, so I don't. You need to respect that unspoken rule, or lose the respect of everyone on the forum.

I'm not really concerned about respect. I'm concerned with the harmful philosophies that are being preached here.

It's our God-given duty to stand against injustice wherever it may be found and that rule is much greater than that of terrified silence to preserve the social order.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok we don't need to start an argument.

 

[DeletedUser]

injustcie? your the one insulting people!!!

I have done no such thing.

I have called people to follow their arguments to their logical conclusions. People here are promoting pedophilia in the name of equality and I find that to be ridiculous. If they have been insulted at all they've done it to themselves.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not really concerned about respect. I'm concerned with the harmful philosophies that are being preached here.

It's our God-given duty to stand against injustice wherever it may be found and that rule is much greater than that of terrified silence to preserve the social order.

You can have no communication without respect, Unless you respect people you can not truly understand what they are saying. If you do not hear me then we can have no communication, only preaching. Through communication can understanding be obtained, not preaching, instructing, domination (of any description) or by laws which create a terrified silence to preserve a social order.

 

[DeletedUser]

thanks, i was just so annoyed my fingers swelled and i hit all the wrong keys. [/sarcasm]

Show me where I have insulted people. All I have done is highlight things they themselves have said.

If you are joking it aint funny as the junk in your character's head gets people killed and leads to deluded ignorance and misery for others.

OK, you don't understand mutual respect and shared codes of social behaviour, so how we respect your wisdom. I'm not holding out for an intelligent, reasoned anwer btw.

Your sort of religious extremist really is the dangerous sort, no matter what denomination or religion. You won't do your religion any good, only give what can be a wise and enlightening belief system a bad name through dogma, ignorance and pig headedness.

Give me examples of anywhere I have stood against reason. The only hard positions I've taken here are against child abuse, rape, murder, and theft. I have condemned no one to hell and I have explained what I mean by "sin."

If people listened to what I was actually saying and practiced it then killing and misery would be significantly lifted from this world.

Please go and actually read my first post because it really seems to me that you aren't clear on my position and are stereotyping me with other experiences you've had.

Those who ask you to stop, those who ask you don't pray, those who may be of a religion where every word you say offends them. Satanism, Scientology, Atheism, Nihilism, etc. Hey, if we're all equal and can choose our own paths, why do you try so hard? Why do you speak against such people if that is what they truly believe in?

I believe in love and not harming each other. If those people believe the same then we are not in disagreement and (as the broken record spins) we are discussing the same values with a different vocabulary.

If someone believes that to be happy he has to burn people alive then how could I not speak against him?

Good to know you'll be in prison for your beliefs.

Many good men have been.

I've raped, been raped, and watched others get raped. At a young age, against consent, yeah, didn't really cross my mind as the best thing until I had calmed down. Really, I just look at it with a shrug of disinterest and consider the rapist and the victim players of a quite dangerous game.

If this is true then putting aside all talk of different world views I am sorry. I would not wish that on anyone but I do not think that it can be written off as easily as you have.

Mid-twenties, actually. And I can't say I haven't. However, you can't really defend that position when kids are starting to look more and more like adults with all that make-up, jewlery, tattoos and unshaven faces and overall appearances of their bodies. It really isn't safe anymore without asking for an ID, which is extremely hard to fit into a conversation. Even then, you're still taking a risk.

This is not a justification. Lots of immoral things are tempting.

You obviously haven't seen the four year olds prancing around in eyeshadow and drag looking like midgets. Even I believe that four is too young an age in respect of understanding the general knowledge needed. Hey, who's to say that you can't find a little boy or girl like that, who has had sex, didn't think much of it then, and doesn't think much of it when they are a fully grown adult, and acts as normally as the next person, you've broken quite the record. In any case, to be that young, you probably wouldn't remember, and if you did, it wouldn't affect you, because you didn't understand it then, and wouldn't understand how you'd have felt had you known what you knew as an adult.

This is so patently untrue that I can't say more besides mention the need for developmental psychology to be placed more highly in educational curricula.

I do not think it is healthy. I do not think it is wrong, either.

If it is unhealthy then it does harm to one or both parties (damages their physical or emotional well-being). To do harm to another is wrong exempting extreme circumstances (of which this is not one).

Out of curiosity, are you familiar with statutory rape laws? They make allowances for parties both being underage and for maximum age differences between the two. A grown adult is far more capable of knowing what he or she wants and manipulating a child to obtain it. These laws are put in place to protect children from this possibility.

Where is the abuse? Where is the unequality? Are you saying you cannot treat your partner with kindness, sexually or otherwise? Are you saying you cannot hold your partner to your own level, who puts faith, love, and care into the relationship, who values one another unconditionally? Who knows full well the consequences?

Can a young child seriously offer qualitative loving care to an adult? They may show affection, but they have not matured enough to be able to enter into a true relationship.

I have yet to meet a child who can talk convincingly of unconditional love or the responsabilities inherent in loving.

A lot of folks here seem real angry at me, but I have yet to be shown where exactly I have taken a radical stance on anything. What is it that you are angry with?

 

[DeletedUser]

You can have no communication without respect, Unless you respect people you can not truly understand what they are saying. If you do not hear me then we can have no communication, only preaching. Through communication can understanding be obtained, not preaching, instructing, domination (of any description) or by laws which create a terrified silence to preserve a social order.

You're taking my words out of context. I'm not concerned about my views losing me the respect of the good folk in this area.

I have been respectful in these talks. If you notice, others have been far more brutal with their words than I have.

 

[DeletedUser]

So does this mean my Loki worshiping ass is gonna end up in your christen hell?
Boy I hope so! I'm packed and ready to go. See, Opens travel bag, Marshmellows, hotdogs, all the stuff for smores, and a giant whoopee cushion for poor old Light Bringer. After all he REALLY needs more laughter in his life. Or is that After-life????

You haven't read my posts either.

I do not believe in Hell as a physical location that is used to punish the dead for their ill-deeds during life. Instead, I take it as a metaphor for the state of pain and misery in which we find ourselves when our lives lose direction and purpose.

My direction and purpose is informed with a Christian vocabulary aimed at doing good for others. I fully welcome and embrace different vocabularies and traditions that do the same.

Why do these discussions put so many people on the defensive from the start?

 

[DeletedUser]

I thought you were a quaker???

 

[DeletedUser]

Quakers grew out of the Christian tradition and I still strongly identify for the core tennants of Christ, but the Religious Society of Friends (Quakerism) has members who may consider themselves at once agnostic/atheistic/humanistic/nontheist/Buddhist/Chistian and Quaker (for just a handfull of examples).

You can be both Christian and Quaker, but being a Quaker does not mean that you must be Christian.

 

[DeletedUser]

And now we see from whence come the insults, hypocrisy, and intolerance of other religions.

Bless ye all, children, for the future that awaits you all is dark and unsure and it will take all your strength to grow and thrive.

 

[DeletedUser]

OH COME ON. RIGHT THERE. WHAT THE HELL? YOU CAN'T SEE IT WITH YOU OWN EYES?

Living decent, loving lives and doing good works as guided by one's Inner Light is the aim of Quakers. Not all subscribe to the same ideas (not all are even Christian!) but, in general, this is the idea of the faith. This is why it is not incompatible with science or other religions.

If you are joking it aint funny as the junk in your character's head gets people killed and leads to deluded ignorance and misery for others.

If people listened to what I was actually saying and practiced it then killing and misery would be significantly lifted from this world.

Treating other people with decency and not harming them. Loving them as we love ourselves - this would not have an effect on the level of violence or misery?

My original inclusion of "inspired by God" is for my benefit; I fully accept and appreciate that other people walk secular and non-secular paths that brings them to similar ideas.

The law is unjust in many ways, and sometimes is the complete opposite of what you believe in.

[sic]

If someone is truly happy or truly believes in doing such a thing, leave them be. It's up to the majority of society to 'deem it wrong' and take him to Texas to be hit over the head with a brick.

Contradiction?

You are letting an idea that you yourself say is unjust take control of another man's freedom and saying that it is fine. I am saying there are fundamental ideas of morality which are immutable that inform socially accepted morality which can be mistaken.

Additionally, for the "majority of society" to come to a consensus on what to deem wrong, each individual must think about it his or herself and add that conclusion to the public discussion. It seems, then, that at the heart of the matter you support this debate and my freedom to express these truths.

The direction you are headed would allow people to throw babies underneath stage coaches and place bets on which one is thrown the furthest for entertainment because society had not come to a conclusion on whether or not it's wrong. Even if a society did somehow pass such a thing into legislation, it would still be wrong.

I didn't say it was a justification. I'm saying that it's damn near impossible to tell nowadays because of such an increase in growth and leniency.

Should you really be having relations with someone you are so unsure about? Ethics questions aside, for your own sexual health you should hesitate.

How many tax dollars do you spend on those theories that are obviously biased and/or bribed to be said aloud?

Used book stores can be incredibly affordable.

Yeah yeah. Because obviously when a child reaches a certain age, SURPRISE! They're instantly able to think for themselves. Ahh, what a strange occurance; I wonder how that happens.

Then you take issue of what age the law specifies, not with the law itself. Happily, that number is up for debate and ranges, from what I know globally, from 14 to 18. That seems reasonable to me, though I would argue that the lower than 16 is dangerous territory.

 

[DeletedUser]

I didn't say you on this forum, I said religious exremists (you?). All religios thinking that refutes scientific understanding is, by its nature, against reason. I don't want to know....

Living decent, loving lives and doing good works as guided by one's Inner Light is the aim of Quakers. Not all subscribe to the same ideas (not all are even Christian!) but, in general, this is the idea of the faith. This is why it is not incompatible with science or other religions.

If you're not referring to me, address it to those extremists - of which none are here. Otherwise please read what I post before reponding to it.

Mad Jon, if people did love each other as brothers, you would not find war, genocide, or those other things you listed. It is this inability to love wholly that brings such sadness.

I said that if people loved, things would be better. Can you disagree with that? I'm not asking if you think such universal love is possible, but if it were implemented, would you have such cruel treatment of others?

Think of the one you love most. Could you ever distroy that person physically or psychologically?

 

[DeletedUser]

John, I have listened and responded to every issue you've put forth - all of which came up because you did not carefully listen to me the first time. If others turn themselves off to an argument because of the choice of vocabulary then the ignorance is not on my part. It is their responsibility to preserve their own intellectual integrity and not set up straw man arguments or paint me as a religious extremist.

But I am glad that in the end you and I have come to an understanding.

 

[DeletedUser]

Calm yourself, child.

 

[DeletedUser]

Not at all.