Christian Forum

GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Christian Forum

So I am a member of this forum. They actually allow atheists to post, and have a HUGE archive of threads.

I havent been on in ages, and mostly use it to PM ppl I see while lurking, as I haven't wanted to bluster into a thread acting inadvertently "threatening" to the theists. I dislike conflict, and it's their place, and it's not really a debate forum.

So I happened to look up the RRS. And found THIS.

I go to reply.

Josh1337 wrote:

The RRS is a very blunt, very rude and very disturbed group of people.


"That's not very nice....
I'm a member and I try to be very un-rude, and I don't consider myself disturbed....
Bluntness isn't neccessarily bad, if I say, wanted an opinion from someone I would want a blunt answer usually. Do you have an account there? If so, we may have chatted. If so, then hello!"

 

And click "Post".

And now you, too, can check out THIS forum error message.


"You need to be male to post in this forum. If you are male, please set your gender in your User CP, Profile, so that you are able to post in this forum."

WTF. How is this a male issue? I have never found this kind of sex segregation in any online forum. What is this, The He-man Woman Hater's Club? And honestly, what's stopping someone from tagging the "wrong sex"? In my case, it's honesty. Also, I hate when people mistake me for a guy online. I don't know why, I just do. (One time, a guy said he thought I was a dude "because I seemed so smart ")

Anyway, yeah, it makes me kind of mad. I wanted to reply to his "rude and disturbed" insult, but I can't 'cause I'm a girl.


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
  Susan

 

Susan wrote:
HumanisticJones wrote:

Well, I tried to post a response, but guess what! I'm man enough to post, but aparently not christian enough to respond in that section. That's right, I was told that only christians could respond to it. Absolutely wonderful.

On a side note, am I justified in being worried when people are sending me images like this as greetings?

That's just creepy.

Reminds me of the board game "Diplomacy."  It has a great big sword on the box.  The difference is that the box was supposed to be ironic.  These guys probably came from the "Kingdom Now" Theology camp that produced that super-scary Jesus Camp thing.

Monty Python's Colonel character needs to step in yelling, "Stop!  Stop!  Stop all this nonsense.  It's getting SILLY!" 

***************

And in response to the comment about the only reason to preach "Abstinence Only" would be religious, I agree.  The problem is that, from someone who believes in a purely evolutionary standpoint, there is no good reason to control sexual urges.  Why?  If dogs, cats, and apes have sex wherever and whenever THEY want, why can't humans?  We're mammals too, you know.

This is a terrible way to think.  Even the evolutionist must admit that there is something special about the human.  We don't have an enviromental niche.  This, along with our superior intelligence, would seem to imply a supervisory role over this planet.  Logically, we're better than the animals that we supervise.  Why shouldn't the procreative act of sex, for humans anyway, be held in higher esteem also?

Marriage is a ceremony.  What marries two people is a condition of heart--the desire to love and honor that person for the rest of your life.  Isn't that a higher and more noble purpose than mere pleasure and the need to continue the species?

Of course, if you WANT to look at it from an evolutionary persepctive, then you can.  Birds, I believe, are considered highly evolved (like humans are).  And I know that some birds mate for life.  Why can't we do that?  Or are we just looking for an excuse to have sex with whoever and however many we can?

Fun as that might sound, fidelity is better because of the risk of unwanted pregnancy and STDs, both of which are significantly reduced in monogamous relationships. 

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


Wishkah311
Theist
Wishkah311's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote:

Cory T wrote:

And in response to the comment about the only reason to preach "Abstinence Only" would be religious, I agree. The problem is that, from someone who believes in a purely evolutionary standpoint, there is no good reason to control sexual urges. Why? If dogs, cats, and apes have sex wherever and whenever THEY want, why can't humans? We're mammals too, you know.

This is a terrible way to think. Even the evolutionist must admit that there is something special about the human. We don't have an enviromental niche. This, along with our superior intelligence, would seem to imply a supervisory role over this planet. Logically, we're better than the animals that we supervise. Why shouldn't the procreative act of sex, for humans anyway, be held in higher esteem also?

Marriage is a ceremony. What marries two people is a condition of heart--the desire to love and honor that person for the rest of your life. Isn't that a higher and more noble purpose than mere pleasure and the need to continue the species?

Of course, if you WANT to look at it from an evolutionary persepctive, then you can. Birds, I believe, are considered highly evolved (like humans are). And I know that some birds mate for life. Why can't we do that? Or are we just looking for an excuse to have sex with whoever and however many we can?

Fun as that might sound, fidelity is better because of the risk of unwanted pregnancy and STDs, both of which are significantly reduced in monogamous relationships.

No one is saying that we should all be having sex anywhere and any time and with anyone.. Although, that is some people's choice. It is merely that people are made to want sex. Without that drive for sexual gratification, procreation would stop. I sure as hell wouldn't be making any babies if I didn't get to have an orgasm at least once. We are not saying it should be some kind of hippie love orgy. People just need to understand that wanting sex is normal. when I went to church, I felt dirty about sexual acts I hadn't even committed. Even when I started having sex in a commited relationship, I had issue. Even know, some part of me feels guilty and a little dirty.This is not the way it should be. We should not be ashamed of our bodies and our urges.

And on a side note... abstinence only programs don't work. Children need to know the truth about sex. They will have sex... Without REAL sex education, they won't use protection or even understand AIDS. You cannot guard against something if you don't really know it exists.

edited for hella typos 

Ah, the pitter patter of tiny feet in huge combat boots.


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote:

Cory T wrote:

Fun as that might sound, fidelity is better because of the risk of unwanted pregnancy and STDs, both of which are significantly reduced in monogamous relationships.

I must point out that unwanted pregnancies can occur JUST as often in marriages/committed relationships. Just because you're married doesn't make you magically want children.

I must agree with the STD thing though, statistically the more partners, the greater risk of catching something.

Everyone should be getting tested anyway, but if the other person lies then I guess you're screwed(literally)


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
Wishkah311 wrote: Cory T

Wishkah311 wrote:
Cory T wrote:

And in response to the comment about the only reason to preach "Abstinence Only" would be religious, I agree. The problem is that, from someone who believes in a purely evolutionary standpoint, there is no good reason to control sexual urges. Why? If dogs, cats, and apes have sex wherever and whenever THEY want, why can't humans? We're mammals too, you know.

This is a terrible way to think. Even the evolutionist must admit that there is something special about the human. We don't have an enviromental niche. This, along with our superior intelligence, would seem to imply a supervisory role over this planet. Logically, we're better than the animals that we supervise. Why shouldn't the procreative act of sex, for humans anyway, be held in higher esteem also?

Marriage is a ceremony. What marries two people is a condition of heart--the desire to love and honor that person for the rest of your life. Isn't that a higher and more noble purpose than mere pleasure and the need to continue the species?

Of course, if you WANT to look at it from an evolutionary persepctive, then you can. Birds, I believe, are considered highly evolved (like humans are). And I know that some birds mate for life. Why can't we do that? Or are we just looking for an excuse to have sex with whoever and however many we can?

Fun as that might sound, fidelity is better because of the risk of unwanted pregnancy and STDs, both of which are significantly reduced in monogamous relationships.

No one is saying that we should all be having sex anywhere and any time and with anyone.. Although, that is some people's choice. It is merely that people are made to want sex. Without that drive for sexual gratification, procreation would stop. I sure as hell wouldn't be making any babies if I didn't get to have an orgasm at least once. We are not saying it should be some kind of hippie love orgy. People just need to understand that wanting sex is normal. when I went to church, I felt dirty about sexual acts I hadn't even committed. Even when I started having sex in a commited relationship, I had issue. Even know, some part of me feels guilty and a little dirty.This is not the way it should be. We should not be ashamed of our bodies and our urges.

And on a side note... abstinence only programs don't work. Children need to know the truth about sex. They will have sex... Without REAL sex education, they won't use protection or even understand AIDS. You cannot guard against something if you don't really know it exists.

edited for hella typos

 

I find I like you more and more. Smiling 


Wishkah311
Theist
Wishkah311's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote:   I find I

Maragon wrote:
 

I find I like you more and more. Smiling

Why thank you... I like you as well... Smile


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
I wrote a rant I really

I wrote a rant I really enjoyed writing here, attacking you all for your misandry. But firefox crashed and ate it - probably for the best. I'll instead try to write a version in my normal "balanced" way, and so come across as a passive-aggressive asshole instead of a sarcastic jerk. Yay.

My argument is:

In the Freethinker's anonymous forum here, posts by theists are unwelcome and deleted. If Drupal could do it easily, that'd be automated, like the male-only forum. In this forum, topics other than mere Freethinking are discussed: issues such as homosexuality, movie clips, obituaries, politics, and so on: issues that are important to atheists, but might be equally important to theists.

Nobody seems to find the idea of the women-only forum repugnant or comical. Because, women have women's issues, and so deserve their women-only pubs, societies, taxis public services need to be closed to men for one day a week so that women can use them in safety and privacy. Because most attacks on women are by men, and so women need protection from them. They need their women-only chatrooms, websites, forums, and so forth too, because, well, men are jerks, and women have issues they'd rather discuss without members of the opposite sex butting in. In these forums, surprising though it may seem to those who watch too many TV ads, they do apparently discuss things other than how to "feel fresh" while windsurfing.

Someone claimed the idea of a men-only forum was offensive, but surely not to have a men-only forum in a place where there is a women-only forum is by far the more offensive idea. Women are equally jerks: most women I know can write really stinkingly offensive forum posts if they are in the mood. Many take great glee in belittling men. Men have just as many issues that would be uncomfortable to discuss with women butting in as the other way round. But if women and atheists can discuss issues that do not directly pertain to them and might interest other groups, so can men.

GlamourKat suggested getting a man to post there. So... would it be OK for you, as a moderator, if I were to post some responses to the "Freethinkers Anonymous", with just a snippy little foreword "Here's a response from a theist who couldn't address your points about the [topic] on the atheist only forum"? I sincerely hope you would not be OK with it. It would be as reprehensible as if a a guy used that trick to post to a women-only forum, or as your own forum-invasion plan. If I posted to the Freethinker's board, I'd expect to be protected from that kind of invasion, not have the mods approve of it.

That reprehensibility goes double when in that thread slone it mentions a minimum of five other threads on the same topic of the RRS - why invade a forum where you are not welcome, when you have other places where the information would be equally welcome? Why not, if you can't find any suitable threads, start your own? Isn't that what we'd tell a theist who wished to post on an issue in Freethinker's Anonymous?

Others were surprised that males might discuss male issues on a forum for men; masturbation, wet dreams, etc. Or possibly it was surprise that Christian males might do so. That seems a strange viewpoint, since it should be fairly plain that theists are dealing both with the normal hangups given to them by the media, plus a whole 'nother level of sexual head-fuckery (in various senses) from their preachers. The idea that they might NOT have issues seems ludicrous, since Christian teaching is where most of the sexual hangups appear to originate.

Or maybe they were surprised that Christians might mention it. Well, that might explain why non-Christians aren't allowed to post there: you wouldn't want a non-christian butting into a sensitive discussion about someone's tormented guilt over their porn habit, asturbation, or dirty dreams. Because, while a lot of atheists are lovely, compassionate, empathic people, a whole lot more of them are /b/tards who haven't got the slightest clue of the christian worldview, and anything they posted to that discussion would be offensive.

I'm unsure which group I'd fall in, but after this post, I kinda feel it might be the /b/tards. I slipped a bit out of "reasonable" and back into "sarcastic rant" there. Well, it's more honest that way, at least.

More fun to write, too Sticking out tongue

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
DewiMorgan wrote: Nobody

DewiMorgan wrote:
Nobody seems to find the idea of the women-only forum repugnant or comical.

I think we established that some of us DO find it repugnant and comical. I think its retarded. If theres something i want to discuss in private on a forum, then i use a PM. 

Quote:
GlamourKat suggested getting a man to post there. So... would it be OK for you, as a moderator, if I were to post some responses to the "Freethinkers Anonymous", with just a snippy little foreword "Here's a response from a theist who couldn't address your points about the [topic] on the atheist only forum"? I sincerely hope you would not be OK with it.

I did NOT suggest it. Someone else did. If you'll notice, I didnt use any sneaky way of posting like changing my sex/religion in the forum. I ranted about it here instead. Why invade their forum under false pretenses? it IS reprehensible.

Quote:
I slipped a bit out of "reasonable" and back into "sarcastic rant" there. Well, it's more honest that way, at least. More fun to write, too :P

Less fun to read. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Email the forum moderators

Email the forum moderators and tell them you were born hermaphroditic and ask if you can have two profiles.


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
I think we established that some of us DO find it repugnant and comical. I think its retarded. If theres something i want to discuss in private on a forum, then i use a PM.

So is "Freethinkers anonymous", then, since it's exactly the same thing: a segregationist forum.

You didn't answer my question about whether you'd be OK with a forum invasion of "Freethinkers anonymous".

Quote:
I did NOT suggest it. Someone else did. If you'll notice, I didnt use any sneaky way of posting like changing my sex/religion in the forum. I ranted about it here instead. Why invade their forum under false pretenses? it IS reprehensible.

Good point, you just went along with the idea and added the snippy comment.

No less reprehensible: you're a mod, advocating a forum invasion.

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
DewiMorgan wrote: So is

DewiMorgan wrote:
So is "Freethinkers anonymous", then, since it's exactly the same thing: a segregationist forum. You didn't answer my question about whether you'd be OK with a forum invasion of "Freethinkers anonymous".

Okay, look, I don't make the rules, so if you have a problem with the Freethinker's anonymous forum(which you seem to) I can't help you there. For that matter, the freethinkers forum is at least ON TOPIC. Freethinkers Anonymous has threads related to religion/theism/freethinking issues. Makes sense, no? My main problem was that the RRS thread was posted somewhere where I, as a female, had no way to reply, for seemingly arbitrary reasons.

Quote:
Good point, you just went along with the idea and added the snippy comment. No less reprehensible: you're a mod, advocating a forum invasion.

Snippy? How is it snippy? No one has ever called me snippy before. I was being nice. Maybe something is lost in text online. I'm not advocating a forum invasion, I don't know where you got that idea. I posted my thoughts here, sincxe I couldn't there.


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
You misunderstand me: I am

[Edit: Deleted. With a warm coffee in hand, I see that I am being an ass. I apologise unreservedly.

My basic thesis was "I am offended at your being offended" which is frankly ludicrous. My posts were just blatant point-scoring. I should avoid posting on my hot-button topics, they make my brain turn off and I start insulting perfectly nice people for no reason.

Sorry again.]

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Forgiven and forgotten.

Forgiven and forgotten. Thanks for being so cool about it.

Smile


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
 There's two explainations

 There's two explainations for this: 

God wasn't very good with the ladies.  His only son had to come from a virgin.  He hates women for turning him down.

or

God is female, but all you ladies are too beutiful and she is jealous.

 

I happen to agree with the reasoning of the second.