A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Lets find out how Godless FYM really is
There's no negative equivalent for "yes, he did" without being snarky in your poll. I suggest you make the possible selections less bitchy.
A_W appearing humble or genuinely inquisitive towards FYM's unwashed masses is rarer than a snowflake in Death Valley.
Thats what I was going for, I voted figurative, the mythology isn't pointless.I took the whole poll as this:
a) I'm a Christian and interpret the Bible literally
b) I don't believe in the Bible
c) I'm a Christian (or spiritually inclined) but don't think the Bible is meant to be taken literally.
I didn't think it was particularly bitchy, but maybe it was just my interpretation.
A_W appearing humble or genuinely inquisitive towards FYM's unwashed masses is rarer than a snowflake in Death Valley.
An inquisitive frame of mind and rejection of illogical or absurd viewpoints are not mutually exclusive, neither is there any particular point to being humble just for the sake of currying favour.
I wouldn't post in The Goal is Soul for the same reason I don't start arguing with people in Churches, it would be unjustifiably rude (in most cases). Your getting defensive when you don't have to justify yourself or your beliefs, neither of us would gain anything if you choose to ignore my threads, but thats your prerogative.Absolutely. Discussing the mysteries of the universe with a dullard would be a pointless endeavor, and I wouldn't waste my time either...
(the following rant is not addressed to you, financeguy, but the forum as a whole; I agreed with your above point, although I don't believe it to be entirely applicable to A_W)
...but I would like someone to point me towards a thread started by A_W where he didn't already believe he had the answer coming in, a thread that wasn't created to prove a point he made in an older thread, or a thread not created for the expressed purpose of riling up the bane of his existence, the religious Right. Just something, you know, pertinent, and not weighed down with his baggage.
Please keep in mind that I'm not bashing the guy because our opinions in many areas, sociological and theological included, are polar opposites, nor am I bashing him because his opinions are more informed than thou. Rather, I'm bashing him because he seldom asks a question that he doesn't believe to be rhetorical.
This thread is an excellent example of the third type of A_W thread listed above. "Lets find out how Godless FYM really is " What is the purpose here? I know that only he would be interested to find out the answer to the proposed question (who else would have any desire to ask it in the first place?), and even if someone else is mildly curious, he put it in such deliberately incendiary terms that it's nearly inaccessible. Does he want this thread to be locked? Judging from his join date, he should know better. This leads me to one conclusion: he's being deliberately incendiary. The least he could have done was title the thread in such a way that those who weren't interested could avoid it if they so desired.
Again, it's not so much THIS thread that bothers me as it is the pattern I've observed. A_W is a very intelligent individual, one of the sharpest in the forum (and FYM specifically, considering he rarely ventures out of here these days, another possible reason he started this thread in FYM instead of The Goal Is Soul, where it belongs, and would be of more interest), but that doesn't give him a license to be an ass. Yeah, I know, I should ignore his threads. He would appreciate that, and I likely will from now on. However, I felt I should get this out in the open, since there is hardly any discernible purpose for this thread's existence anyway.
I disagree with A_Wanderer on a lot, but one thing I completely agree with him on is the benefits of having a free-for-all debate and letting the best ideas win in what is sometimes called 'the marketplace of ideas'.
I don't need to display false modesty or feel that I need to play meek and mild to convey my opinions. The fact is that I am barely aware of how ignorant I am, but I am honest enough to admit it, I'm not staking a claim of absolute truth on the basis of supposed revelation.
I would bet that most people on FYM are liberal Christians, not atheists or agnostics, but people who for any number of reasons believe in God, agree with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth but don't believe in miracles. A poll like this teases out those opinions
I personally believe that FYM is largely agnostic/skeptic
I wouldn't post in The Goal is Soul for the same reason I don't start arguing with people in Churches, it would be unjustifiably rude (in most cases).
The nature of the universe is an open question, one which is engaging enough, I don't see why we shouldn't find out what others believe or force ourselves to question our assumptions.
I was close to doing a poll like this.
I would venture to say the people who voted that Christ ascended into Heaven are for Prop 8.
Those that are opposed to Prop 8 voted the other 2 choices or none of the above.
<>
I was close to doing a poll like this.
I would venture to say the people who voted that Christ ascended into Heaven are for Prop 8.
Those that are opposed to Prop 8 voted the other 2 choices or none of the above.
<>
For what it's worth, I've never had that impression at all. There have been some atheist/agnosticism threads in here in the past, and I've always had the impression that we're a small minority in FYM. Maybe since the forum's going through a lull and things are slower in here now, the numbers have shifted though.
This is a recent observation of mine, honestly. I can't remember was FYM was like before 2007. Perhaps it was different before that. Again, I don't intend this to come across as self pity or resentment...it's just how I've seen things over the past year and a half, or thereabouts.
In any case, the poll results don't look all that convincing as far as A_W's point is concerned: 12-5 in favor of the more polarized options.
Affirming that a man/God literally ascended into heaven is more polarising than supposing the story to be an allegory?