Why was JackTheRipa banned?

[ego]

Ok, i will say something constructive:












*grabs ball gag and gags ctomie tightly*




















Now that Assurancetourix the bard is bound and gagged, the fiesta can go on in the small gaulic village!!





Erm..... why was JackTheRipa banned?

Originally Posted by ctomie

You did not say "I blame you for the responses" verbatim. However, You claimed that I started a topic that would provoke negative responses, which meant that you were holding me responsible for all the responses that I was getting. That is blaming.

I don't hold you responsible for the responses you get, you can hold yourself responsible all by your lonesome as what you got what was coming, i just pointed out that such a topic will provoke negative responses and 'lo and behold' it did, i never in my posts talked about blame, hell you bought this whole "BLAME" thing up in the first place, are you feeling guilty, hence the need to express your feelings about blame?

Originally Posted by ctomie

I would be happy to take the blame if and only if I wrote a message that CAUSED you to respond. Again, as I mentioned, you could have ignored it as an alternative to responding.

You did wrote a message that caused me to respond, you started to pick on a religious group being Christians, this is not the board for it as i said its a RAPE BOARD, let me spell it out R A P E B O A R D. Therefore in such a board that is not a place to start arguing the finer points of religions, you did this in a thread already in the rowdy room.

Originally Posted by ctomie

I won't throw anymore personal insults at you in this thread, but it doesn't mean that I will have any respect for you (because I don't).

and as for the respect, i dont need yours, look at the reputation i have earned from members over the years

Originally Posted by ctomie

I don't mind if you're incapable of saying something constructive, but at least try to say something new. Hearing the same old crap from you gets more dull each time.

POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK I THINK?

Originally Posted by Phantom

Some of the females around here could tell you about this guy's reputation!!

HOOO RAAAAA!

Originally Posted by Phantom

Did I say you could borrow my words? Well, I didn't actually write them myself....so I guess it's ok!! Let me help him out a little!

Too slow old man

[ctomie]

Originally Posted by Becka

OK ... Maybe its just me but that is such a broad comment that it becomes ludicrous in its self. You may not realize that you are doing it (though I highly doubt it) but you are classifying all Christians into one group when that is simply not the case. There are something like 9,000 Christian denominations throughout the world, surely you are not trying to tell me that you have had a lot of run ins with aggressive Quakers. How about those blog conversations with those pesky and insulting Amish…huh?

You speak of Christians as if they are one big happy family who all goose-step to the same cadence. I suppose those similarities are most evident in the Protestant Reformation and resulting bloodbath across Europe. I mean, millions were slaughtered because they doubted the divinity of the church...Protestants were burned at the stake for heresy. But wait, if they recanted their beliefs some monarchs showed “mercy”, instead of being burned alive, the men would be killed by sword and the women were buried alive. Sounds like one big happy family to me.

But, before you move onto the “that is in the past” commentary…lets look at the fact that many Evangelical Protestants churches don’t even view most non-Evangelical or non-Protestant groups as Christians. This is based on their own doctrine. That might sound a bit strange to you but you have to realize that the majority of the people who get online and argue their religious beliefs with perfect strangers are the kook fringe. Now, I do not doubt that you have been insulted or ridiculed based on other peoples’ religious beliefs. What I do take issue with is you taking those incidents and expanding them to cover over 2.1 billion people. It is roughly equivalent to saying “The men who destroyed the towers on 911 were Muslim so all Muslims are evil and out to destroy other beliefs in the world.” It is just too broad a comment to make sense and it is offensvie.

You are grouping 33% of the world’s population into on mold and they don't fit. For the most part, Christians don’t run around announcing “I’m Christian!” I think the people you have run into have been evangelicals...and the extreme fringe of them as well. Studies indicate that evangelicals remain just 7% of the adult population of the United States. In a country that polls out at over 70% Christians that really isn’t that many holding evangelical ideals. Of that 7%, some of them are going to be offensive…it’s just reality. But what if someone was to base his or her opinion of non-Christians on your online comments? What perception do you think they would get?

I can tell you this, I don’t think I would like to be grouped in with that perception. But using your argument…as a non-Christian I am to be judged based on your words and actions. I mean, that is what you are doing to Christians, isn’t it.

B.

You're correct in saying that the christians that I've met in the past are evangelical christians, but based on what evidence are you claiming that they are "kook fringe" or "extreme fringe of them" (or whatever term you want to use to describe their behaviour)?

Let me begin by letting you know that all christians should be evangelical christians. The prime reason is that they all believe in the one and only Bible. The bible contains the gospel: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. You do not have to look through every single passage in there, but it essentially teaches that we're all sinners and we need to accept Jesus to have eternal life (i.e. that's the whole point that the bible is trying to convey here). To be more concrete here, it teaches the crucification of Jesus and the implication that it has about our afterlife: If we accept, we're saved; if not, we're going to hell. This is often referred to as the "good news" or "gospel". Since all christians believe in the good news / gospel, they must all be evangelical christians (you may verify it by looking up the definition of the word "evangelical"). You may also find yourself some additional reference by googling "evangelical christians" (see the second search result).

Here is a repetition of the above, in summarized form:
1. All christians must believe in the one and only bible.
2. The bible contains the gospel (or the "good news").
3. Christians who believe in the gospel/good news are evangelical christians.
4. Therefore, all christians must be evangelical christians.

All christians (christians in the premise sense) are indeed one big family, because they must all be evangelical christians.

Again, please consult the dictionary and additional references from google to verify (to yourself) that the premises are true. I usually don't like the idea of posting website addresses in a forum.

Note: I'm writing all the above not because I believe in them personally, but to tell you that they are what christians believe.

On to the next issue...

I won't conclude that just because certain Muslims were involved in the 9/11 incident, then all Muslims must be evil. They took the idea of Jihad to an extreme level. You may even say that they took the idea out of context (but whether it means that they are true Muslims or not...well I don't know). If you try to tie that into our current discussion, you'll say something like "just because some christians insult does not mean that all of them do." I hate to break it to you, but you're sadly mistaken about the premise ("some christians insult"). I'll be convinced if you were to argue that most christians don't insult in the sense that they don't actually speak out, but not in the sense that they don't have that thought in their mind.

You do agree that calling anyone ignorant, lost and pitiful are insulting don't you? The reality here is that christians do think of us as such, because they claim to know the truth and the gospel while we, as unbelievers, don't. Let me ask the same question here again, what if christians are on the verge of losing a religious argument with non-christians? Wouldn't they use some kind of a "cop-out"? If they would, then what else do you think they can say, besides telling the non-christian that they're ignorant? As an additional reference, please google "arguing against faith" and look at the first search result.

I know it sounds disappointing to you, but the premises that you've been providing here are far from being convincing.

[ctomie]

Originally Posted by AWDracer

You're an interesting character around the forum. I'm getting jealous because it was fun for a while when half of the board members piled on me.

So did you get to take a look at my post that you said you were going to reply to "tomorrow" (which was a few days ago)?

I thought I've addressed every post from you already.

[touriquet2001]

Originally Posted by touriquet2001
whatever !!! i don't believe i was posting to you in that one . but hey if you want it to be , go ahead have fun with it . and hey phantom ..... NO !!!!

Originally Posted by ctomie

Isn't that meant to be a dig at me? If not, forget it.

this is a fun forum . i'm having fun , sorry that it upsets you . do i care ? nope . so whatever . have fun with yourself or not .

[ctomie]

Originally Posted by ego

Ok, i will say something constructive:

*grabs ball gag and gags ctomie tightly*



Now that Assurancetourix the bard is bound and gagged, the fiesta can go on in the small gaulic village!!

Just crawl back to the hole that you've crawled out of. Your inability to communicate rationally is already evident, there is no point in making yourself worse by acting like a juvenile.

When it comes to debating logically, you aren't even worth it. I guess you won't even bother to refute my last post to you (the last post that addressed the actual discussion, that is) because you're just too incompetent to do it. You haven't been able to give me a decent argument anyway.

However, given your total incompetence and reading disability, I wouldn't be surprised if you don't bother trying anymore, because I wouldn't do it if I were you.

You're boring and definitely not a worthy opponent to be taken seriously. Here is an advice: get an education and learn something.

Originally Posted by ego

Erm..... why was JackTheRipa banned?

Forget about the question. In fact, don't bother trying to think anymore, because it just kills your brain cells **********************.

[ctomie]

Originally Posted by touriquet2001

this is a fun forum . i'm having fun , sorry that it upsets you . do i care ? nope . so whatever . have fun with yourself or not .

I was asking if your previous post was meant to be a dig at me, not whether you were having fun or not.

[ctomie]

Originally Posted by clan_hunter

I don't hold you responsible for the responses you get, you can hold yourself responsible all by your lonesome as what you got what was coming, i just pointed out that such a topic will provoke negative responses and 'lo and behold' it did, i never in my posts talked about blame, hell you bought this whole "BLAME" thing up in the first place, are you feeling guilty, hence the need to express your feelings about blame?

Feeling guilty? You're the one who tried to lay guilt trips on me for posting that message in the first place. But believe me, it's not working.

Telling me to hold myself responsible is no different from telling me that I'm responsible. Pointing out that such a topic would provoke negative responses is no different from telling me that I would be responsible for it. It doesn't matter how you twist the words or the facts, this is still call blaming, and you were blaming me for the responses that I was getting.

Before I re-phrase the above in a simpler language to make you understand better, please look at the definition:

blame
1: to find fault with : censure <the right to praise or blame a literary work>2 a: to hold responsible <they blame me for everything> b: to place responsibility for <blames it on me>

Here is the re-phrasing for you: By declaring that I'm responsible for all the reactions that I was getting, you were blaming me for it. This is the DEFINITION of the word.

Originally Posted by clan_hunter

You did wrote a message that caused me to respond, you started to pick on a religious group being Christians, this is not the board for it as i said its a RAPE BOARD, let me spell it out R A P E B O A R D. Therefore in such a board that is not a place to start arguing the finer points of religions, you did this in a thread already in the rowdy room.

1. If I "caused" you to respond, it means that I did it in a way that you had no other possible alternatives. However, such alternatives exist (and I've told you what they were). So, I couldn't have "caused" you to respond. Please, I don't wish to use anymore dictionary definitions to prove you wrong once again.

2. I do know that this is called the rapeboard (I found that out by looking at that big red title on top). What I also know is that there is a section called the Idle talk, and it has been specifically stated that "all themes are welcome". Yet you're saying that my talk about Jack and christianity don't belong here?

Originally Posted by clan_hunter

and as for the respect, i dont need yours, look at the reputation i have earned from members over the years

I've taken very little time to familarize myself with the "reputations" system in rapeboard. It seems to me like it's some kind of an award system, which I'm not even concerned with.

By looking at the number you have, there is no doubt that you've earned plenty of respect from other members. To me, respect is optional. I stand up for what I believe in and I'm definitely not easily influenced by anyone. It doesn't matter if my opinions earned no respect from anyone...if I have to give up my beliefs in order to be liked, then I'll rather be hated. I AM WHO I AM and NOT WHAT PEOPLE WANT ME TO BE WHO I AM. You're glad to have such a high reputation, but to me, reputation/respect/approval is a bunch of useless crap that means nothing.

If you don't need my respect, no problem. I don't need it from anyone either. Thank you.

[Becka]

Originally Posted by ctomie

You're correct in saying that the christians that I've met in the past are evangelical christians, but based on what evidence are you claiming that they are "kook fringe" or "extreme fringe of them" (or whatever term you want to use to describe their behaviour)?

Let me begin by letting you know that all christians should be evangelical christians. The prime reason is that they all believe in the one and only Bible. The bible contains the gospel: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. You do not have to look through every single passage in there, but it essentially teaches that we're all sinners and we need to accept Jesus to have eternal life (i.e. that's the whole point that the bible is trying to convey here). To be more concrete here, it teaches the crucification of Jesus and the implication that it has about our afterlife: If we accept, we're saved; if not, we're going to hell. This is often referred to as the "good news" or "gospel". Since all christians believe in the good news / gospel, they must all be evangelical christians (you may verify it by looking up the definition of the word "evangelical"). You may also find yourself some additional reference by googling "evangelical christians" (see the second search result).

Here is a repetition of the above, in summarized form:
1. All christians must believe in the one and only bible.
2. The bible contains the gospel (or the "good news").
3. Christians who believe in the gospel/good news are evangelical christians.
4. Therefore, all christians must be evangelical christians.

All christians (christians in the premise sense) are indeed one big family, because they must all be evangelical christians.

Again, please consult the dictionary and additional references from google to verify (to yourself) that the premises are true. I usually don't like the idea of posting website addresses in a forum.

Note: I'm writing all the above not because I believe in them personally, but to tell you that they are what christians believe.

On to the next issue...

I won't conclude that just because certain Muslims were involved in the 9/11 incident, then all Muslims must be evil. They took the idea of Jihad to an extreme level. You may even say that they took the idea out of context (but whether it means that they are true Muslims or not...well I don't know). If you try to tie that into our current discussion, you'll say something like "just because some christians insult does not mean that all of them do." I hate to break it to you, but you're sadly mistaken about the premise ("some christians insult"). I'll be convinced if you were to argue that most christians don't insult in the sense that they don't actually speak out, but not in the sense that they don't have that thought in their mind.

You do agree that calling anyone ignorant, lost and pitiful are insulting don't you? The reality here is that christians do think of us as such, because they claim to know the truth and the gospel while we, as unbelievers, don't. Let me ask the same question here again, what if christians are on the verge of losing a religious argument with non-christians? Wouldn't they use some kind of a "cop-out"? If they would, then what else do you think they can say, besides telling the non-christian that they're ignorant? As an additional reference, please google "arguing against faith" and look at the first search result.

I know it sounds disappointing to you, but the premises that you've been providing here are far from being convincing.

I don't care if you think my argument is far from convincing because you have pretty much shown that no argument made will be convincing to you. you hold a bigoted (prejudiced intolerance of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from your own) opinion on Christianity and nothing anyone says is going to alter that opinion. It is sad, but such is life.

And for the record...I have held many religious discussion with various Christians. (My Roman Catholic college roommate for hour and hours when we should have been sleeping, various friends of numerous denominations, and a Mormon co-worker with whom I started the conversation the conversation by saying "so why is it most Christians consider you all heretics anyway?") And never have I been insulted or ridiculed because my belief system differs from theirs. Maybe if you approached it as a discussion rather than an argument you'd have better luck.

B.

and ... oh yeah...

Mark 16:15-16 (King James Version)

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Looks like you missed that one.

[ctomie]

Originally Posted by Becka

I don't care if you think my argument is far from convincing because you have pretty much shown that no argument made will be convincing to you. you hold a bigoted (prejudiced intolerance of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from your own) opinion on Christianity and nothing anyone says is going to alter that opinion. It is sad, but such is life.

That's right, I've clearly shown that no argument made will be convincing to me because none of them are backed up by logic and sufficient and appropriate evidence. Work it out, just because you don't agree with me or find that no argument you people made can be convincing to me does not mean that I hold bigoted opinions on christians and christianity. You simply don't like what I say about them, that's all.

Originally Posted by Becka

And for the record...I have held many religious discussion with various Christians. (My Roman Catholic college roommate for hour and hours when we should have been sleeping, various friends of numerous denominations, and a Mormon co-worker with whom I started the conversation the conversation by saying "so why is it most Christians consider you all heretics anyway?") And never have I been insulted or ridiculed because my belief system differs from theirs. Maybe if you approached it as a discussion rather than an argument you'd have better luck.

Christians are Roman Catholics? Christians are Mormons? Please don't make me laugh. Christians are christians. Roman Catholics are Roman Catholics and Mormons are Mormons, they believe in other things. They might believe in some of the bible's teachings (heck, even I do), but that doesn't make them (or me) christians.

Sure, Roman Catholics and Mormons don't insult. But what does this fact tell you about the christians? Nothing.

I've already done enough to prove my point (whether you people agree with it or not), so I don't need any "better" luck.

Originally Posted by Becka

and ... oh yeah...

Mark 16:15-16 (King James Version)

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Looks like you missed that one.

I've read the bible so missed what? If we don't believe, then we're damned because we started off as lost souls who didn't believe in God. Unbelievers are ignorant of God's words, and we live a tough and ungodly life which require pity (or God's "mercy" as they called it). Not only did I not miss anything, but I'm also able to expand on what you quoted (and you didn't). Well, who is missing something now?

[Becka]

Originally Posted by ctomie

That's right, I've clearly shown that no argument made will be convincing to me because none of them are backed up by logic and sufficient and appropriate evidence. Work it out, just because you don't agree with me or find that no argument you people made can be convincing to me does not mean that I hold bigoted opinions on christians and christianity. You simply don't like what I say about them, that's all.



Christians are Roman Catholics? Christians are Mormons? Please don't make me laugh. Christians are christians. Roman Catholics are Roman Catholics and Mormons are Mormons, they believe in other things. They might believe in some of the bible's teachings (heck, even I do), but that doesn't make them (or me) christians.

Sure, Roman Catholics and Mormons don't insult. But what does this fact tell you about the christians? Nothing.

I've already done enough to prove my point (whether you people agree with it or not), so I don't need any "better" luck.



I've read the bible so missed what? If we don't believe, then we're damned because we started off as lost souls who didn't believe in God. Unbelievers are ignorant of God's words, and we live a tough and ungodly life which require pity (or God's "mercy" as they called it). Not only did I not miss anything, but I'm also able to expand on what you quoted (and you didn't). Well, who is missing something now?

Sweetheart, Roman Catholics are christians, in fact they are the beginning of "the church". They don't believe in "some of the bibles teachings, they created the bible. The fact that you don't seem to know that tells me that you are missing something...You comment on christians as whole but don't even know who they are.

As for expanding, you are expanding on different passages not on the one i quoted. Nothing in the 16th book of Mark indicates anything that you have said. My point was, since you missed it, that the book contradicts itself.

[touriquet2001]

Originally Posted by ctomie

I was asking if your previous post was meant to be a dig at me, not whether you were having fun or not.

i've already answered that . you asking twice more isn't going to change the answer any . i also made a post a long time ago bout your little "rant" here . i said what i had to say . i think you are a closet christian . either that or you envy of those of us that do believe in a higher power . for the record , some of my gnostic christian beliefs are the same as yours . some aren't . i just don't feel the need to bash a group of people everytime i open my mouth . maybe you are like that other member that needs to constantly be the center of attention .

[ctomie]

Originally Posted by Becka

Sweetheart, Roman Catholics are christians, in fact they are the beginning of "the church". They don't believe in "some of the bibles teachings, they created the bible. The fact that you don't seem to know that tells me that you are missing something...You comment on christians as whole but don't even know who they are.

Take a look at Ephesians 2:8-9, King James version:
"Has God indeed said...For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."? (Eph. 2:8-9)

You may call the above a message concerning the gospel (since it is about saving the souls). On the other hand, Roman Catholics believe that, in order to be saved, BOTH faith AND works are required. Roman Catholics aren't christians, nor it is the case that christians are Roman Catholics because they have different conceptions about the gospel.

Originally Posted by Becka

As for expanding, you are expanding on different passages not on the one i quoted. Nothing in the 16th book of Mark indicates anything that you have said. My point was, since you missed it, that the book contradicts itself.

They did not "indicate" that; I was providing an implication about the quote. The quote basically says that if you believe, then you're saved; if not, then you're damned (and here "damned" means getting sent to hell). Do you believe that we started off as unbelievers? Unbelievers are referred to as lost souls.

Ok, there is no indication that unbelievers are ignorant about God's words just by looking at the quote alone. But that's pretty much a separate issue. It still holds that unbelievers ARE ignorant of God's words and here is why: It has often been said that God is beyond humans (and it's true because God, by definition, is an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent being).

As for pity? Well, the quote did not discuss it either (as you said), but it does not give us a reason to reject that claim.

[Vivienne]

-- LATEST NEWS --

"Why was Jack-the-Ripa" banned is out now, new Hype is "Why was Evil-Gun-Owner" banned!!!
-- Better?!

Why on Earth is anyone still trying to debate this guy? It's not a debate, it's an unending argument with someone who obviously has nothing better to do.

Attempting to discuss religion with someone who is arguing that Catholics aren't Christians makes about as much sense as say, discussing astronomy with someone who says the Sun is planet.

[ctomie]

Originally Posted by touriquet2001

i've already answered that . you asking twice more isn't going to change the answer any . i also made a post a long time ago bout your little "rant" here . i said what i had to say . i think you are a closet christian . either that or you envy of those of us that do believe in a higher power . for the record , some of my gnostic christian beliefs are the same as yours . some aren't . i just don't feel the need to bash a group of people everytime i open my mouth . maybe you are like that other member that needs to constantly be the center of attention .

As far as I know, you did not answer anything. But I'll assume, at this point, that it's a no.

Let me make this perfectly clear to you: It's not that I'm a "closet" christian, I'm NOT even a christian. Having said that, I do not believe in a higher power. And why would I envy the believers? What is there to envy about?

Agnostics believe that it is unknown and unknowable as to whether God exists. That's similar to what a skeptic would say. I don't doubt anything about God's existence. I'm NOT skeptical whatsoever, so how is it that agnostic christian beliefs are the same as mine?

I do not bash christians so that I can be at the center of attention. When did I ever say that this is my primary (or secondary) purpose? Furthermore, I do NOT need attention from anyone.

As for your previous posting, I've read about it, but I considered that as rubbish.

[ctomie]

Originally Posted by cleanfun4all

Why on Earth is anyone still trying to debate this guy? It's not a debate, it's an unending argument with someone who obviously has nothing better to do.

Attempting to discuss religion with someone who is arguing that Catholics aren't Christians makes about as much sense as say, discussing astronomy with someone who says the Sun is planet.

The criteria for a debate is that it must come to an end at some point, otherwise it's not a debate?

That's right, it's obvious that I have nothing better to do at the time of my posting of the messages. Thank you.

Catholics aren't christians because they believe in different versions of the gospel. Please get your facts straight and stop using lines like "doing X is like doing Y or saying Y is like saying Z...blah blah blah." Quite frankly I've had enough of that bullshit.

Moreover, if they wish to debate, just let them (regardless of how boring their arguments might be).