Dewey wrote a book!

[Axtremus]

@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

Judge people by their character, not by their sexual preferences.

Ironically, sexual preferences used to be a character issue not that long ago.

[Axtremus]

@Horace said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

Dewey is a nice guy.

His life has been a project to convince people of this.

A worthy project for life.

[Jolly]

@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

Judge people by their character, not by their sexual preferences.

Ironically, sexual preferences used to be a character issue not that long ago.

Do pedophiles have character issues?

[Horace]

@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Horace said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

Dewey is a nice guy.

His life has been a project to convince people of this.

A worthy project for life.

It is certainly a very common project, at least on a smaller scale, as it often affects one’s professed political beliefs. For instance, when a person demonstrates no actual humanity, but professes all of the most humane tribal affiliations. Those alleged politics are the result of a similar project.

[Doctor Phibes]

@George-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Horace said in Dewey wrote a book!:

To be clear, does this principle preclude you from gossiping about people in private when they're not there?

Private conversations are...private. Lord knows how many times I've talked about you others here. But a public comment should allow the discussed to comment. Otherwise, it's just potentially nasty gossip.

He's not banned, but I doubt he reads it - at least he didn't until he was told he was being talked about.

I know someone who was talked about on another "piano-related" forum. S/he only found out about it because another person brought it to his/her attention.

You wanna insult me, or talk about me? Fine, lemme know. But if I don't participate, it's playground gossip.

Though Dewey is not a member here, it's possible to read without being a member.

I just find it distasteful...but that's just me.

As I said, carry on.

The main reason I take a break sometimes is in the vain hope that people will talk about me

[Horace]

One of the reasons I've always been overt about "gossiping" in public on these forums is because I'm aware of all the private gossiping that's always gone on, while I'm also aware of this nonsensical idea that it's not virtuous to be transparent about what one says about others.

[Copper]

@George-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:

I just find it distasteful

This is the sort of high-minded standard that could destroy tncr.

The road to hell is paved with findings like this.

What is the over/under on distasteful content per post? Maybe 60%.

[89th]

@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

Judge people by their character, not by their sexual preferences.

Ironically, sexual preferences used to be a character issue not that long ago.

Do pedophiles have character issues?

It's been the easiest argument when I mention that homosexuality is a form of a sexual preference disorder. Yes... a disorder. Similar to other physical or mental disorders, and not to be directly judged (seriously). But being attracted to the same sex is the milder version on the spectrum of sexual urge disorders, the more extreme side of the spectrum including attraction to children, animals, and family. I'm not equating them, but I do think there is a spectrum of sexual deviation from the standard (attraction to an unrelated adult of the opposite sex... you know, how we survive as a species).

[Doctor Phibes]

I'd really missed the 1950's. Apparently they're back.

[Mik]

That's how 89th sees it. We're here to be exposed to different views. I don't see him advocating discrimination.

That's what tolerance is. Live and let live.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Mik said in Dewey wrote a book!:

That's how 89th sees it. We're here to be exposed to different views. I don't see him advocating discrimination.

That's what tolerance is. Live and let live.

OK, so I'm not allowed to criticise?

My view is every bit as valid, and I'm giving it.

[Jolly]

@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

Judge people by their character, not by their sexual preferences.

Ironically, sexual preferences used to be a character issue not that long ago.

Do pedophiles have character issues?

It's been the easiest argument when I mention that homosexuality is a form of a sexual preference disorder. Yes... a disorder. Similar to other physical or mental disorders, and not to be directly judged (seriously). But being attracted to the same sex is the milder version on the spectrum of sexual urge disorders, the more extreme side of the spectrum including attraction to children, animals, and family. I'm not equating them, but I do think there is a spectrum of sexual deviation from the standard (attraction to an unrelated adult of the opposite sex... you know, how we survive as a species).

Which is why we don't encourage deviations from the standard. I understand those deviations do and will exist in the future, but if the current gender fluidity hoax has taught us anything, it's that sanity also has a deviation from sane to batshit crazy, and that all it takes is a little societal pressure or acceptance to roll some of those psychotic balls down the hill.

Homosexuals should not be discriminated against when it comes to housing, jobs, government benefits or other things in daily life. But neither should they be lauded or acclaimed for their lifestyle. I don't think they should enjoy government sanctioned marriage (although I have no problem with domestic partnerships) and I am opposed to gay couples being able to adopt or foster children.

But as a Christian, here's where you jab the butt-end of your spear in the ground and plant your foot behind it... Practicing homosexuals should not be pastors, deacons, elders or leaders within the Church. It's simply not Biblical. The Bible is very clear on the issue.

Now, multiple people with a burning cause and more disposable time than I have, have written a hermeneutic mountain of foolishness, twisting Scripture into pretzels, attempting to make it say what they wish it to say on this subject. The only way they can do it, is by creating an alternate form of cherry-picked Bible and by ignoring everything they don't agree with, including entire books of the Bible.

If you're doing that, are you practicing Christianity or just creating your own cult? There is a reason that God has reserved two thrones of Judgement for The End of Days. For those who aren't aware of that, a little research may be enlightening.

[Doctor Phibes]

What if all the religious rules are just stuff people made up?

Because, to be honest, that seems like the most plausible explanation to me at least.

We’ve been here for a million years or whatever and suddenly, just in the last two thousand, we suddenly got it. What are the chances?

[Aqua Letifer]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:

What if all the religious rules are just stuff people made up?

Was the idea to just cosplay meaning because it sounded fun, or was it a grift to get rubes to give them attention and money and things?

[Renauda]

All views including those prejudicial and/or of little or no consequence ought to be freely and openly expressed to be met with a level of obsequious insincerity or indignant spleen characteristic of each individual poster whose folly was to login to this den of cyber iniquity.

[Mik]

@Renauda or, more succinctly, welcome to TNCR.

[Renauda]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:

What if all the religious rules are just stuff people made up?

Was the idea to just cosplay meaning because it sounded fun, or was it a grift to get rubes to give them attention and money and things?

I suspect that to be the case. The very word religion, to me at least, has come to suggest money. Money in turn goes hand in hand with power and control.

[Mik]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Mik said in Dewey wrote a book!:

That's how 89th sees it. We're here to be exposed to different views. I don't see him advocating discrimination.

That's what tolerance is. Live and let live.

OK, so I'm not allowed to criticise?

My view is every bit as valid, and I'm giving it.

That's your interpretation of what I said. It's not what I said.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Renauda said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:

What if all the religious rules are just stuff people made up?

Was the idea to just cosplay meaning because it sounded fun, or was it a grift to get rubes to give them attention and money and things?

I suspect that to be the case. The very word religion, to me at least, has come to suggest money. Money in turn goes hand in with power.

Religion today has got to be the flimsiest wealth and power scheme out there, aside from maybe the arts or humanities. The podunk spa at the tail end of my neck of the woods rakes in ten to fifteen times the annual revenue of the local Catholic church. The hospital down the road is several orders of magnitude above both. And then there are the energy companies, the real estate companies and political "non-profits." It makes it very difficult for me to take seriously that religion is all about wealth and power. If that's the case then any honest appraisal of their efforts would conclude they absolutely suck at it.

[Jolly]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:

What if all the religious rules are just stuff people made up?

Because, to be honest, that seems like the most plausible explanation to me at least.

We’ve been here for a million years or whatever and suddenly, just in the last two thousand, we suddenly got it. What are the chances?

Fair question and maybe one that is unanswerable. There were other religions before Judaism. A lot of people claim that Hinduism may be the oldest great organized religion. I prefer to think that a monotheistic religion existed after creation and was practiced by Adam and his descendents until people mucked things up, as they are want to do.

So, enter Abraham. Muslim tradition holds that he was the son of an idol maker. In Joshua 24:2, it does say that he worshipped idols, not a single God. The Abraham story is well-known, and details how Judaism came to be.

So, why Christianity? Why is the world's largest religion based upon a man who only taught for three years?

As I told TG, it is a religion that has at its core, the only deity to die and be physically resurrected in three days.

Some make arguments that Jesus didn't die on the cross (Muslims, who say God replaced Him) or that the Roman's couldn't tell if he was dead. Do a bit of reading and you will find the Romans were quite proficient at crucifying people. Couple that with the scourging of Jesus (which often killed the recipient) and the piercing of his side with a spear, and I don't think there's much doubt about Jesus' death.

Well, maybe he wasn't dead, the Romans screwed up? Don't think so. They placed him in a tomb, sealed it with a stone and stationed guards outside. The Roman penalty for letting a prisoner escape who was under the penalty of death, was death for the guards that let him get away. I suspect the guards at the tomb were under the same burden of responsibility. And certainly, any man, beaten and stabbed and crucified, was not going to roll the tomb's stone away and then overpower the Roman guards.

Then, the resurrected Jesus appears to over 500 people before his Ascension. He's real, He's flesh and has the scars to prove it.

Lastly, let's just look at the Disciples and the early church. Men who previously had shown signs of cowardice, became lions of their faith, preaching and teaching it until their own violent deaths at the hands of the authorities.

Then something else miraculous happened...A religion many considered a heretical twig of Judaism exploded throughout the Middle East and into Europe. Considering that Christianity was never meant to be carried by the sword and preached a message of love and salvation (unlike other religions of its day) through a monotheistic God and considering how fast and far people could travel in that day...The growth of the early church is incomprehensible.

And now, it is the world's largest religion and I don't think it's through growing.

Maybe God did send His only Son, that we may have everlasting life. Maybe a little over 2000 years ago, we did "get it".