The Minimal Facts for the Resurrection of Christ.

[just me]

Truth will remove the veils people and entities use.
If we are not cautious with our own words, we may reveal our true selves.

 

[aeon]

If someone stalks or abuses another, does it then stand to reason that the victim is also to blame and should own his or her trauma as the one who feels wronged?

Blame no, but yes, the traumatized owns the trauma. That is their responsibility to deal with.

As a child, I was beaten, concussed, and sexually abused for years. Indeed, I experienced traumatic experiences, and was traumatized afterward.

The responsibility for dealing with that trauma, and healing from that trauma, is entirely mine. 100%. There is no question of blame. It happened. There is only to accept that and move on.

I tried other ways. They do not work. Acceptance and full responsibility for trauma is the only way forward which allows for integration and healing

The “humor”utilized was a lot more than distasteful, it was disgusting and the mockery of God. If she was on a forum full of Palestinians and made the same mockery of Allah, people would understand the offense taken. But that’s just my personal opinion, ofc.

It’s all opinion. There are no special cases or classes. That some may feel more offended is immaterial.

Some things are just jokes and indeed the offense can then lay with the offended.

This was not that.

And that’s your opinion.

Others will agree, or not, in accordance with their opinion.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Misty]

I also experienced some of these, and am sorry - nonetheless that you had these traumas.

And yes, I also agree that while the blame is on the actual abuser, the victim is left to deal with it and heal from it. percent, accurate.

But we are talking about decorum as well here, Ian. We are on a forum in a thread discussing God, in essence. And therefore it is logical that it’s not really a good thing to do to pop in out of nowhere and mock God. For those of is with faith - it IS a special offense.

But true as well we should all have the freedom of speech which is granted us. I will not argue against this.

To me the behavior displayed says a lot more about the displayer than it does for those of us offended by it. But so is it true of abusers.

 

[aeon]

But we are talking about decorum as well here, Ian. We are on a forum in a thread discussing God, in essence. And therefore it is logical that it’s not really a good thing to do to pop in out of nowhere and mock God. For those of is with faith - it IS a special offense.

True enough, but it remains a matter of opinion, and nothing more, regardless of how you may think or feel.

I agree that mocking is not a good idea in general, and particularly not toward people who are not reasonable, in the classic sense of faith versus reason.

To me the behavior displayed says a lot more about the displayer than it does for those of us offended by it. But so is it true of abusers.

That’s true of every expression, so I agree with you.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Wyote]

The Minimal Facts for the Decorum of Goats

 

[just me]

True enough, but it remains a matter of opinion, and nothing more, regardless of how you may think or feel.

I agree that mocking is not a good idea in general, and particularly not toward people who are not reasonable, in the classic sense of faith versus reason.

Mocking is not a good expression toward a belief system. Period. People who are not reasonable do this. The use of the words "Jesus" with one's own butt in the same sentence is out of hand. It is condescending. There is a time and a place for everything, and this was not either.
Yet, it was even liked. My faith and my reason deserve better. One of strong faith can also use reason. It would have been deleted on my forum, and the one using it warned. Religion and politics are delicate items to talk about on the web.

 

[-]

You know, if I had mentioned Jesus' butt to my mother who was highly devoted to Catholicism, she would have laughed and agreed with me. She might have even asked why it took me so long to notice. I find this refreshing, and wish more people were capable of the same thing.

 

[just me]

Is this your faith, as it is not reason?

 

[Akar]

The Minimal Facts for the Decorum of Goats

I <3 U

-GoatMarco

 

[just me]

“We must support oppressed Muslims everywhere” — why it was a lie wearing a halo

You’re right to call it blasphemous.
In Islam: – oppression is condemned – hypocrisy is condemned – killing innocents is condemned – rulers are warned against self‑exaltation – coercion in religion is forbidden
So when a government: – oppresses its own people – lies in God’s name – kills protesters – censors truth – exalts a Supreme Leader above criticism
…and then claims to be the defender of the oppressed?
That is theological inversion — the opposite of what the Prophet taught.
It’s why many Muslim scholars (Sunni and Shi’a) call Khomeini’s doctrine a political invention, not Islam.

Where we discussed the doctrine hiding behind religion​

“How anti‑Islam it sounds altogether.”
You’re not wrong.
Islam forbids: – tyranny – deception – killing civilians – coercion – self‑exaltation – political manipulation of faith
So when a state: – lies – kills – oppresses – exalts a human ruler – spreads violence through proxies
…it is acting against the teachings of Islam.
This is why many Muslims — inside and outside Iran — see the Islamic Republic as: – a betrayal of Islam – a political cult – a distortion of faith

Am I right to place part of this discussion in this thread? What is my point?

Saddam used Islamic symbolism to justify his war with Iran.

He:– put “Allahu Akbar” on the Iraqi flag– framed the war as defending Arab Islam– used religious language to rally support

This gave the Iranian regime a perfect narrative:

“A tyrant is attacking God’s revolution — therefore our revolution is holy.”

Saddam didn’t intend to help Iran’s ideology —but he gave it the enemy it needed.

Iran’s leadership built a system where political power is wrapped in religious language.

They exported this through:– Hezbollah– Shi’a militias– proxy networks– martyrdom culture

And they justified it all with religious rhetoric that contradicts Islamic teaching.

Iran's leaders are not religious advocates, and what they call politics is not political.

Iran's leaders since 1979 are not political, are not following the teachings of Islam's prophet, and exalts their leaders, past and present,

as being above condemnation. They have blocked internet, news medias, and controlled the populace with fear and threatened it with

death. The false makeup of their revolution has to go to protect the Iranian people. However, all the mistakes made in Saddam's capture

taught the world to not dismantle everything. The IRGC must be taught to protect the people, not blasphemy. The teachings in the schools

must be weeded out. I composed a roadmap to peace in the last 24 hours, with all consideration not to create another vacuum.

"No nukes"?

will not cover this alone. The false pretensions of the regime holding their own people as hostages must be removed, and CIA must not

send Shah back.

The people of Iran must create political parties and choose their leader themselves for this to work.

What did you do last night? I composed many pages to cover even up to the next five to seven years for a new Iran, with the world to help.

It is for people I love, even though I believe differently.

"The Strait of Hormuz is ours." ???? No, it belongs to God. Nations should use that Hormuz without all this.

 

[Misty]

The Minimal Facts for the Decorum of Goats

So say it is written, so shall it be done..

Mocking is not a good expression toward a belief system. Period. People who are not reasonable do this. The use of the words "Jesus" with one's own butt in the same sentence is out of hand. It is condescending. There is a time and a place for everything, and this was not either.
Yet, it was even liked. My faith and my reason deserve better. One of strong faith can also use reason. It would have been deleted on my forum, and the one using it warned. Religion and politics are delicate items to talk about on the web.

Spot on..

Is this your faith, as it is not reason?

This.

I <3 U

-GoatMarco

Where we discussed the doctrine hiding behind religion​

Am I right to place part of this discussion in this thread? What is my point?

It’s the perfect place for it.

 

[just me]

Give it wings. Let them ask for the roadmap, as it is here.

 

[-]

What I really want to know is - is anyone denying that Jesus probably had a sexy butt? Because if so, that might be the most blasphemous thing I've heard thus far

 

[Misty]

Trolls need nourishment too, and this is hers. That and gaslighting, of course. C'est la vie.

 

[Fruiteloop]

Just because a person is Jewish and disagrees that Jesus is God is in no way mocking that faith.

If a person disbelieves in Jesus and has good reasons they do not need to justify it.

In fact this is an example of religion trying to control others in the first place.

As long as you try and control people you are not going to convert them.

If God wants someone to convert then they will but on Gods terms, not because of the kind of behavior seen in this thread.

 

[SlowUpTake]

@Misty can you quote the mockery? I missed it and fear I read it and did not take it as mockery. That said...I am not a christian

 

[Akar]

Trolls need nourishment too, and this is hers. That and gaslighting, of course. C'est la vie.

Don't call me troll, please
Otherwise the reals one won't get it

-Giammarco

 

[Misty]

Just because a person is Jewish and disagrees that Jesus is God is in no way mocking that faith.

If a person disbelieves in Jesus and has good reasons they do not need to justify it.

In fact this is an example of religion trying to control others in the first place.

As long as you try and control people you are not going to convert them.

If God wants someone to convert then they will but on Gods terms, not because of the kind of behavior seen in this thread.

No one is trying to convert her. Definitely not me.

@Misty can you quote the mockery? I missed it and fear I read it and did not take it as mockery. That said...I am not a christian

I was talking about minus sign, not meow, who has fallen conspicuously quiet.

Though I think there was some mockery from her as well. I’d have to look for that, honestly.

 

[Akar]

No one is trying to convert her. Definitely not me.


I was talking about minus sign, not meow, who has fallen conspicuously quiet.

Though I think there was some mockery from her as well. I’d have to look for that, honestly.

The facts remains that no one hasn't replied to historical facts. Only opinions based on...
For the rest I've seen people walk on the walls , or on the roof instead of replying with historical evidence or having an honest debate.
Talking about gnostic texts relating them to the first Christians, while they are dated from II to IV a.C .. who said it doesn't have idea of what he is talking about


-Giammarco

 

[QuickTwist]

I think that questioning dogma is healthy and essential. We aren't living in George Orwell's 1984. I don't consider that to be some horrible offense, I find it to be ideal. I think I prefer looking at books like the bible as a collection of metaphors and teachings, rather than leaning toward a black-and-white literalist interpretation.

Everyone thinks that they're right, everyone of every faith. They think they have the answer and everyone else is wrong. I am incapable of displaying that same confidence. It feels a little arrogant to me, being so sure that you're right. None of us will truly have the answers until we pass away and get to the other side, if there is one.

I agree. No reason for dogma for the sake of dogma. In the end, it is the evidence that determines what is true and what is not. Sadly, most people don't actually care about the evidence.