Rapture day.

[Halororor]

It isn't up to you to arbitrate what sections any member can go in, any more than it is up to me.

 

I was making a suggestion. We don't have to overemphasise what we mean simply because the accidental omission of a single word offends you. If somebody says athiests are overly aggressive, I don't get angry and demand they change their tone. I assume they meant some athiests or either his statement is a misconception, because I know for a fact it isn't true of myself, therefor immediately disproving his statement if his intention was to generalize. It won't offend me in the slightest. If it's not true of you, why are you getting offended?

 

I can't tell you to stay out of threads, but it really is asinine to complain about silly things in thread that is likely to offend you. Nobody in here said anything with the remotest intent of offending anyone, so if you took offense, it's because you're overly sensitive regarding the subject. I'm sensitive about my epilepsy, therefor I take offense when people make fun of epeleptics. I don't go into threads where people do it, though. Though that is a very poor comparison, because nobody was making fun of religion here.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Halororor

[Lisnpuppy]

Careful your hypocrisy slip is showing. :biggrin:

 

I took offense because many folks are talking about Ginny like she is not here. Please show me where I said anyone did anything more than perhaps not choosing their words so carefully? *waits patiently* Which is where it started...misunderstanding though it may have been.

 

My point (besides the choosing of words) is that this is not the dog pile on the rabbit thread. After the initial reopening then a few folks start commenting about Ginny did this and Oh I didnt know that Ginny did that. If it was a misunderstanding then no harm, no foul and everyone should have shut their curse holes at that point. If she wanted to get angry then that is her right. No one stepped up to defend her position so I did. I may actually agree that she shouldn't have been upset...you don't know!! However it appears to me that some do not like to call it when the shoe is on the other foot. I call 'em how I sees 'em....and I have given Ginny what for also...so I spread my love around. (Don't take it personal I hate everyone...now get off my lawn! :P ))

 

But that didn't happen...so I put my 2 cents in because I think what was happening was unfair.

 

Just because someone does something that is not liked doesn't mean some folks get to..what appears to me...jump on the passive aggressive band wagon of not referencing the party directly or not calling it quid pro quo. I am not attempting to arbitrate or moderate, but point out a continued fallacy.

 

*fluffs hair* Ok I am done now.

 

Edit: @ Ginny...The Rapture is a lovely term used my some fundamentalist Christian Protestants to talk about the end times and God taking the "saved" up to heaven in actual body (as opposed to soul) before the Apocalypse. Is that what you wished to know?

[Halororor]

Urgh, now everything is just rippped way out of proportion. Nobody was being rude towards Ginnyfizz after the reopening of the thread. Ypu make it out as if we've been victimizing her since the thread reopened, when in fact, my first response on the subject was ponly posted after Ginny responded to Vagrant's post. Ginny didn't like something Vagrant said, because she attached a meaning to his sentence which he himself didn't even attach to it.

 

Next time I'll be sure to stipulate exactly what I mean, and I'm sure Vagrant will too, especially seeing as people want to take offense where none was intended. Really, an entire thread needs to be locked due to the ommission of a single word?

[ginnyfizz]

Edit: @ Ginny...The Rapture is a lovely term used my some fundamentalist Christian Protestants to talk about the end times and God taking the "saved" up to heaven in actual body (as opposed to soul) before the Apocalypse. Is that what you wished to know?

 

Thanks. That kind of proves my point - it is a term dreamed up by a particular grouping and I really DIDN'T see it in any version of the Bible.

 

@ Halororor - have you not read what I said a few posts back;?

 

"As a matter of fact, since Dark0ne ruled that this thread was to be unlocked after all, I have abided by his decision and have stated that I am not any longer requesting this thread be locked."

 

You have got so overheated about this that you are ignoring what I really did say. And it is you that keeps mentioning the thread getting locked.

 

Anyway, back to the dodgy Rev. What does anyone think his next gambit will be? I suspect he will shuffle off somewhere nice with a beach and a bar and his millions of dollars and will not be heard of again. Wasn't there another group that claimed to have the exact date a few years back, that have since gone very quiet on the subject?

[Lisnpuppy]

Yes I am riled! GRRRRR *slobbers*

 

ha ha haa

[ginnyfizz]

*Hands her a nice big spotted hankie for the slobber*

 

I actually didn't mean that YOU were overheated about this, Lis'...

[HeyYou]

Depends on if he thinks he can milk this particular cow a couple more times or not..... I suspect he will hang out till october, and see which way the wind is blowing. If it isn't favorable to him, he will fall off the face of the planet, and retire comfortably somewhere with his ill-gotten gains.

[Lisnpuppy]

I actually read an interestine article about what happens to people that believe in this kinda thing and their "leaders."

 

They discussed various possibilities and how a leader could hold onto his group and dang if his recant one of them. :facepalm:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture#Bible_versions

 

oh and here is a lovely wiki article on the Rapture. It comes from the Thessalonians (Paul's letters to)

and this is the basis of it..

.and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.^{1 Thess 4}

[Vagrant0]

My comment was nothing more than an allusion to the fact that various groups of Christians have been promising the end of days as an event which is soon to occur since pretty much day 1 of the church, and long before the Bible was even compiled by the council at Nicaea. The fact that the book of Revelation and several letters mentioning the end of days were included in the Bible shows just how much on an impact these groups had in shaping the early church and the religion to follow. You presumably know this, and yet it surprises and offends you when someone makes reference to a rather integral part of most Christian Beliefs? It was this promise of being salvation from the horrible, labored, oppressed existence that early Christianity looked to these beliefs as a means of hope. Is it no surprise that once again people who see their religion as being oppressed would look to the same things with hope, that they may be saved for their devotion to their beliefs while all others are left to suffer on Earth? Yes, this jerkwad is milking people for donations and abusing their beliefs for furthering his own causes, but they would not be successful if there weren't so many who honestly believed in what he was saying. As fringe as this might all be... The WORLD took notice, and few Christian groups took much effort denouncing this guy and his beliefs publicly, quite the contrary, many of them even joined in trying to make money. If you're going to be angry and offended by anything, be angry about THAT.

[grannywils]

I am so going to regret putting my two cents into this thread. I just know it.... But here goes. Without (if possible) making any religious references at all, my take on the subject and on some of what has gone before in this thread is that I absolutely and completely agree with Vagrant0's thread which immediately precedes this one.

 

As far at the whole taking offense issue, I have found that in these fora (I mentioned in another thread that I read somewhere that that is the plural of forum - hard to believe, but oh well), all of us need to recognize that some issues by there very nature carry the threat of being somewhat sensitive to some of us. That means that those of us who might feel that sensitivity need to take that into consideration when reading a post by someone else, particularly a poster who can be recognized as someone highly unlikely to deliberately attempt to offend. And, of course, the same goes for those of us who are posting. We need to think about what we say. What I'm trying to say is that we are all (ok, mostly) adults here. Without getting on Ginny's case or anyone else's, I just think that unless someone is being blatently rude or so stupidly ignoring someone else's principles or beliefs, we need to take some things with a grain of salt. It is not so hard to simply ignore an unintended poor word choice. I have done it many times. There are lots of important and interesting ideas being exchanged here, and it would be wonderful if we could do it without getting too caught up in conversations about who was being rude to whom and why. Just my personal thoughts on that issue and not intended to offend anyone.