I'm a realist, of sorts. I infer the statement in the title 'you'll all miss me if I'm NOT here' with the fore-knowledge that my presence here will be missed like a flesh-wound on the equator - geographical, not metaphorical. Well, one in the groin region would be most unwelcome as well, but I'm more thinking in the lines of infections and stuff...

But I digress.

I made the statement to GrahamY a few months back regarding censorship of a post - or comment - I made saying this place was full of elderly cat-fish (or something), meaning that many here were bottom feeding on the the most BASIC of discussions that is, in reality, lightly veiled bigotry.

I make the following statement KNOWING this will begin ANOTHER stagnant thread of bile inducing rants.

Without religion, Atheism wouldn't exist, people.

You have the right to believe what you will. This forum IS a place where you can voice your beliefs, both pro-religion, or anti-religion (it seems, by the content), but speaking for myself I'm over the endless vitriol from both sides.

There are many other forums that accommodate that sort of thing all over the web. Please, if you want this forum to thrive like it deserves how about we police ourselves in a mature manner over the content we display?.

Debate topics, but ENOUGH of the religious/anti-religious stuff. It makes me not want to contribute to this forum.

The God talk will never go away StG.

Its here on the earth from before we are born...and as soon as we can understand....we become part of the God talk.

God keeps it alive as He points constantly by His Spirit to the Saviour of all mankind...Jesus Christ His Son.

It will never go away.
The christian believers likewise, Word of God in hand, keep the God talk alive.

Soon the Returning King...Jesus.

QED

StG> "Debate topics, but ENOUGH of the religious/anti-religious stuff. It makes me not want to contribute to this forum."

I think there should be ENOUGH of politically correct "vitriol" like yours.

Point me to one anti-religious "vitriol" and I can point you to a dozen, or one hundred "vitriol" of people like runner and Gibo.

ME?, PC?....roflmao. Graham frequently censors me. He's saved Gibo, David (religious version) and a few others from me. Funny thing is, I'm a Christian, as well.

I've been a Christian longer than Gibo...go figure. I think he's begging for redemption tho.

...and of course, Gibo pops up as the first reply spreading his version of the truth.

QED, indeed.

I'm not getting into who did what. We all know the content of this joint and the TYPICAL rubbish that pours from the heads onto the keyboard of many.

This place is dominated by a handful of bigots.

The problem I had with your comment was the way you described anti-religious commentary on here. It's not comparable in any way as could be demonstrated by simple post count and analysis of the content of each post. It's a common PC conversational 'device' to give two sides of one argument, equal weight (when they do not), and dismiss them both out of hand. It's manipulative and deceitful. As I said I could easily prove this with a count summary of posts and simple analysis of each comment.

I don't care of you have an issue with my comments or not. I'm not going to explain the basic vibe of my comments any more than I have. I don't care for 'who did what more'.

...and stop trying to label me. It's boring, also. MY beliefs range from Ghandi-esque to Thermonuclear, and everything in between.

One comment doesn't maketh the man, my friend. One comment makes an opinion.

StG>"I don't care of you have an issue with my comments or not."

Then why do you expect others to care about your whining? I guess I should not have bothered responding to you.

StG>"I'm not going to explain the basic vibe of my comments any more than I have."

I don't want you to explain, I was correcting you, as the basic vibe I got was irritating.

StG>" I don't care for 'who did what more'."

And that looks like it could be the source of your precise problem communicating here, it seems.

Ewe> "Then why do you expect others to care about your whining? I guess I should not have bothered responding to you."

No, you shouldn't have. Nothing constructive has come out of your head yet.

Ewe> "And that looks like it could be the source of your precise problem communicating here, it seems."

I'm communicating fine. So far, a fruitloop, and a - "BUT THEY DID IT MORE" - juvenile have taken issue with what I've said. Now, go away and play like a good boy. It's nearly bed time.

I think it's juvenile to say that the inaccuracy of your "serious" claim (that you want everyone to hear and read) is of no concern to you.

You a christian StG?

A christian has his focus on Christ all day.
He reads The Word often.
He prays about everything...i.e. family, friends, our leaders, other nations.
He fellowships every week with other christians.
He witnesses to The Lord to other people.
These are the signs of committed Christianity.

Anything else is lukewarm...

Dear StG,

Please don't leave.

Pretty please?

We need a variety of opinions on this Forum.

I made a suggestion some time ago that perhaps
same theme repetitive topics (be they religion, politics, etc),
could be limited to a set number a month... instead of
having the same kind of topic repeated every single week.

I too felt that perhaps we should raise the bar a bit in
the variety of the discussion topics that were being
presented regularly. I didn't mean to suggest
censoring anyone. Simply giving the Forum a wider
range of variety in topic choices.

However, the suggestion was obviously not thought to
be a good one by the majority.

Which is fair enough, I guess.

But if you could contribute with a variation
to the usual run of topics, I for one would
be grateful.

So, please stay, and continue posting.

Hi STG.... I'm guessing you include me in your 'handful of bigots' :)

But don't lose heart.

So.. you claim the Lord Jesus as your Savior? can you help us to understand you and explain what you mean by being 'Christian'?

Does your understanding of your faith position match the experience and example of the early Christians and the teaching of our Lord?

We all err for sure.. me especially, but let's always remember this is just a forum.... we don't get to interact physically unless we arrange it specially. It's only when people meet people that they have a real opportunity to explain their position.

Here...it's keyboard meets keyboard...and it's a battle of ideas.

StG, I've not explored other sites in any depth but one thing that sticks out from what I've seen here is that the moderators try very hard to be light and even handed. Comments get moderated for breaching forum rules not for supporting a particular side of an argument.

The religion thing does get overplayed but those of us who respond to our resident devangelists have a choice to do so or ignore them.

Religion does play a major role in public policy both here and in some other countries. It's a topic worthy of serious debate regardless of how we feel about it's merits or how well we thing the understanding of the faith position of it's christian proponents match's the experience and example of the early Christians and the teaching of Jesus.

Personally I consider the on line behaviour of our most vocal christains to be very much at odds with those criteria but at a guess they hold a different view.

There are some athiests who bother me almost as much as the christian fundies but in the middle there are some really interesting and educational viewpoints. There are other recovered former believers, there are those of different faiths and there are christians who've not turned their faith into a license for hate.

Ignore the obviously religios threads if they bother you but don't get to cut up by them.

R0bert

StG, a little while back I was considering moving on from OLO. It was all looking a bit same old same old.

But now it is great. So what’s made it that much better for me?

1. I'm no longer responding to derogatory comments in the same sort of tone. I either just let them go or attempt to engage the person in a cool, calm, logical and respectful manner. It has taken a while to achieve this, as there is often a strong temptation to give them a solid serving back. It has worked wonders. I get vastly less nasty comment these days, I guess largely because I’m known as one who will not perpetrate that sort of communication.

2. I’ve taken up discussions in some of the areas that I steadfastly avoided for the first couple of years, particularly religious themes. And I’ve introduced my main concerns of sustainability and environmentalism to those discussions. I’ve broadened quite considerably in the subject matter that I get involved with.

3. When things get a little quiet, I start up a new general thread or two to get discussions going that I’m directly interested in. I’m doing this much more frequently now.

4. And as I’ve always done, I just pass over any threads or post that are not of interest without getting bothered by the prevalence of religious comment or whatever.

The only thing that I worry about now is being perhaps a little too obsessive with OLO! Although it can’t be too bad, as I work fulltime, spend a couple of hours exercising almost every day and manage to go bush pretty frequently.

Nice comment there ludwig. A refreshing change from some of the rather bizarre hostility which seemed to be launched.

Although I always try to respond to the comments rather than the poster, occasionally it doesn't go that way. I can admit that sometimes, when writing a post, I wonder what kind of person the poster I'm responding to is.

Although it's simplistic, when all I see from a poster is hatred and bitterness, I do assume they're not a happy person. When they make serious, analytical comment, I do picture a more intelligent individual.
When somebody harps on a single theme, I do think they become a little obsessive, and are more likely a little extreme or unreasonable. Be it evangelism, anti-muslim, anti-feminist, pro-feminist, anti-abortion... you name it. If they're here for just one cause, I really do wonder if they're a balanced person.

In most of the cases, they probably are a balanced person who just has a strong interest. But in some of the cases, they're probably not.

So who do I think are the most interesting posters? The ones who display a little of everything. Some analysis, an occasional light-hearted comment, some more deep thoughts, a little philosophy, a little politics... not necessarily all of the above, but more than just one or two.

That's all I ask from people. If you're into bible-bashing, then fine, but leave it at the door for a few things huh? Discuss something else without having to give people another fix of your particular cause.
Most of the time it's not about (well, okay, it's *partly* about) being anti-or pro-religious.

People just get sick of hearing the same scripts from the same people, with no sign of enlightenment (and I mean that in every sense of the word).

AAaah..the sweet smell of odious insult :)

Robert.. dear Robert.. you were doing well until:....

<..recovered former believers, .... a license for hate.>

I wonder if you reflected on that sentence before writing it...or ?

TRTL generally does well in my view in debating "issues".. but most of you seem to connect the emotion 'hate' with disagreement, particularly when it comes to those of our 'not yet recovered' faith experience, attacking particular beliefs or aspects of one other specific faith/belief system.

This is probably the most fundamental polarization on OLO. Some people are unable to recognize the following:

1/ Some religious faiths, like political doctrines, are absolutely abhorrent. They are especially so to those who are the named TARGET of their odious and hate filled ideas. Highlighting those ideas and doctrines is no worse than exposing the worst aspects of National Socialist foundation doctrines. We don't criticize Hitler for pushing for a 'volks wagen' for all the people...not at all.. it was a great move. We criticize him for various paragraphs in his own writings which targeted a specific race/religion and which resulted in millions of those people being destroyed.

2/ Failure to appreciate this one thing, by those who wish to be known as 'tolerant' explains much of what Ludwig and STg were concerned about.

3/ You have never SEEN a world where the religion that I usually criticize has held total power. (But I've lived under it) The examples where it does hold total sway are hiddeously scary... in that if you folks said in those places the things I often say here.. it would mean execution.

But consider this, you folks can say all you currently do... and insult Christians in the most disturbing manner "recovered believers"..suggesting they have a mental illness or a debilitating disease.... and all people do is "speak" or write at you.

More... the Biblical response is to pray for you, and hope for your own return to faith.

I've been quiet on line lately, partly because I'm very busy. But it's also been a while since I've seen a worthwhile thread to comment on. I see a lot of repetition in many of the posts and feel I have no need to comment on what has already been said.

Religion will always be a topic for debate. That's because it's the one thing that we can never prove either way. As a Christian, I believe in Christ's promise of eternal life by faith. The Athiest is also using faith in denying God's existance, and in denying the possibility of spending eternity in Hell.

David, "recovered former believers" - perhaps you could reflect on how that comment is in any way more offensive than your calls to repentance by those who don't currently hold to your faith. You might reflect on why you are not bothered by your own and your fundy brothers regular comments about non-believers yet seem to be bothered by my comment which I use to describe myself and some others. You regularly claim that others need your faith apparently believig that there is something wrong with our lack of belief in your faith, runner takes it much further in willingness to put it in the villest of terms. Gibo varies his wording but seems to hold similar views of unbelievers yet you don't appear to see the need to correct them.

"a license for hate" - Exhibit A http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=25098

R0bert

Good grief, I can FINALLY comment.

Steel ~ Pfffft whatever. It's not the debate I was after.

Gibo ~ You're insane, and judgemental. You make the perfect fundi. Congrats.

Foxy ~ I always find your comments thought out and compassionate. I actually enjoy it here, and ironically, there's a topic I want to talk about regarding faith and the military but due to the calibre or some it would be rail-roaded and butchered by a few dominating personalities that destroy any chance of reason. Thankyou. I'll still be here, but I'll pick and choose what to comment on....more the shame. Thankyou.

Polycarp ~ The difference between me and you is that my faith is between me and God. I WILL NOT justify who and what I am to you and that fruitloop Gibo. My faith is not up for debate.

RObert ~ Agreed, and thankyou.

Ludwig ~ You from SEQ?. I know of some Ludwig's just over the Goldie hinterland. Thanks, that's the tact I'm taking too.

TRTL ~ Agreed.

Steel Mann ~ Spot on.

Thanks for the input guys.

I wouldn't say I deliberately limit my time here, and I don't have a permanent strategy for avoiding BD. Some days I'm just not in the mood for what I know will be just another round of the same old hate filled nonsense. BD could manage to insert mossie bashing or his barely veiled lust after anything in a skirt into a thread about scone recipes. I often wonder how many commenters, and potential commenters, have been driven away by his nasty rants.

Also, I can't say I actually read what he says. Read one and you've read em all. I scroll straight through him and read how others respond.

Having said that, if this was my site I'd probably welcome his contributions. Not because they're worthwhile, consistent or logical, because they're not. I'd welcome him because he guarantees long threads, which creates the impression of high participation

You frequently seem to have eaten some bitter fruit StG.
If lifes' gotten tough why not take it to The Lord:)

Firslty all Christians are athiests. Athiests just go one God further.

Anyone who says athiesm requires faith such as Steel Mann and StG, needs to learn the value and meaning of mathematical probability. And also paradoxes.

The paradox emerges when adherents assert that believers of different faiths will go to the proverbial "hell". Christians therefore will go to hell because they are unbelievers of some other faith or sect. And vice versa for any other religious faith.

What IS IT with you, Gibo and David?....well, Gibo's quite obviously insane, but you and David sometimes seem quite normal.

It's like tourets, or something. You just can't seem to help yourselves.

STG :) Spiritual touretts eh?

I'm glad your faith is precious. But my faith get's debated just about every day mate...debated.. attacked.. harangued... abused.. etc...

c'mon..live dangerously :) RISSSSK more.... u'll know ur alive then old son.

Well... no matter.... keep your faith between you and the Almighty...
but remember.. please.. the Lord Jesus did say "Go...make disciples"
"Proclaim..to all nations"

The Gospel is simple.. We are sinners and alientated from the Almighty.. God is holy, and desires us to be reconciled to Him. The Lord Jesus is the one who said 'I am the way' etc. He died for our sin.

Gibo expresses his faith differently from some...but if I may.. I encourage you to be supportive of his love for the Lord, if not for his method of expressing it.

"Let us therefore stir one another up to love and good works" Heb 10:24

Calling him 'insane' is not exactly brotherly :)

David, I draw your attention to a recent post by your dear brother runner http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8176#129508

Is that a comment which you consider would "match the experience and example of the early Christians and the teaching of our Lord?"

Is it a comment which you consider justified and appropriate or one that deserves some brotherly correction?

R0bert

David add you dear beloved brother Gibo to the previous question. He chimed in with his whole hearted support for runners vile claims and in fact went further. I checked for clarification just in case it was Gibo not understanding runners comments and his response is at

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8176#129561

Do the words and actions of these two christain brothers "match the experience and example of the early Christians and the teaching of our Lord?"

Are you willing to correct them (in love) or do you save that for those outside the faith?

A couple of simple questions, it will be interesting to see what you do with them.

R0bert

Dear Robert.... I'm wondering why you make me the judge and arbiter of other OLO posters who happen to share the Faith?

If they make comments which are offensive or annoying.. just say so and refute them yourself.

I understand that 'righteous indignation' can go a bit overboard at times, but it is not my position to point to the supposed sins of Christians here when some secular person says of them "Look Lord.. we found this woman committing adultery.. the Law of Moses says she should be stoned"

Becaue let's face it... the motive behind highlighting Christians perceived errors or bad judgement is in fact a cloak for one's personal disposition spiritually.

They can stand or fall on the basis of their comments just like anyone else can.

You are asking me to judge people.. you should know that my approach by and large is to judge 'ideas'....

Perhaps if we were in the same fellowship and I had personal contact with Gibo and/or Runner.. we could discuss our approach and look at ways of improving our presentation overall.. but hurling verbal rocks from a distance at 'people' (rather than ideas) who don't happen to be saying things about me.. is a tall order.

Polycarp, you say you judge ideas.
However your refusal to judge the ideas of other Christians actually leaves this argument in tatters, because you're making selective commentary based on the religious nature of the individual in question.

You're doing the opposite of judging ideas. You're only judging those made from outside the Christian faith - meaning, that you're judging by the people.

Why aren't you willing to judge the ideas of other Christians?

Surely you can see that to everyone else, when you make so much negative judgement about comments from people in other philosophies, but refuse to make similar judgements about negative comments from those within your philosophy, it appears very hypocritical.

I'm not saying this to have a dig at you, I mean it quite honestly. Can you objectively see this?

Plus, you said earlier that your faith gets "attacked and harangued" yet many of the other Christians on the site don't seem to attract the same kind of responses. I don't think it's your 'faith' that's being attacked, rather, it's the way you're presenting it and the selective way in which you make judgement, as I've outlined above.

David, "but it is not my position to point to the supposed sins of Christians here " - yet you seem to make it your position "to point to the supposed sins of" non christains. You spend a lot of effort pointing to the failings of other belief or non belief systems and sometimes christains who take a much more reasoned approachg to faith then runner and Gibo. I seem to recall some attacks on Foxy's faith in days gone by.

You saw fit to ask StG the following questions "So.. you claim the Lord Jesus as your Savior? can you help us to understand you and explain what you mean by being 'Christian'?

Does your understanding of your faith position match the experience and example of the early Christians and the teaching of our Lord?"

You got all bothered because I refered to meyself and a couple of other former christains as "recovered former believers" refering to that as "insult Christians in the most disturbing manner". As far as I can tell you judge moderate muslims because they are not vocal enough in judging the extremists in their midst.

David I don't "make me the judge and arbiter of other OLO posters who happen to share the Faith?" - I use the example to highlight your unwillingness to challenge some of the most offensive of comments when they come from your fellow extremists.

You describe runner and Gibo accusing other posters of being paedophiles without any supporting evidence as "'righteous indignation'".

There is nothing righteoues about either of your good buddies.
If you had shown the guts and integrity needed to state in plain language the problem with runner and Gibo's claims you might have redeemed some of your very tattered reputation but you passed up that opportunity.

R0bert