Er, no Lycon - I did not scold Fallenangel411.
Did I ever scold you as such? eesh.
Yes you did scold her as such, my good Bipper. Let's take a look back and examine one of your previous posts:
Well Fallenangel, It so happens to be the common beleif that one should be liable for thier actions. We would be opening a can of worms here, but I do not believe that freedom of speech without liability is a good thing. Insulting someone, or thier religon, is both unjust and wrong. That was the ilistration brought to my mind.
Through your above statement, you are stating as fact that 'insulting someone, or their religion, is both unjust and wrong.' Since your posts on this thread and previous threads show a consistency of compliance with 'good Christian values,' it is clear that your beliefs and morals are warping subjective notions into cold hard fact. Perhaps you are doing this intentionally, perhaps you are doing it subconciously. Regardless of the reason, it is most certainly not 'unjust' or 'wrong' to insult someone or their religion, especially when the religion in question is one with a history of torturous and murderous persecution that continues to violate the principles of a democratic society. You can believe that it is wrong to insult someone or their religion, but it is unwise to state such a belief as fact.
What a great hypocrasy, thanks for your thoughts, but rest assured, your projected image of me is extremley off. I am more of a liability junkie. I see people as being free, thus liable for actions. My idea of right and wrong may differ from yours, but I tend to be logistical in looking at these areas. If you antagonise someone, you are in the wrong, and liable for a reaction within discression. Simple. THIS is the logistical charge to democracy. Freedom with liability. It is glorious.
Now your wordy and slanderously-left-hand-based portrail is completely off, and I am sure is based off our frictionous past. That is my charge to you. I understand that our views on liability factoring with freedom is different, but it is illogical and unproductive to have freedom with no liability - therefore I fail to see where your comming from. Wait - I can see a bit of contextual rapage, but I assure you, when I say these things, it is against those whom directly antagonise, not express belief. They are as different as a structured debate is to a second grader play ground argument.
Therefore, we can conclude that through implication, you were in fact scolding FallenAngle411 for not expressing the same or similar views as you in regards to Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code.
Yes, I would reccomend a good read through of otheer post between us, as I do not feel I should recap for you. Simply stated, FA said I can't wait to go in the street (obviously Public Domain) and yell at the the top of my lungs "[Some insult to christian integrity.]" Now that is wrong. Even if your bias, you must realise this is a clear insult. I could not run into the street and scream out some racial slur and expect protection from my liabilities.
The argument has NOTHING to do with DVA, but the methodologies of creating such unherolded friction between the theist and anti[religion] touters. Then again, you could read other posts and grasp the conversation, instead of jumping in with a few out of context quotes.
First off, she didn't take anything out of context. She was stating her belief that in today's day and age, freedom of expression about religion and other things is often stifled by threats, intimidation, or violence, even in the United States of America. You responded to that by saying that it was 'wrong and unjust' to insult people or their religion, which confirmed what she was saying about expression being stifled.
Wow, theres a shocker :rolleyes2 Let me throw this into the context for you [Reading comprehension ftw] I never scolded her for not being a good little christian. Way to arm yourself with a sloppy dead herring agian.
2nd, as a person who is extremely well informed in regards to the plot of Dan Brown's book, I can tell you that there is tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of more historical FACT to support books such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail, The Templar Revelation or The Da Vinci Code than there is to support the Bible. The marketing for the film is to create a buzz for its release and reflects the numerous elements in the NOVEL that are established historical facts or that are based on historical facts.
The book was a good peice of fiction, and its facts are facts, and its fiction is fiction. The holy blood therom is intriguing, but my HATE for this DVA is dirived from the author and publishor(s) trying to blur the lines and pass the book off as fact. To me it is a hate comparable to Michael Moore's work.
And lastly, the Bible itself is more accurately described as a book of faith or a book of God rather than a history book. Yet, some people who believe it still choose to live their lives by it despite the absence of factual confirmation.
Because you say so... yeah. There has been millions of debates, and there is a plethora of evidence out there. I already have you pinned as extremley biased, and do not ever expect you to look into it yourself. I can push the religion all I want, but that does not do much (as per my own teachings). You will be your own best teacher. Read and Research truths from the bible. the key word Apologetics will crop up some good pointers from the nets. Good luck!
So why are you so up in arms about the Da Vinci Code not being 'fact?' I'll tell you why: because it contradicts traditional beliefs, and whenever that happens, you get fanatics and zealots who will give their lives in order to protect their original beliefs, even if that means destroying the principles of freedom of speech, liberty, and life in order to accomplish their goals.
Dramatic:rolleyes2 My goal is not to oppress any of these freedoms, but to tie in liability for peoples actions. Sure, I will admit the fanatics exist, but your insultful typecasting does not make me one, nor do my justifiable views. Freedom is dick with out liability.
Not only has the Da Vinci Code created a huge interest into Christianity by the general public, but it has opened the door to new ideas and some old ideas that were forgotten. If some people want to believe, then that is their choice. You don't have to believe anything about it, and by criticizing the Da Vinci Code, you are only delving into hypocricy by stating above that it is 'wrong and unjust' to insult other people's religions. Quite directing your <img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif">head statements at me. They are unbased and wrong. I have stated a million times why I HATE the DVC, and you are trying to shove your obscured and retarded preception of my views as bing what I truley belief.
The Da Vinci Code is what some people believe, just like some Scientologists believe the science fiction writings of L. Ron Hubbard. There is nothing wrong with this: it is only freedom being excercised.
On that premise it is fine, which is what the thread is about.
Are you forgetting your previous posts again? Here is what you posted on post # 29 (perhaps this will answer your question about "What hostility?" that you asked in the above quote):
[quote=Bipper]Now the subject at hand is when people begin struting fictional ideas as fact; that is just blantant stupidity. Insulting or no, the person needs a right smack.
Raped again. That was not even said towards me, and at least FA has a sence of comprehension to see what I was really saying there (i assume). That was followed skarr's post (from simple flow comprehension). Now, get off my case. Are you fueld by spite, ignorance, or what have you? Your attacks and constant insultfull allogations are ulimatley unbacked and assumptuous.
Well, if that's not hostility, then I don't know what is! I cannot believe that you have the audacity to say that FallenAngel411's post is what causes the antagonism between 'theists and atheists.' First off, we are discussing the Da Vinci Code, not theism or atheism. Secondly, if my history serves me right, I don't remember atheists ever murdering, torturing, enslaving, or forcing conversion on anyone. I don't remember atheists getting in a group of about 40 and having a nice little suicide party because they believed that they were about to enter "Heaven's Gate." I don't remember atheists jumping up and down every time a specific book, movie, or music CD came out which they did not approve of.
No, it is not hostility. It was said in a lighthearted tone and context. Anyways, FallenAngel411's shouted insult would be antagonistic - and that is what the thiest vs athiest spark comment was based on. Thanks for your pointless plethora of <img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif">hooked liabilities to the christian religion. I can name a million more deaths caused by Science and the results of scientific zealots, yet I am not naive enough to potray those occurances as being the goal of Science.
I live in the United States of America, and here people can believe whatever they want, whenever they want. Just because you are offended by someone else's beliefs or by someone else's ideas does not mean that those beliefs and ideas are going to go away or change. No one is forcing you to watch the Da Vinci Code, and if you do not want to see or hear anything about it, then go be a hermit. You live in a society with people who have strikingly different beliefs than the one's you have. If you do not wish to interact with these people or if you do not wish to be offended, then get up and get out. No one is forcing you to live in this society or in any city. The Da Vinci Code will do magnificently at theaters, and it will not only spark a debate, but a revolution.
hypocracy to your very beliefs. Beutiful revelation. You say you want freedom, and people to believe what they want etc. You direcly tell me that if i do [this], I should go live as a hermit. And to think, your the one whom screams circular reasoning. Libality is the 90 degree angle in the circle of freedom. This may seem off topic, but it completely pertains to the subject, as freedom seemingly outweighs the liability of the situation.
Bipper