Yorick?

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by tracey: i'm not bordering on being a nazi - i am smiling as i write this. . by the way, in england it is pretty offensive to be described as a nazi in any way shape or form (the war, you know) in fact, i suppose that the meaning of 'nazi' in europe hasn't changed and isn't ever used in jest. anyway, nazism is basically total intolerance to difference be it racial or otherwise - and that simply isn't true of me. so, i forgive you, you probably have no idea how horrible a term it is here.

Tracey - how on earth can you say that to Moni about her use of the term 'nazi' of you when you casually threw it into a previous post of yours about one of your friends?

Quote:

- although, saying that, i do have an acquaintance who borders on being a nazi in his views
Unquote

Just a touch hypocritical, don't you think?
And anyway, you sound pretty young to me - what experience do YOU have of living through the war?

------------------






[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-21-2001).]

[tracey]

fljots,

the reason i used the term nazi to about an acquaintance of mine is very simple. his whole attitude and way of connecting with the world is based on nazism - he believes his views are right and valid, and no amount of reasonable discussion will convince him to alter his views at all. in local circles he known as nazi j****.

as to the 'war'. i have a sufficient number of close personal friends who did live through the experience in holland, germany and poland to know how they suffered....., i also know their children and grandchildren. incidentally, the second world war and the persecution of the jews has always been an area of history that i found unbelievable in my youth, therefore i've researched it a lot. does this satisfy you?

[tracey]

zateel

i don't think that the point of the debate is to win or lose or be particularly 'right'. it's an interchange of views and ideas. however, xtians and atheists have one book to go on - it's a respectful stance to use the book that a believer refers to and promote an argument based on it's contents. if the discussion was referring to trainspotting by irvine welsh, i doubt many people would quote from thomas the tank engine by the rev, w. audrey.

the bible allegedly contains the history of people from their beginning including the laws placed by god to keep humans on the 'right' trac. the bible also documents the rights and wrongs of human behaviour as seen, allegedly, through god's eyes. fair enough. therefore, to use the biblical tool means that i argue from within that one text. however, i have a wide knowledge of the political/historical impact on biblical writings and i think that history colours what the bible contains.

on the subject of sin and children - i have a particular stance on that as i remember what it was like to be a child of a devout xtian. in my parent's denomination, as a child, if i were to be hit by a car or some other tagedy occured, i would have been refused a blood transfusion and probably be allowed to die, not because i believed in god, but because someone else did. i found that idea repugnant as a child of 5 and i still do. thankfully i'm an adult now. as a 5 year old, my desire to live would have been ignored, and i was perfectly capable of wanting to live and knowing what death meant at that age. i really don't care that my parent would have been distraught at my death - i would have felt that it was my choice, no-one else's. and yes, you can reply about younger children and being unconcious and someone having to make life and death decisions etc., what i'm saying is that my death from lack of blood would have been preventable. so too, the death's of children in biblical times - not fair. if god decided that adults were 'bad' then that's one thing. if god is all powerful, then surely it wouyldn't have been beyond the realms of possibilty to have removed the children first to a place of safety.

[tracey]

zateel

i don't think that the point of the debate is to win or lose or be particularly 'right'. it's an interchange of views and ideas. however, xtians and atheists have one book to go on - it's a respectful stance to use the book that a believer refers to and promote an argument based on it's contents. if the discussion was referring to trainspotting by irvine welsh, i doubt many people would quote from thomas the tank engine by the rev, w. audrey.

the bible allegedly contains the history of people from their beginning including the laws placed by god to keep humans on the 'right' trac. the bible also documents the rights and wrongs of human behaviour as seen, allegedly, through god's eyes. fair enough. therefore, to use the biblical tool means that i argue from within that one text. however, i have a wide knowledge of the political/historical impact on biblical writings and i think that history colours what the bible contains.

on the subject of sin and children - i have a particular stance on that as i remember what it was like to be a child of a devout xtian. in my parent's denomination, as a child, if i were to be hit by a car or some other tagedy occured, i would have been refused a blood transfusion and probably be allowed to die, not because i believed in god, but because someone else did. i found that idea repugnant as a child of 5 and i still do. thankfully i'm an adult now. as a 5 year old, my desire to live would have been ignored, and i was perfectly capable of wanting to live and knowing what death meant at that age. i really don't care that my parent would have been distraught at my death - i would have felt that it was my choice, no-one else's. and yes, you can reply about younger children and being unconcious and someone having to make life and death decisions etc., what i'm saying is that my death from lack of blood would have been preventable. so too, the death's of children in biblical times - not fair. if god decided that adults were 'bad' then that's one thing. if god is all powerful, then surely it wouyldn't have been beyond the realms of possibilty to have removed the children first to a place of safety.

[Fljotsdale]

Tracey - not being picky here - that is twice you have double posted. I understand how it happens, 'cos have done it myself - it doesn't seem to have posted so you try again! Or it takes forever and you get 'timed out'. If either of those things occurs, just exit ironworks, exit internet, and then open internet and Ironworks again. You should find your post has registered.

It would be good to delete the duplicated posts: At the top of the duplicated post you will see 'edit/delete'. Click on it. You will be taken to a screen with a 'delete' button at the top left. Click on it. The post will then be removed. Only the poster can delete his/her own posts.

Do not do this to a post of yours if it is at the HEAD of a thread unless you want to remove the WHOLE thread. If you want to do this you will need to post to ask if other posters mind thir stuff in your thread being deleted.


Re your comments to me on your experience of the war: Raspberries!!
I lived through it. Even though I WAS only 8 at the end of it, lol!

PS. And the name is Fljotsdale - not Fljo, Fljots or any other diminutive!! If you want to make it easy on yourself, I accept F.
------------------




[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-22-2001).]

Originally posted by tracey: fljots, the reason i used the term nazi to about an acquaintance of mine is very simple. his whole attitude and way of connecting with the world is based on nazism - he believes his views are right and valid, and no amount of reasonable discussion will convince him to alter his views at all. in local circles he known as nazi j****.

Tracey,
If I may...is this not the same kind of attitude you have regarding your views as a non believer?

Also, Zateel asked that you at least show some respect by spelling out the word Christian yet you continue to use the "x". Does it literally burn your fingertips to type out the word Christ or are you just being blatantly rude?

?
Moni

------------------


[This message has been edited by Moni (edited 07-22-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Fljotsdale giggles hysterically...

Good on yer, Moni!

Even though I LIKE tracey...

------------------

I don't have anything against Tracey myself, with the exception that she seems to be a bit hypocritical and rude in this particular debate.
If I expect anyone to take me seriously in any conversation, I know not to act that way. People quit reading once they see such disrespect thrown in their face and end up caring less what the other party thinks or feels. That's not right, especially here.

Hugs To Everyone Involved,
Moni



------------------

[Yorick]

Tracey, I'm sorry you had that experience. The only religion I've heard that has that belief is the Jehovahs Witnesses, certainly not Christianity. I'm sorry that negative experience coloured your view of people with faith. However not all can be tarred with the same brush. If you have a father that gets physically abusive when he's consumed alcohol, does it follow that all who drink are physically abusive? It's an inditement on your parents, not say me or any other religious person. I would never keep my child, spouse or anyone from receiving blood, and I doubt Jesus would have. If there was blood to be given and it was the Sabbath he would have healed a child with it whether the Pharisees "allowed" it or not.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

My parent's both believed in God and would have allowed for blood or even donor organs in an emergency and although I am not a Jehovah's Witness, there is something wrong with it in my own point of view. I won't take another person's blood or organs to save my own life and am thankful I was never put in a position where I had to make that choice regarding my child as his point of view differs from mine. Everyone has a different take on life. Everyone.

Moni

------------------