Bell Curve

posted September 5th, 2015, 2:01 am


average rating: None
post a comment
author comments
view GreenKrog's profile

September 15th, 2014, 1:44 am

GreenKrog

reply

There is a whole lot you can look up on the subject, but the crux from current info is that girls have a higher central distribution on the science/math bell curve, and men occupy the higher and lesser ends. Look up that actual report for more info.

So why did the teacher do this? To inspire everyone in the class! Think about it - Vic threw out a few insults, Tony swam like he had something to prove. This teacher throws out a few insults, Annie orates like she has something to prove! Anger is a very productive emotion, when used in the correct doses.

Any of you who want to argue feminism, please do. I'm not a feminist any more because of how tainted it has become - I am a humanist. I'm still more than happy to listen to non-emotional, fact checked, scientifically corroborated information. Just be ready to answer one simple request - [citation needed].

end of message
user comments

September 5th, 2015, 10:53 am

Anon (Guest)

reply

Hold on a sec. The teacher's initial comment actually wasn't really sexist either. He did say the the girls can get good scores if they try, and it sounded more like he was disappointed that they usually didn't.

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

September 5th, 2015, 11:49 am

GreenKrog

reply

@Anon: It sort of comes from the negative position. Instead of stating 'women are equal', it says 'women can be equal if they work at it'. Which implies that men are the basis to which women have to try to achieve. So it is very mildly sexist, but, sexist nonetheless. Especially since people tend to believe that women are worse in the STEM fields - despite this being disproven by recent hiring trends across all STEM sectors.

end of message
view TallMist's profile

September 5th, 2015, 1:53 pm

TallMist

reply

So, I decided to give the comic another chance and I have to say I don't like it. At first, it was good. Nice balance of good and bad moments. But reading from where I left off to this page, it's nothing but more and more drama. There's no breaks from it. For every 1 page where Annie smiles, there's another 5-10 where it's just nothing but drama. It's unrealistic. 24/7 drama is not realistic. Maybe it happens IRL to some, maybe even a lot, but you will NEVER convince me that it's likely. Even those with the worst of luck get their good days, weeks and months.

It's the polar opposite to Rain, which Greenkrog admitted she took inspiration from. Where Rain appears to have less drama, Wildfowers has so much of it, I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't relate to Wildflowers at all and it still made you feel depressed.

I know a good story needs its drama, but too much of it, even if you base it off personal experiences, makes it unrealistic. And it doesn't help that the only times Annie is happy in any of the pages, it's likely that MANY before it and between the last time was all drama. It doesn't help that every time Annie has a page where she's happy, it's a guarantee that the very next page, and following pages, is yet more of Annie having Hell thrown at her.

I do realize a lot of transgender people do go through this much shit, but it's just not common. And even those that do go through this unrelenting, merciless crap STILL get their days off except for a very select few.

Counter what I said with how high suicide rates among us transgender people are, but I guarantee you it'd be higher if this was the common life among us transgender people.

I'll give the comic a few more pages, but if the next time Annie has a good day and it's immediately interrupted in the next 5 pages like usual after that, that'll just prove the formula won't be changing.

And just to give context: I nearly gave up on reading this when I first found it because of how depressed it made me. And it seems it hasn't gotten any brighter. This comic rarely shows the good parts of transgender life (supportive friends, supportive family, etc.) and when it does, it stops immediately as if the comic just thought "OK, you got your 2 seconds of joy. Now go back to reading nothing but the downsides to transgender life."

You CAN argue that some transgender people have nothing BUT downsides in their life and, with that, I won't argue. But, again, it's not good for storytelling and it's not THAT common. You hear a LOT about people in the media that do go through shit like this, yes. But how many of those people do you really believe have nothing good in their lives? Even if you include the stories we DON'T hear about?

Much less than most other people.

end of message
view Angelika Tatsu's profile

September 5th, 2015, 1:58 pm

Angelika Tatsu

Unrealistic?

reply

@TallMist: If you can do better, I'd like to read your webcomic.

end of message
view TallMist's profile

September 5th, 2015, 2:09 pm

TallMist

reply

@Angelika Tatsu: I hate when people act as if you have to do better than something to criticize that something. I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. I AM allowed to state my opinion, honey. I AM allowed to give feedback. That's what the comments are for. And how do you expect a comic to get better if there's no criticism from the readers?

I see nothing wrong with fair criticism and that's exactly what all of what I said is. If I don't like something because there's too much drama, I'd say that's quite fair. And I even messaged with Green at one point where Green said they'd like to hear what could make the comic better.


Also, I should clarify: I did not stop reading the comic on my first read at the beginning like my initial comment implies. I did read through until somewhere around the last chapter

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

September 5th, 2015, 4:19 pm

GreenKrog

reply

@TallMist: I am a girl, specifically a post-operative transgender woman. You know this, and my profile says so. Please refrain from calling me a he in the future. I've fought too long and too hard to want to deal with this kind of thing.

Also, I never said I took inspiration from Rain. Because I don't. I take inspiration from Venus Envy. Go read that and measure the drama level.

I will answer this entire thread more fully when I get home to a real keyboard. In the meantime, I would ask that you retract both calling me a male and site the source of you thinking I am taking Rain as inspiration.

end of message
view TallMist's profile

September 5th, 2015, 4:35 pm

TallMist

reply

@GreenKrog: "I am a girl, specifically a post-operative transgender woman. You know this, and my profile says so. Please refrain from calling me a he in the future. I've fought too long and too hard to want to deal with this kind of thing."

I did not call you a he. If I did, I didn't intend to, but I'm quite certain that I didn't.

"Also, I never said I took inspiration from Rain. Because I don't. I take inspiration from Venus Envy. Go read that and measure the drama level."

I don't like Venus Envy either. Not my cup of tea.

"I will answer this entire thread more fully when I get home to a real keyboard."

You can do that, but it'd be pointless. I don't like how much drama there is in this comic and, even if you debate the "realism" half of my reasoning you cannot debate my saying that too much drama makes for a bad story because that is my opinion & arguing it won't change my mind. If you wish to agree, I guess that's cool, but there's no changing my opinion.

"I would ask that you retract both calling me a male"

Please point out where I called you male so I can correct it. I hate misgendering as much as you do and, again, did not intend to misgender you and it was likely a typo.

"site the source of you thinking I am taking Rain as inspiration."

I may be wrong on that part, but if my memory serves me right, you said you at least got inspired by Rain to do a webcomic. Again, I will admit I'm wrong on this part if I am.


EDIT: I found where I called you a he and corrected it. It certainly was not my intent to misgender nor offend you and corrected my mistake as soon as I found it.

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

September 6th, 2015, 1:20 am

GreenKrog

reply

@TallMist: Thank you for finding and correcting the mistake.

As for the rest of the entire thing, I am not about to debate any part of what you said. Debating with you, specifically, cannot reach a rational conclusion.

As per Rain: the only time I may have mentioned it, aside from saying it is amazing, is to say that when I started writing it was the only active trans web comic, and that I was trying to fill the void left by VE. I believe that Rain was on a break when I started, in fact. So no, I do not take any inspiration from Rain.

This said, you are not my target audience. Everything you said about it being too much drama and too much hurt is absolutely correct. You can look on the front page of smackjeeves and read the news posting 'the Why of Wildflowers' and it explicitly states that I make this very dark and very hurtful. In summary: it is not realistic for one person to deal with all of this. But it is realistic for a lot of people to live in fear of these things and not have a way to deal with them in a healthy way. So I create this horrible place so that people can experience, in their own way, these things and hopefully be less afraid. As an example, I have written chapters about attempted rape because I have had such a hard time dealing with it. I have written about physical abuse (with Andreas parents) because so many trans kids fear it will happen to them.

If you are balanced, or you don't find it helpful, I will tell you what I tell everyone else: life is too short to read some stupid web comic that brings you hurt. Go read what you want to read, what makes you happy, and forget this is here. This is exactly why on *every* posting I make on Reddit or trans or LGBT or suicide or whatever other forums I support, I post the 'other stuff I read' first, and then say 'from the main comic' and link mine, and then FURTHER state 'dark and triggery, not for everyone'. Even if people DO decide to read my comic, I make sure they see Rain FIRST because it is NOT a difficult read.

I hope this all fully clarifies my position on everything. If you do not find value in this comic, then stop reading it. If you do find value, or find someone who does, then point them in my direction. I get messages about once a month telling me that I saved someone's life by writing this horrible comic, I sure as hell don't want to make someone take theirs because of it.

end of message
view TallMist's profile

September 6th, 2015, 3:57 am

TallMist

reply

@GreenKrog: That's all fair enough and I thank you for not debating my points. I can't say I exactly hate it, or dislike it, it's just... too heavy for me. Like I said, I'm giving it a few more pages to decide.

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

September 6th, 2015, 2:07 pm

GreenKrog

reply

@TallMist: I wouldn't bother hanging around. It gets into issues of self harm, bipolar, and I just finished a chapter on attempted rape again. It doesn't get any better for her.
That said, she does move past these issues and grow as a person. Which is the point - to put her into terrible situations and watch as she grows as a woman and grows as a functional human being having learned from these issues. So if it will remain very heavy, probably until she eventually dies (if I write for that long).

end of message
view Angelika Tatsu's profile

September 5th, 2015, 2:16 pm

Angelika Tatsu

reply

I just don't think it is right to criticize something, unless you've walked a mile in those shoes. Unless you personally are Trans an have Social Anxiety Disorder, your feedback isn't realistic.

end of message
view TallMist's profile

September 5th, 2015, 2:18 pm

TallMist

reply

@Angelika Tatsu: I AM trans as well as autistic. Social anxiety is my every day life. 18 and I STILL can't even so much as buy movie tickets at the concession stand (That's what it's called, right?) for myself because I fear interaction with people.

"I just don't think it is right to criticize something, unless you've walked a mile in those shoes."

If that's the case, then go tell all the critics that said Avengers was bad and didn't make a movie better than Avengers to piss off. Same for every movie.



Fact of the matter is that, IMO, this comic has too much drama and I'll say so if I want because I have EVERY right to.

end of message
view Angelika Tatsu's profile

September 5th, 2015, 2:35 pm

Angelika Tatsu

reply

Okay. So you are blessed to not have that much drama in your life. I have to deal with drama every fricking day due to my family and my own social anxiety disorder as well as my own mental disorder (specifically which I am not willing to disclose publicly).

I deal with the fact that right now, everything is working against me to allow me the happiness of transitioning. I have been pre-everything for three years due to my living situation. Unless I come into a lot of money or one specific member of my family dies, I live with the possibility of never transitioning; never being truly happy and never truly knowing peace.

end of message
view TallMist's profile

September 5th, 2015, 2:53 pm

TallMist

reply

@Angelika Tatsu: Honestly? That's the same as me. Except my family dying wouldn't give me the money I need to transition.

Thing is, my initial post isn't just about me. It's about the trans community as a whole. Like I said in my initial post: Personal experiences or not, too much drama is not good for any story telling and there's still far, far, FAR more trans people that can catch a break for at least a few days every few weeks at least.

You can't argue, nor convince me that, a story that treats being trans as literally NOTHING except darkness 24/7 with NEARLY NEVER ANYTHING good in the transgender person's life WHATSOEVER is good or realistic for any story.

And that's as simple as that.

end of message
view TallMist's profile

September 5th, 2015, 2:58 pm

TallMist

reply

@Angelika Tatsu: Disagree all you want. If you like a story that's nothing but depressing, you have every right to. But don't try and argue with me just because you disagree. There's no point to it. (Say that there's no point in criticizing the story and I'll say I'm at least trying to give feedback that could make it better. All you're doing is arguing.)

Why ARE you debating me anyways? It's not like you need me to like it for your own opinion to be valid and I'm not insulting Greenkrog at all. All I'm saying is I don't like the drama and, by extension, the story and I just do not believe it's realistic. That does not mean I'm calling Green's writing style or art style bad.

P.S. "So you are blessed to not have that much drama in your life."

HA!! That's funny.

end of message
view Angelika Tatsu's profile

September 5th, 2015, 2:59 pm

Angelika Tatsu

reply

I have read every strip of Wildflowers, and I do not see darkness in every strip. As a fan of Rain and a latecomer to Wildflowers, Wildflowers speaks to me more because of all the trauma that I have endured, I identify with it way more easy than Rain. Not to say that I don't love Rain, it's just that I see way more of myself in Annie than I do in Rain.

Granted you are entitled to your thoughts about it. I am sorry if I came across as too harsh.

end of message
view TallMist's profile

September 5th, 2015, 3:03 pm

TallMist

reply

@Angelika Tatsu: "I have read every strip of Wildflowers, and I do not see darkness in every strip."

I certainly can. Not in every strip, but most of them.

"Wildflowers speaks to me more because of all the trauma that I have endured, I identify with it way more easy than Rain. Not to say that I don't love Rain, it's just that I see way more of myself in Annie than I do in Rain."

That's definitely fair enough. Though, for me to be fair, I must say that I relate more with Alexis Perkins than both Rain AND Wildflowers and still prefer Rain.

"I am sorry if I came across as too harsh."

I too.

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

September 6th, 2015, 1:46 am

GreenKrog

reply

@Angelika Tatsu: Before I launch into this, please know I am not doing it as a personal attack, but as trying to make several points and you happen to have made them for me. I hope you do not take any hurt by them, and instead look at it as a chance to grow, as I do when these things come up.

I appreciate you defending Wildflowers, but personal attacks on other people are never appreciated. Thing is, and you can scroll up to see my full response to Tallmist - WF *is* unrealistic. I write it to be dark and hurtful. Tallmist is very much correct that WF sucks, and as I wrote in the 'The Why of Wildflowers' news update on the front page, quite a while ago, Tallmist is not my target audience. People like you are.

To address this a little more explicitly: A person does not have to be able to create art to be able to judge art. I will never be able to sing a good song, but I know what I enjoy listening to. I will never be able to cook a good meal, but I know what tastes good.
Tallmist is quite right, I did ask for feedback about what I could do to make it better. I welcome that feedback from anyone, because as much as WF is mine, it is really a part of everyone who reads it.

Likewise, saying someone doesn't have the right to criticize unless X negates their life experiences. Further, you don't know if they HAVE had those life experiences. As Tallmist later came back, they said they DO have social anxiety. How much time have I spent in WF trying to hammer home that we shouldn't judge each other without listening to them and without assuming the worst? Remember the angry pharmacist filling 'Tonys' prescription, who then had to get it fixed, and everyone thought he was a prejudiced ass but it turns out he just didn't know how to work the computer? When we make assumptions, especially to get angry at someone else based on them, we are only going to breed hurt and mistrust. WF is about putting aside those things.

Even if Tallmist didn't have social anxiety, they can still have empathy for those who do. If you recall when Annie was almost raped, how there was discussion about how people who haven't been raped shouldn't be allowed to talk about it? And how horrendous it made me feel trying to help others deal with it, even though I managed to escape? And then the person who I was defending myself against came back to me and told me that even though I had escaped, my feelings and fears were as valid as theirs? My point is, I will never be able to lose a child before it is born, but I take sorrow to my guild mother Iselwyn because she has. I have not been raped, but I know the fear and can fathom how much further the hurt can go. I have never been physically assaulted for being trans, but I can still write about how afraid I was of it for so long.

I want you to watch this video, because it changed my life;
https://www.ted.com/talks/ash_beckham_we_re_all_hiding_something_let_s_find_the_courage_ to_open_up?language=en

Specifically the line "There is no harder, there is only hard". Comparing our wounds to another to be a bigger victim only makes victims out of everyone. Just because a child is only hit once by their father doesn't mean they live in any less fear than the one who is hit frequently. Just because I had a relatively easy life doesn't mean I can't write about a difficult one. The scars on my arms from the damage caused by words and from religion are no less real than the scars on someones elses wrist because they thought they had no other way out. Because I found the strength to call for help instead of dying doesn't make me better than the person who lost that one last glimmer of hope. There is no harder. There is only hard.

Like I said at the start, I didn't mean this to come down on you, because I know your heart was in the right place. Someone said something about something you find deeply meaningful and important. You want to defend it. I get that entirely. All I ask is that we all ask ourselves, is this the best way to go about it? Tallmist hurts as much as we do, but for different reasons, and we should love them and support them, not try to turn them away or downplay their experiences. I spent an entire day, literally an entire day, trying to free them from the hateful nature of Christianity, only to have them lash out at me and grow hurtful on me. I don't regret it, despite it hurting me, because I would rather try to help someone than defend myself needlessly. They said some very mean things to me, and yet, I welcome them back any time because that is what Julie does. It is what Lexi does. It is what Mitch and Ron and Sophie do. It is what all of us should be doing.

Love, whole love, is the answer. I hope you can see that next time you go to defend the things you love.

-The GreenKrog

end of message
view TallMist's profile

September 6th, 2015, 4:06 am

TallMist

reply

@GreenKrog: I do apologize for lashing out at you. I let my anger get the better of me, something I've been known to do. But I still can't see Christianity as hateful. In fact, 1 of my friends told off a Christian bigot for me by using the Bible. I can give you the quotes... If you want, that is. And you promise not to debate them as IDK the Bible much myself and it's all quotes on her end.

Again, though, I apologize for lashing out. You were only trying to help.

And I don't think WF sucks. It's just too dark for me to handle. Unsurprising, though, but that's a whole other story (No pun intended).

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

September 6th, 2015, 2:12 pm

GreenKrog

reply

@TallMist: There is no need to show me the quotes used from the bible against the LGBT community. I know the bible very thoroughly and can look up any scripture to support literally anything I want. That is the problem with the bible, and with religion.

I said it on my facebook post about the Kentucky judge: she is not an evil person, and I hate that she is going to jail. Had she been raised in a good home with proper atheistic, humanistic values, that Kentucky judge would be a great champion of humanist morality. Instead, religion corrupted her. It brainwashed her. It isn't the person that is in the wrong, it is the way they were raised.

I'm not interested in getting into this again with you. I have already proven beyond a doubt that you are Sikhist and don't put value in the religion of Christianity, and you decided to just make a knowledge claim of 'I know I am Christian anyways' despite having absolutely zero ties to the religion. Which is exactly my point against religion. So no, I am not going to bother with that any more.

end of message
view TallMist's profile

September 6th, 2015, 5:40 pm

TallMist

reply

@GreenKrog: Still calling me a Sikhist and a Deist instead of a Christian as if you get to decide what I am for me? You dare continue to call us Christians brainwashed? You dare insult me after I've apologized for all I said to you?

Look, I may believe in the supernatural and in multiple gods including the Christian one, but that doesn't make me a Deist. The Christian God is still the one I believe in most. Still the one I pray to. And I don't believe we go to anywhere but Heaven or Hell when we die. Does that not sound Christian to you? Fine. I'm sending you the quotes anyways. Quotes from someone that has studied the Bible inside and out with her PRIEST granddad that was for same-sex marriage. Read them or not, but don't EVER call me brainwashed. I believe in God because I want to and I shouldn't need to justify it to anyone to not be considered "brainwashed".

It's like you being a she instead of a he. You don't choose being trans, but that aside, the same things apply. You don't want to be called a he, but you won't call someone Christian if they considered themselves one? And then go as far as call me brainwashed, when you'd hate if anyone called you mentally ill?
(Disclaimer: I'm NOT calling you a he nor mentally ill.)

The irony.

If I wasn't kind, I'd take back what I said about WF not sucking just to spite you. And I would take back my apology for lashing out at you. But I'm not a jerk, so I won't.


"There is no need to show me the quotes used from the bible against the LGBT community."

Not against. It's to prove there's nothing in it against the LGBT. Or, at the VERY least, same-sex couples.

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

September 6th, 2015, 5:51 pm

GreenKrog

reply

@TallMist: As I have stated in private message, I am walking away from this conversation. It is pointless to try to debate you because you make knowledge claims. For any person to have gods other than the Abrahamic god makes them not a Christian. By definition, to be a Christian you must follow the words of Christ. You do not, because you do not follow the bible, where the words of Christ are written. This is an entymological argument and you have no way to win it, so you just plug your ears and make knowledge claims instead.

The difference between being transgender and being Christian is that being transgender has a clear and defined outcome that is measurable by treatment and will share features across all parties. It is a biological function that can and has been studied, and science updates to follow changes in the science. Christianity, and all religions, do not, and can not, update. There is no irony involved, it is you misunderstanding how words and definitions work.

Until you follow the words of Christ, you are not a Christian. Call yourself whatever you want in a knee-jerk reaction, but you simply are not a Christian, by definition. You are a deist, but given that you are pantheonic and follow a moral guideline instead of a specific path/text, you are a Sikhist.

I am done responding to you. If anyone else cares to read the conversation between Tallmist and I from our private conversation several weeks ago, I am happy to open it to the public. However, I am not going to take up arms, again, when this is a conversation I have already had and won.

end of message
view TallMist's profile

September 6th, 2015, 6:01 pm

TallMist

reply

@GreenKrog: Chris·tian
ˈkrisCHən/
adjective
1.
of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.
"the Christian Church"


Oh, look at that. I see the word "OR" in there. I am Christian because I profess to Christianity. The word "or" means I do not have to profess to both.

pro·fess
prəˈfes/Submit
verb

2.
affirm one's faith in or allegiance to (a religion or set of beliefs).
"a people professing Christianity"
synonyms: affirm one's faith in, affirm one's allegiance to, avow, confess
"the emperor professed Christianity"


There you go. I am Christian and you CANNOT claim otherwise. If you want screenshots of these definitions for proof, I'd gladly take them and then post them here.

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

September 6th, 2015, 6:04 pm

GreenKrog

reply

@TallMist: Your use of the definition means that any person can claim Christianity while not being a Christian.

I am a confirmed and hard atheist. But I claim to be a Christian now. Congrats, I am now a Christian.

You win.

end of message
view TallMist's profile

September 6th, 2015, 6:15 pm

TallMist

reply

@GreenKrog: You want to use definitions as your argument, but then claim I'm wrong when I quote the said definitions when all you did is claim them as if your definition of Christian is the only one and everything else that says otherwise is wrong because you said so? Lol! Trying so hard to be right.

Let's refer to Dictionary Reference instead of the Google definition, since that's not good enough for you.

"Christian definition. A follower or disciple of Jesus; someone who believes Jesus is the Christ or Messiah. The New Testament mentions that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians within a few years after his death."

That's me.

Maybe you'd rather Free Dictionary's definition?

"Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus 2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings"

That first definition fits me.

Maybe Urban Dictionary?

"A person who believes that Christ is their Savior. A person who believes that Jesus of Israel was/is the Son of God and was everything He claimed to be."

Is that good enough for you? That's 3 definitions that support that I don't HAVE to follow Jesus's teachings to be Christian. Just believe he's the savior. Combined with the Google definition, that makes 4.

This should be enough to convince anyone, even you, that you can't use the dictionary to tell someone they're not Christian.

Now get off your high horse and either redact your dictionary argument and/or admit that I'm Christian and you don't get to decide what I am for me.


And if not, here's this 1 last gem:

Which is the correct definition of Christian; what definition do ...
www.religioustolerance.org/c...
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Mar 19, 2000 - This question assumes that there is one and only one correct definition of the term "Christian." However, depending upon your understanding of the nature of truth, many definitions may be "true" to various groups
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn3.htm


Also, threaten to make our conversation public. Fine. Go ahead. I already apologized because I wanted to and I will again if I must. If you do make it public, do so here, though, not on facebook where I cannot defend myself.

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

September 6th, 2015, 6:31 pm

GreenKrog

reply

@TallMist: First definition - please define follower. Please further define how you can believe Jesus is the Messiah without using the bible, to which you claim to not take any stock in. Here, let me define follower;
an adherent or devotee of a particular person, cause, or activity
Lets assume you mean devotee, because it best tries to fit into your abstraction;
a strong believer in a particular religion or god

So let us now summarize what the first definition means, inserting the definitions of the sub-words to complete the entirety;
"A devotee, being a strong believer in a particular religion: someone who believes that Jesus is the Christ or Messiah'.
You cannot assume to be a follower of the religion or god because you do not follow the tenants of said religion or god. You do not strongly believe, or you would obey the words they have given. You are doing nothing but making a claim to follow, without actually adhering to the qualities required.

Second definition: you profess belief in Jesus. I just did the same. So we are in the same camp, only difference is, I am making fun of it, and you actually think it.

Third definition: You once again need to tell me how you think Christ is your savior, without using the bible to which you said you have no faith in. Unless you mean you think he is the son of god and everything he claimed to be, which once again requires the bible, otherwise you are just using blind 'someone told me about christ so thats who I follow now'.

You see how actually delving into what the words of definitions mean accomplishes? All three do, entymologocially, require you to follow Christs teachings or biblical religion to be a follower of Christ. I am sorry that you think you can escape this, but you can't.

Quoting from that bible website, and I quote;
"We accept as Christian any individual or group who devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. That is, they honestly believe themselves to be attempting to follow the teachings of Yeshua of Nazareth (a.k.a. Jesus Christ) as they interpret those teachings to be."
You do not follow the teachings of Jesus because you do not follow the bible. If you can somehow produce for me some other source of doctrine that tells us what Christ wants that is not from the bible, you have no way out of this.

The very end of that page exemplifies what a circular and pointless argument it is to try to define being a Christian by saying you are a Christian. You might want to better source your quotes next time, because I actually read the things presented. Such as the bible.

end of message
view TallMist's profile

September 6th, 2015, 6:35 pm

TallMist

reply

@GreenKrog: "First definition - please define follower. Please further define how you can believe Jesus is the Messiah without using the bible, to which you claim to not take any stock in. Here, let me define follower;
an adherent or devotee of a particular person, cause, or activity
Lets assume you mean devotee, because it best tries to fit into your abstraction;
a strong believer in a particular religion or god"

Google says: fol·low·er
ˈfälōər/
noun
1.
an adherent or devotee of a particular person, cause, or activity.
"a freethinker and follower of Voltaire"
synonyms: acolyte, assistant, attendant, companion; More
2.
a person who moves or travels behind someone or something.

Dictionary reference: Follower | Define Follower at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com/browse/follower
Dictionary.com
a person or thing that follows. a person who follows another in regard to his or her ideas or belief (fits me because I DO follow Jesus's belief that we'll all be saved, even if I don't believe in "Can't eat pork" or "can't have tattoos");

disciple or adherent. a person who imitates, copies, or takes as a model or ideal: He was little more than a follower of current modes. an attendant, servant, or retainer.

MERRIAM WEBSTER: Follower | Definition of follower by Merriam-Webster
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/follower
Merriam‑Webster
someone who supports and is guided by another person or by a group, religion, etc. : a person who likes and admires (someone or something) very much.

"You cannot assume to be a follower of the religion or god because you do not follow the tenants of said religion or god. You do not strongly believe, or you would obey the words they have given. You are doing nothing but making a claim to follow, without actually adhering to the qualities required."

I can, because I believe Jesus is Christ, as of definition YOU quoted ""A devotee, being a strong believer in a particular religion: someone who believes that Jesus is the Christ or Messiah'."

"Second definition: you profess belief in Jesus. I just did the same. So we are in the same camp, only difference is, I am making fun of it, and you actually think it. "

And because you make fun of it, I can't be it?

"Third definition: You once again need to tell me how you think Christ is your savior, without using the bible to which you said you have no faith in. Unless you mean you think he is the son of god and everything he claimed to be, which once again requires the bible, otherwise you are just using blind 'someone told me about christ so thats who I follow now'."

That's not what I think at all. I do believe in Christ, son of God, but I don't need a book to believe so. Show me a documented definition saying I do.

"Quoting from that bible website, and I quote;
"We accept as Christian any individual or group who devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. That is, they honestly believe themselves to be attempting to follow the teachings of Yeshua of Nazareth (a.k.a. Jesus Christ) as they interpret those teachings to be."
You do not follow the teachings of Jesus because you do not follow the bible. If you can somehow produce for me some other source of doctrine that tells us what Christ wants that is not from the bible, you have no way out of this. "

But I do. The site also says there is not only one definition of Christian. They state what theirs is, yes, but also that there's more than one.

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

September 6th, 2015, 6:41 pm

GreenKrog

reply

@TallMist: So to break it down once more;
"I am a person who admires christ"
"I am a person who is guided by christ"
"I follow the ideas of Christ"

Which one of these is you? You admire Christ? So just like I admire how well my boss Henry can code, it makes me a Henryist? Maybe you are guided by Christ, and yet you don't say how you are guided without the bible. Unless of course this is one of those 'I feel like this is right' in which case you are just making a knowledge claim and once again this entire thing is pointless. Or the last one, which directly requires you to follow the bible.

Why are you still bothering to try? Give me an absolute definition of what to you means Christian so we can stop this pointless back and forth and you can make your angry knowledge claim and I can make my same mocking knowledge claim. You can't win a war of definitions with me because I understand english too well. You can't win a war of religion with me because I know religion too well. Simply put: the only way for you to win is to either accept that you are not Christian by definition, or that you are a Christian because you say you are and you won't listen to english when it says otherwise.

end of message
view TallMist's profile

September 6th, 2015, 6:50 pm

TallMist

reply

@GreenKrog: Still arrogant and thinking your definition is the only one? I also see you managed to NOT debate any of what I said.

Christian, to me, is believing in God and Christ. To me, you don't have to avoid getting tattoos or avoid cashmere or any of that. To me, being Christian means loving and believing and having faith in God. Even if he seems to ignore the people in Africa, as you brought up in private, even if he allows you to feel pain and have a hard life, even if he allows you to get hurt, if you have faith he has some reason, some plan, something that'll make sense of it all, then, in my eyes, you are Christian. You DON'T need some silly book written by man that could have never had a physical face-to-face discussion with God nor Christ to accurately write to believe in any of that. I AM Christian, despite what some stranger, an EXTREMELY AND NEGATIVELY BIASED one no less, thinks I am.

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

September 6th, 2015, 6:56 pm

GreenKrog

reply

@TallMist: So your only definition is 'I believe in an abstract god, not the one defined by the bible or any other source, and I choose to name that one Christ'.

Congrats, you are a Christian, despite having nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. Again, you win. By you definition, you are indeed a Christian. Feel free to run that by anyone else on the planet though who either studies English, religion, or society, and I would be curious as to the conversation they come up with.

Fun fact: you also just described, once again, every other non-Abrahamic religion, except instead of Odin you choose Yahweh. Or Christ instead of Buddha.

If you want me to debate the things you say, you need to tell me what to debate. You only ever give broad and sweeping here-say, so that is what I refute.

end of message
view TallMist's profile

September 6th, 2015, 6:58 pm

TallMist

reply

@GreenKrog: "So your only definition is 'I believe in an abstract god, not the one defined by the bible or any other source, and I choose to name that one Christ'."

That's NOT what I said and you know it. You ask me for my own personal definition and I give you that AND SEVERAL dictionary definitions and they ALL fit me and you STILL try and claim I'm not Christian. I said it a few posts ago and I'll say it again: Get off your high horse.

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

September 6th, 2015, 7:04 pm

GreenKrog

reply

@TallMist: And I directly refuted each one of your definitions, to which you have yet to actually respond. All you did is change the definition of the word follower, to which I then responded.

You really need to work on your rational debate. It follows sequential order, and you seem to enjoy skipping that order than throwing it back later saying it wasn't answered. You said they all fit you, I explained how they didn't. Go ahead and point out any one of them that I did not refute. Scroll up. I will wait.

I will not get off my high horse because I intend to bring everyone else to the same level as I am at - above the pointlessness of religion. I hope you can appreciate the irony of you claiming a religion and wasting an entire day on it despite having nothing to lose by what some random internet stranger has to say. This is why I fight against religion - all it does it bring pain.

end of message
view TallMist's profile

September 6th, 2015, 7:10 pm

TallMist

reply

@GreenKrog: " And I directly refuted each one of your definitions, to which you have yet to actually respond. All you did is change the definition of the word follower, to which I then responded. "

"@GreenKrog: Chris�tian
ˈkrisCHən/
adjective
1.
of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.
"the Christian Church"


Oh, look at that. I see the word "OR" in there. I am Christian because I profess to Christianity. The word "or" means I do not have to profess to both.

pro�fess
prəˈfes/Submit
verb

2.
affirm one's faith in or allegiance to (a religion or set of beliefs).
"a people professing Christianity"
synonyms: affirm one's faith in, affirm one's allegiance to, avow, confess
"the emperor professed Christianity"

@GreenKrog: You want to use definitions as your argument, but then claim I'm wrong when I quote the said definitions when all you did is claim them as if your definition of Christian is the only one and everything else that says otherwise is wrong because you said so? Lol! Trying so hard to be right.

Let's refer to Dictionary Reference instead of the Google definition, since that's not good enough for you.

"Christian definition. A follower or disciple of Jesus; someone who believes Jesus is the Christ or Messiah. The New Testament mentions that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians within a few years after his death."

That's me.

Maybe you'd rather Free Dictionary's definition?

"Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus 2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings"

That first definition fits me.

Maybe Urban Dictionary?

"A person who believes that Christ is their Savior. A person who believes that Jesus of Israel was/is the Son of God and was everything He claimed to be."

Is that good enough for you? That's 3 definitions that support that I don't HAVE to follow Jesus's teachings to be Christian. Just believe he's the savior. Combined with the Google definition, that makes 4.

This should be enough to convince anyone, even you, that you can't use the dictionary to tell someone they're not Christian.

Now get off your high horse and either redact your dictionary argument and/or admit that I'm Christian and you don't get to decide what I am for me.


And if not, here's this 1 last gem:

Which is the correct definition of Christian; what definition do ...
WWW.RELIGIOUSTOLERANCE.ORG/C...
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Mar 19, 2000 - This question assumes that there is one and only one correct definition of the term "Christian." However, depending upon your understanding of the nature of truth, many definitions may be "true" to various groups
HTTP://WWW.RELIGIOUSTOLERANCE.ORG/CHR_DEFN3.HTM


Also, threaten to make our conversation public. Fine. Go ahead. I already apologized because I wanted to and I will again if I must. If you do make it public, do so here, though, not on facebook where I cannot defend myself.
@GreenKrog: "First definition - please define follower. Please further define how you can believe Jesus is the Messiah without using the bible, to which you claim to not take any stock in. Here, let me define follower;
an adherent or devotee of a particular person, cause, or activity
Lets assume you mean devotee, because it best tries to fit into your abstraction;
a strong believer in a particular religion or god"

Google says: fol�low�er
ˈf�lōər/
noun
1.
an adherent or devotee of a particular person, cause, or activity.
"a freethinker and follower of Voltaire"
synonyms: acolyte, assistant, attendant, companion; More
2.
a person who moves or travels behind someone or something.

Dictionary reference: Follower | Define Follower at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com/browse/follower
Dictionary.com
a person or thing that follows. a person who follows another in regard to his or her ideas or belief (fits me because I DO follow Jesus's belief that we'll all be saved, even if I don't believe in "Can't eat pork" or "can't have tattoos");

disciple or adherent. a person who imitates, copies, or takes as a model or ideal: He was little more than a follower of current modes. an attendant, servant, or retainer.

MERRIAM WEBSTER: Follower | Definition of follower by Merriam-Webster
WWW.MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM/DICTIONARY/FOLLOWER
Merriam‑Webster
someone who supports and is guided by another person or by a group, religion, etc. : a person who likes and admires (someone or something) very much.

"You cannot assume to be a follower of the religion or god because you do not follow the tenants of said religion or god. You do not strongly believe, or you would obey the words they have given. You are doing nothing but making a claim to follow, without actually adhering to the qualities required."

I can, because I believe Jesus is Christ, as of definition YOU quoted ""A devotee, being a strong believer in a particular religion: someone who believes that Jesus is the Christ or Messiah'."

"Second definition: you profess belief in Jesus. I just did the same. So we are in the same camp, only difference is, I am making fun of it, and you actually think it. "

And because you make fun of it, I can't be it?

"Third definition: You once again need to tell me how you think Christ is your savior, without using the bible to which you said you have no faith in. Unless you mean you think he is the son of god and everything he claimed to be, which once again requires the bible, otherwise you are just using blind 'someone told me about christ so thats who I follow now'."

That's not what I think at all. I do believe in Christ, son of God, but I don't need a book to believe so. Show me a documented definition saying I do.

"Quoting from that bible website, and I quote;
"We accept as Christian any individual or group who devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. That is, they honestly believe themselves to be attempting to follow the teachings of Yeshua of Nazareth (a.k.a. Jesus Christ) as they interpret those teachings to be."
You do not follow the teachings of Jesus because you do not follow the bible. If you can somehow produce for me some other source of doctrine that tells us what Christ wants that is not from the bible, you have no way out of this. "

But I do. The site also says there is not only one definition of Christian. They state what theirs is, yes, but also that there's more than one.


@GreenKrog: Still arrogant and thinking your definition is the only one? I also see you managed to NOT debate any of what I said.

Christian, to me, is believing in God and Christ. To me, you don't have to avoid getting tattoos or avoid cashmere or any of that. To me, being Christian means loving and believing and having faith in God. Even if he seems to ignore the people in Africa, as you brought up in private, even if he allows you to feel pain and have a hard life, even if he allows you to get hurt, if you have faith he has some reason, some plan, something that'll make sense of it all, then, in my eyes, you are Christian. You DON'T need some silly book written by man that could have never had a physical face-to-face discussion with God nor Christ to accurately write to believe in any of that. I AM Christian, despite what some stranger, an EXTREMELY AND NEGATIVELY BIASED one no less, thinks I am."


Yes I did. You just didn't respond to my last refute aside from saying I can't say that with "So to break it down once more;
"I am a person who admires christ"
"I am a person who is guided by christ"
"I follow the ideas of Christ"

Which one of these is you? You admire Christ? So just like I admire how well my boss Henry can code, it makes me a Henryist? Maybe you are guided by Christ, and yet you don't say how you are guided without the bible. Unless of course this is one of those 'I feel like this is right' in which case you are just making a knowledge claim and once again this entire thing is pointless. Or the last one, which directly requires you to follow the bible."

Which I DID refute.

"I will not get off my high horse because I intend to bring everyone else to the same level as I am at - above the pointlessness of religion. I hope you can appreciate the irony of you claiming a religion and wasting an entire day on it despite having nothing to lose by what some random internet stranger has to say. This is why I fight against religion - all it does it bring pain."

If you think that way, then you're a hypocrite. If it's so painful to you, then stop discussing this. "I hope you can appreciate the irony of you claiming a religion and wasting an entire day on it despite having nothing to lose by what some random internet stranger has to say. This is why I fight against religion - all it does it bring pain."

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

September 6th, 2015, 7:29 pm

GreenKrog

reply

@TallMist: Please refrain from copy and pasting entire conversation threads without at least highlighting the relevant sections. I do not have the memory of a goldfish, I remember the conversation, especially the parts I wrote. You did not highlight the points you are trying to make, or summarize them, all you did is copy them. It is the same as saying 'I already said it' and then 'I already said it' after someone asks you to resummarize. That is just lazy.

As far as I can tell you new information starts after the urban dictionary quote. So I will begin there.

You say that your definition of being a Christian is just to believe Christ is the savior, and nothing more. So I ask you, what is the reason you believe this? Just because 'this is what I believe' or because someone told you, at some point, based off of the bible, that this is what they believe and want you to believe? Christ is a figure from the bible, and does not have a historic reality. The romans were some of the best record keepers, yet they don't have any history on Christ of Nazareth. So you certainly can't claim that you believe it because of historic proof. So if you don't claim it from the bible, where is this coming from?

I am not threatening to make conversation public. I am offering people to see the words you wrote, and the words I wrote, undoctored, so they can arrive at their own conclusions. Should they choose to support you, that is their choices. If they support me, that is their choice too. How is it a threat to show others what you believe?

On to the rest.

You believe Jesus is Christ, but do not follow the bible or think it has any basis in reality. You absolutely refuse to state why you think Jesus is Christ instead of John the Baptist, the Buddha, Krishna, or any of the other incarnations of the Vishnu.

By the second definition, where you profess belief in Jesus, lets pull the trans card. Trump said in his 2016 presidential election run that 'he would claim to be a trans woman so he can go into womens locker rooms'. You see why a claim is not sufficient as evidence, and needs to be backed?

Third definition, once again, where do you get your faith in Jesus being son of god from, if not religion? Did Jesus tell you so? Were you walking in the forest one day and suddenly like a lance from the heavens you knew Jesus (despite never having heard of him from a church of any kind) was the son of god?

For the bible website, you are taking the interpretation, once more, as 'I say I am so I am'. If that is your only basis, then you win, you are Christian. I want you to email that website and link them this thread and ask them if you are indeed Christian. Make sure to mention that you do not believe in the bible, the teaching of Christ, or believe in the Abrahamic god. You only say you are a Christian, therefore you are.

I am not a hypocrite about debating you because it is my mission on this earth to put an end to religion causing pain. It is not painful to me - it gives me strength to break down the fallacies of religion and restore rational humanism. I do not get worn down, I get emboldened. The only time I stop is when someone makes a knowledge claim, plugs their ears and says 'I know I am christian despite not having anything to do with Christ other than a name'. Which is where you seem to be going with all of this.

Please stop pussyfooting around and give exactly one solid definition of what makes you a Christian. From your words. Not from another source, since I have refuted all of them. Say, with your words, what your definition is. If it is the one where you brought up Africa, I have already refuted that. So you will need to do better.

end of message
view TallMist's profile

September 6th, 2015, 7:27 pm

TallMist

reply

@GreenKrog: @GreenKrog: Let me put it together PROPERLY here.

Let's start with my own definition of Christianity.

"Christian, to me, is believing in God and Christ. To me, you don't have to avoid getting tattoos or avoid cashmere or any of that. To me, being Christian means loving and believing and having faith in God. Even if he seems to ignore the people in Africa, as you brought up in private, even if he allows you to feel pain and have a hard life, even if he allows you to get hurt, if you have faith he has some reason, some plan, something that'll make sense of it all, then, in my eyes, you are Christian. You DON'T need some silly book written by man that could have never had a physical face-to-face discussion with God nor Christ to accurately write to believe in any of that."

Based on that definition, we can look at others. Let's start with all 4 webpage defs of Christian:

Chris�tian
ˈkrisCHən/
adjective
1.
of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.
"the Christian Church"

I profess to my definition of what a Christian is.

Let's refer to Dictionary Reference instead of the Google definition.

"Christian definition. A follower or disciple of Jesus; someone who believes Jesus is the Christ or Messiah. The New Testament mentions that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians within a few years after his death."

As I said in my definition of Christian, I do believe he is Messiah/Christ.

"Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus 2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings"

That first definition fits me as I do believe that his teachings are to have faith in, follow and trust the Lord. To be kind to others and to love everyone.

"A person who believes that Christ is their Savior. A person who believes that Jesus of Israel was/is the Son of God and was everything He claimed to be."

I do believe he IS who he claimed to be and I said above that you don't need a book that a person who had no idea what God or Jesus said to believe he's Savior.

"Which is the correct definition of Christian; what definition do ...
WWW.RELIGIOUSTOLERANCE.ORG/C...
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Mar 19, 2000 - This question assumes that there is one and only one correct definition of the term "Christian." However, depending upon your understanding of the nature of truth, many definitions may be "true" to various groups
HTTP://WWW.RELIGIOUSTOLERANCE.ORG/CHR_DEFN3.HTM"

While, yes, the site states its own def of Christian, it also says there is more than one def.

"Google says: fol�low�er
ˈf�lōər/
noun
1.
an adherent or devotee of a particular person, cause, or activity.
"a freethinker and follower of Voltaire"
synonyms: acolyte, assistant, attendant, companion; More
2.
a person who moves or travels behind someone or something.

Dictionary reference: Follower | Define Follower at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com/browse/follower
Dictionary.com
a person or thing that follows. a person who follows another in regard to his or her ideas or belief (fits me because I DO follow Jesus's belief that we'll all be saved, even if I don't believe in "Can't eat pork" or "can't have tattoos");

disciple or adherent. a person who imitates, copies, or takes as a model or ideal: He was little more than a follower of current modes. an attendant, servant, or retainer.

MERRIAM WEBSTER: Follower | Definition of follower by Merriam-Webster
WWW.MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM/DICTIONARY/FOLLOWER
Merriam‑Webster
someone who supports and is guided by another person or by a group, religion, etc. : a person who likes and admires (someone or something) very much."

I DO follow Jesus and what I believe he preached.

Now, you are likely to still claim I am wrong, but I do hope this at least helps you see my point of view more clearly and hope that you see that, when put that way, these definitions ARE valid towards me.


"So what I told you is true... From a certain point of view." - Obi-Wan Kenobi, 1983

...Except it's a fair POV.

"I am not threatening to make conversation public. I am offering people to see the words you wrote, and the words I wrote, undoctored, so they can arrive at their own conclusions. Should they choose to support you, that is their choices. If they support me, that is their choice too. How is it a threat to show others what you believe?"

Maybe threat was the wrong word. But what I said then doesn't change what I said I believe in here in this thread, so it's pointless to do so. And I do ask you do not post it. Yes, you were part of it, but I was too and it was private. I'd rather it stay private.

"You believe Jesus is Christ, but do not follow the bible or think it has any basis in reality. You absolutely refuse to state why you think Jesus is Christ instead of John the Baptist, the Buddha, Krishna, or any of the other incarnations of the Vishnu."

If I did, I'd guarantee that you'd mock me.

"Make sure to mention that you do not believe in the bible, the teaching of Christ, or believe in the Abrahamic god. You only say you are a Christian, therefore you are."

I believe in his teachings. I said so. I believe his teachings are to be kind, have faith and believe that God will set us on the right path. Those are his teachings in my beliefs.

"I am not a hypocrite about debating you because it is my mission on this earth to put an end to religion causing pain."

Only because you made that choice to make it your "mission." Religion has only caused me pain one time in all my 18 years and the pain left as quickly as any pain from emotional attachment would have and I'd never use religion to cause pain to others because that's NOT what I believe.


Of course you won't believe me, but that's the truth.

end of message

September 9th, 2015, 3:33 am

Jax Rhapsody (Guest)

reply

@GreenKrog I understand being an athiest, and any good athiest should know at least the basics of most, if not all religion. I wouldn't condemn all religion, and honestly, to my knowledge; any religous problems seem to stem from the abrahamic ones, and muslim ones. I couldn't remember everything that was said, or- on my phone, able to safely go back and see. It seems as if you just generally hate all religion. I already knew you wers an athiest, just didn't know your stand on religions. Not all are bad, though there is the radicals of any of them.

@TallMist all of what you said seems to equate to being some sort of christian, as some would say; spiritual, but not religious. I kinda got lost in translation to whether or not she was saying you were, or wasn't a christian. At some point it seemed she was. I do remember that you seemed offendsd about being called a deist, all it means is that you believe in a deity, or are a thiest versus an athiest.

Also I loved VE, but was upset it was cliffhangered, on research I foumd somebody did finish it, but the site is gone. Seems like a few trans webcomics habe just haulted.

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

September 9th, 2015, 12:50 pm

GreenKrog

reply

@Jax Rhapsody: Muslim religion is study of the Quran, making them Islamic. This is a stem of the Abrahamic religions.

I do have an issue with essentially all religions, including the ones of peace and introspection. I have zero issue with faith or spirituality. There is a strong difference. One is a set of absolutes you are TOLD to have, the other is a moral code you cultivate inside. Buddhism and such have a code to tell you to perfect the self and ignore the others - that is a problematic.
Deism, shamanism, and spirituality are perfectly acceptable to me. They give the person faith in something greater, without forcing titles or absolutes. Granted, shamanism allows for magic, and I have a strong scientist bent about me, so I take issue with that as well.

It isn't about the radicals of religion. It is about the concepts of religion. To say 'we don't know, but we intend to find out' is the scientific approach. To say 'we don't know, therefor god' is what James Randi spent his life working towards eliminating.

If you feel that it is acceptable for a grown adult to believe that a sky wizard poofed miracles into existence, you are welcome to. Personally, I will side with science, and have to seriously question if I can talk to anyone seriously if they believe in magic.

My argument with and against Tallmist is because of the stupidity of religion. They claim to be Christian, but do not believe in the bible, believe in other gods, believe in magic and vampires and such, and do not hold any faith in the church. They simply are Christian 'because in their heart they are Christian'. In other words, they are because someone told them they are, and now they will fight for a pointless label that they have zero stake in and do not, by logical standards, have any reason to apply to them. They are about as moderate as you can get and yet they STILL take great pain in someone pointing out that they are not Christian by any measurable standard. In other words, they are being hurt by religion. Not faith, religion. How can any person be Christian when they don't follow or believe the words of Christ?
We have had a lot longer conversation in private in previous weeks. And they purported to all of the tenants of Sikhism or deism. But as soon as I point this out, they snap back to LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU and go back to being a mysterious Christian with zero ties to Christ.

You see my problem here? This is why religion is a poison. They claim deism, Sihkism, shamanism, whatever, fine. But Christian for no other reason than to be called Christian? That is what religion does to people.

end of message
view TallMist's profile

September 9th, 2015, 10:05 pm

TallMist

reply

@GreenKrog: OK whatever. In my last post, I essentially showed I'm Christian, but whatever. Believe what you want. I'm tired of this. But don't take my not wanting to argue as a victory. I told you what I believe his words are, I gave you definitions that support me and show how I can be a Christian with my own views of Christianity instead of the typical views, but apparently, that's wrong because it doesn't fit YOUR personal views. Because the whole world goes according to only you. I'm done arguing with someone that is PURPOSEFULLY ignoring my words like you claim I do to you, hypocrite. Call me stupid, brainwashed, a sheep, whatever. I'm done arguing.

"Love, whole love, is the answer. I hope you can see that next time you go to defend the things you love." - Greenkrog

Funny you say that when you show no love and only hate and arguing to the point of being stubborn and being arrogant to think you can be the only one that's right unless people conform to your views and say that anyone that doesn't is brainwashed.

Well screw that.

Respond if you want. You'll be wasting your time and talking to no one. Hopefully it makes you realize purposely insulting me an my beliefs on a public forum doesn't make you look good at all just because you can't accept any views except yours and it CERTAINLY doesn't make you right. THAT is a fact.

I am not hurt at all by Christianity. It has caused me no pain except for ONE time and only because the person was using it to fight things it's not even against, even in his own version of Christianity. It was hard, but now I'm over him. Not angry, upset, anything. Good riddance to him. My life may not be the best, but Christianity isn't what's hindering it.It's NOT the only cause of homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, etc. It's NOT why I have autism. It's not the cause of any of my issues.

" they snap back to LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU"

Oh, you mean like how you do to me when I point out your definition of Christian isn't the only one? Or when I say there are Chrisians that aren't homophobic or transphobic? And yes. There are Christians that aren't that. I MET some that aren't. They weren't hateful at all. So you can just get off your high horse and actually start loving like you claim to do...

"Love, whole love, is the answer. I hope you can see that next time you go to defend the things you love."

...instead of being hateful and mindlessly bashing

" I spent an entire day, literally an entire day, trying to free them from the hateful nature of Christianity"
"religion corrupted her. It brainwashed her"
"I intend to bring everyone else to the same level as I am at - above the pointlessness of religion."
"This is why I fight against religion - all it does it bring pain."
"it is my mission on this earth to put an end to religion causing pain."
"Please stop pussyfooting around"
"If you feel that it is acceptable for a grown adult to believe that a sky wizard poofed miracles into existence, you are welcome to."
"My argument with and against Tallmist is because of the stupidity of religion. "
"This is why religion is a poison."

Where does "Love, whole love, is the answer." fit in any of those quotes? It doesn't. All those quotes is you hating and bashing on Christianity and my beliefs and, by extension, me. Tell me, how can you claim you only love when all you do is hate?

"But Christian for no other reason than to be called Christian?"

I told you what my definition of Christian is so this statement is so wrong that it can't even have a silver string of truth to it. You don't get to decide what Christianity is, either. How can an atheist tell a Christian how to believe in Christ?

Me: "Well, I believe--"
You: "NO NO NO NO!!! YOU BELIEVE THIS OR I'LL TELL YOU YOU ARE SOMETHING ELSE!! What? No, I'm not a Christian... What do you mean atheists can't define what Christianity is or tell people of Christianity what to believe? Haha, you must be hurt to believe that! Come on, admit it. I know there's not only my definition of Christianity, but come on! Admit if you don't follow my definition of Christian, despite there being more than one definition of it, you're not a Christian! ...Oh, and I won't admit my definition of Christian isn't the only one. Why not? Because it's convenient for my argument! Duh! CHRISTIANITY IS BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!!!!11!!"

When you grow up and stop being a bigot against Christians and stop saying every single Christian is anti-LGBT, then we will talk again.
I respect that you have no beliefs, but please give respect to those that do instead of insulting them and their beliefs.
When people try to force their beliefs on you, remain kind to them and if they say for you to go to Hell for not believing, walk away instead of use it as fuel to hate.

But until then, you'll be talking to just simply yourself as I won't be reading any of what you say.


And also? For all the people that you say this comic saved the lives of? It nearly took the life of this one, giving me severe depression. But I still read on in the hopes that it got better. Guess not.

Who knows who else it gave depression to?

Also, Kim Davis deserved jail. You break the law, you go to jail. And she broke the law by denying people their rights, which is illegal. But that's a whole other argument.

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

September 9th, 2015, 10:25 pm

GreenKrog

reply

@TallMist: Contrary to your belief, whenever I argue religion, I gain a substantial gain in both hits and subscribers. I talk to the people who value rational discussion and/or have been hurt by religion. So I am neither wasting my time, nor talking to no one.

I do hope some day you will understand what it means to be Christian, and hopefully better understand that you are not, so that we can put this behind us. That is your choice though, and as you said, you are done arguing. So please, walk away, stop reading, and have a better life than you have had so far. I wish you nothing but good things.

end of message
view TallMist's profile

September 14th, 2015, 3:50 pm

TallMist

reply

And I know you said you didn't want to hear it, but here's what my friend said about religion and the LGBT in the Bible, since you wanna bring that up so badly and for everyone that's curious from my mentioning it earlier. And keep in mind she knows the Bible inside out and spent a bit of time with her granddad who was a priest that wasn't at all homophobic. Also keep in mind this is all from her and I said none of this myself. Also, names redacted out of respect for everyone mentioned, including the speaker. As I said previously, I AM done here and I will not respond to Greenkrog if she tries to argue as I am not a Bible expert myself and this is coming from the words of a friend, not me, but I recently felt I should put this here anyways for those curious:

(Name Redacted): Hey I have a question for you. (I come in peace so don't bark on me.) I think there has been enough hell and fighting don't you?
(Name Redacted): You say my friends and I are toxic to (Name 2 Redacted) but yet your the toxin to her life now. You care not for her well being only how she chooses to live her life. But I wish to shed alittle light on your subject. And I dare you to try and twist this.
(Name Redacted): You know that it was passed that in all 50 states gays are allowed to marry such an action was certainly a momentous decision for marriage equality rights in the LGBT community. But that didn't stop people from saying it was wrong. The media focus is a double-edged sword for the issue of same-sex marriage: it exhibits an enlightening progress in our culture concerning the LGBT community, and it also gives voice to the cacophonous opposition, not only directed towards same-sex unions but towards same-sex orientation itself.
(Name Redacted): Such opposition quite often utilizes religion as a bruising hammer to drive home their message, and often the Bible is invoked to justify any anti-gay argument. Groups opposed to same-sex marriage cite Biblical passages to endorse their rejection of any marriage amendment while condemning same-sex practice in general on the basis that the Bible "says" it is wrong. Now that the celebration of the vote has receded past the front page of most papers and news sites, we have an opportunity to examine the Biblical argument against same-sex marriage (and against same-sex orientation) in context.
(Name Redacted): If anything, this exercise questions whether we should develop stances based upon what the Bible "says." Simply put, the Bible is a complicated collection of documents that was never meant to "speak" to our contemporary situation, but groups often speak through the lens of the Bible and lob textual grenades on issues like same-sex marriage. First, the institution of marriage is a secular and social institution. In different ancient cultures, marriage was more of a business arrangement, joining families together for mutual benefit. Under Roman law in the first centuries of the Common Era, there were proper opportunities for divorce and the dissolution of a marital union for both parties. However, as the Christian church grew, marriage became more ecclesiastically governed; the church dictated the rules of marriage (as well as the rules of dissolution, as many remember Henry VIII's desire for a papal annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon). The Christian governance of marriage fractured during the Protestant Reformation. Figures like Martin Luther and John Calvin recognized marriage as a civil matter, a worldly affair, and not under the aegis of the church. Still there are many Catholics and non-Catholics alike who recognize marriage as a Christian affair, and further, believe it is divinely endorsed as a heterosexual institution.
(Name Redacted): There are letters in places all over the U.S.A. Letters sent in to the editors of papers lambasting the vote, claiming that marriage was created by God since the story of Adam and Eve is the proof-text. Advocates of this position should note, that Adam and Eve would still need to purchase a civil marriage license if they sought to get married today. Second, the Bible does not clearly endorse one form of marriage over another. Adam and Eve as the divine groom and bride is one Biblical arrow in the quiver of same-sex union opponents. The Yahwist creation story in Genesis (the second creation story) has God forming Eve out of Adam's rib, and Adam exclaiming their unity ("this is at last bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"). This is a gender creation story, not a creation of marriage story. Adam and Eve do not exchange rings, say "I do" and have a jazz band reception in Paradise. Third, the Biblical arguments against same-sex marriage are not proffered from texts that deal with marriage, but from texts that purportedly deal with same-sex orientation. Same-sex marriage is rejected as un-Christian and immoral on the basis of a myopic reading of a very few Biblical texts.
(Name Redacted): And the texts in question are scant indeed. The most referenced texts are Genesis 19; the holiness codes of Leviticus 17-26, and in the New Testament, Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians 6:9 and his Letter to the Romans 1:26-27. Not only does one have to "hunt" for references to same-sex practices, but there are no gospel texts that treat the matter. There is nothing attributed to Jesus of Nazareth that has anything to do with same-sex orientation. According to the gospels, Jesus never commented on same-sex practices; that fact certainly bears repeating to anyone criticizing the gay community on Christian grounds. Largely, same-sex practice is a topic of little interest to the Biblical authors.
(Name Redacted): cited in the same-sex debate deserve some explanation in order to reduce their citation for hurtful purposes. For example, the text of Genesis 19 centers upon the story of Lot's visitation in the city of Sodom by two angels. The men of Sodom tell Lot to hand over the male visitors so that they may "know" them, i.e. sexually know them (giving rise to the term "sodomy"). Lot bargains with the visitors, quite horribly to a contemporary reader's eyes, by offering the men his virgin daughters instead. However, any reader of ancient literature (of which the Hebrew Bible is a component) would realize the familiar motif concerning hospitality. For example, the Greek gods Zeus and Hermes would frequently disguise themselves as humans in order to ferret who among their supplicants were truly hospitable. The story is not one denigrating same-sex practice; instead it upholds the incredible (and ludicrous) hospitality of Lot as a virtue.
(Name Redacted): Similarly, the holiness codes of Leviticus thread down from an all-encompassing mandate to behave distinctly from their foreign (and depraved) neighbors. Leviticus 20:13 that proscribes the death penalty for same-sex relations is quite related to codes that condemn bestiality, invoke dietary restrictions, and order the wearing of certain fibers. The codes make the Israelites unique from their neighbors, and they reflect a particular time and place in Israelite history. Any contemporary critique must note this reality before invoking the codes as ammunition against same-sex practice. Fourth, any reference to same-sex practice by a Biblical writer or a Greco-Roman writer has no knowledge or understanding of the concept of "same-sex orientation." There is no Hebrew or Greek cognate word in the Biblical text to reflect the modern term "same-sex orientation" or "homosexuality." Moreover, there were no discussions or arguments concerning sexual orientation in the ancient and late ancient world, conversations that would only arrive in the modern era of psychology. Instead, ancient writers believed any wanton sexual behavior of any variety is a mismanagement of one's appetites. The apostle Paul, in the New Testament, follows this pattern. The Pauline letters that are raised in the same-sex debate are part of Paul's understanding of sexual immorality in the first century CE. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul includes in a laundry list of vices "male prostitutes" and "sodomites" (as malakoi and arsenokoitai are translated by the NRSV; 1 Cor 6:9). These terms are injected along with many other vices: "fornicators, idolaters, adulterers," and Paul is addressing the issue of a church member sleeping with his stepmother.
(Name Redacted): In other words, Paul is addressing ALL deviant sexual and immoral behavior, not just that of a same-sex variety. In his address to the Romans, Paul describes the root sin of the Gentiles as idolatry, and the consequences of idolatry are vices beginning with women and men "exchanging" natural intercourse for unnatural. While Paul is describing this behavior as the result of wayward passions, the chief sin is idolatry and separation from the one true God. While the Romans text offers the longest discussion of same-sex behavior in the New Testament, it is unclear whether it truly is a condemnation of a specific practice. The above discussions will likely never satisfy any opponent of gay rights or of same-sex marriage to any degree. When teaching Biblical material to undergraduates I am always anxious when approaching the issue of same-sex orientation and the Bible, especially teaching in the Bible Belt. But many of them question the validity of basing every aspect of their lives entirely on what the Bible "says." They realize that the Biblical material is very diverse, and also very condemnatory. For example, Jesus reflects on the Adam and Eve passage cited above to insist to his listeners that those that divorce and re-marry commit adultery (Mark 10:1-12; Matt 19:4; also Luke 16:18). The Bible "says" a lot of things but perhaps we should treat the Bible less like an authoritative contract with God and understand it more as a human-authored, divinely-inspired, document that arouses a life of faith.
(Name Redacted): SO DOES THE BIBLE "SAY" ANYTHING ABOUT LGBT MARRIAGE? The Bible is not specific, literate, or even concerned with what we call same-sex orientation or gay marriage. But there have recently been a lot of gay marriages after the act. And quite a lot to say about gay marriage. Those that would insert the Bible into this debate would do well to reflect upon the text itself. If only we quit focusing on what the Bible didactically "says" and converse with the text in its broader cultural context. Then one can realize the multivalent value of such a book that a narrow reading cannot service.
(Name Redacted): If you wish to quote the bible on then here's a quote you should follow Matthew7:1-6 Judge not, that ye be not judged. You judged the LGBT and now your being judged as a bigot. And Matthew 19:19 Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. So do you care for yourself so little you must throw it at other? Take a page (Name 3 Redacted) for you are not so pure yourself. You are a sinner. But no one claims for you to be in hell so how dare you damn others to it.


And it's quite obvious the person my friend is talking to does not represent all Christians, so you can't exactly use this to say Christians are bad. And if you do try to argue this: The person my friend sent this to didn't deny this at all. In fact, he accepted all this as fact. And he's devoted so much of his life to Christianity. He's a very devoted Mormon and he didn't deny any of this. Like I said: I'm not arguing this as I am no expert. But keep this and the fact my friend is an expert in religion in mind if you try to.

end of message
post a comment