Attacking God's Children

[corpselight]

well, i definitely don’t feel it should be banned. it’s charlotanry anyway, the occult stuff, and frankly if we started banning that, where woul we stop? everything has something about it that preys on the vulnerable…even some expressions of church i’ve seen! the key is to minimise vulnerability by empowering people to recognise real dangers.

some are undoubtedly just out to shock, as you say, but there are some who quite seriously feel that their ways promote freedom and individuality, and the church that they oppose keeps people in chains. honestly, i can see the reasoning behind that, and while i disagree, i think they’ve also got a point that shouldn’t be ignored, regardless of how shockingly presented it is…

Very good, fair points, James. I do agree with you, on balance. Banning things is pretty much always counterproductive (witness the miserable failure of prohibition in the US). And free speech is very valuable thing, that must be protected at (nearly) all costs.

And I do see the point about the occult / satanic churches etc. Some might argue that certain branches of mainstream Christianity causes more harm than they do. Sadly, there are some living witnesses to the damage hyper-Calvinism can do on this board. But personally I have never heard of a single person who was screwed up by truly believing in the absolute, all-embracing love of God, as URs do.

You’re probably much too young to remember , but in the early nineties there was a terrible to-do in the right-wing media here (well, mainly the Daily Mail) about so-called ‘video nasties’. Up until that point videos had been totally unregulated, and you could rent uncensored gore movies and hard-core porn in your local video store. (It was great! ) As far as I remember, nobody was tipped over the edge into psychopathy by this, but the government duly caved in to the pressure from the moral minority and introduced the Video Recordings Act. At a stroke all the ‘video nasties’ disappeared, as did the hard porn. (The porn into licensed sex shops; the horror films simply banned outright).

But today, pretty much every single one of those ‘depraved’ video nasties is freely available on amazon, or down your local WH Smith. As far as I know, almost the only reasons the BBFC cuts or bans movies these days are if they depict sexualised violence, real animal cruelty (eg horses being tripped by wires in stunts etc) or something that is legally defined as obscene (whatever *that *means - I have heard it defined as ‘anything with Adam Sandler in it’, but apparently this definition is not universally accepted).

My point is that times change. What offended us yesterday may be suitable for our kids to watch tomorrow. I know some people lament this ‘erosion of moral standards’. But to me, it’s all just part of what it means to be a human being.

So, I’ve never listened to a Cradle of Filth record, I personally find their publicity material offensive, but no, I agree it shouldn’t be banned. Down that road Hitler went …

Cheers

Johnny

also, the Catholic church, as much as i respect much of their history and what they stand for these days (excepting their medieval views on contraception and their rather hardline views against homosexuality, something they share with many evangelicals, mind), has set themselves up for a LOT of criticism. many cultures were converted by the sword (never mind the peaceful missionaries that came first), and some of the rage at the loss of heritage still rankles, particularly in the Norwegian and Swedish black metal scene. i think the death metal scene of America focuses on evangelical brainwashing.
both do their best to rub salt in any wounds they open with offensive imagery, and sometimes i find it hard to sympathise with the church when it comes to this. often the criticism is warranted.
but i agree, a rightful expression of God’s love and acceptance, plus a relaxed attitude toward things that Puritans often think of as black and white sin in every occasion, doesn’t provoke as much ire!

the video thing…one of my bandmates, during his rebellious teen years, used to love the banned horror films. he has watched a few recently and laughs at how the un-banned modern films outstrip them for gore/disturbing themes. the whole banning thing really didn’t help/stop anything.

also, he is one of the only metallers i know that has a nice word to say about CoF. he says their first album was good! i’ve not met anyone else who is seriously into metal that thinks of them as worth talking about (maybe a guilty pleasure) lol…they appeal to rebellious emo teens, i think. but anyway, he has a really bad, faded tattoo on his shoulder that now looks like it says “Crable of Fifths”…

[Username1]

he has a really bad, faded tattoo on his shoulder that now looks like it says “Crable of Fifths”…

Love it!

[corpselight]

he has a really bad, faded tattoo on his shoulder that now looks like it says “Crable of Fifths”…

Love it!

yeah it’s a running joke for us! LOL

[pilgrim]

John

My dear old thing (as Henry Blofeld is wont to say ).

Well, being such a stickler, you’ll note that I haven’t made any classifications yet.

Granted. Mea culpa.

More to the point, don’t you think the response “bollocks” to something that Cole posted could be classified as offensive or abusive?

Quite possibly, had I in fact used that fine English epithet in response to something Cole had posted. Which I did not. Please check your facts, John.

Oh come come dear sir, being the ‘stickler’ that I am, might I assure you that I have no need to check the facts. It was indeed the said Cole who posted the questionable material. I grant you, he may not have been the author, but on no occasion did I suggest that he was! He DID post it onto this forum (or if not then by Jupiter we have an impostor posting under his name!).

as I have used the word ‘bollocks’ twice in recent posts (well, three times now, obviously ),…

and Ye gads, I have now quoted you my good man!

I freely admit that had I responded to a post by Cole, or indeed by anybody else, with the unqualifield expostulation ‘bollocks’,

Is “a load of old” in front of the said “bollocks” a qualifier? Because we have ascertained now that your testicular reply was indeed a reply to Mr Michael Cole’s post.

then I could indeed have laid myself open to the charge of abuse.

Then by your own words, my good man, you are an abuser! - and though it was BY your very SELF that you were judged, I doubt that I would grammatically correct in calling you a ‘self abuser’! (My grammar has been failing now for some time).

But I trust a careful examination of the evidence will reveal otherwise.

-Au contraire, as the German’s say.

Exhibit 1: Michael’s thread directing us to a You Tube ‘video’ accusing Barack …

and who was the poster of Michael’s thread?

**Exhibit 2: ** Eric Fry’s thread on reformed theology, ‘Young restless and reformed’. I proffered the opinion that Calvinism is the chosen religion of those who “are smug in the certainty of their own personal salvation, and bollocks to the rest of us”. Again, I stand by that assertion.

From one who can only stand back and admire your erudition and the cornucopia of words within your vocabulary, and upon examination of recent posts from your good self, I can only conclude that you really DO have too many bollocks. Funnily enough, a late friend of mine suffered from a sparsity of the same, but with regards to yourself I remain in a state of awe.

There is a serious issue at stake here, John. Are we to be muzzled to such a degree that we are not allowed to use *any *word that *any *person *anywhere *might possibly deem ‘offensive’, while being given absolutely free rein to express such offensive theological concepts as the Calvinist doctrine of predestination to reprobation and eternal torture.

Ah, now I see what you are doing here, you are trying to get on my good side aren’t you?

…And with the traditional, pragmatic sagacity of British courts through the ages, the case was thrown out. Bollocks!

Tony Campolo,

One of my heroes

the American baptist minister and sociologist, is apparently given, on occasion, to using the following opening gambit in his sermons: “I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”

He is[size=150] DEFINITELY[/size] off my Christmas Card list.

Food for thought, I would say.
All the best, as ever.
Shalom
Johnny

In all seriousness Johnny, it would not be correct for me to post my defense in public. I will PM you ( if I might adopt that quaint way in which our American friends turn every God-forsaken noun into a verb), I will PM you so that you might have a better understanding of where I am coming from.
I accept almost everything that you and Corpselight and Eric have said.
God bless us all.

[corpselight]

if Johnny had called Michael_Cole something rude, that would be abusive. i’m reasonably sure he just called his statement bollocks.

that’s not abusive, that’s just as if i’d said it was “rubbish” (which, i know you agree, Reformed theology quite simply is)
so far the mods haven’t called me up for that…and it has the same meaning, just that it’s slightly more socially acceptable language, in some circles. and as Johnny says, just about anything you say might insult a circle somewhere.

so i echo what i said (and you appeared to agree with). Michael Cole has tried the patience of many on here with constant total reversals of thought and many many threads!!! for all that, people have been fairly tolerant, polite and patient. the same with that wikiwikiwoowoo chap.

now, i’ve seen you disagree heatedly with people on here, about how far we’re meant to go tolerating rubbish (oh no, i said it again!!!) in support of Calvinism, and the nature of offense in regards to what we’re allowed to say against a doctrine. and i’ve agreed, to a point. some dogma is harmful and toxic, and we may know it by its fruit. and such dogma ought to be spoken against!

i don’t know about this Obama video, but it sounds like a load of old cobblers (rhyming slang for bollocks, i believe) too

this isn’t meant to stir things up, what i’m trying to do is smooth things over. i think, Pilgrim, that you, Johnny, Eric and a number of others on here are on the same page on a few subjects. we ought to try to be patient with each other…so i’m trying to be a peacemaker here. if i said anything to offend you, i have failed in my endeavour, and i apologise!!!

[Username1]

John

Got to fly, so only time to say that Michael Cole and Michael are two different people!!!

Speak properly soon.

J

[fmichaeldw]

The only Youtube this Michael has posted was a short one on Einstein as a very young schoolboy asking questions and giving the answers himself to his bemused Professor and fellow pupils!

I may add that I have recommended one of the many Michaels on the Forum, namely Michael Cole himself, to have a look also at the above, also to take a break from making threads and posts for a month or more.

I suggested instead that he could well benefit greatly by reading, digesting, meditating on debates on other bros/sisters threads.

I speak from experience as this is precisely what I have been doing since joining last July, with only a minimum minimum of posts (just over 50!) and I think one thread and a couple of poems!

And thanks to all good souls on the Forum I find this to be a true daily blessing.

Oh yes and Michael Cole, if you are reading this I wish you Godspeed, growth in the knowledge and love your are seeking, and peace. It may take time, certainly patience with oneself. I am 75 but don’t let that discourage you!

Michael in BARCELONA.

[pilgrim]

John

Got to fly, so only time to say that Michael Cole and Michael are two different people!!!

Speak properly soon.

J

Well!
I’ll go to the bottom of our stairs!

[pilgrim]

if Johnny had called Michael_Cole something rude, that would be abusive. i’m reasonably sure he just called his statement bollocks.

-or the link he posted. True.

now, i’ve seen you disagree heatedly with people on here,

True again.

this isn’t meant to stir things up, what i’m trying to do is smooth things over. i think, Pilgrim, that you, Johnny, Eric and a number of others on here are on the same page on a few subjects. we ought to try to be patient with each other…so i’m trying to be a peacemaker here. if i said anything to offend you, i have failed in my endeavour, and i apologise!!!

You have certainly not offended me. I only wish I could meet up with you in London. I hope you have a great time.
God bless

[corpselight]

if Johnny had called Michael_Cole something rude, that would be abusive. i’m reasonably sure he just called his statement

bollocks.
-or the link he posted. True.

now, i’ve seen you disagree heatedly with people on here,

True again.

this isn’t meant to stir things up, what i’m trying to do is smooth things over. i think, Pilgrim, that you, Johnny, Eric and a number of others on here are on the same page on a few subjects. we ought to try to be patient with each other…so i’m trying to be a peacemaker here. if i said anything to offend you, i have failed in my endeavour, and i apologise!!!

You have certainly not offended me. I only wish I could meet up with you in London. I hope you have a great time.
God bless

great!

shame you can’t be here, mate…hopefully this will happen fairly often, so maybe there’ll be another chance for you to come down!

[Username1]

Just too many Michaels on this *£$+@!% forum!!!

But to you all, Michaels, Johns, Jameses, uncle Tom Cobley and all, as Ringo always says (when he’s not being Thomas the Tank Engine)

‘peace and love, peace and love, peace and love’

Johnny