Jump to content

Post-Mortem: A Discussion on the Afterlife


Recommended Posts

Hwi: Thank you? I mean, I have to take it as a compliment that you regard my intelligence so highly that you feel if I were to convert to your (note, not "Christianity's") views you feel I would be sainted. Thanks. Unfortunately, my conscience does not allow me to share your views. Additionally, I feel that your approach to this issue, as well as your beliefs generally, are precisely the very sins that Christ died to save us from. You embody the very enemy you decry, and, well, I suppose you feel the same way about me. We'll see in the end which of us right, I guess--but, a quick word: reason is God-given. If I were to take your last post to its logical extreme, I would be forced to conclude that reason should always be abandoned in favor of the literal words of scripture. That's senseless for a bunch of reasons (if you want to know them, just re-read all of my posts), and it also prevents us from maturing as a species: the Bible's purpose is to teach, in order for us to grow. It isn't simply a law: to command, in order for us to obey (though I will acknowledge that that is part of it). We aren't slaves, and God doesn't want us to be intellectual slaves--"fellow creators, the creator seeks"--without being willing to reason, which is Godly, you can't fulfill the potential God has given you. But, hey, that's just my take. Please, go ahead and call me Satan again. That'll definitely get you into heaven.

Athan-not-Anath: First of all, none of you have any idea what kind of law I practice, which makes all of this particular conversation pretty hilarious from my perspective. Second of all, kudos to you--no, seriously, actual congratulations, for having the balls to split from the other two fanatics on your side of the issue to make a short, blunt statement on the actual truth of the matter. You said that you don't agree with all the ACLU does, but you think that it does do some good things? Holy hell, I can't tell you how solidly that's restored my faith in humanity, and I hope that you've realized that maybe you don't want necessarily to agree with Hwi and Eras out of fiat. (You know, it's funny, people like the ACLU helped formerly-enslaved black Americans enjoy civil rights at the same time the Bible was used to justify their subjugation. Yeah, we really must be pure evil.) Still, even if you revert to your unconscious state, I will nonetheless be impressed that you spoke out righteously even once.

Liar: You lied and continue to lie about the content of my posts: you lack the intellect or the courage to face that which you do not understand, so you misrepresent the words of others into something that you recognize. It's as rude as it is useless for advancing the debate. REMINDER #4: This thread is about the afterlife, not homosexuality--why do you keep going back to it? I hope you realize that by now everyone at some point has interpreted your obsession with homosexual sodomy as a cry-for-help from a horribly repressed and self-loathing homosexual? Save perhaps for Hwi and Athan-not-Anath, but even then, I bet its at least crossed their minds.

And on that note, I'm still waiting on you to explain why an ancient text matters at all in the course of this debate. Do you mean to say that you will only do what an ancient text says? Then why don't you follow Leviticus and sell your 15-year old daughter into slavery? Why do you wear pants? Why are you using the goddamn Internet? Don't be an ass: I don't need an ancient text to justify my views where I have reason to support them. You lack even that: so you cling to what you believe are the correct translations of the words scribbled by people dead thousands of years. To quote Immortal Technique: "You don't know s*it about a dead man's perspective."

Link to post
Share on other sites

You really missed the point, Wolf (though in the process, you truly showcased your own vanity). I was not referring to your "intelligence", but rather to your religious zeal in rationalizing or calling "good" what Christ has called sin throughout the Old and New Testament.

But you lack the courage and integrity to hold fast to your faith.  With every word that you utter, you crucify Christ all over again, making His sacrifice irrelevant and His Word meaningless.  

May God have mercy on your soul.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh go on then.

Hwi: You love this attention.  You argue for the sole purpose of making yourself feel relevant in a world that has all but abandoned you.  Every relationship that you held dear has crumbled before your eyes and so now you turn to religion in your desperation.  But you've managed to warp even that, and now you cling to the only other person on this forum that holds similar, hateful views as yourself, frantically backing him up whenever you can, because damn you need a friend.  You nurse your martyr complex because it furthers the delusion that everything that has gone wrong in your life is part of some cosmic test; that if you only try hard enough, you'll be rewarded.  I can read you like a book, and you're worse than Twilight.

Eras: Your all-encompassing hatred of homosexuality is tempered only by your apparent desire to be around homosexuals.  Since you can't come to terms with your own suppressed urges, you find release in listening to the tales of others.  Young men are your preference, and after hearing all about their ordeals, you "counsel" them into becoming like you; sad shells of people, denying their true nature.  You hide behind religion, trying to use it to justify your surface disgust.  You live a false life, driven not by happiness or fulfilment, but of hate and deprival.  I can see right through you, little man.

Both of you are wrong.  Both of you are sad.  Everyone else but you can see this.  Everyone else - when they're not despairing at how you can possibly think like you do - is laughing at you.  You continue to drive this thread off-topic and Wolf has been very patient in this regard, but neither of you deserve patience.  You barely even justify a response.  You are horrible, horrible people.

Now, I've been giving the idea of "Dreams as an Afterlife" some more thought.  Specifically, I decided to look at it from a purely scientific perspective.  If we consider consciousness to simply be a series of complex electrochemical reactions, the firing of synapses and links of neurons, then we need to accept that this consciousness ends when the body dies.  No more reactions, no more "us", due to brain death and what have you.  But even in this dire outlook, there exists the possibility of continued existence of sorts.

The most likely of these would be something I mentioned before - the time between your heart stopping and your brain dying being stretched subjectively by the mind.  For anyone who has experienced the phenomenon of waking up, seeing the time, then going back to sleep for what seems like half an hour before opening your eyes and see than only a minute has passed, you might understand this concept a little better.  I find that the idea of existing in a dream-like state for quite some time between these two stages of death would be theoretically possible.  Now, of course, this isn't technically an "afterlife", since you're still alive (though dying) at the time you experience it.  But it would be a small slice of existence that happened after you lost the ability to live among others.  Plus, due to the subjective nature of time in this sort of state, limited only by the speed of the electricity left to shoot between neurons, there is no telling how long the person would "live" like this.

I agree that it is very unlikely that something such as this occurs, but it's one possible situation.  It's backed up by various accounts of seeing a white light, or having an out of body experience, when one is close to death.  This is normally due to oxygen deprivation or a cocktail of drugs, so the state of mind I refer to can exist.  The only truly questionable aspect would be the duration I propose; whether or not this time dilation effect would come into play as the brain died.  I'm not sure if there have ever been scans done of a dying human's brain, but without sounding macabre, it would be interesting to see what the brain activity looks like as life fades.  If this theory was to hold water, I would expect something akin to a burst of activity from the hind-brain, where dreams are said to be controlled from.

Slightly more implausible would be the consideration of brain waves themselves.  We emit them as part of our own personal bio-electric field, which has less oomph than you would get licking a nine volt battery.  But they are measurable, and using instruments like an EEG we can see that they conform to certain patterns, specifically when we dream.  Certain wavelengths of sounds have been found to interfere with brain waves in a positive manner; specifically, delta and theta waves, creating differing levels of sleep (i.e. "deeper").  This collection of facts raises a number of possibilities:

- An artificial afterlife, created by copying or transporting an individual's brain waves wholly and completely.  This would rely on being able to generate a complete map of an individual's brain, too, along with the capacity to store it.  If suitably transplanted, this series of electrical signals would effectively be us.  A snapshot of this kind would be like DNA's big brother and it would allow us to live on after our bodies had died.  Alternatively, if we weren't able to create a suitable host for this snapshot of activity (or transport, replicate or recreate it), then we might still be able to keep it like a blueprint.

- An afterlife via others.  Probably the least plausible of the ideas in this post, it might still be theoretically possible for brain waves to act on eachother in the same way as sounds act on them.  It borders on telepathy, which isn't quite what I'm suggesting.  More of an imprint, where the transmitted brain waves of one person are received by another mind in the same way that a sponge receives water.  A single page in an almost endless book, if you would.  Dante will understand where the inspiration for this particular sub-theory came from, I believe.

Now I don't believe that anything I've said here is strictly beyond the realms of scientific possibility.  It all has a very firm basis of death of the body being final without some sort of outside force.  But one theory relies on subjective time dilation, another on artificial re-creation or transferral, and the last on the narrow possibility of interacting bio-electric fields.  While I could certainly accept that they may stray into the realms of science fiction, I would also say that they all have basis in established fact.  And that much that today is science fiction, will in the future be physically possible.

Any thoughts?  I'm especially looking to those who believe we simply cease to be.  Is there room for possibilities such as those I proposed above?  Or would you posit other outcomes for an "afterlife"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hwi: It's hilarious for the person who fantasized about herself "skipping" her arguments "like stones" in "victory" in an attempt to close a thread in self-satisfying success accuse others of vanity. No, I was just trying to take what you intended as a personal attack on me in the best possible way. And to be fair... my interpretation was pretty fair. You did say that if I agreed with you you'd think they'd have me sainted. What did you want me to say? Just that you were wrong and that you're just as doomed to burn as you think I am? Maybe I should have, but at the end of the day, all you've proven is that it doesn't matter what anyone says to you: you won't, or maybe you can't listen.

And then you talked about courage! You've thrown pretty much every insult you know at me and yet I hold steadfast to my position out of principle. I think that's pretty courageous as they come. If anyone is cowardly, it's the person who refuses even to consider the arguments of her opponents, and instead resorts to creative personal attacks to derail a fair discussion.

And, "crucifying Christ all over again?" Seriously... how do you not see that you're exactly what you condemn?

At this point, either share something meaningful or relevant or shut up. I don't think you have anything to add to this debate, and as lamentable as that is, I think the best thing is for you to stop trying. No one takes you seriously anymore, anyway. Great work spreading the Good Word, Hwingnut.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh go on then.

Eras: Your all-encompassing hatred of homosexuality is tempered only by your apparent desire to be around homosexuals.  Since you can't come to terms with your own suppressed urges, you find release in listening to the tales of others.  Young men are your preference, and after hearing all about their ordeals, you "counsel" them into becoming like you; sad shells of people, denying their true nature.  You hide behind religion, trying to use it to justify your surface disgust.  You live a false life, driven not by happiness or fulfilment, but of hate and deprival.  I can see right through you, little man.

Wow. Didn't mean to intrude on your Scotland world a few months ago.

As far as homosexuality goes, you are really off target. That was a topic in June, and a person on the Dune forum that I respect is an out of the closet homosexual. If Dante has a crisis in his life, there is probably a place that he can go for help and change. You need to be a good friend, and encourage him to go.

I only counsel when someone asks for it, or obviously needs it -- alcoholism is my forte', since I conquered it myself. My tasks are usually ladling soup, cleaning up vomit, changing bedding, helping the infirmed to the clinical office. There are a lot of needs in Detroit area, Michigan.

Now Dragoon friend, let's talk about your life -- and if you are fulfilled. I am. Like the Son of God, I am out there tending for the helpless and the weak. No one else wants to really help them. Sometimes their government social worker has dropped them off in our lobby. And me and others are there to help.

But you, you're probably miserable. You are probably like most people in their 20s and early 30s today. You like to live in the fantasy world of a computer game or a game system game. You find it easier to assume an avatar in some role-playing game, than to help your fellow man. You love to whittle away the hours thinking about vampires, or vikings, or whatever; than helping the poor and unfortunate around you.

But you think I insulted you and your good friend, so it's 'Eras is bad', 'Eras is a bigot', 'Eras is a closet case', etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

- An artificial afterlife, created by copying or transporting an individual's brain waves wholly and completely.  This would rely on being able to generate a complete map of an individual's brain, too, along with the capacity to store it.  If suitably transplanted, this series of electrical signals would effectively be us.

Nope. It would just be a clone of us. :(
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just made some coffee!

Wow. Didn't mean to intrude on your Scotland world a few months ago.

What?

As far as homosexuality goes, you are really off target. That was a topic in June, and a person on the Dune forum that I respect is an out of the closet homosexual. If Dante has a crisis in his life, there is probably a place that he can go for help and change. You need to be a good friend, and encourage him to go.

No I'm not.  Stop going off-topic then, and who is this that you're showing respect to now?  The only crises that Dante has in his life are trying to deal with people like you, who persist in their ignorance, and wanting to progress, expand and move up in the world in this horrid financial climate.  That and where to hide all the bodies.

So many bodies.

It remains to be seen if I am a "good" friend to him or not, since he has something of a habit of ridiculing me and generally despairing at my very existence.  To be fair, though, I am in possession of a very contrasting qualities.  Frankly I'm surprised he hasn't exploded due to the contradictory nature of it all.  All I know for certain is that he wants to kill me, and that he will accomplish this sooner or later.

But all my various goods and bads, successes and failings aside, I would never even entertain the notion of encouraging him to go to someone like you.  Someone who would tell him to stop being who he is, tell him that his sexuality is incorrect or somehow wrong in your eyes.  Unlike you, I dealt with the issue of homosexuality in an adult manner.

I only counsel when someone asks for it, or obviously needs it -- alcoholism is my forte', since I conquered it myself. My tasks are usually ladling soup, cleaning up vomit, changing bedding, helping the infirmed to the clinical office. There are a lot of needs in Detroit area, Michigan.

Oh there we go, an insight.  AA requires the belief in a "higher power", no?  Perhaps you feel that if you give in to your repressed homosexual feelings, that will necessitate losing your faith and then turning back to alcohol?  It would certainly explain some of the fervour and topic-switching, the selective ignoring of points.  Intriguing.

Also, FYI: if all that you did was what I just quoted, and you left out the religious hate?  I'd be calling you a hero.  As it stands, you are less than nothing.  Funny how just a dash of religious extremism can do that, isn't it?

Now Dragoon friend, let's talk about your life -- and if you are fulfilled. I am. Like the Son of God, I am out there tending for the helpless and the weak. No one else wants to really help them. Sometimes their government social worker has dropped them off in our lobby. And me and others are there to help.

But you, you're probably miserable. You are probably like most people in their 20s and early 30s today. You like to live in the fantasy world of a computer game or a game system game. You find it easier to assume an avatar in some role-playing game, than to help your fellow man. You love to whittle away the hours thinking about vampires, or vikings, or whatever; than helping the poor and unfortunate around you.

Here, let me translate that for you.

"Oh shit, he's getting close to the truth.  Quickly, change the subject!  Flip it back on him; analyse him! ...But I lack the skill.  He's not homeless OR a homosexual; my religious hatred will have no effect!  Er, um... aha!  I'll scour the forums, read his profile and post history and then make sweeping claims based on stereotypes!"

Oh you do make me giggle sometimes, Eras.  Perhaps you didn't scour far enough, though?  I've been working for a charity for the last two years, giving several hours every day to helping my community.  Only I do it by providing technical support to the disabled and disadvantaged; I recycle and refurbish old PCs for local re-sale, keeping harmful toxins out of landfill and saving lives in foreign countries where this crap normally gets dumped.  And I do it all without ever needing to call someone's very essence into question.

Next time you try to flip something like psychoanalysis around, make sure you read a book about it first.

Also: you're off-topic again.  I've not received any responses to my previous post, so I don't have any additional content, sadly.

But you think I insulted you and your good friend, so it's 'Eras is bad', 'Eras is a bigot', 'Eras is a closet case', etc.

Yes you did, yes you did, yes you are, yes you are, yes you are.  Respectively. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dragoon's last-but-one post is describing Reverend Mothers and Jared Frey. If this doesn't make sense to all of you, that's fine. You don't need to get the reference.

I would argue that- well, some background first.

As others have said before me, I believe that life and thought are found in pattern. Just like a computer program is not held in ones and zeroes, but in the sequence that they are found in. It is the sequence, the order that is important. If you throw a man into a giant blender, what drips out afterward will neither think nor live.

And the beautiful thing about this is that, in theory, life can exist anywhere where patterns can become self-perpetuating. Any material capable of holding a sequence could be developed into information storage. Life as we know it developed from simple proteins and acids that were regulated to store patterns and information. We already have computer programs that simulate the same behaviour, replacing patterns of molecules with patterns of electrical impulses. Those computer programs themselves can self-replicate, as blindly as bacteria. And their actions could, in theory, be replicated by mechanical, clockwork devices. Or by sequences of light.

Anyway, my point is that if life and thought are held in sequences, rather than objects, then they are a) transitory and b) transferable. Sequences are information, information can be copied. I believe that in the near future it will be possible to 1) build sentient AI 2) copy a human mind into an artificial interface. However, I think this is relevant only as an alternative to an afterlife. I don't think that continuing to live, albeit in a different form, counts as an afterlife in the normal sense of the word.

Similarly, I believe that in the future we will be able to build 'blank' organs, including brains, upon which we can impress a particular pattern. We'll be able to improve upon our origins, maybe make a series of brains that operate in tandem, like a quad-core processor.

All this leading up to my point, which is that, theoretically, there's no reason why one couldn't repeat their particular sequence (of DNA or brain signals) ad nauseum through as many different incarnations and mediums as they wished. I'd call that more immortality than an afterlife, though.

The other question, of living through others, risks falling foul of abomination. Reverend Mothers and their sharing were able to silence their other memories, with occasional help from Speakers and the like. Who wouldn't seek to take over the head of another if they were trapped there? I'm not sure how attempting to impress the thoughts of one into an occupied mind would work. It would probably scramble them both. I think that's most likely.

And now the less important business.

If Dante has a crisis in his life, there is probably a place that he can go for help and change. You need to be a good friend, and encourage him to go.

That's not going to happen. Unlike you, I have independence of thought and a degree of mental fortitude.

I only counsel when someone asks for it, or obviously needs it -- alcoholism is my forte', since I conquered it myself.
Fort
Link to post
Share on other sites

DK: Interesting points!

The period of time between motoric and neural death as a sort of "afterlife": I like this idea, and I think this could very definitely be the case for "near-death" or "out-of-body" experiences. On the one hand, one could argue that the brain would retrieve various afterlife scenarios that have been taught from an early age, and based on some current guilt or pleasure motive, your "afterlife" would play out. This would explain why some people would experience "Hell," due possibly to guilt and the pain associated with death; or some might experience no pain or even pleasure, due to the flooding of the brain with various neurotransmitters associated with pain relief. On the other hand, it's possible that the brain would orient toward survival, in which case the loss of motoric consciousness (ie. looking, listening, responding to stimulation) could possibly mirror the loss of mental consciousness into  something like the deep sleep phase of non-REM, which is not associated with dreaming. In other words, if the brain is programmed to approach pleasure then a heaven-like dream state may be experienced, but if the brain is programmed to survive, it's more likely that mental consciousness would shut down. At least, that's my assumption.

Brainwaves as consciousness: On the one hand I feel the need to note that you're confusing a dependent variable (recorded brainwaves, an effect) with the independent variable (neuronal activity, which is actually more of an intervening variable in my school of thought, but we'll call it a cause for now). Now saying that, there is actually a book I read a few years ago named Footprints of God where the plot involves (among many philosophical questions) the idea of creating a super-MRI that could take the image of your neural network at the cellular level, then replicate the network in a supercomputer (using crystals and optical interfacing), thereby creating a copy of a person's consciousness. This is a part of the plot of the videogame Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Honestly, part of me hopes that nanotechnology takes us this direction someday. There are a few problems with this concept however: 1. The brain is dynamic, so whatever emulation hardware must, by necessity, be capable of changing connections between neurons at the rate of biological processing (not quite the speed of light, but still pretty fast). 2. the quality of any copy degrades. I don't know for sure that it's a law, but it seems to be the case, even with digital transference. Possibly with higher quality mechanisms, this can be avoided, but it's pretty much a certainty with current systems. 3. Arguably most importantly is Ath's point that copying would produce essentially a clone. Your personal consciousness that is connected to your body would still be there, and the mirror consciousness would be there too. From the computer's standpoint, it would be like you just woke up, but essentially one consciousness would still have to die. Now one idea I heard a long time ago was the gradual replacement of neural cells with silicate (or, I suppose, crystalline) connections, so that, for example, 10% of your brain would be silicate, then 20%, 40%, 80%, and 100% and you would still be thinking with the same brain, it's just the content or consciousness has been downloaded over. Of course, this would be clinical immortality, not afterlife per se. Kind of like how making the choice to set an alarm clock before you go to sleep so that you don't oversleep isn't exactly how most people conceive of "making a choice" to be more disciplined. Whereas the one is quite literal and based on meaningful, measurable behaviors and changes, the other involves some form of spirit, soul, or will. It always intrigues me to speak with "free-will" atheists ;) .

Afterlife in others: This sounds to me a lot like Jungian psychology and Dune (which I suspect that our friend Frank was readily familiar with the work of Jung in constructing genetic memory plus, which gets at the source of my deep hatred of all things BH and KJA: Frank used the sciences of psychology and sociology, in concert with philosophy, to create a truly meaningful work of science fiction. BH and KJA are basically trolls who like the universe he created, and wish to muck about in it, and somehow, make money in the process. Anyway, enough on that.). On the one hand, I would argue that that is the very scope of immortality in human life; the lessons that we teach our children (and so on, and so on) is the very basis for how we can live on for millenia. The people we meet, the books we write, the pictures and videos we make, and (yes, even) the blogs and social networking sites we spend time on will all live on (possibly) after we die. Of course, the degree to which that is comforting to someone who believes that death means oblivion of the consciousness is directly related to the people that person has influenced in his or her life, and how. Jesus Christ, for example, provided that he, in fact, actually existed, is an example of someone who is nearly immortal because his life and teachings (at least in some way) live on approximately 2000 years after his death. But this isn't exactly what you're talking about, and honestly, I don't really know of a way to think about how consciousness (in terms of my present state of being) could live on in other people. In Dune, people lived on in the consciousness of offspring at the point of the conception of said offspring (so not entirely genetic memory), but this would require some form of physical separation of consciousness at a cellular level, which again, becomes almost clone-like. This also reminds me a great deal of the concept in the Harry Potter universe of Horcruxes, which, is really cool, but also separate from scientific reality.

Ok, so that's my response. I hope you enjoy it :)

After hitting the Preview button and reading posts up to this point.

Goddamnit Dante. Seriously, couldn't you have waited 20 minutes for me to post this?! Anyway, I like your points too, particularly your emphasis on process. I need to think about that more :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a chance of you doing the same thing but without the allure of eternal reward?

Absolutely.

The immediate joy that I derived from serving those in need was, in and of itself, a rich reward. Try it, if you haven

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason you went there in the first place was because of the allure of eternal reward. Saying otherwise is dishonest. You may have felt nice about it, I did when I served community service with United Way. But I also don't tote my hours either.

You may mean 'tout'.

I spent the next few hours serving hot meals to the homeless and later going back to the kitchen to wash a sink full of dirty pots and pans.  And I must say, it felt

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to invoke Avatar, but there was one such supposition: that natural, symbiotic networks could preserve the memories and, in essence, the consciousness of an individual past.

But wouldn't that clone in Avatar, shouldn't that clone body he was using had it's own consciousness -- akin to like a twin would?

Sorry, I didn't mean to double-post, I thought I was adding to the previous post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Liar: did you watch the movie? I'm not talking about his clone: I'm talking about the organic planetary neural net. It was a major part of the plot. Try to keep up.

Sorry. Is there a particular part of our past 2 months that you are accusing me of of being a liar?

Is it when you were inferring that male/male sex was condoned by some Gnostic-oriented groups in the time of the Roman Empire, and I challenged you to produce one text, and you could not do so?

Is it when you watered down your stance on abortion from 2008 until today?

Most likely to fit in with your ACLU trial lawyers, with whom you might join one day? I suggest you stop saying your a lawyer, when you're probably just some para-legal that types up drafts or something. "<Wolf>, grab me a double-sugar coffee, and remember, no butter on the bagel...cream cheese."

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a shame that quality threads have been locked while the people inciting the exchanges which condemned those topics lead newer threads down the same path.  I can only speak for myself, despite my desire to participate it really kills the inclination to post thorough and quality responses when the discussion could be locked at any moment as a result of a small handful of posters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I have enjoyed the actual discussion, which you have contributed a good deal to.  I am talking about the thread's derailing and those behind it.  Is it just expected to fizzle out?  I don't get it.  The baiting and trolling taking place in these threads is so transparent.  Many of us disagree with each other on many things without becoming hostile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to balance the interests of maintaining some level of substantive discussion with letting offensive parties know that what they're doing is offensive, why it's offensive, and that they should stop. So long as you don't go out of your way to mess with me, you can be sure of no trolling or flaming directed against you from me, Eliyyahu. I'm hard, but I'm fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, Wolf.  I think if the offensive stuff had been dealt with it would have never come to this.  Controversy generates responses, but it is a short term solution.

Eras,

Surely you do not believe that you have been acting respectably in this thread and recent ones?  Would your family and your fellow congregants agree with how you have presented your arguments in these threads?  You have repeatedly crossed the line in the guise of "telling it like it is," but "telling it like it is" is often a euphemism for being unapologetically, brutally mean.  Nobody believes their own beliefs are wrong, but this is not an excuse to insult personally someone you believe to be wrong.  You've already established who you think is wrong and how.  Your facts should speak for themselves, and just because people do not agree does not mean you should perpetually repeat them with new insulting twists.  You are not being an example to be followed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...