Scratch

arshad9 wrote:

i'm just wondering, are we allowed to have battle tournaments and a forum where you can just battle for fun?

uh what
sounds sorta like some tbg

arshad9 wrote:

Uh what does tbg sand for??

777w wrote:

arshad9 wrote:

i'm just wondering, are we allowed to have battle tournaments and a forum where you can just battle for fun?

uh what
sounds sorta like some tbg

Text-based game.

sonicfan12p wrote:

P2S, on the forum of mine you just closed, firt of all, I was not trying to be provocative, just stating proven facts. Secondly, I don't mind that you shut it down to discuss it, as it was growing far more rapidly than I could have anticipated. Thirdly, just as a side note, your signatures text, Treat others as you want to be treated, is originally from the Bible. You would obviously agree that it works, otherwise you would not have put it in your sig, and that proves (partially anyway) the statement I made that caused you to shut it down. I would appreciate your decision soon, and I trust you wil make the right one. Thanks,
-sonicfan12p-

even mentioning so-called proven facts relating to religion can provoke religious debate, what you said in that topic was uncalled for if i do say so myself. and the "treat others" quote is ancient, just in all older versions it was negative (dont treat others how you wouldnt want to be treated)

veggieman001 wrote:

I would argue that 777w is right; specifically stating that any holy book is completely factual is provocative because there are so many disagreeing opinions for any case.

thank you veggie
i bet a bible discussion topic could even exist as long as it was clearly stated that any posts about whether or not the bible was true at any point in the book arent allowed but posts about morals, how good any story is, and just harmless opinions are
heck there could be a whole "holy scriptures" topic to discuss books from any religion

Last edited by 777w (2012-05-16 20:51:46)

Although I believe with my entire being that the entire Bible is true, and that everything in it is the inspired Word of God, that is not at all what I said in that topic. What I said was, that everything in the Bible that can be proven scientifically and historically, have been proven. That is what I said, and if someone has a problem with PROVEN FACTS, then they need to not be posting things on that topic.

P.S. The capitals were for emphasis, not anger.
P.P.S. The, do unto others thing was at the top of my head when I wrote that, but there are literally hundreds of other things I could use as examples.
P.P.P.S. 777, the forum had not yet recieved any truly offensive posts yet, as a matter of fact, there was a rather nice nice discussion going on, until P2S closed it. The most negative comment so far has been yours.

Last edited by sonicfan12p (2012-05-16 22:28:23)

NeighbourhoodSniper wrote:

sonicfan12p wrote:

Although I believe with my entire being that the entire Bible is true, and that everything in it is the inspired Word of God, that is not at all what I said in that topic. What I said was, that everything in the Bible that can be proven scientifically and historically, have been proven. That is what I said, and if someone has a problem with PROVEN FACTS, then they need to not be posting things on that topic.

P.S. The capitals were for emphasis, not anger.
P.P.S. The, do unto others thing was at the top of my head when I wrote that, but there are literally hundreds of other things I could use as examples.
P.P.P.S. 777, the forum had not yet recieved any truly offensive posts yet, as a matter of fact, there was a rather nice nice discussion going on, until P2S closed it. The most negative comment so far has been yours.

That in itself is pro-religion "The Bible is completely real and it's all facts"

He's not saying that (though that is clearly what he believes), he's saying that all the history in the Bible is completely accurate. And that is, in fact, the general consensus among historians. For instance, pretty much everyone accepts that Jesus was a real person, but not everyone believes that he's the son of God. Similarly, all the kings and civilizations talked about in the Old Testament have been proven to have really existed. That's what sonicfan12p means.

And on the subject of science, the Bible is also accurate about that, too. True, there are things impossible for humans to do in the Bible, such as walking on water and parting the Red Sea, but as they're supposed to be miracles performed by God and Jesus, it wouldn't be fair to include those when talking about how scientifically accurate the Bible is. So consider other things, such as these things it says about the earth: "He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing." "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." Both those statements are scientifically accurate, concerning the nature of the earth. And there are other things like that. I believe there's also a scripture which makes reference to the water cycle. In fact, Job says an extraordinary amount of things about nature which are true.

So yes, despite what you might believe concerning God, and Jesus being his son, and everything else to do with that sort of thing, it's an undisputed fact that the Bible is historically accurate.

Last edited by calebxy (2012-05-17 07:15:55)

NeighbourhoodSniper wrote:

calebxy wrote:

NeighbourhoodSniper wrote:

That in itself is pro-religion "The Bible is completely real and it's all facts"

He's not saying that (though that is clearly what he believes), he's saying that all the history in the Bible is completely accurate. And that is, in fact, the general consensus among historians. For instance, pretty much everyone accepts that Jesus was a real person, but not everyone believes that he's the son of God. Similarly, all the kings and civilizations talked about in the Old Testament have been proven to have really existed. That's what sonicfan12p means.

And on the subject of science, the Bible is also accurate about that, too. True, there are things impossible for humans to do in the Bible, such as walking on water and parting the Red Sea, but as they're supposed to be miracles performed by God and Jesus, it wouldn't be fair to include those when talking about how scientifically accurate the Bible is. So consider other things, such as these things it says about the earth: "He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing." "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." Both those statements are scientifically accurate, concerning the nature of the earth. And there are other things like that. I believe there's also a scripture which makes reference to the water cycle. In fact, Job says an extraordinary amount of things about nature which are true.

So yes, despite what you might believe concerning God, and Jesus being his son, and everything else to do with that sort of thing, it's an undisputed fact that the Bible is historically accurate.

So facts == history || facts != science?

I was saying that saying "it's all facts" is saying that it's ok to talk about it because it's correct, which is against the guidelines because of religion, it's saying that the religion is 100% true yet atheists can't say that it's not, religion as a whole should be kept away from Scratch.

No no no, again, you're not getting it. Atheists are people who don't believe in God. I wasn't saying that it's a proven, undisputed fact that God exists and everything the Bible says about him is true (since obviously a great number of people don't believe that). That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the historical parts of the Bible, such as when it talks about the kings and civilizations and so forth. That's all proven history. History is not something that atheists disagree with; it's whether or not God exists (and by extension, whether or not the Bible was divinely inspired) that atheists don't believe in. But that's not what sonicfan12p and I were talking about (though obviously we believe that too).

calebxy wrote:

NeighbourhoodSniper wrote:

calebxy wrote:

He's not saying that (though that is clearly what he believes), he's saying that all the history in the Bible is completely accurate. And that is, in fact, the general consensus among historians. For instance, pretty much everyone accepts that Jesus was a real person, but not everyone believes that he's the son of God. Similarly, all the kings and civilizations talked about in the Old Testament have been proven to have really existed. That's what sonicfan12p means.

And on the subject of science, the Bible is also accurate about that, too. True, there are things impossible for humans to do in the Bible, such as walking on water and parting the Red Sea, but as they're supposed to be miracles performed by God and Jesus, it wouldn't be fair to include those when talking about how scientifically accurate the Bible is. So consider other things, such as these things it says about the earth: "He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing." "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." Both those statements are scientifically accurate, concerning the nature of the earth. And there are other things like that. I believe there's also a scripture which makes reference to the water cycle. In fact, Job says an extraordinary amount of things about nature which are true.

So yes, despite what you might believe concerning God, and Jesus being his son, and everything else to do with that sort of thing, it's an undisputed fact that the Bible is historically accurate.

So facts == history || facts != science?

I was saying that saying "it's all facts" is saying that it's ok to talk about it because it's correct, which is against the guidelines because of religion, it's saying that the religion is 100% true yet atheists can't say that it's not, religion as a whole should be kept away from Scratch.

No no no, again, you're not getting it. Atheists are people who don't believe in God. I wasn't saying that it's a proven, undisputed fact that God exists and everything the Bible says about him is true (since obviously a great number of people don't believe that). That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the historical parts of the Bible, such as when it talks about the kings and civilizations and so forth. That's all proven history. History is not something that atheists disagree with; it's whether or not God exists (and by extension, whether or not the Bible was divinely inspired) that atheists don't believe in. But that's not what sonicfan12p and I were talking about (though obviously we believe that too).

It's still about the Bible, I'm pretty sure P2S deleted it to cut down on moderation as people can wander off into things not allowed, the topic was just inviting people to cross the line

sonicfan12p wrote:

Yes, thank you calebxy, that is what I was talking about.

Good. Glad I could help. 

veggieman001 wrote:

calebxy wrote:

NeighbourhoodSniper wrote:

So facts == history || facts != science?

I was saying that saying "it's all facts" is saying that it's ok to talk about it because it's correct, which is against the guidelines because of religion, it's saying that the religion is 100% true yet atheists can't say that it's not, religion as a whole should be kept away from Scratch.

No no no, again, you're not getting it. Atheists are people who don't believe in God. I wasn't saying that it's a proven, undisputed fact that God exists and everything the Bible says about him is true (since obviously a great number of people don't believe that). That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the historical parts of the Bible, such as when it talks about the kings and civilizations and so forth. That's all proven history. History is not something that atheists disagree with; it's whether or not God exists (and by extension, whether or not the Bible was divinely inspired) that atheists don't believe in. But that's not what sonicfan12p and I were talking about (though obviously we believe that too).

Atheists are people who don't believe in any god.

That's true.

NeighbourhoodSniper wrote:

calebxy wrote:

NeighbourhoodSniper wrote:

It's still about the Bible, I'm pretty sure P2S deleted it to cut down on moderation as people can wander off into things not allowed, the topic was just inviting people to cross the line

Well, before that last post, the moderators were fine with keeping it open.

Exactly, it's just inviting people to go over the line, someone did, they closed it to cut down on moderator resources.

Well, no. He didn't cross the line. The concern was that because of that particular post, a debate would be caused. A (heated) debate would be over the line, so they decided to end it before that happened (though I don't actually agree with the decision, as I don't feel there would be any debate of concern).

NeighbourhoodSniper wrote:

calebxy wrote:

NeighbourhoodSniper wrote:

Exactly, it's just inviting people to go over the line, someone did, they closed it to cut down on moderator resources.

Well, no. He didn't cross the line. The concern was that because of that particular post, a debate would be caused. A (heated) debate would be over the line, so they decided to end it before that happened (though I don't actually agree with the decision, as I don't feel there would be any debate of concern).

A response that will cause a debate is crossing the line, saying something that inclines people to argue over something like religion or politics is crossing the line.

But he was just stating facts. What he said isn't (or shouldn't) be the sort of thing that someone could argue about.

Last edited by calebxy (2012-05-17 11:50:55)

It was a response that could have caused a debate. Anything could have caused a debate, I could have said, I like the color blue, and anyone could reply, red is better, and then we have a debate. Whether or not something is a "provocative" comment is all in the eyes of the reader.