PDA

View Full Version : Religion and judging (Jobe Watson thread)



Sir Cromulent Sparkles
27-06-2013, 01:54 PM
The situations are slightly different because the SSM debate is one in which religion-related arguments appear frequently, including the claim that SSM is an example of a general trend of standards turning upside down and so on. I personally find such claims stupid and melodramatic but they are nonetheless on-topic. All the same I think Oepty's post strayed too much into proselytising rather than just sticking to the issue and I've therefore moved it and the discussion that followed.

I don't have any problem with people discussing Oepty's claimed double standards but the question is where. If it's going to be done as unsubtly as jammo's attack in that case then it should happen in the religion section. We should be able to discuss issues in world sports without having a poster tell another poster that they are going to hell for hypocrisy only a handful of posts in. I certainly wouldn't like to see that style of attack carry over into similar discussions on chess threads.

I just find it ridicilous that somebody who was caused such a stink in regards to my 'god' cant even apply the word of god adequately enough to live in accordance with his guidelines.
Oepty says he has a personal relationship but doesnt seem to understand his teachings.

Therefore any critisicm of his over the top devotion is completely valid.

Oepty
27-06-2013, 01:59 PM
The situations are slightly different because the SSM debate is one in which religion-related arguments appear frequently, including the claim that SSM is an example of a general trend of standards turning upside down and so on. I personally find such claims stupid and melodramatic but they are nonetheless on-topic. All the same I think Oepty's post strayed too much into proselytising rather than just sticking to the issue and I've therefore moved it and the discussion that followed.

I don't have any problem with people discussing Oepty's claimed double standards but the question is where. If it's going to be done as unsubtly as jammo's attack in that case then it should happen in the religion section. We should be able to discuss issues in world sports without having a poster tell another poster that they are going to hell for hypocrisy only a handful of posts in. I certainly wouldn't like to see that style of attack carry over into similar discussions on chess threads.

People can discuss my claimed double standards. I have no idea what is being claimed I am showing double standards about. Perhaps someone can start a thread and explain to me where I have gone wrong. That includes GUB who is now off my ignore list. However I do not see how explaining that Jobe Watson broke the WADA code and should be banned because of it shows a double standard. Maybe I have overlooked something but I have no idea what.

Oepty
27-06-2013, 02:01 PM
I just find it ridicilous that somebody who was caused such a stink in regards to my 'god' cant even apply the word of god adequately enough to live in accordance with his guidelines.
Oepty says he has a personal relationship but doesnt seem to understand his teachings.

Therefore any critisicm of his over the top devotion is completely valid.

Please explain to me what you mean by "doesn't seem to understand his teachings"

Oepty
27-06-2013, 02:02 PM
I am not disputing the validity of the criticism; I am just ruling that heavy-handed versions of it like jammo's are not to be posted in the early posts of an otherwise secular thread.

If someone wants to quote Oepty's post from that thread and argue that it is inconsistent with his religious views in the religion section they can go for it.

It would help if someone explained to me what and why I am being criticized, I have no idea.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
27-06-2013, 02:08 PM
Please explain to me what you mean by "doesn't seem to understand his teachings"

Have a look at the 3rd post in the jobe watson thread written by jammo.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
27-06-2013, 02:11 PM
That includes GUB who is now off my ignore list.

Its nice to see youve stopped pretending to ignore me. :cool:

Oepty
27-06-2013, 02:28 PM
Its nice to see youve stopped pretending to ignore me. :cool:

I really was ignoring you.

Oepty
27-06-2013, 02:30 PM
Have a look at the 3rd post in the jobe watson thread written by jammo.

Do you seriously think that applies?

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
27-06-2013, 02:35 PM
Do you seriously think that applies?

It certainly does.

Maybe you are one of those part-time christians ? :hmm:

Oepty
27-06-2013, 02:44 PM
It certainly does.

Maybe you are one of those part-time christians ? :hmm:

How did I judge? How did I condemn?

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
27-06-2013, 02:54 PM
How did I judge? How did I condemn?

Were you dux of the 'special' school ? :hmm:

Oepty
27-06-2013, 02:58 PM
Were you dux of the 'special' school ? :hmm:

So you cannot back up your claims.

antichrist
27-06-2013, 03:02 PM
So you cannot back up your claims.


scott, stop making us feel sorry for you

Oepty
27-06-2013, 03:11 PM
GUB you think you are being clever by pointing to a Bible verse which you do not understand and then claiming I have done something against it without providing anything to back up what you said. I gave you the opportunity to try and have a serious discussion about the issue but you obviously have no willingness to do so.
I have also now read, since I took you off ignore, your post in the Jobe Watson thread. The sad thing is you made the kind of judgement in your post that the verse is talking about, the kind of judgement I did not make, the condemnation I did not make.
For both of these things back on the ignore list.

antichrist
27-06-2013, 03:18 PM
GUB you think you are being clever by pointing to a Bible verse which you do not understand and then claiming I have done something against it without providing anything to back up what you said. I gave you the opportunity to try and have a serious discussion about the issue but you obviously have no willingness to do so.
I have also now read, since I took you off ignore, your post in the Jobe Watson thread. The sad thing is you made the kind of judgement in your post that the verse is talking about, the kind of judgement I did not make, the condemnation I did not make.
For both of these things back on the ignore list.


scott, you judged Watson that is what you did, so you were breaking that Biblical moral of not judging others otherwise you will also be judged. (and he without sin throw the first stone). This is what Jammo was pointing out to you but you were too thick to understand.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
27-06-2013, 03:23 PM
This is one of those rare occasions where i will be agreeing with a.c.

Your a very silly boy oepty. :confused:

Oepty
27-06-2013, 03:32 PM
scott, you judged Watson that is what you did, so you were breaking that Biblical moral of not judging others otherwise you will also be judged. (and he without sin throw the first stone). This is what Jammo was pointing out to you but you were too thick to understand.

Yes, I made a judgement about what Jobe Watson admitted doing. I have never denied that, it would be stupid to do so. What I have said is that the verse quote does not apply to the kind of judgement I made in this case.

I did not find Jobe Watson guilty of anything, he admitted his guilt, he said he took the banned substance. That is wrong.

What I must not do is write someone off, say that they can never be forgiven, that they will not be in the kingdom of heaven. That is what the verse is talking about, condemning someone that they will not kingdom of heaven. I never said anything like that about Jobe Watson, whereas GUB talked about me going to heaven in a negative sense, which is what the verse is talking about.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
27-06-2013, 03:42 PM
Yes, I made a judgement about what Jobe Watson admitted doing. I have never denied that, it would be stupid to do so. What I have said is that the verse quote does not apply to the kind of judgement I made in this.

:lol: