Melita Magic

Just for some equal opportunity why doesn't anyone here say the same about any other religion on earth? Ever? (I don't mean stating "there is no God" I mean ad hominem attacks like "that book is a fairy tale." Why always and only the Christian Bible? That is the type of thing I mean. But that's typically just a jumping off point.) Really this entire topic seems to only exist to bash - what other purpose was it going to serve?

I'm not "jumping on anyone's ass" Sy...but since you've asked me not to reply to your question, I won't. Several things said about Christians on the forums would qualify for horribly bigoted statements if words like "gay," "transsexual," "black," or "lesbian" were substituted...(and watch, someone will post irrelevant examples to mock what I just said), but somehow it's missed when it's a person's pet target. It's cool on the internet to mock other people's faith or beliefs. I don't do it to others, I ask others not to do it to me - and that makes some people angry and hostile. I try to post a conciliatory post and it gets worse. So who is actually "jumping on (whose) ass?"

Ceka Cianci wrote: Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Melita Magic wrote: In other words that was sort of what my point was really - why not judge all humans the same, without dragging their religious beliefs into it. Again with Robertson he puts himself up as a leader in his own religion so, I understand - he's up on a platform, he's more visible. I just want people to see others as humans first, and that religious doesn't mean hypocrisy is built in - it just means we're human above all else and all are fallible. No matter what one's beliefs on the afterlife. Melita, I highlighted what I think is an issue, and why it's nigh impossible for non-Christians (or those without religion in general) to see Christians in that light, and it's because the Christian faith teaches that those who do not believe, are going to roast in a fiery hell for all eternity. But,we're told, just "believe" and then you're granted a key to the promised land of happy afterlife. We're told that..all the time. Our children are told that. So, I seriously wonder how you can expect us, those who are non-believers to accept the " why not judge all humans the same, without dragging their religious beliefs into it."? Your religion precludes us from being not judged, and being seen the same as other humans. We, by the very act of your "faith", we're are seen as condemned to hell. Can you understand how that it's your religious beliefs, which means your way or looking at us, and judging us, that separates us from you? I see you the same as me, another human who was born and will die. The end. But, if what you say is true, and you really believe in what the New Testament says, then you see me as someone who is going to hell..to burn for all eternity. You also see my two sons that way. So, sorry, if I'm not particularly open to the idea that you see all humans the same, and don't want to judge us. You want people to see others as humans first? Then religion needs to disappear. Because, as long as there are ancient mythos around, that say that some of us will burn in hell for an eternity, while some others who profess to have "faith" in ancient historical stories, will be "saved", there's a problem. the burning in hell is what a lot preach..but is also a key to fear people to faith in that religion.. but it fails right from the very first book in the bible.. genesis..the reason adam and eve were removed from the garden.. basically..they had eaten from the tree of good and evil.. so god and lucifer are there and god says .. OMG they totally ate our apple!! we can't let them eat from the tree of life as well or they will become like one of us.. which is to live for all eternity and even worse.. without god.. so losing paradise ..god gives them clothes and sends them on their way.. because he promised them..if they ate from the tree of good and evil..they would surely die.. so now knowing good and evil..adam and eve are clothed set out and seperated from the tree of life.. the only way back to it is to enter paradise again through christ/god and eat from the tree of life.. the alternative is to be thrown away and taken out of the book of life ..to exist no more.. where satan/ex-lucifer and all the angels that followed him will burn forever..because they already were built to last.. where we were not.. Ceka certain types always want to prop up the hellfire evangelistic types as the only brand of Christian. I have never been to a church like that in my life. It's so far afield and such a straw man argument I find it difficult to think they actually believe that. And we're the irrational ones? Apparently being in a one hive mind borg will do that to a person... They don't know what they are talking about and they don't even know that they don't know what they are talking about.

Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Your religion precludes us from being not judged, and being seen the same as other humans. We, by the very act of your "faith", we're are seen as condemned to hell. Can you understand how that it's your religious beliefs, which means your way or looking at us, and judging us, that separates us from you? I see you the same as me, another human who was born and will die. The end. But, if what you say is true, and you really believe in what the New Testament says, then you see me as someone who is going to hell..to burn for all eternity. You also see my two sons that way. Gee I didn't know you knew my mind and soul better than I do...or even what my religious beliefs happen to be. Did you miss the part about how many different Christian sects and interpretation of the Bible there are? I don't believe what you just said. So who is the one making a judgment based upon (supposed) religious beliefs instead of seeing someone as a human being first? You state you see me "just as a person who will die, like anyone else" and then you disprove that by seeing me as someone who condemns you and your family to hell. By your own words. When did I EVER say that I have the ability to judge anyone or even wish to? When did I ever say anything close to what you just put in my mouth? Never. That's when. I so hate it when someone lectures me about "my religion" when they don't have a clue and couldn't buy one, what it is "my beliefs" really are. I tried to state them and you and TDD both missed it. And yes I see you pop up on every religion thread to bash Christians. Not sure why, but you do. When have you seen any Christians here do the same toward anyone else's beliefs?

Celestiall how can "my religion" preclude a non believer from anything? They don't believe in it. So why are they allowing it to rule their thoughts or lives? Can't have it both ways...really you can't. You and TDD have both entirely missed my point, by the way. COMPLETELY.

TDD123 wrote: Melita Magic wrote: But it's when the circle then widens and it's "Christians this" or "Christians that" or "thought he was a Christian." Can begin to feel like people are talking about some other species. The poignant part is that we are all human. We have our different beliefs and ethical yardsticks. It's sad when divisions come up. If anything I find about this discussion you raised hypocritical, it's that paragraph of yours. It is Christians themselves ( you and nobody else started this sidetrack to the OP original message as he mentioned himself ) who cause this distinction amongst humans in their arrogance that the 'master of everything alive and dead' will treat them as his favourite. It's the same Muslims and Jews do. It's a them vs. us division. It's about dividing humanity into groups and to control those groups and only causes segregation. Religion will never unify mankind, because it will leave out those who can do without it but are still needed if only for humanity's sake, on forehand. That first act of division religious people make when choosing either group, is an aggression in itself. Doesn't matter if you want to dress it up as 'moral' or 'law of God I'm free to fantasize about to surpress others' and call all others heretics or sinners or aggressors or outlaws. Easy to blame me for "starting" a discussion when one's own post has been removed - eh? Still trying to bash - eh?

As an insomniac: Czari, I love your new sig line. And by the way...still on viewer 1.23 (whistles innocently) I'm really gonna hate the day it stops working...will be throwing a mini tantrum over here. I too tried the new official viewers and did.not.LIKE.

Nicely and gently written Kelli. Good points, everyone...interesting discussion. I was feeling a bit defensive due to something I saw in the early days of the topic, and I apologize if I sounded reactionary or reactive or harsh in any way. It wasn't my intent to upset anyone (don't know if I did, but it wasn't.) Kelli I'm glad you see "Christian things" that way...so often I hear that Christian things are - well, all negative. But then it's also a lot of pressure and - I'm not sure - a strange form of compliment? That it seems Christians are held to such a(n impossibly?) high standard. If it's known someone is a Christian and they get angry, the retort comes "how about turning the other cheek?" If it's known someone is a Christian and they judge, passages are quoted about "judge not lest ye be judged." It can be exhausting at times. No one alive measures up to any sort of perfect standard - usually doesn't even come close. It's one reason intent means (basically) everything to me. And these are all just my personal foibles and reactions and opinions by the way - not putting myself up as any type of representative. Robertson puts himself up as a leader, and is very visible due to Tv, so I can understand why he gets criticism (and I don't watch him, but, I do see headlines when he says something bizarre which - has happened a few times. For sure.) But it's when the circle then widens and it's "Christians this" or "Christians that" or "thought he was a Christian." Can begin to feel like people are talking about some other species. The poignant part is that we are all human. We have our different beliefs and ethical yardsticks. It's sad when divisions come up. But what you said about 'if they are something more nebulous like ethical behavior' - isn't that what religions teach? Other than maybe the Indian Thuggees I can't think of one built on harming others. In other words that was sort of what my point was really - why not judge all humans the same, without dragging their religious beliefs into it. Again with Robertson he puts himself up as a leader in his own religion so, I understand - he's up on a platform, he's more visible. I just want people to see others as humans first, and that religious doesn't mean hypocrisy is built in - it just means we're human above all else and all are fallible. No matter what one's beliefs on the afterlife. Griffin you're right I don't hang out in those places! Lol. I was talking about mainstream sites though, I've heard it everywhere online really, and so often, over the years. But also here particularly. And for some reason it's always just the one belief that gets targeted. I'm not sure why that is. When I've asked elsewhere, people say that's because it's the most dominant one in their nation. Doesn't seem like much reason though really. If anything one would think exposure would create less fear about it, not more. People usually fear the unknown. I think everyone here is smart enough not to see things like the Westboro gang as representing others, so it always makes me wonder what horrible person did someone meet in their past, who said they were Christian, that's made them abhor all of the same faith. That's always made me wonder. I suppose one is more sensitive to seeing and remembering things aimed against a group one is part of, which is one reason I think it's important to all listen to each other. FWIW if I see blanket hatred aimed at entire groups of other types I also speak up against that. Other places online mostly. I don't really see that, here. Ceka my poor eyes found it hard to read without stops or capital letters but I think I see what you are getting at - that people base it on past experience. Or on history. But history is full of brutes - and they had all sorts of beliefs. So I think those people are still letting something else cloud their thinking. Just my opinion.

Phil Deakins wrote: I now have my alt using Singularity, and everything is good. I'll stick with it at least for the alt. How does one have more than one viewer on a given machine and yet retain dual log in capability with each? (Well, sometimes it's necessary.)

Sephina Frostbite wrote: I dont think for one minute Christanity is bad or evil. I think the people who follow it can be. Just like any other religion. You can take the beauty out of it or the evil out of it. In the end its not the religion but the people who follow it. I dont for one second that think that by thinking something you have already have done it. I would be in jail by now if that were the case. But see that's the thing. Why is it that people so often mention "Christians who have done evil things" when it's simply humans who have done evil things. Only Christians sometimes do evil? Only relgious people sometimes do evil? Never an agnostic? Never an atheist? So while it sounds generous, in fact it's in some way adding to the myth that Christians are all hypocrites. Or that they somehow by nature are twisted. And there are those out there who believe exactly that. I'm not thinking of anyone here or anyone in particular. (This is in reply to the above quote though and to part of what Ceka said.) ETA: This part: "the reason christianity gets a bad rap is because the manipulators in it's history.." Then that's the fault of the person with that view. A religion is not a person.

Griffin Ceawlin wrote: Nobody even mentioned Christians or Christianity until you did, other than to say that Robertson has said some pretty un-Christian things... Not true - (ETA: some of those might be removed) - but that's part of my point: What are "Christian things?" Who's to judge? I wasn't aiming that at you though, but I didn't want to single anyone out, either. (Plus I was remembering past similar topics, and saw the way things were heading.) There have been some really nasty posts about Christians and/or Christianity or even how stupid it is to have a religious belief, on the forums in the past. I just get irritated at times with those who say things like that, but can't see that it makes them a bigot, or a proselytizer. Just posting "There is no God" - how is it any different than someone posting out of the blue "There is a God" - both are preaching for their personal belief. But yet it's only Christians who get bashed as being evangelistic. Double standards annoy me.

Sounds like a good idea.

Czari Zenovka wrote: Melita, I think you and I shared a love of Phoenix. When you feel like it, I STRONLY suggest you try Singularity; it is the closest to Phoenix of any of the TPVs I've tried to date and I absolutely LOVE it...and that's a lot for me to say. I have yet to try a TPV actually. I'm skeevy about who would have my info, to be honest. And the thing that happened with a certain TPV in the past...didn't help that qualm. I've heard good things about how some of the TPV work. Just haven't got past my hurdle yet.

Innula Zenovka wrote: You are more familiar with the Bible than am I, but the implication of what you say seems to be that feeling tempted to do something - and thus "contemplating about it" - is equivalent to doing it. Is it really the case the Bible says, in effect, there's no point in resisting temptation, since there's no significant difference between feeling tempted and doing whatever it is you feel tempted to do? Sounds a bit odd to me, is all. Sounds like something from the Old Testament. You'll find as many interpretations of the Bible as there are people, almost. Whenever one person insists "Christians believe ___, so they are horrible" I give that the side eye. Oh really? I'm a Christian. What if I don't believe that? What if that isn't at all what I think or ever heard that passage means? Just more Christian bashing on the internet...nothing to see here...

What many fail to observe when they discuss "Christians" is that there are billions of them world wide, each having their unique beliefs, each having their unique personality, some belonging to faiths that believe in 'evangelising' and some not, some belonging to faiths that believe in 'the Rapture' and some not, some belonging to faiths that believe in purgatory and some not, some belonging to faiths that believe in 'Reconciliation' and some not, and on, and on... There is no one 'borg' of Christian. The Christian someone may have met, or heard, and disliked them or what they had to say, is not necessarily a representative sample. Also many many many critics of Christianity or haters of Christians seem to miss the fact that Christians, by definition, follow the New Testament - not the old. There are some sects who are super conservative who cling to some of what's in the Old Testament, sure. But if you read what Jesus said, He by definition did away with the old laws. Also if you understand what it says about judging, and that includes other people's interpretations (given as an example when they were discussing whether to keep or not keep Jewish dietary laws) He says not to judge how someone else expresses their holiness. That's just one example. It's too bad that critics who hate Christians or Chrsitianity so often do not understand it, despite memorizing so much about it. Doesn't mean you understand it from within. It just doesn't.

In the old viewer, if a person has "only friends can see my online status" enabled, then only friends can offer a teleport to that person's profile, as well. No idea if that is still the case. Rather than ask someone to 'friend me' or alert them to that fact, I just do as my last post suggested.

Lisette Seranno wrote: Wearing them can be fun. I stumbled onto them by buying a top with the appliers, then thinking WTH won't they work, like so many. Then it became a hunt to actually find the store, then the challenge of getting them to match my skin, then the fun of shopping for tops for them. Strangely enough, Lola's got me interested in building and making things. In someways Lola's led me to bigger things. /is disappointed no one took advantage of that opening.

Most of what's been said zoomed over my head. But, a practical solution: Copy and paste the SLurl in the IM.

I would really like to know some places, too. Garden-y places. Not date or romantic ones. Places people have tried and liked. Thanks.

You should make your avatar look as good as you can. There are tons of freebies out there, or ask people whose 'look' you like, where they got things. (Almost all stores have one or two freebies as bait.) You should also work on your textual appearance. Capitalize. Use punctuation. Put some thought into what you say. Despite all of its visuals, SL is still a text based Universe. So, what you say and how you say it, can make a difference. If you want to work as a host(ess) - in G or R or X rated capacity - that could make a difference in being hired or being ignored. If I still had a sim running, I would pay you 50L per hour - but then again maybe not; I might be called a slave owner.

Coby Foden wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I wonder if the Mumbai girls make house calls in the UK. Maybe I should find out Yes Phil, they do. Out of curiosity I did some searching. :smileytongue: What I found out was: "My availability is within India and internationally." In other words: Have girls. Will traffic them.

Is there a chance the women with 'naturally corset shaped waists' were doing corset training for years in secret? Womens' waists did seem to be smaller in the olden days but I think some of that might've been due to starting in corsets from an early age. Also, they were shorter and thinner because people didn't have access to food constantly as they do today. (Of course I'm talking about cultures that would care about tiny waist size or use corsets...not starving nations. In starving nations it's usually a beauty ideal to be fatter.) Farmers used to marry taller sturdier women because life was physically harder on the plain and also so they'd be more likely to have taller sturdier sons to help with farm work. The richer men tended to want the tiny dolls.

Storm: No idea. I'm not a man. I do agree with this, though: KlistiesSeMio Ewinaga wrote: Society teaches men that woman are to be treated as pretty canvases (read: objects) on which they should project their desires Women learn their bodies are not their own at a young age and therefore they must take time to make their bodies desirable for men, or else they are worthless and serve no purpose

Charly Muggins wrote: Pussycat Catnap wrote: Madeline Blackbart wrote: I find it disgusting. Sex offenders should be in jail not free to live out there lives happily after they ruined anothers. When dealing with any criminal you have one of three choices: - put them away forever, and be willing to pay for their continual support. - murder them, and be willing to pay for the costs of this. - eventually re-integrate them into society. With sex criminals - well, the male ones at least, since few women seem to get convicted - there is a fourth option. Cut it off. Or at least the balls. I vote for that one - or two? It contributes to the solving of a lot of other problems too. But sex, like art, actually takes place in the mind - even without hormonal surges, I think a lot of predators would just keep predating. Those who have become impotent, for instance, often resort to other objects at hand, which can do even worse damage. Incarceration is the only thing.

Some cultures or even nations do 'celebrate butts' - but what is odd to me is that the IPR 'big butt' or 'very wide hip' is coupled with bowed, bony legs. I can't think of a single culture that venerates that...probably because it's not to be found in nature. (Before anyone posts a photo to 'prove me wrong' - yes there is always an exception which proves the rule. )