Balsey and Zach's Religion Thread

[kreed5120]

36 minutes ago, Balsy said:

 

Yes, yes it is.  But there is a significant amount of people, that you are currently defending, that do this far more frequently than I do.  You and several other members, always seem to get mad at me when I'm responding to it.  I get hypocritically called out for it on this forum all the time and it's BS.  People will criticize me, but not criticize the people who actually start making things political.  Off-the-cusp comments with political undertones are made ALL THE TIME here, not by me.  But because I have a differing opinion than other people, I get called out for it.  It's kinda a joke.

Honestly it's driven me from this site.  This was the first time I've visited in weeks, and seriously had a question about something I found weird, and people immediately get their underwear in a bunch.  Most of the people I know who were driven from this site were driven away because of the over-dominance of one political-ideology that would keep inserting itself over-and-over again on this forum.  (spoiler alert, it wasn't mine!).  Several of those members to whom I refer, received a temporary ban for their actions, and demeanor.  I'd encourage you to go back and look at the comments.  My first one, was not hyperbolic...or inflamatory...just a question.  

 

I'm not defending anyone here. You're right there are a select few others that do it too and I hate when they do it too. I really don't keep score on who does what more. I distinctly remember getting in disputes with Skip in the past for him pushing his agenda a crossed too.

 

The type of stuff I get mad at you for most of the time is your self need to correct everyone on everything.

 

Exhibit A: Going on a rant how Easter is a pegan holiday

 

Exhibit B:

Quote

I'm in total agreement. So many individuals base their political views solely off of the political party they affiliate themselves with instead of looking at both sides of an issue and forming their own opinion. - Kreed

Quote

Yes and most who make this statement are guilty of the thing they criticize other people of doing.  - Balsy

Quote

Fortunately for me then that I don't self identify myself with either political party. -Kreed

Quote

Not identifying yourself with a political party doesn't mean that you don't prescribe to a political ideology; which is equally the problem.  The business of absolutism is part of the problem. - Balsy

Quote

Not disputing this. I'm fairly opened minded when it comes to politics, but thanks for insinuating otherwise. - Kreed

Quote

I've seen very little commentary from you, over the many conversations on this forum, that would lead me to think you're as open minded as you claim to be. Balsy

 

Despite not knowing where I stand on any political issue (as I do my best to avoid them on this forum) you really tried arguing over how politically biased I am. This is the type of stuff that irks me along with others. 

 

 

[Balsy]

1 hour ago, kreed5120 said:

 

I'm not defending anyone here. You're right there are a select few others that do it too and I hate when they do it too. I really don't keep score on who does what more. I distinctly remember getting in disputes with Skip in the past for him pushing his agenda a crossed too.

 

The type of stuff I get mad at you for most of the time is your self need to correct everyone on everything.

 

Exhibit A: Going on a rant how Easter is a pegan holiday

 

Exhibit B:

 

Despite not knowing where I stand on any political issue (as I do my best to avoid them on this forum) you really tried arguing over how politically biased I am. This is the type of stuff that irks me along with others. 

 

 

 

The Easter-Pagan holiday rant was a response to a member calling me a "jackass" and others making very pointed remarks after I responded with a tongue-in-cheek comment.  Separate comment's like LZip's "You're probably against saying the pledge of allegiance as well since it has "God" in it. The horror!"  demanded a response.  They could have let it go with the simplicity that I asked a question about team prayers in a public institution.  They couldn't help themselves, and decided to attack with their own agenda.

That was his tangence, not mine, but yes I will not stand by as someone makes a factually incorrect attempt at a backhanded insult without pointing out how wrong they are.

Your second example; you can go ahead and continue not liking me for that.  I firmly understand that there are plenty of people who say that they do not associate with a political party; to be frank that doesn't mean much, as I said before.  I've met plenty of people who said they don't associate with a political party, but are very clearly conservative based upon the things that they say and the way they express themselves.  I've met the opposite as well; who were very clearly liberal through the things that they say.  Despite what a lot of people think of me here, I think of things very analytically.  Those labels are defined as something.  And something that can be defined can be observed; quantified and qualified.  

I'm sorry Kreed, I like you, but to pretend you can't understand the leanings of a person based upon their actions is ludicrous.  You can.  That doesn't mean people don't change their minds and change, hell I have come a long way in the past decade from how I used to view things.  But that change/consideration didn't happen because of a lack of being challenged.

 

 

[zippy5]

Chill, man. For your own good. Go Zips

[LZIp]

2 hours ago, Balsy said:

 

The Easter-Pagan holiday rant was a response to a member calling me a "jackass" and others making very pointed remarks after I responded with a tongue-in-cheek comment.  Separate comment's like LZip's "You're probably against saying the pledge of allegiance as well since it has "God" in it. The horror!"  demanded a response.  They could have let it go with the simplicity that I asked a question about team prayers in a public institution.  They couldn't help themselves, and decided to attack with their own agenda.

That was his tangence, not mine, but yes I will not stand by as someone makes a factually incorrect attempt at a backhanded insult without pointing out how wrong they are.

Your second example; you can go ahead and continue not liking me for that.  I firmly understand that there are plenty of people who say that they do not associate with a political party; to be frank that doesn't mean much, as I said before.  I've met plenty of people who said they don't associate with a political party, but are very clearly conservative based upon the things that they say and the way they express themselves.  I've met the opposite as well; who were very clearly liberal through the things that they say.  Despite what a lot of people think of me here, I think of things very analytically.  Those labels are defined as something.  And something that can be defined can be observed; quantified and qualified.  

I'm sorry Kreed, I like you, but to pretend you can't understand the leanings of a person based upon their actions is ludicrous.  You can.  That doesn't mean people don't change their minds and change, hell I have come a long way in the past decade from how I used to view things.  But that change/consideration didn't happen because of a lack of being challenged.

 

 

Sorry Balsy, I like you. I do. I can admit I lean conservative, though hardly consider myself as political at all. I'd like to think I've had a solid, well rounded experience so far in my life growing up in rural Ohio and living in an urban setting the past decade. My political beliefs aren't as clear cut as you'd like to make them out to be. Hopefully can you admit you lean wayyyy to the left, because you definitely do. I still like you. I take you for the type of person who doesn't like people who don't have the same beliefs as you, which is disappointing. Maybe I'm assuming wrong.

 

You've built a reputation of complaining about just about everything on here, which may have been why I was quick to call you out and wasn't exactly nice about it. A completely innocent comment was made in an otherwise very nice write up about a scrimmage that a poster took time out of their day to go and see and the only thing you had to say was question and point out how having a team prayer may be a "big no no". Come on man, don't act like you weren't trying to start anything and that comment wasn't politically motivated. Even if it wasn't, I hope you can see how it could be construed that way. I just checked your post history. Your last 15 posts (all that I could see) were either related to this topic or complaining about President Wilson....and you were siding with dre of all people. Most of us are on here to talk Zips sports, and it seems you like to come on here to do anything but that anymore.

 

Also, you didn't correct me. I never stated the pledge of allegiance always had "god" in it. It definitely does today though. Like I said..you'll argue anything. http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

Edited April 5, 2018 by LZIp

[Balsy]

7 hours ago, LZIp said:

Hopefully can you admit you lean wayyyy to the left, because you definitely do. I still like you. I take you for the type of person who doesn't like people who don't have the same beliefs as you, which is disappointing. Maybe I'm assuming wrong.

 

Yes, one would be correct that I lean in what is classically defined as left.  However "wayyy" left, I have to disagree.  The goalposts have been shifted on what is considered "far right" and "far left" and "middle", and they constantly do.  I'll avoid going on a rant about this, but there are some excellent books, scholarly articles and classes dedicated to the topic of political framing and shifting over time; left isn't always "left" and right isn't always "right".  

 

And no, I don't have problems with other people's beliefs at all.  I have a problem with people who can't handle their beliefs being questioned.  I have a problem with people who get angry over someone questioning their long held ideas (who doesn't agree with them).  I have a problem with factually or logically incorrect or inconsistent ideas or statements.  If someone thinks the same of my ideas or statements, CALL ME OUT ON IT!  That's why conversations take place.  

 

7 hours ago, LZIp said:

Come on man, don't act like you weren't trying to start anything and that comment wasn't politically motivated. Even if it wasn't, I hope you can see how it could be construed that way. I just checked your post history. Your last 15 posts (all that I could see) were either related to this topic or complaining about President Wilson....and you were siding with dre of all people. Most of us are on here to talk Zips sports, and it seems you like to come on here to do anything but that anymore.

 

Start anything?  No.  Poltically motivated?  No.  My bias that I picked up on it?  Yes.  Just as it was the poster's (and others) bias to not see anything at all when it was mentioned.  We all have bias that dictate our responses to things, and how we write things.  If I were to write a report as to what I saw at a scrimmage or spring game, a team prayer or players kneeling before practice in the endzone after running the field (as another example of something religious) I wouldn't mention it at all, on the contrary to what some believe.  If we're here to talk Zips sports, a team prayer is irrelevant TBH.  Who cares right?  (like some had said).  But if it really is that no-one cares, why mention it at all?  Well if no-one cares, why care if someone asks if it is being sanctioned or not?  You know as well as I do, that's because they do care about that particular observation.  And apparently that observation was significant enough to warrant writing about, and so that observation warrants caring about...which prompts the question.

I hope you can see what I'm getting at here...

 

7 hours ago, LZIp said:

Your last 15 posts (all that I could see) were either related to this topic or complaining about President Wilson....and you were siding with dre of all people. Most of us are on here to talk Zips sports, and it seems you like to come on here to do anything but that anymore.

 

If it were true that most people are here to talk Zips sports, there wouldn't be a thread dedicated to the constant presidential problems at the U.  I'd say most people here care about UAkron and sports is one of the outlets they use to express their care.  If it were "just" about sports, this forum would be empty because people would have abandoned the Zips decades ago.  People stay, because they care about the University of Akron.

Complaining about President Wilson?  No.  Getting upset over People willingly accepting the screwing of their alma mater?  Yes.  It is true that I haven't posted much about sports lately.  My fandom of UAkron athletics, and the University of Akron in general has been wavering over the years since I graduated.  The constant drip of crap about my alma mater, has made me question why I care at all, or ever cared at all.  And to see wholesale acceptance and even praise of that mediocrity, is upsetting.  This is why I have slowly stopped coming here.  I find it exceedingly difficult to get excited about anything UAkron related. 

 

7 hours ago, LZIp said:

Also, you didn't correct me. I never stated the pledge of allegiance always had "god" in it. It definitely does today though. Like I said..you'll argue anything. http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

 

Fine, fine, yes I didn't "correct" you...I called you out for your bias in a tongue-in-cheek comment you made.    Just because "god" is in the pledge of allegiance, doesn't mean it should be; and it doesn't legitimize team religious activities.  (that's a shifting of the goal-posts) 

But yes, I'll argue anything...and that's not a bad thing.  More people should be willing to call out things, that's how change happens.  Now granted, it's also a millenennial thing too...because we were force fed BS from birth about how "this is just the way things are...accept it!" and we've researched those things for ourselves and decided not to accept it just because we've been told to.  Perhaps a generational difference.  

[Let'sGoZips94]

20 hours ago, Balsy said:

 

On the contrary, Balsy was simply telling accurate information/leveling the playing field.  It's not my fault others are such easily triggered snowflakes that can't handle not having the privilege of being able to say whatever they want without a response.

 

Nothing I said was inappropriate, imposing by beliefs (either religious or political).  I simply pointed out facts.

 

The First Amendment doesn't protect you from responses; that's called a safe space. You were the one that brought up the team prayer due to Akron being a public University. The fact that you're questioning team prayer at all, in America, shows you might be the snowflake as the team prayer obviously triggered you. 

 

I'm just as guilty about mixing politics and sports - sports have mixed in politics themselves, and I also think there are relevant discussions - but I try to keep it relevant. I didn't and still don't understand why team prayer was questioned, and if you want to talk about facts, talk about how the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, which does include Christianity despite the on-going war against said religion. 

[kreed5120]

14 hours ago, Balsy said:

 

The Easter-Pagan holiday rant was a response to a member calling me a "jackass" and others making very pointed remarks after I responded with a tongue-in-cheek comment.  Separate comment's like LZip's "You're probably against saying the pledge of allegiance as well since it has "God" in it. The horror!"  demanded a response.  They could have let it go with the simplicity that I asked a question about team prayers in a public institution.  They couldn't help themselves, and decided to attack with their own agenda.

That was his tangence, not mine, but yes I will not stand by as someone makes a factually incorrect attempt at a backhanded insult without pointing out how wrong they are.

Your second example; you can go ahead and continue not liking me for that.  I firmly understand that there are plenty of people who say that they do not associate with a political party; to be frank that doesn't mean much, as I said before.  I've met plenty of people who said they don't associate with a political party, but are very clearly conservative based upon the things that they say and the way they express themselves.  I've met the opposite as well; who were very clearly liberal through the things that they say.  Despite what a lot of people think of me here, I think of things very analytically.  Those labels are defined as something.  And something that can be defined can be observed; quantified and qualified.  

I'm sorry Kreed, I like you, but to pretend you can't understand the leanings of a person based upon their actions is ludicrous.  You can.  That doesn't mean people don't change their minds and change, hell I have come a long way in the past decade from how I used to view things.  But that change/consideration didn't happen because of a lack of being challenged.

 

I was just posting examples. People on this site don't get upset (or at least I hope not) because you share different beliefs. Most here seem to be tolerant people. It's the fact you seem to always find something to argue over and the tone you take when arguing.

 

It's not that I dislike you. I just dislike the fact you engage in long winded debates regarding topics completely unrelated to the thread at hand.

[Balsy]

1 hour ago, kreed5120 said:

It's not that I dislike you. I just dislike the fact you engage in long winded debates regarding topics completely unrelated to the thread at hand.

 

Proper context requires proper explanation.

[Balsy]

3 hours ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

The First Amendment doesn't protect you from responses; that's called a safe space. You were the one that brought up the team prayer due to Akron being a public University. The fact that you're questioning team prayer at all, in America, shows you might be the snowflake as the team prayer obviously triggered you. 

 

I'm just as guilty about mixing politics and sports - sports have mixed in politics themselves, and I also think there are relevant discussions - but I try to keep it relevant. I didn't and still don't understand why team prayer was questioned, and if you want to talk about facts, talk about how the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, which does include Christianity despite the on-going war against said religion. 

 

Just because one person is the person to say something, doesn't mean it's not worthy of being discussed.  Zach's first response I thought was excellent.  Go back and look at my response to his which was "Exactly, that's why I was curious and asked."  It was the nebulous comments of other people, either not understanding or getting their underwear in a bunch, that began to derail the conversation.

And this is where the the conversation begins to derail.  Your last sentence is completely off base, and I will respond to it.  But by doing it; it is you who has derailed the conversation, not me.  But that underline portion that I've been talking about this entire time.  Members make comments like that (that are an opinion, and are up to debate).  Members seem to get upset when I respond to the statement made there...but they don't get mad at the person making the statement in the first place.  That's hypocrisy.  Why do they criticize me and not the person making the statement?  Because they (politically, or otherwise) are biased in favor of the person who made the original statement.

 

------below  is an unrelated tangent you created, not me, but I'm sure I would be criticized for ---------

As for this supposed "war on Christianity".  .  Really this boils down to perspective.  The First Amendment protects freedom of religion (of an individual) as well as a freedom (of an individual) from religion.  The government is to pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

-If you are someone who identifies as a christian you might feel as if there is a war against Christianity; because largely Christianity has been the benefactor (especially the last half century) of a government imposing said religion's will.  Blue Laws, Bans on Interracial Marriage, The Prohibition of Alcohol (just to name a few) were all laws enacted by our Government, which respected an establishment of religion and were based on religious convictions.  Those laws (except for Blue Laws in some places) have largely been repealed.  One could say "our religious freedom is being taken!" or "this is a war on religion"  to over turning the Prohibition of Alcohol, or interracial marriage; but those people would be wrong.  Those were prvilidges grated towards their religious convictions that should not have been granted in the first place.

I would continue with the rant, but you already don't care and I doubt you read it.  The point being; an objective response is necessary to respond to that nebulous thrown in line.  Nothing I said in my response here, is radical, though you likely will say that it is.

-------------------------------

You don't get to make an erroneous comment like that and not expect a response.  You don't get to make an erroneous comment like that, get a response from, and then you (or others) claim that I'm the one who derailed the conversation.  Because I'm not.  Just looking for a little less hypocrisy from people.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Balsy

[kreed5120]

If we could keep all religious debate confined to this thread and out of the sports threads, I'll be a happy camper. You guys can jump topic to topic for all I care.

 

[Let'sGoZips94]

1 hour ago, Balsy said:

The government is to pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

 

I read your condescending response in its entirety, thank you very much, but am only going to respond to this partially-emboldened sentence... 

 

All of this discussion, the rants, etc., on the topic, yet you knew the answer to your own question from the beginning? 

[Balsy]

54 minutes ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

 

I read your condescending response in its entirety, thank you very much, but am only going to respond to this partially-emboldened sentence... 

 

All of this discussion, the rants, etc., on the topic, yet you knew the answer to your own question from the beginning? 

 

And that's the problem.  If you saw my post as condescending, than suck it up buttercup.  (that, is condescending).  I am unapologetic about talking about facts and making logically sound arguments.  If logic and facts = condescension, than so be it.   Prohibiting the free exercise thereof DOES NOT include using the force of government to enforce your religious convictions onto others; which is logically consistent with every example I gave.  (Extension:) If you don't believe drinking alcohol is morally right according to your god, that's fine.  You and your parishiners don't consume or sell alcohol.  The government has no business banning it for everyone based on your religious beliefs.  THAT is the very definition of "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.  And you know that it is.

 

I was seeking clarification, yes, hence the question.  Which Zach gracefully gave.

[Hilltopper]

Show me the law that says athletes at UA are required to recite prayers (Christian or otherwise) as a condition of their participation in their particular sport.

[Let'sGoZips94]

1 hour ago, Balsy said:

 

And that's the problem.  If you saw my post as condescending, than suck it up buttercup.  (that, is condescending).  I am unapologetic about talking about facts and making logically sound arguments.  If logic and facts = condescension, than so be it.   Prohibiting the free exercise thereof DOES NOT include using the force of government to enforce your religious convictions onto others; which is logically consistent with every example I gave.  (Extension:) If you don't believe drinking alcohol is morally right according to your god, that's fine.  You and your parishiners don't consume or sell alcohol.  The government has no business banning it for everyone based on your religious beliefs.  THAT is the very definition of "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.  And you know that it is.

 

I was seeking clarification, yes, hence the question.  Which Zach gracefully gave.

 

No, logic & facts do not equal condescension. Tone, demeanor - that can equal condescension. Trust me, you didn't hurt my feelings. 

 

What further clarification did you need if you knew that the government is to pass no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion? Or did you just want to argue, and attempt to assert your supposed intellectual superiority? Because that's how it comes off. 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Let'sGoZips94

[Balsy]

8 minutes ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

 

No, logic & facts do not equal condescension. Tone, demeanor - that can equal condescension. Trust me, you didn't hurt my feelings. 

 

What further clarification did you need if you knew that the government is to pass no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion? Or did you just want to argue, and attempt to assert your supposed intellectual superiority? Because that's how it comes off. 

 

I've expressed myself enough.  You don't care.  Peace.

[Blue & Gold]

"Balsy and Zach's Religion Thread"