Coincidence? - Page 3 - Religion, God, and Theology

ahh yes... from the girls perspective if you pretend to like her hair it is the same as if you actually like it.

from the perspective of the players viewing the manson avatar as "villains" avatar he is actually glorifying manson even if the OP is just "pretending" to glorify manson.

Oh so it is BigErfs fault people are passing judgment without hearing all the facts.

07-06-2010 , 12:06 PM

#52

Hopey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 12,004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunth0807

Oh so it is BigErfs fault people are passing judgment without hearing all the facts.

The facts don't really help his case.

If I decided to use a swastika as my avatar, would people have no right to be upset until I told them why I chose that symbol?

07-06-2010 , 12:14 PM

#53

Arouet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,433

Quote:

Originally Posted by edgewise

Gunth must have ninja edited his post, I didn't see the question to me. But essentially, this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunth0807

Oh so it is BigErfs fault people are passing judgment without hearing all the facts.

yes.

07-06-2010 , 12:31 PM

#54

Gunth0807

Wears Hoodies in Pizza Joints

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 9,249

So if a judge only listened to the prosecutors side of a case, and sent the defendant to jail after only hearing that side, it is the prosecutors fault.

07-06-2010 , 12:53 PM

#55

Arouet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,433

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunth0807

So if a judge only listened to the prosecutors side of a case, and sent the defendant to jail after only hearing that side, it is the prosecutors fault.

I'll let you see if you can figure out why the two situations aren't even close to analogous.

In any event, Erf has clarified his position on using Manson as an avatar, so I'm not sure why you're still supporting this!

07-06-2010 , 12:56 PM

#56

Gunth0807

Wears Hoodies in Pizza Joints

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 9,249

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arouet

I am not supporting the action. As a Christian you are supposed to be sympathetic to the feelings of others. It's just i am not supporting your argument against what he is doing here because i don't feel like it is a good argument.

The two situations can be considered similar, do you want to explain why not?

07-06-2010 , 01:02 PM

#57

Arouet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,433

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunth0807

It's already been explained:

Quote:

Originally Posted by edgewise

07-06-2010 , 01:06 PM

#58

Gunth0807

Wears Hoodies in Pizza Joints

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 9,249

And i already explained why it is not okay to pass judgment after hearing/knowing only one side of things. The judgment could be wrong. Like how the girl is wrong if she thinks the person actually likes her hair.

07-06-2010 , 01:14 PM

#59

Arouet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,433

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunth0807

You're missing the point completely: if it looks to everyone that he is gloryifing Manson, and there is no real way to determine anything different (you don't really expect people to engage him about his avatar while playing do you?) then for all intents and purposes he is gloryfying Manson. He knows that when he posts the avatar that people will take it as him gloryfying Manson. That's just the nature of avatars. If his intention was social criticism (which its not), he's picked a particularly poor way of doing it.

The way you present yourself in society for the most part will be taken at face value.

07-06-2010 , 01:18 PM

#60

Gunth0807

Wears Hoodies in Pizza Joints

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 9,249

Actually a big part of the nature of avatars is to confuse your opponent. Online poker players know this. So for anyone to pass judgment on a picture at the tables is wrong.

Even in live, part of the game is to trick your opponent into making a wrong read. Regardless if the opponent thinks he/she made the right read, they are wrong, they are wrong.

If i saw someone sporting a picture of Manson at the tables, i would not automatically assume that the person is glorifying Manson. If anything i might assume he is using it for a different reason.

07-06-2010 , 03:03 PM

#61

EvilSteve

Midlife Crisis

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 13,195

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunth0807

If i saw someone sporting a picture of Manson at the tables, i would not automatically assume that the person is glorifying Manson. If anything i might assume he is using it for a different reason.

I would think the person with the Manson avatar was trying to send the message "hey man, I'm crazy!", and probably not being particularly serious about it. Just someone with a twisted sense of humor, either being playful or trying to offend people or some combination of the two.

"Charles Manson is a great man. I honor and revere him, and will strive to live my life according to his philosophy as much as possible." That wouldn't be my default assumption as to the meaning of the avatar. Probably not even on my top 10 list of most likely reasons someone would have a Manson avatar. Anyone who would assume that is dumb.

07-06-2010 , 03:25 PM

#62

Arouet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,433

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilSteve

Glorifying may be the wrong word (I felt it was the wrong word, but was too lazy to think of a better one). What is shows is that the image you want to project is of one of relating to manson in some way. Ok,I'm a crazy kind of guy! Whoopee! Or crazy in the pscychotic killer way, doesn't really matter. The messaeg is an approving one of Manson -whatever the specifics.

I'm am just surprised that someone like Gunth would think its ok to associate one's image with an evil monster like Manson, as long as its for manipulating people in poker. What do you think Jesus would think about that?

07-06-2010 , 03:30 PM

#63

Gunth0807

Wears Hoodies in Pizza Joints

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 9,249

Quote:

I'm am just surprised that someone like Gunth would think its ok to associate one's image with an evil monster like Manson, as long as its for manipulating people in poker. What do you think Jesus would think about that?

No, like i said in an earlier post:

"I am not supporting the action. As a Christian you are supposed to be sympathetic to the feelings of others. It's just i am not supporting your argument against what he is doing here because i don't feel like it is a good argument."

I feel this is the argument that shows he shouldn't use the picture of Manson.

I feel the argument that he shouldn't use it because he is glorifying Manson to be bunk.

07-06-2010 , 03:41 PM

#64

Arouet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,433

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunth0807

Let me get this straight: you feel that the only reason not to associate yourself with Manson is because some people may be offended, but associating yourself with Manson is otherwsie ok?

Interesting...

I've modified my used of the word glorify in a subsequent post. But I assume you would approve of associating yourself with an evil monster as long as no one else is offended. Just a weird POV from a devout Christian.

07-06-2010 , 04:04 PM

#65

Gunth0807

Wears Hoodies in Pizza Joints

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 9,249

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arouet

I am not saying it is the only reason, but it is a valid reason.

I know there is a fine line to walk regarding this issue, but i have not completely figured it out yet. Even Christ associates with sinners, but there is a way of doing so.

07-06-2010 , 04:17 PM

#66

Arouet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,433

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunth0807

You're using a different meaning of the word "associate" there. Anyhow, I don't think I can explain it any better...

07-06-2010 , 04:49 PM

#67

Gunth0807

Wears Hoodies in Pizza Joints

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 9,249

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arouet

You're using a different meaning of the word "associate" there. Anyhow, I don't think I can explain it any better...

Exactly which is why i basically said that BigErf's way of associating is different then how Christ would.

07-06-2010 , 05:09 PM

#68

Arouet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,433

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunth0807

Exactly which is why i basically said that BigErf's way of associating is different then how Christ would.

Sigh. I meant its a different meaning entirely (though the same word!). I was talking about associating with an image. You were talking about physically associating with people, in person.

07-06-2010 , 05:25 PM

#69

Gunth0807

Wears Hoodies in Pizza Joints

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 9,249

So Christ associates with people physically these days?

07-06-2010 , 05:35 PM

#70

kurto

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 17,634

odd. I was just commenting to someone through IM that this forum has gone to crap lately. Then this thread appears.

Is there some mystical creature that guided BigErf's hands to post this message just as I was contemplating how horrible this forum has become? We have laughworthy OP with comments by Gunth and Splendour.

Is there a God who is saying, "yes, this forum is going down the trash quickly" who used this thread to show that this is the case?

07-06-2010 , 06:04 PM

#71

Arouet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,433

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunth0807

So Christ associates with people physically these days?

I thought you were talking about in the bible. If you're just saying that now christ associates with sinners in his immaterial way, I'm not sure how you relate that to our discussion. If you don't understand the argument I am making, I'm not sure I can make it any clearer.

07-06-2010 , 06:11 PM

#72

kurto

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 17,634

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arouet

I'm not sure I can make it any clearer.

I think use of this kind of imagery might help

07-06-2010 , 06:12 PM

#73

Gunth0807

Wears Hoodies in Pizza Joints

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 9,249

I agree with your 2nd argument. The way he is associating with Manson is not something Christ would do. Your first attempt using glorify i don't agree with because he is not using it to glorify Manson.

But like i said, because it offends others is not the only reason i would not use a pic of Manson as my avatar, i just feel like it is a big enough and clear enough reason not to so why would there been need for any other reasons.

Kurto, you are slipping.

07-06-2010 , 07:12 PM

#74

BigErf

veteran

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,322

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilSteve

So did pokerstars grant the image change, or have you changed it too many times already?

Quote:

Hello XXXXXXX,

Thank you for contacting PokerStars.

We have updated your account privileges so you may change your image.

To change it, start the PokerStars software, and from the Lobby screen, select:

'Account' -> 'Select/Change Image'

Please let us know if we can assist you further, and thank you for playing
at PokerStars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilSteve

I'm curious about this comment from your OP. Are you saying looking at the image affects you psychologically, but there's nothing supernatural going on? Or that Charles Manson's spirit or whatever is somehow channeled through the image, and he (Charles Manson himself, not just the image) is messing with your mind telepathically?

I'll respond to this and some others later.