Tuesday, October 25, 2011

The sins of religion? Or the sins of a few? (by two anons)

Two posts...

Ignorance really grinds my gears.  Xenophobic people do, too.  I'm tired of being told that I will burn in hell because I don't believe in god and subject myself to him.  The fear some religions invoke in their patrons is abhorrent... they live in terror of an eternal misery because they choose not to follow a god who punishes those who disobey.  If this is truly how you wish your leader to act, requiring you to get on your knees to approach him, and punishing you for following what you believe, then I wish you the best of luck with that.  We each have the ability to make our own decisons... and hopefully we can make decisions that benefit the world, instead of destroying it.

I'm not saying, however, that religion is wrong; I only say that a religious person who is unwilling to respect and accept another for his/her beliefs is wrong.  Literally hundreds of years of wars have been fought over this subject, and those wars have led to unnecessary bloodshed. 

People should be accepted for who they are... no matter their beliefs, sexual orientation, the color of their skin, or whether or not they are male or female.  To address the extremists out there who see the last statement and assume when I mean accept "everybody" I mean tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, and Hussein, I want to let you know that people like those are the epitome of the opposite of a person that accepts people as they are.  When I say accept people I don't mean the ones commiting the most heinous crimes imaginable, because these crimes are commited on the basis of ignornace, prejudice and xenophobias in the first place.

Like Buddha says, a person should learn about the world around them, then make the most profound effort to help those in the world that need it.

The man who claimed that the world was ending on May 21st has revised the new "end of the world" to October 21st. We're still here, what a surprise!? I understand that we have to allow these idiots to preach bullshit due to freedom of religion, but why have they not been arrested for fraud? They are accepting massive amounts of money and donations, when we all know this man's predictions are BASELESS. I know that we need to uphold freedom of religion, but where do we draw the line? Could this be considered criminal fraud? He is committing a classic case of FRAUD. He has brainwashed and convinced people into believing falsities for monetary gain. Let's lock em up.


  1. didnt really like your blog, but i totally agree that the rapture guy should be aressted for fraud.

  2. I don't know 12:10 - I think it depends on what the money is for...Is it like, money that goes to a campaign to "spread the word" or something?? If so, I'm pretty sure these people aren't expecting a big pay out then based on what they've been "sold". Like, maybe if this guy was selling some kind of insurance to somehow protect those who don't repent enough or something, then yeah that's like fraud. But what he's doing now I don't think I'd classify as such. If people just want to donate blindly to this guy's "cause" or whatever, so be it. It's not that guy's fault that they're just idiots anyway.

  3. The rapture guy is entitled to his beliefs just like you so shut up or you will burn?

  4. I cannot accept you for who you are. You must Christ or you are lost period and you will bunt.

  5. Ok, people might want to start proofing their comments because the above comments (except 12:38) are verging on the embarrassing. Just saying.

  6. 5:37, you need to retake English comp if you actually believe that the comment (12:38) is an example of good grammar. This comment is just as bad as the rest of the comments, including yours.

    For example, what kind of phrase is "...the verging on the embarrassing, Just saying." Terrible, but this is Whitewater, a B school, not the fictitious city Garrison Keller talk about on his Prairie Home Companion radio show where all the men are handsome, the men are good looking and the children are above average.

  7. 6:45, you are a nutjob. If you are going to criticize my writing, your writing better be pristine. For example, (1) you quote me wrong in two places. You could have easily copied and pasted this, "are verging on the embarrassing. Just saying." Whew, that was hard to make that copy and paste. But, no, you botched that up. (2) There is nothing wrong with the actual bit you were trying to quote. (3) I did not say that 12:38 is an example of good grammar. I only said that it wasn't embarrassing. And it is not an embarrassing comment structurally-speaking.

    Seriously, if anything is making UWW a B school, it is nutjobs like you criticizing things where there is no criticism like yours to make.

  8. 7:15, Oh I did not misquote you.

    Look closely and you will see three dots, but you probably do not know what they mean.

    Here is the definition.

    "The omission of a word or phrase necessary for a complete syntactical construction but not necessary for understanding."

    Lets rewrite your comment:

    People should start proof reading their comments before posting them because some of the earlier ones are downright embarrassing.

    Ditch "Just saying". Not needed!

    Regarding your comment to my comment (7:15)

    Better be? Use "should be" instead.

    "your writing should be pristine."

    "you quote me incorrectly"

    "again, ditch just saying"

    "ditch whew and that" This would work better. Was it really that hard for you to copy and post my comment?

    "Ditch actual bit" Instead use statement. There is nothing wrong with the statement that you quoted.

    Your last sentence should be revised to read:

    "If anyone makes UWW into a B school, it is nut jobs like you with their inappropriate criticisms. "

    Ditch structurally speaking. Structures do not speak.

    Mr. Nutjob

  9. My god, you know there's a problem in communication when the problem with your quoting was never about the three dots...

  10. 7:03 - Your quoting should be your quote and the action is over not continuing and was never implies infinity, and it was a limited action. When implies time sequence.

    Thus your statement should read:

    You know that there is a communication problem because the issue with your quotes is not about the three dots.

    Now isn't this better?

    Mr. Nutjob

  11. 224: What does this mean:

    "You must Christ or you are lost period and you will bunt."

    We are not playing baseball.

  12. 1210, What do you mean by:

    "didn't really like your blog, but i totally agree that the rapture guy should be aressted for fraud"

    What happened to the I ?

    Drop totally - redundant. Add with you.

    I agree with you that the rapture guy should be arrested for fraud.

  13. Micah B - the University B guy has turned into Mrs. Grammar so lets watch our grammar. Besides, God respects good grammar. The prophets did not make a single grammatical error in the Bible. The penmanship used in the Bible was divinely inspired.

  14. Whoa people!
    You English buffs, professors, and psychopaths need to stop bothering with the petty writing mistakes you've clawed and scratched out of EVERY fucking line of script!! Holy crap!! How annoying is that?!??!
    When I write on this blog, I write like I would speak (generally), therefore, of course there are going to be "errors" because
    a) I'm not writing a goddamn paper, e-mail, etc..
    b) I'm not getting "graded" or something
    c) Everyone should be able to understand what I write as long as I don't have any extreme spelling/grammatical errors that could literally leave others without a clue to determine what I'm trying to say. It's called using your brain and making simple inferences! In other words, it's usually pretty easy to logically deduce what people are trying to say, even if their writing is similar to that of a fourth grader.

    You, Mr. Nutjob, are insane! For one, you DEFINITELY misquoted the other person in the first place, and then went on this big tangent listing every little part of that person's statement that could have been written "better". You are like a nagging child just trying to look smart by making useless jabs at people for their "mistakes" in writing, just to get attention or something. I'm so sorry you have nothing better to do than show off your obsession with perfecting language use on this blog (which doesn't really need perfecting in the first place because this is a BLOG, and if we really don't understand someone, we can always ask questions). So stop uselessly scrutinizing everyone's writing and stick to the point of this blog for fuck's sake.

    With that said - religion itself is phasing out. People are slowly figuring out that there is no God, morals are made up, and there is no heaven. Why? Because there's absolutely no reason (nor advantage) in believing there is. You wanna go to heaven? Start making it here on Earth, while you're still alive people, and stop walking around all doped up by your fantasies of the after-life.

  15. Micah B
    You go on to whack Mr. Nut Job then you go on to kick us. We believe in God, in morals, and in the heavenly father. People like you are going to burn. Lets write better and put a stop to Mr. Nut Job. By the way, if morals are made up, then normal and abnormal are made up too. Thus, Mr. Nutjob may be sane. Know what I mean? Jelly bean.

    "With that said should be Having said that"

  16. 858, So his predictions are baseless. Where is your evidence? That it did not happen when he said it would. Not enough! So what else do you have except foul words.

  17. 6:06, I can't help but respond. One may not be able to show that his predictions are technically "baseless" since any shitty reason would count as some kind of basis. Yet that the predictions did not happen IS evidence that they were *wrong* predictions, and if we do deem that the reasons by which he based his predictions were shitty, then we could certainly say that he made *bad* predictions. Some predictions are good and right. Some are good and wrong. Some are bad and right. And some are bad and wrong. The dude is most likely in the latter category as are most of the crackpots who try to predict endtimes.

  18. Micah B -
    you say: "if morals are made up, then normal and abnormal are made up too".
    Yeah, and...?? The concepts of "normal" and "abnormal" ARE made up.
    And about Mr. Nutjob being sane - well, I would say that it is perfectly normal for there to exist a Mr. Nutjob who is insane. It is also perfectly normal for others to say Mr. Nutjob is insane, or is actually sane. Either way, you make no argument about "normal" vs "abnormal" being "sane" vs "insane". Both "sane" and "insane" are "normal" in my book.
    And you misused the quotes in your last line. Also, what's wrong with saying, "With that said" in place of "Having said that" ?
    Man... you people are like vultures.

  19. 6:19

    That the predictions did not happen is not a good reason for declaring him a crack pot. Scientists have been predicting a massive earthquake on the west coast for years, it has not happen yet. I assume you consider them as a bunch of crack pots too. You have already boxed yourself in by saying that one cannot show that his perdictions are technically baseless but that is where you have to confront this belief, on the theory behind the perdictions, not the fact that they never happened.

  20. Well Micah B, There is no need for me to respond to your post if everything is, as you say, made up. I will just answer your grammar question.

    From Mr. Clarity:

    "Let’s consider the phrase having said that. It is a conjunctive phrase that can replace another conjunctive phrase or a conjunction. Roughly speaking, the conjunctive phrases and conjunctions that it can replace fall into two groups. For simplicity, I’ll call them the and group and the but group.

    The and group includes: and, therefore, so, accordingly, moreover, furthermore, in addition and for example. They introduce phrases or clauses or that add to or extend the statement that came before having said that.

    The but group includes: but, however, on the other hand, nevertheless, in spite of that, and although. They introduce phrases or clauses that take away from, limit, soften or otherwise qualify the statement that came before having said that.

    It’s OK to use having said that when the reader will immediately grasp your meaning. For example, “I respect and admire Phil as an engineer; having said that, I don’t really like him as a person.” But often, the reader will not immediately grasp your meaning."

    Now do you get it? "With that said" is just plain bad grammar.

    Mr. Nutjob

  21. Ralph:

    Me failing English, thats' unpossible!

  22. This is an informal blog with informal writing.
    Get over it.
    We don't post on here because we think we're English whizzes or something.
    Most of what we say is easily understood, regardless of bad grammar and whatnot.
    Why doesn't anyone even care to address the original issue that was posted about?