I miss him.  He was very good at explaining things in lay terms.

hmmm. Well, I'm not sure where you're seeing the difference to be honest Dave.  I've stayed away from posting in those threads for exactly the reasons you mentioned - to give others some elbow room -  but in the "Does Prayer make a difference" thread for instance, it seems pretty much business as usual. Atheists say "poppycock", people of faith say "of course"

 

It did get brett (he of the pornographic avatar) posting again I guess, but i'm not sure that's very "welcoming" to a newcomer

I agree Dave H.

I'm not even a newcomer, but it gives a welcome relief to the threads that go on and on forever.

(P.S. I think they copied Crazyhearts style, which served the same purpose.)

I wonder who  iWonder is?

 

In his/her profile, s/he's under 18, and Canadian. That's all.

 

iWonder, who are you? You can't hide behind anonymity. Answer for yourself! Stay with your threads, as every responsible poster does here on the Café.

I miss iwonder too

 

And I have been waiting for the opportunity to say "You are looking very dapper, Dave Henderson" I love your profile picture.

As for I Wonder - I am still assessing it. We will see. But if it is just milk toast with everyone agreeing, there is no growth in that, imo.

I like it, but I'd like to see the questions spaced out a bit.  I don't want to have to think too much at one time.  

 In my view, the whole iWonder thing started out sounding stale and tired. The questions don't have a bite, because they've been asked before. In fact, they sound a lot like the questions asked in promotion for the Alpha Program.

I agree with Steven.  They're just contrived questions that differ little from other questions recently asked, except others have asked them in more thought-provoking ways.

Hi DaveHenderson,

 

 

I think it might be too early to tell at this point.

 

So far I don't think that any of the iWonder@Cafe threads are asking unique questions.

 

So far I haven't noticed that newcomers or lurkers are out front and centre beyond the established more visible members.

 

One benefit would be that the threads, being started by someone on the Admin team, have a sanction to ask a question that has been kicked around several times without some wag suggesting folk try the search engine.

 

It might be that the church universal should be asking the questions more often if only to seriously have the chance to refine the answers.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

 

 

You realize I could spend the rest of my life quoting you out of context with that!

I have to admit my reaction was to feel a little put out on behalf of the posters here who do such an incredible job of starting interesting and engaging topics. (  I have always appreciated the people who do start threads, because I can never think of anything myself!  )   As well, the questions don't interest me, as they have been discussed thoroughly here over time.  So I was inclined to wonder why the Wondercafe team felt that this was a needed addition to the site.  However, I do see that it reaches further than this site, and is in part intended to engage people in churches in these questions face to face, which I think is valuable.

 

You would have competition around here.

 There is a God. There is definitely a God. There is no doubt that God exists. The evidence points conclusively to the existence of God.

 

Even chansen said, "I agree with Steven."

 

No good.  You're still not being as obtuse as some others here.  You have a lot to learn.

 chansen, it's Friday night and you and I are exchanging barbs on Wonder Cafe. Undeniably witty ones to be sure, but still - it's Friday night. Are our lives missing something?

Rev. Steve - is there something that separates Friday night from all the other nights of the week?  Or some commandment that states "on the eve of the Friday thou shalt go out and imbibe of intoxicating liquids and engage in all manner of inanities before bringing forth thy insides unto the floor below thee"? Yes, I would say that to retain a certain part of our humanity it may be important to meet face to face (which happens also to be one of the many reasons for worship), but does the timing really matter?

 

  In my student days, there was a great deal of pressure to observe Friday night in the bars, but having a chronic bowel disease, that would not have been a wise course of action to follow. So are there not other ways to interact with each other? Even if that might mean posting to WC on a Friday eve? Now I realize you make your comment in mirth, but in today's society, how successfully we interact with each other has real import.  And some ways of searching for what is "missing" are more beneficial that others.  Could the assumed "normal" way of spending a Friday night simply be someone's way of making a profit from our search for meaning and social connection?

spiritbear, do you think you took my tongue in cheek post a bit too seriously?

 

As to your comment, my wife and I ended up spending a couple of hours together on a Friday night watching "Up In The Air." Surprisingly good, although a bit of a downer of an ending I thought. I guess Bell Satellite and The Movie Network made some money off us.

Hi Folks

 

I need to set the record straight on what may be a case of mistaken identity.

 

I am NOT the same person as iWonder@cafe.   If you compare our profiles you will see a big difference - I am 60+ (actually 72) male and she/he is in the under 18 group.

 

A couple of years ago I used to post on WonderCafe.  I have a strong science background and used to enjoy some of the discussions about science and the scientific method.

 

I also participated in several discussions about Progressive Christianity and co-moderated (with paradox3) a discussion of Gretta Vosper's book, "With or Without God".

 

I haven't posted anything on WonderCafe for a couple of years now.  I used to enjoy the discussions, but got tired of all the name calling and the interminable circular discussions about Evolution, Creationism and various scientific and theological subjects where the fundamentalist and liberal views clashed.  After participating keenly in many of those discussions I got frustrated with covering the same ground over and over again.

 

There are those who have the fortitude to tackle these endless topics, and I admire your tenacity.  However I am now on the Board of the Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity and direct much of my spare energy in that direction.

 

I miss many of you folks, but I do drop in to monitor the discussions from time to time, so I extend my greetings to all.  Keep up the good work.

Good to see you iwonder. The "Time" thread in religion might peak your interest.

Rev. Steve - I did acknowledge that I realized your comment was tongue-in-cheek. However, good humour always contains a kernel of a more serious truth, and that is what I chose to riff on here.  Certain times of the week are sacred to many - bingo night, pub night, movie night, etc. and there are those who wouldn't dream of missing them. Yet curiously Sunday morning in church would be regarded by these as optional, and easily skipped (and perhaps avoided at all costs). A sign of worship in need of renewal or individuals having a different set of priorities, or both?

 

Fair enough, and no argument with what you're saying.

I used to wonder, now I just wander (well, my mind does, anyway.)

Hi iwonder:

 

Great to hear from you. Welcome back!

 

But you are not the iWonder of iWonder@cafe. I wonder when s/he'll speak up?

I suspect iWonder@cafe is largely a literary device used by whomever (apparently the folks at Admin) to spark threads and discussion.  I don't think it is aperson who will engage in the discussion

 

Then why does iWonder have a personality profile on which she identifies him/herself as Canadian under 18? 

 

If it's the Admin of Wonder Cafe, then Wonder Cafe is Canadian and under 18!

Or it is a 60 year old woman who is posting as a voice of under 18 year olds.

 Did anyone note the WonderCafe iWonder ad in this month's Observer. :)

 

Christ's peace - r

 

Hi Richard,

 

Not me, because... aw, forget it.

 

Peace in Christ.

 *LOL* Thanks, jae! *grin*

 

Christ's peace - r

My response to the iwonder questions was very similar to Diana's reaction. Ha, what a surprise - I'm so often agreeing with your perspective on so many things Diana.

 

Because what? Don't leave a brother hangin' Jae. the suspense is killing me.

 

Since it will be at least a week before our Observer arrives I'd have to say no

 

And JAe, you can easily get an Observer.  GO to a local United Church and ask if they have a group plan subscription they can add you to.  It is $20 for 11 issues.

I had noticed the board getting a little stale lately and I think that is the reason for our new friend iwonder. Will this pick up the board? I dunno. Time will tell. I get the feeling admin thinks we are a little boring as well.

 

Yes, you're right! Why didn't I think of that?

Sorry?  Pornographic avatar?  For my current one I'm told that's a church logo from the '70s or so.  Are you talking about some older avatar of mine?  I've posted models I've shot as avatars, but never nudes (or at least, the crops I used as avatars didn't show nudity).

 

Seriously? If such is the case, I shall retract my comment with apologies brett. Frankly, to me it looks provocative. I confess, however, that I tend to be hypersensitive in this area. I'll leave it at that in an open forum.

 

As I say, if I've misinterpreted, my apologies.

And welcome back btw. We don't agree on much, but it's always fun to spar with you.

DAvid

Yep, that's a genuine logo from some Catholic group, iirc.  I forget which one, but it has regrettable connotations, that's fer sure.

Oh dear.  And ROTFL.  Yeah, both!  At least I see your point now.  But I was serious about my "For my current one I'm told that's a church logo from the '70s or so."  Maybe it was *their* little inside joke, though I don't recall when this crap was made public and I'm not positive about the "70s" (as opposed to say, the 60s or something).  Anyway, too funny.

 

Should I post nudes as avatars instead, to give your comment more weight?  (Nah; in retrospect it has more weight this way...)

I'll accept your statement that the inference wasn't intentional brett.

You'll have to forgive me if I fail to see anything the least amusing in it, intentional or not.

 

Have a good night.

David

Well, I could cry that time and time again you people see some imagined negative thing about atheists and I could whine constantly about it... but every now and then for sake of my sanity, I just laugh it off as what appears to be the usual religious person's attitude towards the irreligious. At least you're not asserting that we're "counter-productive to the human race", that we all lack morals or some similarly insulting twaddle.

 

But there is indeed something funny about a group of people who get it wrong again and again.  And again.  I thank you for your apology, but honestly based on my time here, I fully expect that you won't learn a thing from the mistake and a similar one will crop up in the not-too-distant future *sigh*. 

My apology was to your intent brett - you say that you did not recognize the implications of the image. So be it.

 

As to the image itself, I still find the possible interpretation, which hansen also noted and you have acknowledged, offensive.

 

But honestly, based on my previous discussions with you, I don't expect you to learn a thing from our exchange either.

David

Very original ;-)... as you often are, huh?  *Double-sigh*  But what is/are the item(s) that you seem to imply I missed (or will miss) in the way of learning that were not already aluded to above, please? (I can only think of one possibility that I didn't address, since I'm not really concerned about it).

oh goodness brett, I wouldn't pretend to try to say anything meaningful to you. You're waaaaaay too smart for me.

 

If, as you say, you honestly did not see the overtones in your avatar, fair enough. If, having had them noted to you, you continue to think it appropriate to mock those who have suffered, that, I suppose, is your choice.

I wouldn't have presumed to suggest such a thing, but seeing your sad, unthinking, one-sided reply, perhaps you've nailed it.
 

It's sad - but as I said in the inner box, fully expected - that I can be so right so quickly, but here you are suggesting the negative of "mocking" when not only have I had little time finish investigating the situation that I find myself in and possibly even contemplate another avatar, but you also don't see the possible positive of me supporting those who've suffered by assuring that this disgraceful church period is never forgotten.  Or do you want it forgotten even against the victims' wishes (anything to sweep it under the rug, perhaps... to hide this ugly period of Church abuse)?

 

As stated, you religious people always see the negative to anything the irreligious do.  You especially, "Golden (lol) Rule".  Is it just pure hate, GR?  If so, why?  What did atheists ever do to you that you so consistently jump to the negative, Goldie?

lol - so now you're a champion of the abused? Good for you brett. Next, perhaps you could use a picture of Stalin for an avatar and claim that you want to ensure this disgraceful Soviet non-church period is never forgotten 

[/quote]

What a childish attempt to make this about me. 

 

It's pretty simple brett.

1) I commented that your avatar raised an unfortunate and objectionable  association to my eye - admittedly I did it sarcastically.

2) hansen noted that the avatar was a legitimate Catholic symbol, but also acknowledged the image that I'd mentioned

3) You claimed to not have recognized the implications, and said it was "amusing."

4) I apologized for assuming untoward intentions on your part

5) you spit on my apology

6) I suggested that you could have taken the high road once the association was pointed out to you

7) you decided you needed to up the ante on your personal attack on me, as I suspected you would do.

 

Why are you unable or unwilling to simply say something like "oh crap, hadn't seen it that way, how about a nice picture of Dawkins instead?"

 

What did the religious ever do to you (I won't generalize the way you did, trying to characterize all "religious" people the same way) that you so consistently find it impossible to acknowledge anything positive that they may say?

 

To DaveH - my apologies Dave.  I hadn't intended to so thoroughly derail your thread. Particularly on such a difficult subject. As I noted in my earlier reply, this is an area to which I'm a bit hyper-sensitive. Apparently, I read intent on brett's part where none existed. Although I still find it a troubling image, that is for me to resolve.

David

As I noted, it wasn't meant that way, but indeed after investigating (still ongoing), victims ceratinly do indicate that they want it remembered so I may well keep it.  But why the "lol", GR?  What is funny about championing the abused?  Or is this still more negative connotations (surprise, surprise)? 

That bit is indeed about you - why are you so quick to want it to disappear when the victims want it remembered?  Nice dodge, though.

I thanked you for your apology and you then went lock-step as I'd predicted in "seeing" the non-existent negative yet again... amazingly only some 13 hours later when most of that was night-time.  Please don't suggest that I'm attacking you when I'm merely pointing out your own consistent negativity that you apparently can't even see yourself.

As in my "Oh dear." as opposed to your "Oh crap"?  You're just completely full of it when you nit-pick between those two.  And as in my "At least I see your point now." as opposed to your: "hadn't seen it that way."  You're just getting worse and worse; less and less meaningful, more and more nasty...  my actual words and your hypothetical words are effectively synonymous.

 

Do you really think readers - as least fair readers - will differentiate between:

 

"Oh dear. ... At least I see your point now." and

"Oh crap, hadn't seen it that way"?

 

Please give me a break - give us a break!  I'm simply astounded that even you could claim to see a difference worth note!  You are becoming simply ridiculous.

 

And I said I was investigating and I certainly wasn't prepared to change the avatar within minutes.  I'm glad I did, since the avatar is making more and more sense given the wishes that this travesty never be forgotten.

I've actually pointed to your constant negativity and I did not characterise all "religious people" the same way.  I very specifically pointed to those that "see some imagined negative thing about atheists" and said "what appears to be the usual religious person's attitude towards the irreligious" - indeed this is my experience on WonderCafe and I've documented items before.  So, kindly show me anything positive that they have said here about atheists, GR.

 

Edit:  And I see that I did indeed generalize after being more specific as noted above.  So I will indeed apologise for my "you religious people always see the negative to anything the irreligious do", which was really meant to emphasize *you*, Goldie.  I do realise that not all religious people are like you.

I think the 'robot questions' as I call them from this iwonder thing are kind of vapid.  Or at least, as others have mentioned, are covering old ground from a less inspired perspective.   I like the 'cut and thrust' of wonder cafe; it isn't always inspiring and sometimes its frustrating/crazy making but then I guess that's humanity for you. What can you expect from an online forum of strangers, allowed to post anonymously?  Frankly, I think wonder cafe works quite well for all that.

As a newbie, I don't feel intimidated.  I take responsibility for throwing myself into the forum, asking questions or trying to respond to others.  Sometimes I get slapped down, sometimes I get positive results, mostly there is just empty air.  I still like it though

Brett, it's pretty simple

 Your avatar, to me, is representative of a particualrly odious bit of kiddie porn. You say you were unaware of its connotations.

When you were made aware you could have

A) changed the picture

B) Engaged in a long winded and ham-handed attempt to justify continuing to display the image.

 

You chose B.

 

Your laughable efforts to make this about me aside, there's really nothing more to say.

Have a good night.

DAvid

You've been shown to be wrong, GR, so rather than admit it, you ignore that go into attack mode yet again - predictably.

 

I only tried to make a tiny bit about you (and stated that)... much was about using a valid church graphic and the abuse of chirldren under church care.  But now after pointing out that victims do not want this travesty swept under the rug like you apparently do (I personally find your attempts reprehensible in that context), here's the first copy/paste data that I found.  I'm providing it for you in the hope that you won't continue trying to sweep this disgusting and lengthy episode under the rug and that you'll choose to help instead of hide:

 

Never forget the suffering little children; CHURCH ABUSE SURVIVORS CALL FOR MUSEUM.

ABUSE survivors yesterday demanded the Government set up a museum to remember victims - claiming a plaque or memorial is not enough.

 

 

And here's one that appears to me in the same vain as your attempts to hide it, but is of course much worse: a suggestion that the "claims of sexual abuse in the Catholic church are a Jewish conspiracy".  Yet another attempt to sweep this well-documented issue under a rug... how sad.