Fly American Airlines and get a free religious conversion!

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: nan0bug


I don't think AA would be in a world of hurt. This is sort of like the shouting fire in a theatre clause. Your freedom of speech is fine as long as it doesn't endanger or harass others. In this case, he could have potentially caused a panic. He didn't, but that was luck. Inquiring people about their religion and making them feel compelled to talk about it isnt polite conversation, just like politics, or asking someone what they weigh, how much money they make, etc. It has a tendancy to offend people, and its not uncommon for people to get in heated arguments (as evidenced here). Heated arguments can turn ugly. An ugly heated argument can cause people who are already nervous about flying to panic. It could cause a nervous passenger with a heart condition to keel over dead, in which case the pilot would be liable for his actions.

We keep getting back to the whole coulda, woulda, shoulda thing.... Can we please avoid these hypothetical scenarios and stick to what *actually occurred*? No one can *make* you do anything. This argument is simply not valid. You always have a choice, even if that choice is death.
No one forced those passengers to be there, and absolutely nothing occurred as a result of the pilot's actions other than a few people claim to have been insulted and upset. I'm sorry, I just don't see what the big fuss is here. Nothing *bad* came about as a result of the pilot's actions so why is everyone getting so pissy?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: DougK62
About that "captive audience" issue. How are they NOT a captive audience? Sure, they chose to buy the ticket and go on the plane, but once that plane takes off you're stuck. You are at the whim of whatever the pilot and staff wants to do. That's the whole reason that planes were hijacked and rammed into buildings...

ROFLES!!! If you choose to be somewhere you are, by the very definition of captive audience, *not* a member of a captive audience Sorry, no matter what you want to say on this issue the fact of the matter is I'm right.

Ok, flyermax, next time you're on a flight that's taxiing to the runway, go ahead and stand up and open the door and exit the plane. Obviously, you chose to be on the flight. You can just easily choose to exit, right?

What a fvcking moron!!

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: ergeorge

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
It's so incredibly sad that a man can't discuss his religious beliefs with others nowadays or even MAKE A SUGGESTION that others do so.
Oh, and for anyone who wants to bring up the whole "captive audience argument" don't bother. Every single person chose to be on that flight and, last time I checked this was still the U.S. of A. and we still have a First Amendment which guarantees the right to free speech and religion.
As far as the "appropriateness" of his comments (i.e. timing or wording) I'm not aware of any law which prohibits doing such a thing on an airplane, and even if there was it would be unconstitutional anyway.

No, it's not illegal or unconstitutional, or anything like that. It's just inappropriate and in very poor taste, and likely against some policy of American Airlines. He's there to fly the plane, not make ethical judgements regarding his passengers.

You know, I don't have any problem with people believing what they want, but it drives me nuts that one of the things that they believe is that I have to believe, and if I don't that it's their duty to make me believe.

The "problem" with your statement is that the Bible instructs Christians to go out into the world and let all know about him. Now, this does not mean force your religion upon someone (or make them believe it) and as a Christian myself, I am upset that the pilot would encourage this. Last time I checked the worst way to introduce someone to what you believe is to try and force them to hear it. Engageing someone in intelligent conversation next to you about evolution, religion, etc... is not a crime, though it should be done with the consent of the person you are talking to. This eliminates that oh so fun talking "at" someone.

-spike

Who knows what was running through the pilot's mind and why he chose to proceed in the manner he did? I certainly don't, nor does anyone else here. I think your definition of "forcing your religion on someone" and mine differ just a bit. I simply don't beleive this man forced anything upon anyone. Everyone on that plane *chose* to be there. He didn't hold anyone up at gunpoint and make them listen to a sermon, he simply suggested Christian passengers spread the word to non-Christian passengers. I see nothing wrong with that.

Everyone on that plane chose to be there to take a trip to their destination. They did not choose to go to a religious retreat. This is just like the Janet boob thing. Everyone chose to watch a half-time show, not a burlesque show. When I get on a plane, I am paying to go from point A to point B, not to be indoctrinated with beliefs.

Also, closing the door, taking off, and then trying to incite a religious indoctination (even if hes not the one doing it, hes suggesting others do) IS equivalent to holding them up at gunpoint. What are they going to do? Jump out of the plane? They're in a position where they have to deal with the indoctrination, or jump out of the plane and die. Same difference.

 

[Tom]

"No one forced those passengers to be there"

that is completely irrelevent to them being a captive audience. Could they leave ?

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Oh but that's where you're wrong! If you truly believe in the word of G-d you know that it is *not* open to interpretation (with the exception of prophecy, which describes future events and can't help but be open to interpretation since no man knows what the future holds).
Once again, I don't think I'm better than anyone. I just think my beliefs are right and yours are wrong, that's all Nothing wrong with that. I guarantee you every last person that has responded to this thread thinks the same thing in regards to *some* issue, whether it be politics, religion, morality, science, philosophy, sports, pop culture, or anything else. It's simply human nature to think one's self right and others wrong. It just so happens that I base my beliefs entirely on the word of G-d, while the vast majority of people in this thread don't.

That's just it. Sane and rational people understand the Bible (esp. the Old Testament) is a compendium of stories and allegories intermixed with historical fact. It was never intended to be taken 100% at face-value. Only those ultra-fundamentalists would think that and you, obviously, are one of the ones suckered into that.

Yes, the Bible is stories and allegoires, though they are based in fact. Yes, there is some interpretation to be made, though the belief in God and his sending his son is not in dispute, that is clearly state no matter how skeptical you are. I am not agreeing with the actions of the pilot, but be careful about insulting the Bible. It may be written by man (and therefore subject to interpretation) it was still guided by God and was written the way it was for a reason.

-spike

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Everyone on that plane *chose* to be there."

If you don't understand that people on an airplane up in the air is a captive audience, it's hard to believe. A captive audience is an audience that cannot leave, it doesn't matter how they got there.

People in a theater also chose to be there..

Here is how I see it, I'm on an airplane and the person I've entrusted my life to comes out and says who here is a true believer ? I would be scared sh\tless.


What if he said "Which of you worship Satan ? and then encouraged the Satan worshippers to devour live rodents and chant ooga booga until the flight was over ? Would that be ok with you ?

Here's the problem with relating a simple suggestion that people discuss their beliefs with others to yelling "fire" in a theater. One is nothing more than a *suggestion* and the other is a terroristic threat with the intent to cause chaos/incite a riot. You simply can't compare the two, they're entirely different things.
Why can't you guys let go of the hypothetical scenarios? They didn't occur, so what's the point of bringing up every single possible event that *could have* occurred? Usually when someone says "what if" it means they have no argument upon which to stand and have to resort to making up scenarios that could have occurred to prove their point.
Re: the whole satan worship thing, I've already stated that *everyone* has the right to believe whatever they wish, and can even state said beliefs if they want to. Obviously I don't condone satan worship, but that doesn't mean people don't have the right to do it. Don't get the two things confused.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: ergeorge
LoL ... you're still banging that 1st amendment free speech thing???
The pilot is absolutely free to preach to his passengers ... the government won't prevent him unless it becomes some sort of safety hazard. That's what the first amendment is about.

But the first amendment does nothing to prevent AA from firing his ass for preaching as an official representaive of their company. That's what will get him in trouble. And the ACLU wouldn't take the case ... not because they are anti-christian, but becauser there is no case. AA would fire him for cause ... they probably already had guidelines about this sort of thing ... most companies do. I certainly can't make public statements on behalf of my company without PA's approval.

As for the boycott ... LoL ... I bet AA is willing to take that risk. Zealots who'd be willing to boycott over this issue are likely to be a very very small minority. While the number of people, including faithful christians, who would be embarrassed by this action, and would reconsider flying AA, all other things being equal, is enourmous.

Well, only time will tell eh? Your opinion is just as valid as mine, but it's still just your opinion
On the first amendment/free speech/freedom of religion issue: it's kind of central to this case, wouldn't you say? It would be a bit difficult to avoid discussing it, as it is the basis for his freedoms and he *wouldn't* have been able to do what he did without it so we can't exactly avoid discussing it.

No, it doesn't apply.

Amendments to the Constitution
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION (See Note 12)
Article [I.]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The government is not involved ... they are not acting to limit his speach in any way. AA might act to limit his speech, but that is not governed by the first amendment.

What is so difficult to understand here? AA likely has rules regarding who, among their employees, can say what on their behalf.

In fact, I suspect they even have rules that say he can't act in certain ways (like attending a political protest) when he can be readily identified as an AA employee (ie. wearing his uniform). Hell, even the government can do that, 1st amendment or not (military personnell can't attend protests in uniform). When he speaks to the passengers, he is acting as in an official capacity as a representative of the airline. I'm sure the rules limit what he can say there to certain requirements, and some courtesy. Prostelyzing doesn't fall into that catagory. He breaks the rules of his employment, his employee can act to censure him. As long as those rules are legal, the government doesn't care. And only the government is prohibited from restraining speech.

Now if the FAA came down and told him to STFU, in the abscence of any documented security risk posed by his preaching, then you'd have a point with your 1st amendment nonsense. But they didn't, so you don't.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: DougK62
About that "captive audience" issue. How are they NOT a captive audience? Sure, they chose to buy the ticket and go on the plane, but once that plane takes off you're stuck. You are at the whim of whatever the pilot and staff wants to do. That's the whole reason that planes were hijacked and rammed into buildings...

ROFLES!!! If you choose to be somewhere you are, by the very definition of captive audience, *not* a member of a captive audience Sorry, no matter what you want to say on this issue the fact of the matter is I'm right.

Ok, flyermax, next time you're on a flight that's taxiing to the runway, go ahead and stand up and open the door and exit the plane. Obviously, you chose to be on the flight. You can just easily choose to exit, right?

What a fvcking moron!!

Yet another brilliant insight from the mind of Conjur

Why do you hate me so much? I don't hate you... I realize no one can be liked by everyone but in what way have I wronged you to cause you to hate me with such ferocity?
Remember: G-d loves you and so do I, even if you hate me

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: DougK62
About that "captive audience" issue. How are they NOT a captive audience? Sure, they chose to buy the ticket and go on the plane, but once that plane takes off you're stuck. You are at the whim of whatever the pilot and staff wants to do. That's the whole reason that planes were hijacked and rammed into buildings...

ROFLES!!! If you choose to be somewhere you are, by the very definition of captive audience, *not* a member of a captive audience Sorry, no matter what you want to say on this issue the fact of the matter is I'm right.

No, you are absolutely wrong and have no idea what you are talking about. Review the definition of "captive" below. When you are thousands of feet in the air you are captive to the plane crew. This "if you choose to be there you aren't captive" argument is ridiculous and laughable. Little kids are lured by nasty people with candy and promises of fun and are locked up and abused in their basement. But they chose to go there initially so they must not be "captive"

cap·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kptv)
n.

1. One, such as a prisoner of war, who is forcibly confined, subjugated, or enslaved.
2. One held in the grip of a strong emotion or passion.


adj.

1. Taken and held prisoner, as in war.
2. Held in bondage; enslaved.
3. Kept under restraint or control; confined: captive birds.
4. Restrained by circumstances that prevent free choice: a captive audience; a captive market.
5. Enraptured, as by beauty; captivated.

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: nan0bug


I don't think AA would be in a world of hurt. This is sort of like the shouting fire in a theatre clause. Your freedom of speech is fine as long as it doesn't endanger or harass others. In this case, he could have potentially caused a panic. He didn't, but that was luck. Inquiring people about their religion and making them feel compelled to talk about it isnt polite conversation, just like politics, or asking someone what they weigh, how much money they make, etc. It has a tendancy to offend people, and its not uncommon for people to get in heated arguments (as evidenced here). Heated arguments can turn ugly. An ugly heated argument can cause people who are already nervous about flying to panic. It could cause a nervous passenger with a heart condition to keel over dead, in which case the pilot would be liable for his actions.

We keep getting back to the whole coulda, woulda, shoulda thing.... Can we please avoid these hypothetical scenarios and stick to what *actually occurred*? No one can *make* you do anything. This argument is simply not valid. You always have a choice, even if that choice is death.
No one forced those passengers to be there, and absolutely nothing occurred as a result of the pilot's actions other than a few people claim to have been insulted and upset. I'm sorry, I just don't see what the big fuss is here. Nothing *bad* came about as a result of the pilot's actions so why is everyone getting so pissy?

What actually occured was the pilot got lucky someone didn't panic and have a heart attack.

The passengers chose to board the plane for a flight, not a religious indoctrination. Their choice ended once they got on the plane, the doors were closed, and the plane took off. At that point they are captive to whatever happens on the plane.

The fact that nothing 'bad' came about was chance. It could have easily turned into a group of people having heated arguments at 30,000 feet, causing panic. It could have easily turned into a nervous passenger having a heart attack.

If 'nothing *bad* came about as a result' were a valid argument, then nobody would ever get speeding tickets, disorderly conduct fines, attempted murder convictions, attempted robbery, you get the picture? Intent is the key here. The pilot knew, or should have known, that his actions had the potential to incite panic amongst the passengers. He chose to go ahead and do what he did anyway. Just because he got lucky and nobody got hurt doesn't mean that he is any less responsible for his actions, or his intent.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Oh but that's where you're wrong! If you truly believe in the word of G-d you know that it is *not* open to interpretation (with the exception of prophecy, which describes future events and can't help but be open to interpretation since no man knows what the future holds).
Once again, I don't think I'm better than anyone. I just think my beliefs are right and yours are wrong, that's all Nothing wrong with that. I guarantee you every last person that has responded to this thread thinks the same thing in regards to *some* issue, whether it be politics, religion, morality, science, philosophy, sports, pop culture, or anything else. It's simply human nature to think one's self right and others wrong. It just so happens that I base my beliefs entirely on the word of G-d, while the vast majority of people in this thread don't.

That's just it. Sane and rational people understand the Bible (esp. the Old Testament) is a compendium of stories and allegories intermixed with historical fact. It was never intended to be taken 100% at face-value. Only those ultra-fundamentalists would think that and you, obviously, are one of the ones suckered into that.

Yes, the Bible is stories and allegoires, though they are based in fact. Yes, there is some interpretation to be made, though the belief in God and his sending his son is not in dispute, that is clearly state no matter how skeptical you are. I am not agreeing with the actions of the pilot, but be careful about insulting the Bible. It may be written by man (and therefore subject to interpretation) it was still guided by God and was written the way it was for a reason.

-spike

I'm not insulting the Bible. I'm...heh...insulting the people who believe it WORD-FOR-WORD. That it is absolutely impossible for anything in the Bible to be incorrect. These are the same people who think the earth is about 6,000 years old and that an ark really existed.

Someone else posted in another religion thread up here something that I found hit the nail on the head. The Bible is about the human condition and is there to offer hope to those who believe. It is not meant to be taken literally nor to offer a scientific reason for things.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

ROFLES!!! If you choose to be somewhere you are, by the very definition of captive audience, *not* a member of a captive audience Sorry, no matter what you want to say on this issue the fact of the matter is I'm right.

Ok, flyermax, next time you're on a flight that's taxiing to the runway, go ahead and stand up and open the door and exit the plane. Obviously, you chose to be on the flight. You can just easily choose to exit, right?

What a fvcking moron!!

Yet another brilliant insight from the mind of Conjur

Why do you hate me so much? I don't hate you... I realize no one can be liked by everyone but in what way have I wronged you to cause you to hate me with such ferocity?
Remember: G-d loves you and so do I, even if you hate me

I think you're a moron because you keep evading questions you know if you answer will be contradicting yourself.

So, again, flyermax, next time you're on a flight that's taxiing to the runway, go ahead and stand up and open the door and exit the plane. Obviously, you chose to be on the flight. You can just as easily choose to exit, right?

 

[LAUST]

Christian churches need to spend more time talking about how to spread their word. Christian pastors are a complete failure right now, they concentrate on debts that are paid and thats about it.

Only offer if asked please. I think SOME (I know some very good and humble Christians I respect) of them force it on others cause deep down they feel they themselves are wrong about something and don't want to make their mistake alone.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: nan0bug

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: ergeorge

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
It's so incredibly sad that a man can't discuss his religious beliefs with others nowadays or even MAKE A SUGGESTION that others do so.
Oh, and for anyone who wants to bring up the whole "captive audience argument" don't bother. Every single person chose to be on that flight and, last time I checked this was still the U.S. of A. and we still have a First Amendment which guarantees the right to free speech and religion.
As far as the "appropriateness" of his comments (i.e. timing or wording) I'm not aware of any law which prohibits doing such a thing on an airplane, and even if there was it would be unconstitutional anyway.

No, it's not illegal or unconstitutional, or anything like that. It's just inappropriate and in very poor taste, and likely against some policy of American Airlines. He's there to fly the plane, not make ethical judgements regarding his passengers.

You know, I don't have any problem with people believing what they want, but it drives me nuts that one of the things that they believe is that I have to believe, and if I don't that it's their duty to make me believe.

The "problem" with your statement is that the Bible instructs Christians to go out into the world and let all know about him. Now, this does not mean force your religion upon someone (or make them believe it) and as a Christian myself, I am upset that the pilot would encourage this. Last time I checked the worst way to introduce someone to what you believe is to try and force them to hear it. Engageing someone in intelligent conversation next to you about evolution, religion, etc... is not a crime, though it should be done with the consent of the person you are talking to. This eliminates that oh so fun talking "at" someone.

-spike

Who knows what was running through the pilot's mind and why he chose to proceed in the manner he did? I certainly don't, nor does anyone else here. I think your definition of "forcing your religion on someone" and mine differ just a bit. I simply don't beleive this man forced anything upon anyone. Everyone on that plane *chose* to be there. He didn't hold anyone up at gunpoint and make them listen to a sermon, he simply suggested Christian passengers spread the word to non-Christian passengers. I see nothing wrong with that.

Everyone on that plane chose to be there to take a trip to their destination. They did not choose to go to a religious retreat. This is just like the Janet boob thing. Everyone chose to watch a half-time show, not a burlesque show. When I get on a plane, I am paying to go from point A to point B, not to be indoctrinated with beliefs.

Also, closing the door, taking off, and then trying to incite a religious indoctination (even if hes not the one doing it, hes suggesting others do) IS equivalent to holding them up at gunpoint. What are they going to do? Jump out of the plane? They're in a position where they have to deal with the indoctrination, or jump out of the plane and die. Same difference.

I was hoping I wouldn't have to fill in all the blanks for you guys but I guess I'll have to:
If you choose to go somewhere in our society, given that everyone has the right to free speech and everything else guaranteed by the First Ammendment, you are subject to *any* scenario that may occur, solely due to your choice. The fact of the matter is if those people hadn't *chosen* to be on that plane they would never have been subjected to that pilot's statements. You simply can't argue against this, it's a fact.
Since you're all so fond of hypothetical scenarios, I'll throw out one of my own:
If I were to walk outside my front door right now and be killed by a meteorite, that would be my own fault because I *chose* to go outside, fully-well knowing that anything can happen as a result, and accepting those consequences.
You take a risk when you do *anything*. By posting my religious beliefs on teh intarweb I'm taking the chance that some pagan may attempt to kill me or cause me harm. I know that, and I accept it.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Oh but that's where you're wrong! If you truly believe in the word of G-d you know that it is *not* open to interpretation (with the exception of prophecy, which describes future events and can't help but be open to interpretation since no man knows what the future holds).
Once again, I don't think I'm better than anyone. I just think my beliefs are right and yours are wrong, that's all Nothing wrong with that. I guarantee you every last person that has responded to this thread thinks the same thing in regards to *some* issue, whether it be politics, religion, morality, science, philosophy, sports, pop culture, or anything else. It's simply human nature to think one's self right and others wrong. It just so happens that I base my beliefs entirely on the word of G-d, while the vast majority of people in this thread don't.

That's just it. Sane and rational people understand the Bible (esp. the Old Testament) is a compendium of stories and allegories intermixed with historical fact. It was never intended to be taken 100% at face-value. Only those ultra-fundamentalists would think that and you, obviously, are one of the ones suckered into that.

Yes, the Bible is stories and allegoires, though they are based in fact. Yes, there is some interpretation to be made, though the belief in God and his sending his son is not in dispute, that is clearly state no matter how skeptical you are. I am not agreeing with the actions of the pilot, but be careful about insulting the Bible. It may be written by man (and therefore subject to interpretation) it was still guided by God and was written the way it was for a reason.

-spike

I'm not insulting the Bible. I'm...heh...insulting the people who believe it WORD-FOR-WORD. That it is absolutely impossible for anything in the Bible to be incorrect. These are the same people who think the earth is about 6,000 years old and that an ark really existed.

Someone else posted in another religion thread up here something that I found hit the nail on the head. The Bible is about the human condition and is there to offer hope to those who believe. It is not meant to be taken literally nor to offer a scientific reason for things.

That's too bad, Conjur You can insult me all you like, I've got thick enough skin to take a few insults from 1337 intarweb h@x0rz
You're free to believe whatever you like and I doubt anything I can say will change that, just as nothing you or anyone else says to me is going to change my core beliefs. I believe the Bible is the word of the L-rd simply because of my own personal experiences and the fact that the Bible says so! You don't have to believe the same as I do, and I doubt anyone I've spoken to does or ever will. My beliefs are simply too radical for most people to ever accept as a possibility, and I don't have a problem with that. I don't need to belong to any group to have my beliefs justified, my experiences and the word of G-d are enough to do that on their own
Good day, and G-d bless!

 

[ScottyB]

I rather sit in hell with the "non-believers" that sit in heaven with freaks like Flyermax2k3. Hopefully he will be washing our togas or something

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

ROFLES!!! If you choose to be somewhere you are, by the very definition of captive audience, *not* a member of a captive audience Sorry, no matter what you want to say on this issue the fact of the matter is I'm right.

Ok, flyermax, next time you're on a flight that's taxiing to the runway, go ahead and stand up and open the door and exit the plane. Obviously, you chose to be on the flight. You can just easily choose to exit, right?

What a fvcking moron!!

Yet another brilliant insight from the mind of Conjur

Why do you hate me so much? I don't hate you... I realize no one can be liked by everyone but in what way have I wronged you to cause you to hate me with such ferocity?
Remember: G-d loves you and so do I, even if you hate me

I think you're a moron because you keep evading questions you know if you answer will be contradicting yourself.

So, again, flyermax, next time you're on a flight that's taxiing to the runway, go ahead and stand up and open the door and exit the plane. Obviously, you chose to be on the flight. You can just as easily choose to exit, right?

Actually, I absolutely can exit a plane whenever I wish. I may be causing my death by jumping out of a plane @ altitude but it's still my choice. If I really want to get off the plane I can do so at any point in time. I certainly can get off the plane while it's taxiing. All I need to do is get up and go open the door. Even if I am for whatever reason unable to open the door, there's no way that crew and that PIC want a passenger on their plane who doesn't want to be there. End of story.

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Oh but that's where you're wrong! If you truly believe in the word of G-d you know that it is *not* open to interpretation (with the exception of prophecy, which describes future events and can't help but be open to interpretation since no man knows what the future holds).
Once again, I don't think I'm better than anyone. I just think my beliefs are right and yours are wrong, that's all Nothing wrong with that. I guarantee you every last person that has responded to this thread thinks the same thing in regards to *some* issue, whether it be politics, religion, morality, science, philosophy, sports, pop culture, or anything else. It's simply human nature to think one's self right and others wrong. It just so happens that I base my beliefs entirely on the word of G-d, while the vast majority of people in this thread don't.

That's just it. Sane and rational people understand the Bible (esp. the Old Testament) is a compendium of stories and allegories intermixed with historical fact. It was never intended to be taken 100% at face-value. Only those ultra-fundamentalists would think that and you, obviously, are one of the ones suckered into that.

Yes, the Bible is stories and allegoires, though they are based in fact. Yes, there is some interpretation to be made, though the belief in God and his sending his son is not in dispute, that is clearly state no matter how skeptical you are. I am not agreeing with the actions of the pilot, but be careful about insulting the Bible. It may be written by man (and therefore subject to interpretation) it was still guided by God and was written the way it was for a reason.

-spike

I'm not insulting the Bible. I'm...heh...insulting the people who believe it WORD-FOR-WORD. That it is absolutely impossible for anything in the Bible to be incorrect. These are the same people who think the earth is about 6,000 years old and that an ark really existed.

Someone else posted in another religion thread up here something that I found hit the nail on the head. The Bible is about the human condition and is there to offer hope to those who believe. It is not meant to be taken literally nor to offer a scientific reason for things.

I apologize then for saing you insulted it, I got caught up in the heated moment .

IMO, the Bible is God's way of showing us as humans what we are capable of and communicating his message to us through that. By showing us our history and intermixing it with stories designed to relate ideas way above us to our lives shows us how to follow him.
It does not do much in the way of scientific interpretation which is why I have alot of Chrisitan friends who belive in a God-guided evolution. The word "day" used in Genesis was not what we consider a day now, so it could have been a billion years long, I don't know (I wasn't there ).

All I can do is believe and do my best to spread the word of God and his love for everyone, though in relation to this topic that does not include possibly inciting a panic when trying to witness. If the pilot truly had a brain fart, then he should be forgiven and should be thankful nothing more than some annoyed people came out of this incident. As I said before, trying to force belief in God and Jesus on someone is about the best way to turn them away permanently. It comes down to free choice, God's greatest gift to us (besides he gift of his son to die for us). We all have the option of choosing what we do or do not believe and that option should not be taken away.

-spike

EDIT* The ark was not dis-proven, and it may have actually been found (in Iran was it?) I don't know all the facts, but don't just dismiss it outright.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
I rather sit in hell with the "non-believers" that sit in heaven with freaks like Flyermax2k3. Hopefully he will be washing our togas or something

I'm sorry to hear that, ScottyB. I hope you will choose a different path than that but it is still your choice to make. Good luck in your life's journey, and G-d bless you.
It's so sad to see that hell is mocked by the world over. If you have the unfortunate displeasure of ending up in hell, you certainly won't be mocking it then.

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Everyone on that plane *chose* to be there."

If you don't understand that people on an airplane up in the air is a captive audience, it's hard to believe. A captive audience is an audience that cannot leave, it doesn't matter how they got there.

People in a theater also chose to be there..

Here is how I see it, I'm on an airplane and the person I've entrusted my life to comes out and says who here is a true believer ? I would be scared sh\tless.


What if he said "Which of you worship Satan ? and then encouraged the Satan worshippers to devour live rodents and chant ooga booga until the flight was over ? Would that be ok with you ?

Here's the problem with relating a simple suggestion that people discuss their beliefs with others to yelling "fire" in a theater. One is nothing more than a *suggestion* and the other is a terroristic threat with the intent to cause chaos/incite a riot. You simply can't compare the two, they're entirely different things.

You can compare the two if you take in context the fact that religion is a subject that, when discussed, has the potential to cause arguments. Arguments in an airplane can cause panic. Don't act like you can't understand how an argument on an airplane can cause panic, because you do understand. You're just trolling.

Why can't you guys let go of the hypothetical scenarios? They didn't occur, so what's the point of bringing up every single possible event that *could have* occurred? Usually when someone says "what if" it means they have no argument upon which to stand and have to resort to making up scenarios that could have occurred to prove their point.

So if a police officer pulls over a car that is weaving in and out of traffic doing 120mph, he has no justification for issuing a ticket/placing the driver under arrest? The drivers actions up to that point may not have caused an accident, but they have the potential to.

 

[Armitage]

Yep, and all odds are 50-50 ... either it happens or it doesn't

"Everything should be made as simple as possible ... but no simpler" Einstein
I think you've crossed that line with your latest "choice" argument. I'm not even sure what the original relavence of this is to either side to be honest, but, the people chose to be on that flight. In our society, they had a reasonable expectation that they would not be subject to prosetelyzing by their pilot. Apparently you're about the only one that doesn't understand that flyer.

What I'm getting I guess what I'm getting at is yes, the pilot did nothing wrong in a legal sense ... but he violated certain norms of expected behavior and can expect to be censured for it. The most concrete path to that censure is through his employer as I've already explained.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Oh but that's where you're wrong! If you truly believe in the word of G-d you know that it is *not* open to interpretation (with the exception of prophecy, which describes future events and can't help but be open to interpretation since no man knows what the future holds).
Once again, I don't think I'm better than anyone. I just think my beliefs are right and yours are wrong, that's all Nothing wrong with that. I guarantee you every last person that has responded to this thread thinks the same thing in regards to *some* issue, whether it be politics, religion, morality, science, philosophy, sports, pop culture, or anything else. It's simply human nature to think one's self right and others wrong. It just so happens that I base my beliefs entirely on the word of G-d, while the vast majority of people in this thread don't.

That's just it. Sane and rational people understand the Bible (esp. the Old Testament) is a compendium of stories and allegories intermixed with historical fact. It was never intended to be taken 100% at face-value. Only those ultra-fundamentalists would think that and you, obviously, are one of the ones suckered into that.

Yes, the Bible is stories and allegoires, though they are based in fact. Yes, there is some interpretation to be made, though the belief in God and his sending his son is not in dispute, that is clearly state no matter how skeptical you are. I am not agreeing with the actions of the pilot, but be careful about insulting the Bible. It may be written by man (and therefore subject to interpretation) it was still guided by God and was written the way it was for a reason.

-spike

I'm not insulting the Bible. I'm...heh...insulting the people who believe it WORD-FOR-WORD. That it is absolutely impossible for anything in the Bible to be incorrect. These are the same people who think the earth is about 6,000 years old and that an ark really existed.

Someone else posted in another religion thread up here something that I found hit the nail on the head. The Bible is about the human condition and is there to offer hope to those who believe. It is not meant to be taken literally nor to offer a scientific reason for things.

I apologize then for saing you insulted it, I got caught up in the heated moment .

IMO, the Bible is God's way of showing us as humans what we are capable of and communicating his message to us through that. By showing us our history and intermixing it with stories designed to relate ideas way above us to our lives shows us how to follow him.
It does not do much in the way of scientific interpretation which is why I have alot of Chrisitan friends who belive in a God-guided evolution. The word "day" used in Genesis was not what we consider a day now, so it could have been a billion years long, I don't know (I wasn't there ).

All I can do is believe and do my best to spread the word of God and his love for everyone, though in relation to this topic that does not include possibly inciting a panic when trying to witness. If the pilot truly had a brain fart, then he should be forgiven and should be thankful nothing more than some annoyed people came out of this incident. As I said before, trying to force belief in God and Jesus on someone is about the best way to turn them away permanently. It comes down to free choice, God's greatest gift to us (besides he gift of his son to die for us). We all have the option of choosing what we do or do not believe and that option should not be taken away.

-spike

One problem *I* have with that *interpretation* of Creation is this: do you honestly think that the L-rd almighty who created the heavens and the earth didn't know what a 24-hour day was before He created the universe? Of course He did, He created everything in existance for crying out loud! That includes the 24-hour day that man has known since his beginning.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: nan0bug

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Everyone on that plane *chose* to be there."

If you don't understand that people on an airplane up in the air is a captive audience, it's hard to believe. A captive audience is an audience that cannot leave, it doesn't matter how they got there.

People in a theater also chose to be there..

Here is how I see it, I'm on an airplane and the person I've entrusted my life to comes out and says who here is a true believer ? I would be scared sh\tless.


What if he said "Which of you worship Satan ? and then encouraged the Satan worshippers to devour live rodents and chant ooga booga until the flight was over ? Would that be ok with you ?

Here's the problem with relating a simple suggestion that people discuss their beliefs with others to yelling "fire" in a theater. One is nothing more than a *suggestion* and the other is a terroristic threat with the intent to cause chaos/incite a riot. You simply can't compare the two, they're entirely different things.

You can compare the two if you take in context the fact that religion is a subject that, when discussed, has the potential to cause arguments. Arguments in an airplane can cause panic. Don't act like you can't understand how an argument on an airplane can cause panic, because you do understand. You're just trolling.

Why can't you guys let go of the hypothetical scenarios? They didn't occur, so what's the point of bringing up every single possible event that *could have* occurred? Usually when someone says "what if" it means they have no argument upon which to stand and have to resort to making up scenarios that could have occurred to prove their point.

So if a police officer pulls over a car that is weaving in and out of traffic doing 120mph, he has no justification for issuing a ticket/placing the driver under arrest? The drivers actions up to that point may not have caused an accident, but they have the potential to.

potential to... "so if" coulda, woulda, shoulda... yada yada yada
Does no one else see the fallicy in using hypothectical scenarios to support their argument?
What happened, happened and what didn't happen, didn't happen. It really can't be any more simple than that.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

ROFLES!!! If you choose to be somewhere you are, by the very definition of captive audience, *not* a member of a captive audience Sorry, no matter what you want to say on this issue the fact of the matter is I'm right.

Ok, flyermax, next time you're on a flight that's taxiing to the runway, go ahead and stand up and open the door and exit the plane. Obviously, you chose to be on the flight. You can just easily choose to exit, right?

What a fvcking moron!!

Yet another brilliant insight from the mind of Conjur

Why do you hate me so much? I don't hate you... I realize no one can be liked by everyone but in what way have I wronged you to cause you to hate me with such ferocity?
Remember: G-d loves you and so do I, even if you hate me

I think you're a moron because you keep evading questions you know if you answer will be contradicting yourself.

So, again, flyermax, next time you're on a flight that's taxiing to the runway, go ahead and stand up and open the door and exit the plane. Obviously, you chose to be on the flight. You can just as easily choose to exit, right?

Actually, I absolutely can exit a plane whenever I wish. I may be causing my death by jumping out of a plane @ altitude but it's still my choice. If I really want to get off the plane I can do so at any point in time. I certainly can get off the plane while it's taxiing. All I need to do is get up and go open the door. Even if I am for whatever reason unable to open the door, there's no way that crew and that PIC want a passenger on their plane who doesn't want to be there. End of story.

Yes, you are absolutely free to do whatever you want. Everybody is. But you also understand there are consequences to your actions, and if you try to open an airliner door @ altitude, somebody is going to exercise their freedom and beat the crap out of you to prevent it. And then when you land, you'll likely end up in jail or a nut house.

Cripes, forget it. This guy debates like a 12 year old

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: nan0bug

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: ergeorge

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
It's so incredibly sad that a man can't discuss his religious beliefs with others nowadays or even MAKE A SUGGESTION that others do so.
Oh, and for anyone who wants to bring up the whole "captive audience argument" don't bother. Every single person chose to be on that flight and, last time I checked this was still the U.S. of A. and we still have a First Amendment which guarantees the right to free speech and religion.
As far as the "appropriateness" of his comments (i.e. timing or wording) I'm not aware of any law which prohibits doing such a thing on an airplane, and even if there was it would be unconstitutional anyway.

No, it's not illegal or unconstitutional, or anything like that. It's just inappropriate and in very poor taste, and likely against some policy of American Airlines. He's there to fly the plane, not make ethical judgements regarding his passengers.

You know, I don't have any problem with people believing what they want, but it drives me nuts that one of the things that they believe is that I have to believe, and if I don't that it's their duty to make me believe.

The "problem" with your statement is that the Bible instructs Christians to go out into the world and let all know about him. Now, this does not mean force your religion upon someone (or make them believe it) and as a Christian myself, I am upset that the pilot would encourage this. Last time I checked the worst way to introduce someone to what you believe is to try and force them to hear it. Engageing someone in intelligent conversation next to you about evolution, religion, etc... is not a crime, though it should be done with the consent of the person you are talking to. This eliminates that oh so fun talking "at" someone.

-spike

Who knows what was running through the pilot's mind and why he chose to proceed in the manner he did? I certainly don't, nor does anyone else here. I think your definition of "forcing your religion on someone" and mine differ just a bit. I simply don't beleive this man forced anything upon anyone. Everyone on that plane *chose* to be there. He didn't hold anyone up at gunpoint and make them listen to a sermon, he simply suggested Christian passengers spread the word to non-Christian passengers. I see nothing wrong with that.

Everyone on that plane chose to be there to take a trip to their destination. They did not choose to go to a religious retreat. This is just like the Janet boob thing. Everyone chose to watch a half-time show, not a burlesque show. When I get on a plane, I am paying to go from point A to point B, not to be indoctrinated with beliefs.

Also, closing the door, taking off, and then trying to incite a religious indoctination (even if hes not the one doing it, hes suggesting others do) IS equivalent to holding them up at gunpoint. What are they going to do? Jump out of the plane? They're in a position where they have to deal with the indoctrination, or jump out of the plane and die. Same difference.

I was hoping I wouldn't have to fill in all the blanks for you guys but I guess I'll have to:
If you choose to go somewhere in our society, given that everyone has the right to free speech and everything else guaranteed by the First Ammendment, you are subject to *any* scenario that may occur, solely due to your choice. The fact of the matter is if those people hadn't *chosen* to be on that plane they would never have been subjected to that pilot's statements. You simply can't argue against this, it's a fact.
Since you're all so fond of hypothetical scenarios, I'll throw out one of my own:
If I were to walk outside my front door right now and be killed by a meteorite, that would be my own fault because I *chose* to go outside, fully-well knowing that anything can happen as a result, and accepting those consequences.
You take a risk when you do *anything*. By posting my religious beliefs on teh intarweb I'm taking the chance that some pagan may attempt to kill me or cause me harm. I know that, and I accept it.

So by that same logic, if you're driving down a residential street 20 mph over the posted speed limit, lose control of your car and go on the sidewalk, hitting and killing someone, its their fault because they chose to be there?

And further, if you were driving down that same residentail street 20mph over the speed limit, and a cop pulled you over before you lost control of your car, hitting and killing that person, you should be let off scot free because nothing bad had happened because of your driving yet?