|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted November 29, 2009 11:14 AM |
|
|
Not exactly Jolly. I answered the question, but as normal had a hard time conveying my thoughts. One of the reasons I am no longer debating (and just responding to posts mentioning me or directed to me) is this fact. Since we can not seem to speak the same language, and everything I say is often confused for something else, I see no point in continuing.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 11:22 AM |
|
|
|
I was merely referring to what WAS at that time, whom a post was directed to and what it meant.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 11:23 AM |
|
|
Elodin, Why does Jesus have to be god made flesh?
You see, I have a profound belief in that a Man, an normal everyday man, who is able to stand up and preach the things that jesus preached is something far, far, far more special than simply him being god in the flesh...
why? because It is about the good of humanity then, not gods will. it's a human standing up to authority, standing up against the oppressors and saying "No, this is wrong, blessed are the meek, blessed are the cheesemakers yadda yadda yadda", under his own determination and strength to do something. in my eyes, Jesus is a super version of Ghandi, nelson mandela and bob geldof, a man with a dream and an abmition to change the world around him. it places the emphasis in humanities hands, rather than some omnipotent creator/editor/moderator/destroyer.
Micheal moore has said "Yes, I was mistaken", and thus, I think he's a better man than people who call him a liar. He admits where he made a mistake, and has learnt from it. After seeing "Capitalism, a love story," I did a bit of research, and Yes, Walmart did have a policy that made sure that if a member died in service, the insurance would be sent to Walmart. the Man is not the rash young film maker he was in the 90's, prone to exaggerating the truth, and yes, lying. He's matured, he's done far more research around the subject, and he has made films that do check out.
But i'm preaching to a mule here. You're set on your view on him, like your set on your views with Obama, Biden, Palin, Bush, Beck, O'reily and all the others that we have dicussed, and to stubborn to shift. not a word I or anyone else says is going to change you on that fact, so... why bother to have a discussion? maybe make yourself a blog instead, say your view through that, because then, we won't have these eternal cycling arguements where you won't back down, we try and persaude you, you won't back down, we try and persaud you, you won't back down. Become a blogger, because then we get ridd of this endless quote warring.
I hope you've had a nice weekend
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 11:37 AM |
|
|
Hi Elodin.
First, about lying contra being mistaken.
You honestly can't know whether a person have the information present to be knowing what you believe to be the truth, and therefore eventhough agreeing with you, decide to lie.
The most likely case is that the person either have less, or more information, and have made another conclusion.
That's assuming logical argumentation from both parts.
About logical argumentation, that's exactly the reason why I made my previous question, but your answer makes little sense to me, so in stead of trying to do this the slow and analytic way, I'll give you the big view from the start.
Q1: I would like to know, why you follow the word of God, assuming God is not in the equation at all, and all you've to take a stance at, is the postulates and the argumentation behind these?
Then you could, if you want to make it clear, use those two postulates I quoted as an example, I'll requote, in a hope it makes it completely clear what I'm rabbling about:
Quote:
esus said the two greatest commandments are to love God and love your fellow man.
Likewise, the attributes you give to define Jesus and God are in themselves made out of many undefined attributes, so in stead of asking you for a definition, which would take way to much time I believe, how about this then:
Q2: Given someone defined through the exact same attributes as God, but not being God, gave you commandments that either was equal to -, or through your own logic, just as valid, as those of God, then what would you choose? Would your choice matter, saying that both sides dislikes eachother? Would you choose either side, and why? How would you deal with such a dilemma?
Sorry if those questions seems very alike and repititive, it's more to make it clear what I'm asking.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 12:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin, Why does Jesus have to be god made flesh?
Because he is. Why is a cat a cat? Because it is.
No other man had lived a sinless life. Jesus lived a sinless life and sacrificed himself for mankind.
Quote:
Micheal moore has said "Yes, I was mistaken", and thus, I think he's a better man than people who call him a liar.
Has he admitted that he committed tons of "mistakes" in all of his "documentaries?" If so, link to his confession please.
Quote:
But i'm preaching to a mule here. You're set on your view on him, like your set on your views with Obama, Biden, Palin, Bush, Beck, O'reily and all the others that we have dicussed, and to stubborn to shift. not a word I or anyone else says is going to change you on that fact, so... why bother to have a discussion?
Could you please stop your insults?
Also, quote what I have said about any of those people (and link to where I said it) and prove me wrong. Unlike certain other peole I place a high value on the truth.
Quote:
First, about lying contra being mistaken.
You honestly can't know whether a person have the information present to be knowing what you believe to be the truth, and therefore eventhough agreeing with you, decide to lie.
The most likely case is that the person either have less, or more information, and have made another conclusion.
Michael Moor has made tons of false statements in his "documentaries" an it is quite easy to conclude that he is therefore a liar, and not merely an incompetent buffoon.
Quote:
Q1: I would like to know, why you follow the word of God, assuming God is not in the equation at all, and all you've to take a stance at, is the postulates and the argumentation behind these?
Then you could, if you want to make it clear, use those two postulates I quoted as an example, I'll requote, in a hope it makes it completely clear what I'm rabbling about:
OK, you are refering back to this:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus said the two greatest commandments are to love God and love your fellow man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, let's try it your way then, what are the arguments behind following these commandments?
So you are wanting me to declare why Jesus said these are the two most important commandments in the Word of God without refering to God? Jesus said all of the commandments hinge on those principles described in the verses that say to love God and to love your fellow man.
If you love God you will obey God. If you love your fellow man you will not deliberately harm your fellow man and you will work for his good.
If everyone indeed loved God and loved their fellow man the earth would be a virtual paradise.
Quote:
Q2: Given someone defined through the exact same attributes as God, but not being God, gave you commandments that either was equal to -, or through your own logic, just as valid, as those of God, then what would you choose? Would your choice matter, saying that both sides dislikes eachother? Would you choose either side, and why? How would you deal with such a dilemma?
1) No one has the same attributes as God. God is the only self existant, all-powerful, all-knowing, omni-present being. God is the only god.
2) Jesus is God existing as a human being. God can exist in multiple was at the same time.
3) Like I said before, what Jesus said are the greatest commandments are commandments contained within the Old Covenant writings. I can quote you those if you wish. The verse about God being one and loving God is known as the Shema and is the heart of Judaism. The other commandment to love your fellow man is also in the Old Covenant writings.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 01:37 PM |
|
|
Well, Elodin, it seems you had a lot to say about my posts when they were directed to Mytical, but nothing when I direct one to do, notifying you about a false claim. Getting shy suddenly? No answers?
Well, who cares anyway. Makes no difference one way or another, really.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 03:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, Elodin, it seems you had a lot to say about my posts when they were directed to Mytical, but nothing when I direct one to do, notifying you about a false claim. Getting shy suddenly? No answers?
Well, who cares anyway. Makes no difference one way or another, really.
Ah, as TheDeath said, you often seem to try to make your posts vague so you can't be nailed down on exactly what you meant. But let's look at what you actually said, including the context.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, loving everyone should be the goal of every person. The world would be a much better place if everyone loved one another. It is not enough to just not hate others. "Not hating" does not inspire a person to help others. Love does.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that Elodin's private interpretation (i.e. people hijacking the belief for their interpretation) or is that indeed a central mesage of Christianity?
Whatever you think about that - don't you think that the combination of the words SHOULD and LOVE is a rather strange and even paradoxical one? What does that make love? Something persons can bring themselves to feel? Is that it? Is that really such a good idea?
Firts, there is a differnce between a misunderstanding and a lie. But we shall consider what was said.
To begin with, you had made the claim, "religions do not generally place value on love as opposed to sex - on the contrary." That claim was false and I showed relevant verses from the Bible. I did not quote other religious texts, but that covered Judaism and Christianity.
Then you had been claiming religiuos people were delusional and said "‘When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.’". I proved from studies that atheists are far more likely to suffer mental diseases than religious pepole, more likely to commit suicide, and less likely to help people.
Then you called my beliefs "mumbo-jumbo" and accused me of "posts oozing so much hate out of every pore?" you also claimed I was saying Dawkins and people of other religions were delusional.
Of course you could not back up your claims because I never said such things. It was just more insults and falsehoods, as always.
You had also said that it is a bad idea for people to love all people and the best one can do is not hate others.
Oh yes, you went on to claim that guilt characterizes Christianity. I proved that that statment was not true.
OK, now that the background is done.
I said, "Yes, loving everyone should be the goal of every person. The world would be a much better place if everyone loved one another. It is not enough to just not hate others. "Not hating" does not inspire a person to help others. Love does."
IMMEDIATELY AFTER my post (on page 25) you said, quote:"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, loving everyone should be the goal of every person. The world would be a much better place if everyone loved one another. It is not enough to just not hate others. "Not hating" does not inspire a person to help others. Love does.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that Elodin's private interpretation (i.e. people hijacking the belief for their interpretation) or is that indeed a central mesage of Christianity?
Whatever you think about that - don't you think that the combination of the words SHOULD and LOVE is a rather strange and even paradoxical one? What does that make love? Something persons can bring themselves to feel? Is that it? Is that really such a good idea?"
So even though you claim your post was directed to Mystical, you were quoting ME AND THERE WERE NO POSTS BETWEEN MINE AND YOURS.
Now, if I misunderstood your post, I am sorry. But your posts often lack clarity. Mystical said of that post "Jolly, again I am having understanding your post. Can somebody help me in that respect?" so she too had trouble determining exactly what you were saying.
Anyways, you said "Is that Elodin's private interpretation (i.e. people hijacking the belief for their interpretation) or is that indeed a central mesage of Christianity?"
I answered our post with "No, it is not my "private interpretation." Jesus said the two greatest commandments are to love God and love your fellow man" and quoted the verses of Jesus discussing it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 05:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To begin with, you had made the claim, "religions do not generally place value on love as opposed to sex - on the contrary." That claim was false and I showed relevant verses from the Bible. I did not quote other religious texts, but that covered Judaism and Christianity.
You mean, a couple of verses of the Bible would disprove that "religions (note the plural) do not generally (the broad picture again) place value on love as opposed to sex"? With even the BIBLE telling stories about other people worshipping other gods, ildly orgying around? You might call that a lie, but probably you are mistaking only a couple of things here.
Quote:
Then you had been claiming religiuos people were delusional and said "‘When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.’". I proved from studies that atheists are far more likely to suffer mental diseases than religious pepole, more likely to commit suicide, and less likely to help people.
Fact is, that YOU had CITED DAWKINS, because the thing in "" is from Dawkins, while I had then quoted the FULL quote to show the context. So, Elodin, you could that call a lie as well, but you are probably just mistaking a couple dozen things here.
Quote:
Then you called my beliefs "mumbo-jumbo" and accused me of "posts oozing so much hate out of every pore?" you also claimed I was saying Dawkins and people of other religions were delusional.
In fact I asked you how it was, that your posts do that when you should actually love everyone including your enemies. Moreover YOU SAID that Atheists, including Dawkins were the delusional ones, and I asked you how it was that you call only the atheists delusional, but not the theists that YOU KNOW are believing in the "wrong" god. As far as I know, you never answered that.
So, Elodin, you could call this a lie as well, but you are probably just mistaking a couple hundred things.
Quote:
Of course you could not back up your claims because I never said such things. It was just more insults and falsehoods, as always.
This IS a lie, and it's made with non-loving purpose. That means it's a sin, Elodin. You shouldn't do something like that. Or can it be that you are just mistaking a couple thousand things?
Quote:
You had also said that it is a bad idea for people to love all people and the best one can do is not hate others.
In fact I asked Mytical whether it's really such a good idea. Nor did I say that not hating was the best. I suggested RESPECTING other people might be a better idea than loving them - I don't really need that love everyone is a bad idea. It suffices that loving everyone is not the perfect idea.
Anyway, that's practically the next lie. But you are probably just mistaking a couple tenthousand things.
Quote:
Oh yes, you went on to claim that guilt characterizes Christianity. I proved that that statment was not true.
Since you proved nothing of that sort, that's could be called a lie as well, but as usual you are probably just mistaking a couple hundredthousand things.
Quote:
OK, now that the background is done.
Oh, yes. it's more than done.
Quote:
So even though you claim your post was directed to Mystical, you were quoting ME AND THERE WERE NO POSTS BETWEEN MINE AND YOURS.
Now, I cut the quote here, because this has been quoted often enough. However, if you look at YOUR quote of MY post, strangely and ominously enough YOU LEAVE OUT THE FIRST SENTENCE:
Quote:
Just for clarification, Mytical, before you add to your post.
Since you leave that out DELIBERATELY, it's obvious that you simply lie here. You FAKE misunderstanding, but there is nothing to misunderstand. I was directing the post to MYTICAL, and you just bungled in.
Of course it is still possible that you are just mistaking a couple million things, Elodin.
You see, for YOUR claims in what you belief, it's not even necessary to call every lie, every deliberate twisting of the truth, every false claim; it's enough to call your ILL-WILL against everyone whose opinion isn't welcome or you disagree with. Because no matter how you try to re-define love to make it fit into your strange personal world, ILL-WILL and love are not compatible with each other.
Quote:
Ah, as TheDeath said, you often seem to try to make your posts vague so you can't be nailed down on exactly what you meant.
And this is the biggest twist of them all. Fact is instead, that YOU - and Death as well - don't actually answer to what I (and others) actually write, but you answer to what YOU WOULD LIKE ME (and others) to have written, what either ILL-WILL and a determination to prove wrong (and a very undisciplined attitude in terms of keeping on topic in Death's case) make you read into what I wrote.
But that is just for clarification.
Don't expect me to answer to any further posts- you are mistaking already enough things, so nothing good can come out of giving you even more to toss around.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 05:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Elodin, Why does Jesus have to be god made flesh?
Because he is. Why is a cat a cat? Because it is.
No other man had lived a sinless life. Jesus lived a sinless life and sacrificed himself for mankind.
so you're not even going to consider the possiblity that he was just a really good guy, and just put it down to the fact he was god...
that is depressing, really, it is.
a man who does good must be god made flesh, and not a man with a conscience.
that is really depressing.
Quote:
Quote:
Micheal moore has said "Yes, I was mistaken", and thus, I think he's a better man than people who call him a liar.
Has he admitted that he committed tons of "mistakes" in all of his "documentaries?" If so, link to his confession please.
I see your well adept at the T-Rex fingers.
You have such scorn for the man. as far as I can see, he has said stuff that has offended people, and the kneejerk reaction is "That's not true!" or "How dare he say stuff like that!" but he has also opened alot of peoples minds to the dirtiness of the various world governments.
He distorted the truth in Farhenheit 9/11, yes. and not only that, he has admitted that and apologised apologised to those invovled. it's alot better than what, say, the Sun, the Daily mail and the Daily sport have ever done.
your obviously the kind of man who will watch Farhenhype 9/11 on repeat.
Quote:
Quote:
But i'm preaching to a mule here. You're set on your view on him, like your set on your views with Obama, Biden, Palin, Bush, Beck, O'reily and all the others that we have dicussed, and to stubborn to shift. not a word I or anyone else says is going to change you on that fact, so... why bother to have a discussion?
Could you please stop your insults?
Also, quote what I have said about any of those people (and link to where I said it) and prove me wrong. Unlike certain other peole I place a high value on the truth.
you demand links when I can just tell you what you have said
Obama and his cabinet you have described as socialists.
Bush, you described how he was harshly treated.
you have regularly held Beck as the esteem of fair and truthful journalism when he exposed Obama for having a professor who was a marxist and university.
my point is not to insult you, my point into ask you, what is the point of this if you are so stuck in your views that no amount of discussing, arguing, ranting, raving, and so on, will move you.
Why not, as I have stated, Set up a blog? you views could be heard free of interuption from other people who present their own arguements.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 06:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And this is the biggest twist of them all. Fact is instead, that YOU - and Death as well - don't actually answer to what I (and others) actually write, but you answer to what YOU WOULD LIKE ME (and others) to have written, what either ILL-WILL and a determination to prove wrong (and a very undisciplined attitude in terms of keeping on topic in Death's case) make you read into what I wrote.
I was going to stay out of this but seeing as you brought me into it...
Fact is that's it's mostly me (and Elodin sometimes) who use actual QUOTES, actual FACTS, when talking about someone's arguments. Instead most times, when I ask you to back your posts, all I see is "there's really no reasoning with you" or "your post is disgusting" or "it's so full of inconsistencies I don't know where to begin" (notice I'm talking in general). Like they used to say, in this case by backing up your posts, PUT UP or SHUT UP.
Same here in the religious discussion. Notice that Elodin isn't exactly saying Christianity is the "true" way, he's only defending its concept -- as in, what it is supposed to be about. That may not make it true at all, but that doesn't stop you from picking on it, like the "love" term, etc...
Quote:
so you're not even going to consider the possiblity that he was just a really good guy, and just put it down to the fact he was god...
that is depressing, really, it is.
a man who does good must be god made flesh, and not a man with a conscience.
that is really depressing.
I have to agree with you here bixie.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 06:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
And this is the biggest twist of them all. Fact is instead, that YOU - and Death as well - don't actually answer to what I (and others) actually write, but you answer to what YOU WOULD LIKE ME (and others) to have written, what either ILL-WILL and a determination to prove wrong (and a very undisciplined attitude in terms of keeping on topic in Death's case) make you read into what I wrote.
I was going to stay out of this but seeing as you brought me into it...
Fact is
that it was ELODIN who brought you in. If I may help you with a factual quote you are so keen on:
Quote:
Ah, as TheDeath said, you often seem to try to make your posts vague so you can't be nailed down on exactly what you meant.
Quote:
Same here in the religious discussion. Notice that Elodin isn't exactly saying Christianity is the "true" way, he's only defending its concept -- as in, what it is supposed to be about. That may not make it true at all, but that doesn't stop you from picking on it, like the "love" term, etc...
That's a good one, Death. He's indeed not exactly saying Christianity is the true way; instead he is extremely exactly saying that his specific brand of Christianity is the true way, and if could or would read, you'd know that meanwhile because he has so often said it meanwhile everyone knows. Except you, it seems.
But if you don't believe me - maybe you should ask Elodin about it.
And don't expect a continuation of this. I don't intend to waste more time with this.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 07:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Fact is
that it was ELODIN who brought you in. If I may help you with a factual quote you are so keen on:
Quote:
Ah, as TheDeath said, you often seem to try to make your posts vague so you can't be nailed down on exactly what you meant.
Are you for real? You were the one who was criticizing me... why would I bother replying to him when he says "TheDeath has said X"? If someone says that you just said something (which is true, i.e what that person said -- for instance, if someone says that "As TheDeath began his post with 'Are you for real?'..." in this example, that would be true), do you feel compelled to reply?
Quote:
That's a good one, Death. He's indeed not exactly saying Christianity is the true way; instead he is extremely exactly saying that his specific brand of Christianity is the true way, and if could or would read, you'd know that meanwhile because he has so often said it meanwhile everyone knows. Except you, it seems.
But if you don't believe me - maybe you should ask Elodin about it.
Not exactly, there's hardly any difference between different branches of Christianity regarding "love" don't ya think?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 07:29 PM |
|
|
I could swear I have closed "I gave up on believing in God" some weeks ago...damn I'm getting old...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 07:49 PM |
|
|
If I give my usual answer here, you'll start whining again, so I'll just makes the following: quote YOU from your first post, quote MY answer and quote your contuinuation with a short comment, but highliting the important things. Here we go:
1)
Death Quote:
I was going to stay out of this but seeing as you brought me into it...
JJ Quote:
Fact is that it was ELODIN who brought you in.
DeathQuote:
Are you for real? You were the one who was
critisizing me...
Last time I checked "bringing someone into it" is something very different from "critisizing someone". I might add, if Elodin brought you into it as a quasi-authority he agrees with - to give his stuff seemingly a broader base -, a negative answer to that will logically imply a criticism of the quasi-authority he brought into it.
2)
Death Quote:
Notice that Elodin isn't exactly saying Christianity is the "true" way
JJQuote:
He's indeed not exactly saying Christianity is the true way; instead he is extremely exactly saying that his specific brand of Christianity is the true way
Death Quote:
There's hardly any difference between different branches of Christianity regarding "love"
Connection? None. So while the last point is true, the actual issue his whether Elodin says or mot says that Christianity is the true way, not whether there are differences between brands of Christianity regarding love.
We'll see, what comes now. I'm not going to answer, though, since there just isn't anything to say, as you see. I already said, if your programming is as structured and reasonable as your postings, good luck with your career.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 07:57 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:01, 29 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
You mean, a couple of verses of the Bible would disprove that "religions (note the plural) do not generally (the broad picture again) place value on love as opposed to sex"? With even the BIBLE telling stories about other people worshipping other gods, ildly orgying around? You might call that a lie, but probably you are mistaking only a couple of things here.
Lol! Are you now claiming that the Bible citing incidents of pagans engaging in sex rituals in worship to their false deities represent religion in general? Sorry, most religions do place a value on love. Your continued claim otherwise is just anti-theism doing its work. If you add up all followers of all the world's religions that disapprove of such things you will find the majority of the religions oppose such practices. Now, the religion of atheism and Satanism certainly don't place a value on love.
Quote:
Fact is, that YOU had CITED DAWKINS, because the thing in "" is from Dawkins, while I had then quoted the FULL quote to show the context. So, Elodin, you could that call a lie as well, but you are probably just mistaking a couple dozen things here.
Nah, it is untrue to say I lied. I quoted exactly what you said. You plainly stated you were inclined to agree that "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." Calling religious people delusional is just anti-theistic and has no basis in fact. I already quoted the studies that show religious people have fewer mental illnesses, commit suicide less often, and help people more. Below is EXACTLY what you said:
Quote:
The first part captures religious faith perfectly. As to whether it is a symptom of a psychiatric disorder, I am inclined to follow Robert M. Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, when he said, ‘When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.’"
You really should pay more attention to what you write so you won't falsely claim you didn't say it. You have expressed you viewpoint that religious people are delusional a number of times in different threads however, so your posting here that religious people are delusional is consistant with your previous expressions.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you called my beliefs "mumbo-jumbo" and accused me of "posts oozing so much hate out of every pore?" you also claimed I was saying Dawkins and people of other religions were delusional.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact I asked you how it was, that your posts do that when you should actually love everyone including your enemies. Moreover YOU SAID that Atheists, including Dawkins were the delusional ones, and I asked you how it was that you call only the atheists delusional, but not the theists that YOU KNOW are believing in the "wrong" god. As far as I know, you never answered that.
So, Elodin, you could call this a lie as well, but you are probably just mistaking a couple hundred things.
[/quote
The fact is you could not back up the false claims of my posts allegedly "oozing so much hate out of every pore." Just another falsehood spouted by you.
No, I did not say atheists and Dawkins were delusional, that is a another falsehood. I'll quote exactly what I said:
Quote:
So I can call atheists deluded under your definition and there will be no objections, right? Because athesits definately have unsupported and false beliefs.
See, your statement was false.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you could not back up your claims because I never said such things. It was just more insults and falsehoods, as always.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This IS a lie, and it's made with non-loving purpose. That means it's a sin, Elodin. You shouldn't do something like that. Or can it be that you are just mistaking a couple thousand things?
It is truly unfortunate that you continue to say false things. You claimed my posts were "oozing so much hate out of every pore" yet were unable to back up the false allegation.
Quote:
Nor did I say that not hating was the best.
You seem to not know what you said. Let me quote you:
Quote:
Is the idealized "good" idea behind Christianity, to love everyone no matter what really a GOOD one. Wouldn't it have been a better one to TRY NOT TO HATE others?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh yes, you went on to claim that guilt characterizes Christianity. I proved that that statment was not true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since you proved nothing of that sort, that's could be called a lie as well, but as usual you are probably just mistaking a couple hundredthousand things.
Actually, I quoted a number of verses that proved that your statement that guilt characterizes Christianity is false. Rather than requoting what I said, I'll say it is on page 25 posted November 23, 2009 07:03 AM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So even though you claim your post was directed to Mystical, you were quoting ME AND THERE WERE NO POSTS BETWEEN MINE AND YOURS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I cut the quote here, because this has been quoted often enough. However, if you look at YOUR quote of MY post, strangely and ominously enough YOU LEAVE OUT THE FIRST SENTENCE:
Yes, because it is me you quoted and you posted directly after me.
Quote:
Of course it is still possible that you are just mistaking a couple million things, Elodin.
You see, for YOUR claims in what you belief, it's not even necessary to call every lie, every deliberate twisting of the truth, every false claim; it's enough to call your ILL-WILL against everyone whose opinion isn't welcome or you disagree with. Because no matter how you try to re-define love to make it fit into your strange personal world, ILL-WILL and love are not compatible with each other.
It is false to say I have ill-will towards people who don't share my opinions. It is you who said it is not a good to love everyone. I am the one who said everyone should be loved.
Quote:
And this is the biggest twist of them all. Fact is instead, that YOU - and Death as well - don't actually answer to what I (and others) actually write, but you answer to what YOU WOULD LIKE ME (and others) to have written, what either ILL-WILL and a determination to prove wrong (and a very undisciplined attitude in terms of keeping on topic in Death's case) make you read into what I wrote.
Actually, I quote people to establish exactly what was said. Then I get blamed for "quote wars." I certainly do try to answer what others ask and have no ill-will towards anyone. Yes, when you make a false claim about Christianity I am determined to prove you wrong.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 08:17 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:20, 29 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
1)
Death Quote:
I was going to stay out of this but seeing as you brought me into it...
JJ Quote:
Fact is that it was ELODIN who brought you in.
DeathQuote:
Are you for real? You were the one who was
critisizing me...
Last time I checked "bringing someone into it" is something very different from "critisizing someone". I might add, if Elodin brought you into it as a quasi-authority he agrees with - to give his stuff seemingly a broader base -, a negative answer to that will logically imply a criticism of the quasi-authority he brought into it.
hmm well that is certainly an improvement on your behalf, but I did read this thread, so when I said you brought me into it, it was not that I wasn't here -- you brought me to POST.
Quote:
2)
Death Quote:
Notice that Elodin isn't exactly saying Christianity is the "true" way
JJQuote:
He's indeed not exactly saying Christianity is the true way; instead he is extremely exactly saying that his specific brand of Christianity is the true way
Death Quote:
There's hardly any difference between different branches of Christianity regarding "love"
Connection? None.
Ok you want this logically. I said that he isn't saying Christianity is the true way -- Christianity being the group that includes its branches.
Then you said that he says the whatever branch is what he says is the true way. Which translated, using the aforementioned logic (i.e how I assumed it) that he is saying his branch is more true than others for Christianity -- for this group, I mean. It's like having 100 pieces in a group, and you say that only one of the pieces is actually what makes the group true.
But I'm sure a more thorough analysis instead of the sarcasm you used would have helped you get a more logical conclusion (which I didn't detect, apparently, the sarcasm I mean -- by saying that "he doesn't say Christianity is the true way, he says his branch, which actually includes the former also, is the true way").
Note this, logically since you seem to be yet again attacking me of something you obviously have no idea about. If he says his branch is true, when his branch is included in Christianity, then it AUTOMATICALLY follows that he also pushes Christianity, or part of it, as being true. What you said was sarcasm and a contradiction, but then again, that's the nature of sarcasm. Really don't see anything "logic" in there.
This, inclusion in groups (or circles, if you remember your basic logic lessons), is one of the core principles of logic and logic gates/conditions, but you apparently seem more bent on more abstract meaning/language -- nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't talk about logic.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 09:20 PM |
|
|
@ Elodin
Againat better knowledge, just because this is so glaring:
JJ:Quote:
Nor did I say that not hating was the best.
Elodin: Quote:
You seem to not know what you said. Let me quote you:
JJ:Quote:
Is the idealized "good" idea behind Christianity, to love everyone no matter what really a GOOD one. Wouldn't it have been a better one to TRY NOT TO HATE others?
Elodin:Quote:
It is false to say I have ill-will towards people who don't share my opinions.
Elodin: Quote:
Unlike certain other peole I place a high value on the truth.
Disclaimer: The fact that I comment only on one part of Elodin's post does not mean, the others are any better.
@ Death
Since I answered to Elodin:
I haven't got the slightest clue what this last post of yours is supposed to say. I mean:
Death: Quote:
I said that he isn't saying Christianity is the true way -- Christianity being the group that includes its branches.
Then you said that he says the whatever branch is what he says is the true way.
Ummm... what? Ok, let's assume that means I said: He says that his brand of Christianity is the only true way.
->
Death:Quote:
Which translated, using the aforementioned logic (i.e how I assumed it)
Now you start ssuming again. But ok, I assume now, aforementioned logic means; Christianity is the group that includes the branches.
->
Death: Quote:
that he is saying his branch is more true than others for Christianity -- for this group, I mean.
Ummm, WHAT? More true? More dead? More pregnant? Death, we are leaving the rational, reasonable, logical sector. Rapidly.
->
Death: Quote:
It's like having 100 pieces in a group, and you say that only one of the pieces is actually what makes the group true.
Umm, WHAT?
We are now deep in Death-land. Very deep. Intuitively I assume that what you want to say is, that I say the whole Christianity is depending on what Elodin thinks or not or something like that, whatever it is, I have to guess.
But we were not taking about Christianity, remember? YOU had said that Elodin wasn't actually saying that Christianity was the only true way...
So again. No connection. No logic I can see. No sense. Sorry.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 09:26 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 21:27, 29 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
so you're not even going to consider the possiblity that he was just a really good guy, and just put it down to the fact he was god...
that is depressing, really, it is.
a man who does good must be god made flesh, and not a man with a conscience.
that is really depressing.
Jesus was a real human being AND God. God existing as a man. The human form was limited in knowledge to what he learned naturally and to what the Spirit of God revealed to him. As a man he prayed and worshiped the Spirit of God as is proper. As a man he got tired and bled when he his wrists and feet were nailed to the cross. As a man God died on the cross. Not the Spirit of God. The human manifestation of God.
That had all been prophecied. That God would be born into the world through a virgin in Bethlehem, live a sinless life, be betrayed for 30 peices of silver by a friend, have his hands, feet, and side pierced [prophecied 1000 years before his birth and before cruicifixion was invented], die for our sins, rise from the thread, and be entroned in heaven as both God and the Christ.
You really can't be a Christian without belief that Jesus is God.
Quote:
He distorted the truth in Farhenheit 9/11, yes. and not only that, he has admitted that and apologised apologised to those invovled. it's alot better than what, say, the Sun, the Daily mail and the Daily sport have ever done.
your obviously the kind of man who will watch Farhenhype 9/11 on repeat.
You don't know what "kind of man" I am. Moore lied in more than just the "documentary" you mentioned too. If he did indeed admit he lied, that is a start.
Quote:
you demand links when I can just tell you what you have said
Obama and his cabinet you have described as socialists.
Bush, you described how he was harshly treated.
you have regularly held Beck as the esteem of fair and truthful journalism when he exposed Obama for having a professor who was a marxist and university.
It is a fact that Obama has socialists in his administration and one communist [Van Jones] was forced to step down because of all the heat. I already linked to sources that name some of the socialists.
Yes, Obama is a socialist. In his own words he said he wanted to redistribute wealth. He also said in college he sought out Marxist professors. I linked to proof of all of that.
As far as Bush being harshly treated, I said that the left is complaining about comparisons to Obama and Hitler yet they compared Bush to Hitler. I linked to a commercial from an organiztion of Nancy Pelosi that proved that.
Beck exposed the self avowed communists and socialists in the Obama administration and the fact that Obama sought out Marxist professors. I linked to Obama saying that he sought out Marxist professors, a link to his statments in "Dreams from my Father," his audio book.
Quote:
my point is not to insult you, my point into ask you, what is the point of this if you are so stuck in your views that no amount of discussing, arguing, ranting, raving, and so on, will move you.
Why not, as I have stated, Set up a blog? you views could be heard free of interuption from other people who present their own arguements.
Ah, so calling me a mule was not insulting me?
I have no desire to start of blog. Yes, you are not going to persuade me to abandon any viewpoint I hold without solid facts to back you up.
Like I said, when I first came to this forum I only posted in game related topics. When I started reading OSM I saw false claims being made about religion and Christianity in particular and so I decided to join the discussion and address the false statements that were being made.
Anyways, you probably have more time to maintain a blog so maybe you should start one instead.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 09:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Is the idealized "good" idea behind Christianity, to love everyone no matter what really a GOOD one. Wouldn't it have been a better one to TRY NOT TO HATE others?
By inference, you are saying the Christian teaching to love everyone is not a good teaching and that one should instead just try not to hate others.
In fact, earlier in the thread you said: [page 22)
Quote:
I mean, can it really be right to try and love everyone, no matter what? Wouldn't that make love to something very common, something akin to indifference? Isn't our reality composed of opposites? Joy and grief, life and death, good and evil, love and hate? If we are to love everyone, why bother to get to know people? Does it matter? We are to love them, no matter what, so why even take a good look at them?
So clearly you have said that it is not a good idea to try to love everyone.
Adn as for your false claim that I have ill-will towards others and my posts ooze hatred, you offered no evidence to back up your false claims.
Quote:
Ummm... what? Ok, let's assume that means I said: He says that his brand of Christianity is the only true way.
Then you would be making another false claim. I don't believe that only my particular denomination will be in heaven.
Please link to where I have ever said that only my denomination of Christianity will be saved.
____________
Revelation
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 10:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So clearly you have said that it is not a good idea to try to love everyone.
Adn as for your false claim that I have ill-will towards others and my posts ooze hatred, you offered no evidence to back up your false claims.
He does have a witness... Me!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
