The earth is round

[job]

I think I will say one or perhaps two more things about this.

The idea that Christianity promotes killing and such things is very strange. There have been references made to the Old Testament with this discourse, and indeed, the Old Testament could be said to have some acts or discussions that were appropriate for the type of culture and barbaric difficulties that were faced at that time. The New Testament is indeed that, a New Covenant, which Jesus came to die for our sins and to establish this New Covenant, the New Testament, and first and foremost as Christians, followers of Christ, the New Testament is what Christians adhere too. Is Christianity a violent religion? Does Christianity condone killing?

Anyone who has read the bible will know that the Christian message is a message of peace and love, and simple Google searches of Christianity can confirm this.

Of course, there have been people who have used Christianity, the name of being Christian, who have carried out large scale acts in history which are not Christian in their ethos. This is of course not Christianity, but people who do this. Christianity does not cause wars, people cause these wars and many tools have been used as an excuse to start a war in history.

Now, to put the shoes on the other foot, let us use the logic being applied by particular individuals in this thread. I will ask, does science cause wars? Is science evil? Let us consider the biggest war and in our recent history, World War 2. World War 2, in particular Nazi Germany, was a war based in science, the science of what is called eugenics. Horrific and unspeakable things occurred and I do not even like to write about it. So is science evil? Science killed all these people and committed atrocities on people? Science is not evil, it is people who use tools for their own ends that can cause horrific things to happen, and that is the same with many things.

Most people whom an individual knows who refers to themself as Christian, are people who like others, they attend places of employment, have relationships, various hobbies and interests. As Christians, they may attend a religious service, they may partake in charity work or helping people and are inspired to do this in part at least due to their Christian values. They are not monsters, they may live next door to you or somewhere that you meet them, and the discourse of this thread to say that these individuals, Christians, are evil, genocidal maniacs apparently, is so far removed from the message of Christianity and so far removed from the lives of the various individual Christians that I refer to, that the discourse of this thread is indeed strange and indeed far removed from what is really occurs, that it is very very bizarre.

Perhaps we should say that an individual who watches television or operates an item of machinery in their kitchen, perhaps a microwave are evil, because that is science and science killed hundreds of thousands of people via many things and within that the nuclear bomb, one could say that science is the most dangerous thing in existence because these nuclear bombs could wipe out the planet hundreds of times over. Of course, right minded individuals would not accuse someone of such a thing, because they happen to believe in science, or perhaps have attended a science course at college, and therefore become instruments that pertain to science that they and science are genocidal supporters. Such is the same scenario with billions of individuals who identify with, have a belief in Jesus, the Holy Trinity, and are Christians and try to use the Christian ethos in their lives, they are rather clearly not what is being unfairly speculated towards them by particular individuals in this discourse.

[TheJackal]

I think I will say one or perhaps two more things about this.

The idea that Christianity promotes killing and such things is very strange.

Christianity is subject to Mosaic law, promoting killing was common, especially concerning Christianity throughout history. Modern Christianity doesn't much adhere to Mosaic law anymore, and like other sources cited have noted, it has become largely compartmentalized and tamed.. Furthermore, Christians ought to know that Christ's law does not over-rule Mosaic law, Christ was to fulfill and enforce Mosaic law. Lastly, You seem to think the OT has nothing to do with the NT as if trying to say the orange peel has nothing to do with the orange.. Read the Bible, it most certainly promotes killing, and Christians worship and praise it whether they know it or not.

There have been references made to the Old Testament with this discourse, and indeed, the Old Testament could be said to have some acts or discussions that were appropriate for the type of culture and barbaric difficulties that were faced at that time.

I will repeat... Christianity is subject to Mosaic law... Early Christianity more closely followed Mosaic law, that which was much a part of the "Barbaric Difficulties " of their time.. Worse still, Christianity only promoted love and peace between fellow brothers and Christians.. Love thy neighbor doesn't mean what you think it does...

The New Testament is indeed that, a New Covenant, which Jesus came to die for our sins and to establish this New Covenant, the New Testament, and first and foremost as Christians, followers of Christ, the New Testament is what Christians adhere too. Is Christianity a violent religion? Does Christianity condone killing?

Sorry, the New Covenant was as violent as the last, and is not subject to succession..

Anyone who has read the bible will know that the Christian message is a message of peace and love, and simple Google searches of Christianity can confirm this.

Yeah, because this is all about "Peace and love":

* In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."
* Mark 16:15-16 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned to hell.
* Matthew 10:35-37 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
* Luke 14:26 26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
* Matthew 10:34 34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

* 2 Peter 3:7 And by the same word, the present heavens and earth have been stored up for fire. They are being kept for the day of judgment, when ungodly people will be destroyed.

I think you have a different definition of peace and love than the rest of us do.. And I am not sure if you have bothered to read Matthew in which discusses those who bear bad fruit ought to be cast into the fire..., and largely in reference to "Devils", (Goats), to which are reference to worshipers and the gods of others.. Basically Matthew is saying that the penalty for Idolatry is death to which must be cast into the lake of fire.. Jesus himself promoted Genocide:

6:10 And he (Jesus) said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place.

6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Well, what happened to Sodom and Gomorrha Job?... Basically Jesus just said that any city that doesn't receive him shall utterly be destroyed and face a far worse fate than had Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgement.. He further goes on and makes the same threat to anyone that doesn't accept his disciples . Hence burn all the infidels that don't bow, praise, or worship Jesus their lord savior from himself..., err his father Yahweh depending on Sect of Christianity you belong to.

Of course, there have been people who have used Christianity, the name of being Christian, who have carried out large scale acts in history which are not Christian in their ethos. This is of course not Christianity, but people who do this. Christianity does not cause wars, people cause these wars and many tools have been used as an excuse to start a war in history.

Oh but it is...

I will ask, does science cause wars?

No.., science is a methodology... , it's not even an ideology

Is science evil?

How can a methodology be evil, it has no doctrine .. You are trying to compare a religion to that of a methodology

Let us consider the biggest war and in our recent history, World War 2. World War 2, in particular Nazi Germany, was a war based in science, the science of what is called eugenics.

Eugenics is a philosophy on improving the human population through genetics, the science in regards to genetics really has nothing to do with causing wars. The science behind genetics has no doctrine or philosophy to say to go and do bad things to people. People do that, and religions with religious doctrines can and do promote it. You cannot honestly compare your religion to science.., it's incoherent to do so.

So is science evil?

No..

Science killed all these people and committed atrocities on people?

No it didn't and neither did it tell anyone to.. Again I must stress that science is a methodology, not an ideology or religion.. Yes, science can be used to do bad things as can a religion, but again science doesn't have a doctrine to which promotes such things or tells people that they must commit atrocities.. That is what religion does.. I never once opened a science book that has ever told me to kill non-believers, or to go bomb a city of civilians.. I have never once read a science paper that promoted genocide of people who don't bow down and praise science.. For this discussion, I would strongly recommend reading "The Island Of Dr Monroe" ...

Science is not evil, it is people who use tools for their own ends that can cause horrific things to happen, and that is the same with many things.

Correct..., but again religions have scriptures and doctrines to which lay out their moral standings, ideological beliefs, and what they should and should not do in accordance to there of.. There is a huge difference between Dominion theologies such as Christianity and the Scientific methodology . Hence, a religion in this case is like telling me I should stab an infidel in the eye and kill him or her. Science on-the-other-hand could be used as a tool to figure out how to best do that, but it in itself doesn't tell me to, encourage me to, or demand that I do.. Science doesn't try and coerce me to, or give me a reason to commit such atrocities.

Most people whom an individual knows who refers to themself as Christian, are people who like others, they attend places of employment, have relationships, various hobbies and interests. As Christians, they may attend a religious service, they may partake in charity work or helping people and are inspired to do this in part at least due to their Christian values.

Correct.. There are a lot of peaceful and charitable Christians.. However, the religion itself is contrary to that by doctrine.. It tells them that they are worthless, it tells them to worship Jesus or be damned, it tells them that they must hate themselves and their lives to be worthy of Jesus... Christianity tells people to kill their kids if should they dishonor and disobey them.. Christianity is also a religion that praises Yahweh, one of the most blood stained and vile deities in known literature..

They are not monsters, they may live next door to you or somewhere that you meet them, and the discourse of this thread to say that these individuals, Christians, are evil, genocidal maniacs apparently, is so far removed from the message of Christianity and so far removed from the lives of the various individual Christians that I refer to, that the discourse of this thread is indeed strange and indeed far removed from what is really occurs, that it is very very bizarre.

I would say most aren't even though their religion most certainly is. So does Christianity condone killing? Yes it does, and does so by doctrine whether or not a Christian does or doesn't

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I think I will say one or perhaps two more things about this.

The idea that Christianity promotes killing and such things is very strange. There have been references made to the Old Testament with this discourse, and indeed, the Old Testament could be said to have some acts or discussions that were appropriate for the type of culture and barbaric difficulties that were faced at that time. The New Testament is indeed that, a New Covenant, which Jesus came to die for our sins and to establish this New Covenant, the New Testament, and first and foremost as Christians, followers of Christ, the New Testament is what Christians adhere too. Is Christianity a violent religion? Does Christianity condone killing?

Anyone who has read the bible will know that the Christian message is a message of peace and love, and simple Google searches of Christianity can confirm this.

The Christ of the New Testament never condoned his actions in the Old Testament, which suggests that he still considered them acceptable. The Christ of the New Testament also discriminated against all those who did not believe he was god, and said that he would burn most of humanity alive for eternity: something that the Nazis never did (they at least had the 'decency' to kill people before burning them (at least for the most part, as there are a few varying reports of the extent of their atrocities). I find it appalling that fundamentalist Christians believe that Anne Frank deserved to burn in hell for eternity.

Of course, there have been people who have used Christianity, the name of being Christian, who have carried out large scale acts in history which are not Christian in their ethos. This is of course not Christianity, but people who do this. Christianity does not cause wars, people cause these wars and many tools have been used as an excuse to start a war in history.

Now, to put the shoes on the other foot, let us use the logic being applied by particular individuals in this thread. I will ask, does science cause wars? Is science evil? Let us consider the biggest war and in our recent history, World War 2. World War 2, in particular Nazi Germany, was a war based in science, the science of what is called eugenics. Horrific and unspeakable things occurred and I do not even like to write about it. So is science evil? Science killed all these people and committed atrocities on people? Science is not evil, it is people who use tools for their own ends that can cause horrific things to happen, and that is the same with many things.

Eugenics is not a science: it is a belief system. The study of empirical data has no voice in regard how humans should and act on that data. Eugenics has clearly been irreparable tainted, but even so, as a concept, it does not advocate murder.

In regards WW2: even with WW2...and WW1...the 20th century was the most peaceful century in history in regards the chances of suffering a violent death (whether through homicide and/or war). Further, because of science, average life expectancy worldwide rose from 31 years of age in 1900 to 67 in 2001, and 71 now. In addition, while Jesus in the bible discouraged his followers from attempting to do fix poverty "For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always" and his Churches own a vast amount of wealth (the UN says it would only take $30 billion per year to end world hunger), mainly because of secular organisations like the UN, worldwide absolute poverty ("a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information.") more than halved between 1990 and 2010 (from 37% to 16%), and the UN expects that absolute poverty will be eradicated by 2030. In 14 years. So basically, secular organisations have done more to eradicate poverty in 20 years than the church has in 2000 years, or that religion has achieved in 200,000 years.

Most people whom an individual knows who refers to themself as Christian, are people who like others, they attend places of employment, have relationships, various hobbies and interests. As Christians, they may attend a religious service, they may partake in charity work or helping people and are inspired to do this in part at least due to their Christian values. They are not monsters, they may live next door to you or somewhere that you meet them, and the discourse of this thread to say that these individuals, Christians, are evil, genocidal maniacs apparently, is so far removed from the message of Christianity and so far removed from the lives of the various individual Christians that I refer to, that the discourse of this thread is indeed strange and indeed far removed from what is really occurs, that it is very very bizarre.

Perhaps we should say that an individual who watches television or operates an item of machinery in their kitchen, perhaps a microwave are evil, because that is science and science killed hundreds of thousands of people via many things and within that the nuclear bomb, one could say that science is the most dangerous thing in existence because these nuclear bombs could wipe out the planet hundreds of times over. Of course, right minded individuals would not accuse someone of such a thing, because they happen to believe in science, or perhaps have attended a science course at college, and therefore become instruments that pertain to science that they and science are genocidal supporters. Such is the same scenario with billions of individuals who identify with, have a belief in Jesus, the Holy Trinity, and are Christians and try to use the Christian ethos in their lives, they are rather clearly not what is being unfairly speculated towards them by particular individuals in this discourse.

Again, the main thing to note about Christian ideology is that it preaches that most people are deserving of eternal Damnation...an absolutely hateful doctrine, the most evil of any ideology ever invented. Many Christians point out that Jesus emphasised "Do to others what you want them to do to you." - which was not even a new concept at the time, and which a certain former Catholic leader of Germany technically followed when he ended up shooting himself. There are many superior philosophies, both older and newer than Christianity.

The benefits of science are demonstrable, and are compounding at an ever-increasing rate. For a religious fundamentalist to bring up nuclear bombs as the most dangerous things in existence in an obvious attempt to denigrate science rather raises the eyebrows, when you know they believe in a god that wiped out essentially the entire population of the Earth at least once and which they believe will cause eternally suffering to most of the people who have ever lived.

If you follow such a god blindly, both the genocidal god of the Old Testament and the damning god of the New, then surely that makes you a genocide supporter? Many tyrants throughout history have committed acts of genocide against those that saw as their enemies or who they otherwise saw as unworthy. Jesus was not at all peace and love and roses: it is appalling that his values have been normalised and entrenched to the degree that they are still widespread in the 21st century. It is also incredibly dangerous to have people who believe such things around, because if you are capable of believing that everybody deserves eternal suffering (with only a few people being saved by "grace"...and by believing in a god that never shows himself), you are capable of believing anything, no matter how bad, and you are thus susceptible to carrying out atrocious acts (because if you believe such a god orders you to do something, clearly you will do it, as you already find your evil master "just" and absolutely sovereign).

[Eliza Thomason]

I think I will say one or perhaps two more things about this.

The idea that Christianity promotes killing and such things is very strange. There have been references made to the Old Testament with this discourse, and indeed, the Old Testament could be said to have some acts or discussions that were appropriate for the type of culture and barbaric difficulties that were faced at that time. The New Testament is indeed that, a New Covenant, which Jesus came to die for our sins and to establish this New Covenant, the New Testament, and first and foremost as Christians, followers of Christ, the New Testament is what Christians adhere too. Is Christianity a violent religion? Does Christianity condone killing?

Anyone who has read the bible will know that the Christian message is a message of peace and love, and simple Google searches of Christianity can confirm this.

Of course, there have been people who have used Christianity, the name of being Christian, who have carried out large scale acts in history which are not Christian in their ethos. This is of course not Christianity, but people who do this. Christianity does not cause wars, people cause these wars and many tools have been used as an excuse to start a war in history.

Now, to put the shoes on the other foot, let us use the logic being applied by particular individuals in this thread. I will ask, does science cause wars? Is science evil? Let us consider the biggest war and in our recent history, World War 2. World War 2, in particular Nazi Germany, was a war based in science, the science of what is called eugenics. Horrific and unspeakable things occurred and I do not even like to write about it. So is science evil? Science killed all these people and committed atrocities on people? Science is not evil, it is people who use tools for their own ends that can cause horrific things to happen, and that is the same with many things.

Most people whom an individual knows who refers to themself as Christian, are people who like others, they attend places of employment, have relationships, various hobbies and interests. As Christians, they may attend a religious service, they may partake in charity work or helping people and are inspired to do this in part at least due to their Christian values. They are not monsters, they may live next door to you or somewhere that you meet them, and the discourse of this thread to say that these individuals, Christians, are evil, genocidal maniacs apparently, is so far removed from the message of Christianity and so far removed from the lives of the various individual Christians that I refer to, that the discourse of this thread is indeed strange and indeed far removed from what is really occurs, that it is very very bizarre.

Perhaps we should say that an individual who watches television or operates an item of machinery in their kitchen, perhaps a microwave are evil, because that is science and science killed hundreds of thousands of people via many things and within that the nuclear bomb, one could say that science is the most dangerous thing in existence because these nuclear bombs could wipe out the planet hundreds of times over. Of course, right minded individuals would not accuse someone of such a thing, because they happen to believe in science, or perhaps have attended a science course at college, and therefore become instruments that pertain to science that they and science are genocidal supporters. Such is the same scenario with billions of individuals who identify with, have a belief in Jesus, the Holy Trinity, and are Christians and try to use the Christian ethos in their lives, they are rather clearly not what is being unfairly speculated towards them by particular individuals in this discourse.

Thank you so much, Job, you are doing SUCH a better job than I do with these ILIs! Yes, you are saying the things I feel when I read their words, but I don;t know how to express it. Yes, "The idea that Christianity promotes killing and such things is very strange. " Anyone can take one past example and broadbrush it. And there is a LOT of broadbrushing going on here. Personally, I am more of a precise painter. But any example out of historical context AND without bothering to get a WORTHY reference negates the whole point. Its plain to see a lot of useless points here. Frothing is the word that comes to mind.

And your last paragraph is spot-on: "Perhaps we should say that an individual who watches television or operates an item of machinery in their kitchen, perhaps a microwave are evil, because that is science and science killed hundreds of thousands of people via many things and within that the nuclear bomb, one could say that science is the most dangerous thing in existence because these nuclear bombs could wipe out the planet hundreds of times over."

Yes! This is exactly what we are getting from Jackal and Subteigh about Christianity. Only don't you dare try the same thing on Sacred Athesism. That would not be right-minded.

And this is totally true what you wrote:

I don't think you are much different from what you try to oppose Jackal, I think you and what you think you oppose are really two of the same kinds of things, one a fundamentalist view of a religious text, and you with a fundamentalist view of opposing it. I don't see you showing the intricacies of textured thoughts, and I use the way you present Bible quotations as an example.

Thank you pointing out some truths here, and no, its probably not worth more of your time.

I also won't be continuing, for reasons I explained pertaining to type. A negative conversation is not a conversation worth having, and Jackal in particular seems unable to carry on civil conversation. Its not worth it to me. A conversation not worth having. And Subteigh has been more polite but still, there is something about the thinkign style ON TOP of arguing with an ILI Critic that make the conversation stressful for me.

Anyway, Lent is a week away and I will be gone pretty much the next 50 days.

God bless you, Job. You should learn your Socionics type. Its interesting.

[TheJackal]

Thank you so much, Job, you are doing SUCH a better job than I do with these ILIs! Yes, you are saying the things I feel when I read their words, but I don;t know how to express it. Yes, "The idea that Christianity promotes killing and such things is very strange. " Anyone can take one past example and broadbrush it. And there is a LOT of broadbrushing going on here. Personally, I am more of a precise painter. But any example out of historical context AND without bothering to get a WORTHY reference negates the whole point. Its plain to see a lot of useless points here. Frothing is the word that comes to mind.

I am detecting possible sock puppetry here.

And your last paragraph is spot-on: "Perhaps we should say that an individual who watches television or operates an item of machinery in their kitchen, perhaps a microwave are evil, because that is science and science killed hundreds of thousands of people via many things and within that the nuclear bomb, one could say that science is the most dangerous thing in existence because these nuclear bombs could wipe out the planet hundreds of times over."

Microwaves don't promote the killing, torture, or damnation of those who don'st subscribe.. Microwave don't condone or promote rape either, but your religion does.., this to which Christians get their moral values from. The analogy he presented was incoherent.., and was attempting to suggest that his religion was like the Microwave.., as if it isn't or wasn't responsible for its horrific history or those who used it to enact and justify their atrocities for which are promoted in the Bible. .


Science hasn't killed anyone, it is a methodology and nothing more... I swear, it's like you and Job are severely brain dead and incapable of understanding the difference between science and those who use it... You are further conflating the difference between an individual and science, or an individual and a religion.., they are not the same. Btw, science denial and illiteracy is capable of wiping us out.., but it is the ignorance most of all that is dangerous.., especially when religion gets involved. Science didn't create a nuclear bomb, people who used science did..., and those same people used that creation to kill people in a bloody war they didn't even start. Yes, Science as a tool can be used to do terrible things just as a pencil can be used to do terrible things... A pencil can write novels and fanatic stories, but it also can be used as a weapon as well.. Your religion is not simply a methodology or tool that can be used to terrible things kiddo, it literally encourages and promotes doing those things with glorifying praise.. Your religion literally creates sociopaths.. You never hear of an Atheist mother who slits their children throats to save them from judgement day, or because she believed they were possessed by demons. We also don't see Atheists making up over 90 percent of the Prison population either..., or using the bible to justify their crimes.

Yes! This is exactly what we are getting from Jackal and Subteigh about Christianity. Only don't you dare try the same thing on Sacred Athesism. That would not be right-minded.

Atheism isn't an ideology, it is the rejection to a claim... Atheism doesn't have a written doctrine that tells Atheists how to live, act, behave, or do anything at all. It has no scriptures or doctrines or bible... There is nothing sacred about it either, its a response and position that doesn't believe your asserted claim, that is all it is. This doesn't mean Atheists are immune or exempt from doing horrible atrocities throughout history., they have.. However, and I stress again, Atheism doesn't have a doctrine telling them to do those things, or telling them that those things are at all acceptable or righteous.... Your religion does all those things by doctrine! Christianity is morally bankrupt by doctrine. We can't say the same for Atheism or Science for that matter. You are comparing apples to oranges.. You let me know when you find me a published science paper in an accredited journal to which calls for genocide of those that don't subscribed to science.. You let me know when you can find an Atheist bible for which the Majority of all atheists subscribe to as a base and fundamental doctrine to which, and like Christianity, promotes, incites, and commits atrocities while praising it, glorifying it, and worshiping it. Worse still, and even if you could have managed to find such an example, you are attempting a two wrongs make a right fallacy to excuse your religion's immorality as justifiable..

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/i...s-make-a-right

Thank you pointing out some truths here, and no, its probably not worth more of your time.

I am sorry, but Job's fallacy arguments are not pointing out truths... He is, like you, avoiding having to deal with the immorality of his and your religion.

I also won't be continuing, for reasons I explained pertaining to type. A negative conversation is not a conversation worth having, and Jackal in particular seems unable to carry on civil conversation. Its not worth it to me. A conversation not worth having. And Subteigh has been more polite but still, there is something about the thinkign style ON TOP of arguing with an ILI Critic that make the conversation stressful for me.

Yes, of course you will not continue, you can't even coherently deal with the fact that your religion is sociopathic, narcissistic, and psychotic.. For fuck sake, you literally worship and praise a god you believe drowned nearly every living thing on the planet, this same deity that then went on to kill every first born in Egypt because a Pharaoh wouldn't accept him as his lord.. Your religion is pure evil and utter hypocrisy.. The sheer irony of Moses bringing down the ten commandments to which commands that "Thou shall not kill" is off the charts... Moses goes and commits genocide of his own.... Your religion can't even manage to abide by it's own commandments, and its deity and prophets most certainly didn't give a damn about "Thou shall not kill".. This line of logic even gets worse when you consider that you also believe your god created life, the very life that must murder itself in order to reproduce and survive. Some of you even believe this curse was given upon life because of original sin..., you seriously have to be mentally messed up and sick to even consider this sort of thinking as rational, righteous, loving, a religion of peace, or anything a normal person would consider having moral fortitude.

So you can be as dogmatic as you like by trying to label me " ILI", but at least I am not so intellectually inept and mentally messed up to believe in your sociopathic religion ripped from Bronze age misogynistic pagan mythology...

Critic that make the conversation stressful for me

This is stressful to you probably because you can't deal with being told the hard facts about your religion and beliefs..., and that they are inherently messed up morally and intellectually. You can't seem to deal with the lack of moral fortitude and intellectual integrity of your religion.., and neither can Flat Earthers, Creationists, or other cranks.. You're being called out..., and you don't like it. You and Job do the very same crap that Scientologists pull when I call them out on their dishonest and immoral crap as well.. If you were more honest, this would have been a much friendlier conversation.


Neither you nor Job came here to have an honest discussion. You came here to peddle your beliefs and religion through just about every intellectually dishonest means possible.. You don't get respect for that..., respect is something you earn.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I also won't be continuing, for reasons I explained pertaining to type. A negative conversation is not a conversation worth having, and Jackal in particular seems unable to carry on civil conversation. Its not worth it to me. A conversation not worth having. And Subteigh has been more polite but still, there is something about the thinkign style ON TOP of arguing with an ILI Critic that make the conversation stressful for me.

Anyway, Lent is a week away and I will be gone pretty much the next 50 days.

God bless you, Job. You should learn your Socionics type. Its interesting.

You still seem to have the opinion that if someone challenges what you see as the status quo...that Chsritainity is the fundamental starting point of ethics in our society, that they are being an "ILI Critic". You seem utterly unable to comprehend that is YOU who is being "Critical"...you believe everyone must be damned if they do not follow your religion, that your religion is the only way.

Briefly, in regards Socionics theory, the level of comprehension between a IEE and a ILI should be very good, so you attempts to type people who have fundamental differences of opinion with you as ILI are completely misguided. It would be far easier to recognise that this is a matter of vast differences of opinion on the matters of ethics and the concept of empiricism. I believe both myself and TheJackal have been far politer towards than you deserve, considering that you believe we will burn in hell unless we start considering god worthy of worship: if anyone has been "impolite", it has been you.

I am relieved to know there are no scientists or atheists who are sociopaths. That is a very good thing!

A very low blow for you here, to insinuate that a medical condition as being symptomatic of a position you oppose. Not only is it a strawman at best, it only makes your case worse, because you believe in a god that not only created sociopaths but has always been depicted as a sociopath in terms of action and ideology. Further, you choose to follow this sociopathic ideology: there is nothing sociopathic about science as a discipline, or atheism as a philosophical position.

Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.

[TheJackal]

You still seem to have the opinion that if someone challenges what you see as the status quo...that Chsritainity is the fundamental starting point of ethics in our society, that they are being an "ILI Critic". You seem utterly unable to comprehend that is YOU who is being "Critical"...you believe everyone must be damned if they do not follow your religion, that your religion is the only way.

He is using it in the format of dogma, in the very same context that Christians label anyone that doesn't subscribe to Christ as "satan", or "the anti-christ".. This is typical when dealing with religious and cult ideologies and their following... Hence any criticism is considered a blasphemous negative, and this is a means to dodge having to seriously acknowledge or deal with the negative and indefensible immorality and lack of intellectual integrity.. When people resort to this, they already know they lost the debate, that they are wrong, and that they are crank.. They lie to much, and resort to and rely on fallacy way to much..., and they don't care because they do not hold moral fortitude or intellectual integrity as a virtue.. These things are considered threats to the existence of their religious and ideological beliefs. They don't care about facts or honesty..., and they have no humility.. Woeful ignorance is a fundamental value and aspect often expressed their position to which they hold as a virtue.. They then demand respect while playing the victim if they are not getting any such respect to which they have not earned. These are things sociopaths do as they could careless of the irreversible damage they do to any given society. Hence, if someone died because they took advantage of their ignorance on the shape of the Earth, they wouldn't give a fuck.. That hypothetical plane went down, killed 250 on board because they ran out of fuel due to the pilot being recently convinced the Earth is flat wouldn't phase them one bit.. Worse still, such anti-intellectualism is damaging and dangerous to the whole of the human race.. Science illiteracy here in America is becoming dangerous, and I wouldn't be surprised that a number of them have little to no understanding of what a nuclear weapon is.. People Like Sarah Palin in positions that would cost people their lives and the ecological collapse of the world we rely on to exist at all.

Briefly, in regards Socionics theory, the level of comprehension between a IEE and a ILI should be very good, so you attempts to type people who have fundamental differences of opinion with you as ILI are completely misguided. It would be far easier to recognise that this is a matter of vast differences of opinion on the matters of ethics and the concept of empiricism. I believe both myself and TheJackal have been far politer towards than you deserve, considering that you believe we will burn in hell unless we start considering god worthy of worship: if anyone has been "impolite", it has been you.

A very low blow for you here, to insinuate that a medical condition as being symptomatic of a position you oppose. Not only is it a strawman at best, it only makes your case worse, because you believe in a god that not only created sociopaths but has always been depicted as a sociopath in terms of action and ideology. Further, you choose to follow this sociopathic ideology: there is nothing sociopathic about science as a discipline, or atheism as a philosophical position.

Correct, neither science or atheism is an ideology to which profess moral positions.. Atheists and scientists can, but Atheism / science does not. He seems to come off as believing that either of them have some sort of religious doctrines ...He can't seem to understand the difference between a methodology and a philosophy / ideology / religion.. This isn't to say there aren't atheistic religions out there (those that have personal god), but atheism in itself is not subject to require or be subject to any of them... Through this discussion, I am not even sure he understands the definition of Atheism or what science is. He then rejects both outright because they don't conform to his religious beliefs...., this being to his preset confirmation bias. This is evidence in the question dodging, the avoiding the issue, the woeful ignoring of contrary evidence, the fallacy arguments, and the focusing on attacking the character of the person... He spent half his time trying to type people out rather than deal with anything discussed.

[Eliza Thomason]

A very low blow for you here, to insinuate that a medical condition as being symptomatic of a position you oppose. Not only is it a strawman at best, it only makes your case worse, because you believe in a god that not only created sociopaths but has always been depicted as a sociopath in terms of action and ideology. Further, you choose to follow this sociopathic ideology: there is nothing sociopathic about science as a discipline, or atheism as a philosophical position.

Subteigh, I am truly doubting you are a person of good will. I do't mind arguing, but I need integrity in the argument.

I don't want to argue with Jackal, either. But he made a lengthy and quite unique an unique case for Christianity being the cause of sociopaths! Such a case as his implies that without Christians, sociopaths would not be a problem. That's pretty ignorant, but just supposing this was true. There are many atheists and atheist-scientists in the world, and if there are no sociopaths among them, then there are less sociopaths in the world than one would think. And that's a good thing.

Its always good to find a point of agreement with people. That's something you and Jackal should consider sometime.

Subteigh, your quote. You are not a person of good will, are you? You don't care to know what is true, you just want to be the one to stomp our Christianity. Right? But I am willing to bet you have been blessed by some kind and charitable acts towards you in your life by Christians. Because IRL, that's how Christians are.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Subteigh, I am truly doubting you are a person of good will. I do't mind arguing, but I need integrity in the argument.

I don't want to argue with Jackal, either. But he made a lengthy and quite unique an unique case for Christianity being the cause of sociopaths! Such a case as his implies that without Christians, sociopaths would not be a problem. That's pretty ignorant, but just supposing this was true. There are many atheists and atheist-scientists in the world, and if there are no sociopaths among them, then there are less sociopaths in the world than one would think. And that's a good thing.

Its always good to find a point of agreement with people. That's something you and Jackal should consider sometime.

Subteigh, your quote. You are not a person of good will, are you? You don't care to know what is true, you just want to be the one to stomp our Christianity. Right? But I am willing to bet you have been blessed by some kind and charitable acts towards you in your life by Christians. Because IRL, that's how Christians are.

Actually, TheJackal and myself were very clear that people of any religion can be good: we especially highlighted that point. We said the IDEOLOGY was sociopathic.

You by contrast believe that TheJackal and myself will burn in hell, and you insinuated that atheists and scientists are sociopathic, rather than making any actual sound argument.

[Eliza Thomason]

Briefly, in regards Socionics theory, the level of comprehension between a IEE and a ILI should be very good, so you attempts to type people who have fundamental differences of opinion with you as ILI are completely misguided. .

I am responding to this because i am interested in Socionics, that's all.

In real life, I find ILIs very easy to get along with. In real life, they are not socially aggressive, instead, they are socially very pleasant and do not do socially unacceptable things. They have interesting things to say, and they don't say their interesting things in a rude way at all. They are decent and nice. And I like them. Somehow the critic part of The Critic amplifies on a discussion forum. In debating, which some ILIs apparently LOVE in the context of a forum, they work to rigidly keep the debate strictly within the confines of their own particular D-A cognitive style. And the Critic part of The Critic amps up, and, lacking the ethical/feeling in the major part of their make-up, they can be quite harsh in that way, and hurtful.

And at that, the IEE withdraws. Because a conversation that is not positive is not a conversation worth having, for an IEE.

Anyway, for IEE, the conversation has to have some higher purpose. And clearly, conversation with you two ILIs, in the context of what you consider to be a "forum debate", is a conversation that lacks any charitable good will, and has no purpose beyond your spouting your intolerant ugly opinions of Christians and of my most deeply help beliefs. Which you deign to show no respect. And, you actually see nothing wrong with that.

Its just not my kind of conversation.

It would be far easier to recognise that this is a matter of vast differences of opinion on the matters of ethics and the concept of empiricism. I believe both myself and TheJackal have been far politer towards than you deserve,

Really. Wow.

If this is polite, I really don't want to know what your rude looks like!

And "deserve". Yes, that's your special word. That's your religion. That's why you accuse me of believing in a God who think some people deserve eternal damnation, even thought I CONTINUALLY correct you EVERY time you say it, and even provide EVIDENCE of what I believe are the actual words of Jesus explaining that people CHOOSE eternal damnation. They are not condemned to it, they have a choice, and they CHOOSE it. And no matter HOW MANY TIMES you, the Great Accuser, accuse that I believe SOME OTHER doctrine that I have never subscribed to, you will NEVER change what I believe.

considering that you believe we will burn in hell unless we start considering god worthy of worship: if anyone has been "impolite", it has been you..

Subteigh, gee, I really wanted to believe that are a person of good will. But you are not, are you?

[TheJackal]

I am responding to this because i am interested in Socionics, that's all.

In real life, I find ILIs very easy to get along with. In real life, they are not socially aggressive, instead, they are socially very pleasant and do not do socially unacceptable things. They have interesting things to say, and they don't say their interesting things in a rude way at all. They are decent and nice. And I like them. Somehow the critic part of The Critic amplifies on a discussion forum. In debating, which some ILIs apparently LOVE in the context of a forum, they work to rigidly keep the debate strictly within the confines of their own particular D-A cognitive style. And the Critic part of The Critic amps up, and, lacking the ethical/feeling in the major part of their make-up, they can be quite harsh in that way, and hurtful.

And at that, the IEE withdraws. Because a conversation that is not positive is not a conversation worth having, for an IEE.

Anyway, for IEE, the conversation has to have some higher purpose. And clearly, conversation with you two ILIs, in the context of what you consider to be a "forum debate", is a conversation that lacks any charitable good will, and has no purpose beyond your spouting your intolerant ugly opinions of Christians and of my most deeply help beliefs. Which you deign to show no respect. And, you actually see nothing wrong with that.

Its just not my kind of conversation.


Really. Wow.

If this is polite, I really don't want to know what your rude looks like!

And "deserve". Yes, that's your special word. That's your religion. That's why you accuse me of believing in a God who think some people deserve eternal damnation, even thought I CONTINUALLY correct you EVERY time you say it, and even provide EVIDENCE of what I believe are the actual words of Jesus explaining that people CHOOSE eternal damnation. They are not condemned to it, they have a choice, and they CHOOSE it. And no matter HOW MANY TIMES you, the Great Accuser, accuse that I believe SOME OTHER doctrine that I have never subscribed to, you will NEVER change what I believe.


Subteigh, gee, I really wanted to believe that are a person of good will. But you are not, are you?

You basically just complained about having a discussion in a forum environment that is critical of your position.. You don't even make rational sense at this point O.o You further go on into Strawman arguments and try to suggest that Subteigh was generalizing "Christians"... You can't even go a single post in this discussion without depositing one formal or informal fallacy or another. You need to grow up and learn what intellectual integrity means.., and thus it is pretty damn sad that I have to post it here for you:

http://westsidetoastmasters.com/reso...3lev1sec6.html

You seem to devalue critical thinking when it comes to addressing your religion in general.., and you don't seem well equipped to handle that at this point in time. This discussion isn't simply about "charitable good will", its about addressing the issues discussed openly with some level of integrity.. We aren't here to be charitable to the point where we just nod our heads to your beliefs, claims, assertions, statements, or arguments. The level of charity you get is the respect that you are allowed to have those views and have your fair say..., but if you think that means we should respect it to the point where you shouldn't receive any criticism there of, you would then at that point be delusional. You find criticism rude, especially when it doesn't support you... You do realize that reasonable criticism isn't for the purpose of being rude..., and nor is it rude. Seriously, you really need to stop trying to play the victim, we aren't that stupid..

And no matter HOW MANY TIMES you, the Great Accuser, accuse that I believe SOME OTHER doctrine that I have never subscribed to, you will NEVER change what I believe.

Then what god are you subscribing to? What doctrine are you subscribing to? If it's the Bible, it is fair to say Subteigh was correct. And you are trying to label "Subteigh" as Satan here.., oh you think yourself clever.. I am not even sure you realize that "Satan" is no definable Character in any Bible and also comes from Pagan mythology. However, and the amusing part about this is that your GOD himself is "Satan"

1 Chronicles 21:1

David’s Census Brings Pestilence
21 fThen gSatan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.


2 Samuel 24:1

David’s Census24 zaAgain the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, b“Go, number Israel and Judah.”

Christians use "Satan" as a dogmatic term as you just did by saying Subteigh is "The Great Accuser"..., um no, thus far that would technically be you and your "Satan" GOD.., and "Satan" doesn't mean "Accuser", that's "Ha-satan" ( (Hebrew: ה ש ןט ha-Satan ("the accuser").. Hence "satan" actually means to "obstruct" or "appose" (http://www.studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/hwview.cgi?n=07853)..Technically speaking, both sides of an opposing argument are "satans" if you at all even know what the word means.

Next, and if you do follow the Bible, it does indeed argue for "eternal Damnation":

"And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire," (Matt. 18:8).1

This includes Jesus telling people that if they believeth not that they will be cast into the lake of fire often referred to as the eternal fire. Hell, you can go right over to CARM if you need a Christian citation:

https://carm.org/hell-eternal


And in case you still think the NT is all about peace and love..., here is some context for you between the OT and the NT:

In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."
Deuteronomy 13: 13-18
13that certain(R)worthless fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods,' which you have not known, 14then you shall inquire and make search and ask(S) diligently. And behold, if it be true and certain that such an abomination has been done among you, 15you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, devoting it to destruction,[c] all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword. 16You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square and(T) burn the city and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It shall be a(U) heap forever. It shall not be built again. 17(V) None of the devoted things shall stick to your hand,(W) that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger and show you mercy and have compassion on you and multiply you,(X) as he swore to your fathers, 18if you obey the voice of the LORD your God,(Y) keeping all his commandments that I am commanding you today, and doing what is right in the sight of the LORD your God.
2 Peter 3:7
* And by the same word, the present heavens and earth have been stored up for fire. They are being kept for the day of judgment, when ungodly people will be destroyed.

So ... If this isn't your God or religion, what religion and God are you supposedly worshiping?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Really. Wow.

If this is polite, I really don't want to know what your rude looks like!

And "deserve". Yes, that's your special word. That's your religion. That's why you accuse me of believing in a God who think some people deserve eternal damnation, even thought I CONTINUALLY correct you EVERY time you say it, and even provide EVIDENCE of what I believe are the actual words of Jesus explaining that people CHOOSE eternal damnation. They are not condemned to it, they have a choice, and they CHOOSE it. And no matter HOW MANY TIMES you, the Great Accuser, accuse that I believe SOME OTHER doctrine that I have never subscribed to, you will NEVER change what I believe.


Subteigh, gee, I really wanted to believe that are a person of good will. But you are not, are you?

See, you quoted me as saying:

It would be far easier to recognise that this is a matter of vast differences of opinion on the matters of ethics and the concept of empiricism. I believe both myself and TheJackal have been far politer towards than you deserve,

but my full quote was:

You still seem to have the opinion that if someone challenges what you see as the status quo...that Chsritainity is the fundamental starting point of ethics in our society, that they are being an "ILI Critic". You seem utterly unable to comprehend that is YOU who is being "Critical"...you believe everyone must be damned if they do not follow your religion, that your religion is the only way.

Briefly, in regards Socionics theory, the level of comprehension between a IEE and a ILI should be very good, so you attempts to type people who have fundamental differences of opinion with you as ILI are completely misguided. It would be far easier to recognise that this is a matter of vast differences of opinion on the matters of ethics and the concept of empiricism. I believe both myself and TheJackal have been far politer towards than you deserve, considering that you believe we will burn in hell unless we start considering god worthy of worship: if anyone has been "impolite", it has been you.

You really should not take things out of context. This is a clear example of dishonesty, to cut off a crucial part of my quote after a comma.