Page 4 of 25 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 160 of 976

Thread: The earth is round

  1. #121

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    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
    Last edited by TheJackal; 01-31-2016 at 11:26 PM.

  2. #122
    LϺαο Not A Communist Shill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,136
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    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).

  3. #123
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Eugenics is very much a science. When one speaks about improving genetics, it is a science. When one does this in livestock, it is a science, when one does this with agriculture, it is a science, whether that is through selective breeding our outright meddling (See MONSATO for an example of the evils of science). According to you, humans are just the same as animals, bacteria and plants, they are genetic programs. The practice of eugenics becomes called a philosophy as a word play when it refers to humans, who are of course according to you are no different than any other living material on earth, and no different in any way to each other, despite this not being the case. The reason it becomes referred to as a philosophy is unscientific, it is because we are more than just science that we do not allow ourselves to be treated this way, you can look to moral definitions such as those found in spiritual concerns such as among those being Christianity, which is the correct approach. Sorry you are going to have to accept what is to most people no cause for concern, but to you a scrambling of defending your own hardline faith of science.

    You see you have a dilemma. You can accept that genetic selection of plants, bacteria and livestock is science, and therefore the genetic selection of humans is also a science. Of course to do this, you have to therefore in a sense lend support to Nazi-ism, or you can not accept it and not really be honest scientists, or instead accept that humans are different because of matters you cannot cover.

    See also debates on genetic engineering on embryos, perhaps another 'philosophy'.

    I could not care so much how you view this, it is clear from the conversation that you will manipulate many things and not give quarter where it is due, however, there are others who may be reading this, or read this such as Eliza who deserve kindness and explanations against the uncaring controlled minds such as yourselves. Perhaps no one cares, it deserves to be mentioned as a counter to your stubborn rigid belief.

    I would not chuckle either if there is smoke coming out your circuits over your science dilemma, people who are not open minded always find some way to fudge the facts, so I expect a response which does not acknowledge your 'paradox', scientists are no different.

    I also will not debate Christian theology with you, you are telling me things as though they are fact, and they are not fact, and you are miss-reading quotes from the bible. I expect no education or a place of learning in this regards, as in a way for you to listen without assuming you have to counter it with to be honest, less experience as though you are still right, in therefore a way of to put it, you may have all days to debate endlessly, I do not. Not responding is not defeat, it is simply deciding on better priorities and more fruitful discussions with other individuals.

  4. #124
    LϺαο Not A Communist Shill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,136
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    Eugenics is very much a science. When one speaks about improving genetics, it is a science. When one does this in livestock, it is a science, when one does this with agriculture, it is a science, whether that is through selective breeding our outright meddling (See MONSATO for an example of the evils of science). According to you, humans are just the same as animals, bacteria and plants, they are genetic programs. The practice of eugenics becomes called a philosophy as a word play when it refers to humans, who are of course according to you are no different than any other living material on earth, and no different in any way to each other, despite this not being the case. The reason it becomes referred to as a philosophy is unscientific, it is because we are more than just science that we do not allow ourselves to be treated this way, you can look to moral definitions such as those found in spiritual concerns such as among those being Christianity, which is the correct approach. Sorry you are going to have to accept what is to most people no cause for concern, but to you a scrambling of defending your own hardline faith of science.

    You see you have a dilemma. You can accept that genetic selection of plants, bacteria and livestock is science, and therefore the genetic selection of humans is also a science. Of course to do this, you have to therefore in a sense lend support to Nazi-ism, or you can not accept it and not really be honest scientists, or instead accept that humans are different because of matters you cannot cover.

    See also debates on genetic engineering on embryos, perhaps another 'philosophy'.

    I could not care so much how you view this, it is clear from the conversation that you will manipulate many things and not give quarter where it is due, however, there are others who may be reading this, or read this such as Eliza who deserve kindness and explanations against the uncaring controlled minds such as yourselves. Perhaps no one cares, it deserves to be mentioned as a counter to your stubborn rigid belief.

    I would not chuckle either if there is smoke coming out your circuits over your science dilemma, people who are not open minded always find some way to fudge the facts, so I expect a response which does not acknowledge your 'paradox', scientists are no different.

    I also will not debate Christian theology with you, you are telling me things as though they are fact, and they are not fact, and you are miss-reading quotes from the bible. I expect no education or a place of learning in this regards, as in a way for you to listen without assuming you have to counter it with to be honest, less experience as though you are still right, in therefore a way of to put it, you may have all days to debate endlessly, I do not. Not responding is not defeat, it is simply deciding on better priorities and more fruitful discussions with other individuals.
    Eugenics is the view that you can/should improve certain genetic traits in a population by some selection process. A science is something that makes observations and conclusions about the natural world. If you advocate a position to suit your own interests, you are hardly being an impartial observer of the natural world. Similarly, there is a natural process called evolution: making observations of such a process occurs within a scientific methodology. "Social Darwinism" by contrast, is a belief system that attempts to ape a natural process: this is not a science.

  5. #125
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Eugenics is the view that you can/should improve certain genetic traits in a population by some selection process. A science is something that makes observations and conclusions about the natural world. If you advocate a position to suit your own interests, you are hardly being an impartial observer of the natural world. Similarly, there is a natural process called evolution: making observations of such a process occurs within a scientific methodology. "Social Darwinism" by contrast, is a belief system that attempts to ape a natural process: this is not a science.
    That is a rather silly point. There is only semantics to be made in terms of the discussion in terms of something being observed and something being applied. For all practical purposes, biochemistry and a biochemist are the same thing.

    One does not talk about cars without there being a vehicle on the road.

  6. #126
    LϺαο Not A Communist Shill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,136
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    That is a rather silly point. There is only semantics to be made in terms of the discussion in terms of something being observed and something being applied. For all practical purposes, biochemistry and a biochemist are the same thing.

    One does not talk about cars without there being a vehicle on the road.
    If a scientist is using scientific data for practical ends, they are not manipulating the data or allowing themselves to force their own interpretation on it. A eugenicist by contrast is acting contrary to this, by choosing traits they consider as desirable.

    If you are going to argue that a Christian cannot be a true Christian if they kill in Christ's name because Christ (in the bible) never ordered anyone to do so, you should at least be consistent here when you talk about what is meant by "science", "scientist" etc.

  7. #127
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    If a scientist is using scientific data for practical ends, they are not manipulating the data or allowing themselves to force their own interpretation on it. A eugenicist by contrast is acting contrary to this, by choosing traits they consider as desirable.

    If you are going to argue that a Christian cannot be a true Christian if they kill in Christ's name because Christ (in the bible) never ordered anyone to do so, you should at least be consistent here when you talk about what is meant by "science", "scientist" etc.
    You want to make a distinction between science and the application of it, but have no interest in making a distinction about religion and the application of it, I don't even know what you are debating about and I doubt you do either.

  8. #128
    LϺαο Not A Communist Shill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,136
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    You want to make a distinction between science and the application of it, but have no interest in making a distinction about religion and the application of it, I don't even know what you are debating about and I doubt you do either.
    Both counts you make here are not true.

    I didn't attempt to make a distinction between science and the application of it: I made a distinction between a) "science", and your definition of science and b) "scientist" (as an active agent of science) and your usage of it. I know full well that there are people who misrepresent science for their own ends, but this is not relevant to your misunderstanding of what is meant by "science".

    In regards what a religion says and what people who claim to be of that religion say/do...how is what you said about me true? I know what the biblical Jesus said: it is indisputable that the biblical Jesus thought the actions of the Old Testament god (i.e himself) were acceptable), and that he also thought that the abominably savage doctrine of Damnation was true and just. That is what fundamentalist Christians at the very least believe (although "fundamental" implies that such an ideology is "extreme" for the range of Christian thought, when i actual fact, it is the "norm" of Christian thought, because it is what the biblical Jesus believed). I don't have a problem with accepting that there are many people who call themselves Christians who do not have such thoughts, just as there are Christians who have started wars: my main concerns is the evil of Christian doctrine that is still being drummed into people, as well as the fact that having such a position makes you less likely to take responsibility for your own actions, less likely to think for yourself, less likely to focus on empirical data, and less likely to do things because they are right, not because your religion tells you to do it.

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Both counts you make here are not true.

    I didn't attempt to make a distinction between science and the application of it: I made a distinction between a) "science", and your definition of science and b) "scientist" (as an active agent of science) and your usage of it. I know full well that there are people who misrepresent science for their own ends, but this is not relevant to your misunderstanding of what is meant by "science".

    In regards what a religion says and what people who claim to be of that religion say/do...how is what you said about me true? I know what the biblical Jesus said: it is indisputable that the biblical Jesus thought the actions of the Old Testament god (i.e himself) were acceptable), and that he also thought that the abominably savage doctrine of Damnation was true and just. That is what fundamentalist Christians at the very least believe (although "fundamental" implies that such an ideology is "extreme" for the range of Christian thought, when i actual fact, it is the "norm" of Christian thought, because it is what the biblical Jesus believed). I don't have a problem with accepting that there are many people who call themselves Christians who do not have such thoughts, just as there are Christians who have started wars: my main concerns is the evil of Christian doctrine that is still being drummed into people, as well as the fact that having such a position makes you less likely to take responsibility for your own actions, less likely to think for yourself, less likely to focus on empirical data, and less likely to do things because they are right, not because your religion tells you to do it.
    The best I can do for you is that you want to create new divisions in the discussion, that of

    Science and applied science
    Theology and religion

    They have both been used interchangeably through the whole discussion until you decided to make a trivial distinction about science to apparently save face about eugenics, or perhaps for no realistic practical purpose, and now I have no clue what you are even talking about anymore. Sorry, I will thank you regardless because I am now thinking that perhaps you meant well in your own way, but I cannot see anything further that can come from what we are talking about, can you?

  10. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Subteigh, I thought some more about what you have said.

    Fundamentalists interpret what is said in the bible fundamentally, that is each word for each word. As I am sure you know in life, few things are black and white and few things are wholly literal. Even science in terms of viewing the world can still be open to an interpretation depending on how one views it.

    What is about the Bible, the Christian bible specifically, is that its ability for interpretation has what has made it flexible through history and enabled Christian society to be well placed to evolve as it has. A previous emperor of what is now Turkey attempted to take on aspects of Christian ways, because it was acknowledged that the Christian faith allowed for greater flexibility in society than the Muslim teachings.

    What makes the Bible such a useful tool, is that like life, not everything is straight yes or no, the Bible inspires throughout history, great minds to look at the context of what is being said, that is why simple quotes from a skeptic site are not much use for a fair Bible analysis. The skeptics typically have an ulterior motive in mind and it is to represent the bible in a poor a light as possible to fit some agenda which may not be as it seems. So the bible is useful because like all things spiritual, wisdom tends not to come from obvious answers, but from interpretation, contemplation and experience.

    So, to go back to fundamentalists, yes it is easy to look at a fundamentalist and say something about this or something about that, but to look at anything in life as simply and as literally tends not to work so well in the actual human world. This is why I made my first post to the Jackal, because his literal interpretation of everything, although can be useful, suggested to me a lack of a certain spark of humanity, the ability, to put it in a nutshell, the ability to read between the lines.

    Fundamentalist interpretation does not work with with possibly many things, such as and including wisdom, it can often miss the point, in life, that's its beauty, to perhaps in contemplation, master some part of this

    I hope this helps, because I do not wish to end this conversation in anything which could be described as bad terms, and I tried my best or close enough for practical purposes in this post, if there is anything you don't agree with, agree with or wish to ask me about or if there is some help I can provide you or you can provide me, I would ask if you could do it. Thank you.

  11. #131
    hiatus
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    تخت نور
    Posts
    373
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    One does not talk about cars without there being a vehicle on the road.
    What the hell? Do you know what the process of "invention" is? An idea might be entertained for years before it is actually implemented, if at all.

  12. #132
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hacim View Post
    What the hell? Do you know what the process of "invention" is? An idea might be entertained for years before it is actually implemented, if at all.
    Let us consider this person as a typical example.

    The person turns up, for what purpose, to quote a sentence from an entire post in an entire conversation, to write some completely irrelevant 'statement', devoid of any context, Going by the uncomplimentary tone implied in the 'statement', is fair to say that this person will be an atheist, a scientist, and everything else that goes with what is perhaps currently held as being cool.

    @Subteigh, you mention people thinking for themselves, and religion being the cause of decreasing this. I wonder if you can see that good thinking is not dependent on whether one is religious or otherwise, but other factors, as evidenced by this individuals post, for an example.

    Taking things literally from a bible, or from a newspaper, or a weekly fashion magazine, is just what some people tend to do, it is human nature in the context of believing what we are taught, and it may take a while to look deeper at certain aspects.

  13. #133

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    That is a rather silly point. There is only semantics to be made in terms of the discussion in terms of something being observed and something being applied. For all practical purposes, biochemistry and a biochemist are the same thing.

    One does not talk about cars without there being a vehicle on the road.
    Incorrect... You seem to have a serious problem understanding the difference between a philosophy and science.. This has nothing to do with semantics, and thus what part of the fact that science is a methodology do you not comprehend? Furthermore, Eugenics wouldn't necessarily be bad as science does investigate the possibility of curing inheritable diseases and disorders by virtue of editing them out.. In fact, "scientists" have recently gotten the OK to :

    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35459054

    Philosophies can be applicable to science, but science itself is not Eugenics ... You can feel free to question if Eugenics is moral, but I would imagine that would be subjective (Dependent on it's application and reason there of).

  14. #134
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    Incorrect... You seem to have a serious problem understanding the difference between a philosophy and science.. This has nothing to do with semantics, and thus what part of the fact that science is a methodology do you not comprehend? Furthermore, Eugenics wouldn't necessarily be bad as science does investigate the possibility of curing inheritable diseases and disorders by virtue of editing them out.. In fact, "scientists" have recently gotten the OK to :

    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35459054

    Philosophies can be applicable to science, but science itself is not Eugenics ... You can feel free to question if Eugenics is moral, but I would imagine that would be subjective (Dependent on it's application and reason there of).
    I understand perfectly. I explained my position, elaborated it on it reasonably extensively, You appear, tell me I am wrong, simply because you say so,

    With that type of approach, if that is called 'logic', to say someone is wrong simply because you say so, you will not get very far with it.

    Perhaps this is why you have been spinning round in circles about the flat earth since at least 2010 and getting nowhere, as if proof were needed for the pudding

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/f...=42246.30;wap2

  15. #135

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    Let us consider this person as a typical example.

    The person turns up, for what purpose, to quote a sentence from an entire post in an entire conversation, to write some completely irrelevant 'statement', devoid of any context, Going by the uncomplimentary tone implied in the 'statement', is fair to say that this person will be an atheist, a scientist, and everything else that goes with what is perhaps currently held as being cool.

    @Subteigh, you mention people thinking for themselves, and religion being the cause of decreasing this. I wonder if you can see that good thinking is not dependent on whether one is religious or otherwise, but other factors, as evidenced by this individuals post, for an example.

    Taking things literally from a bible, or from a newspaper, or a weekly fashion magazine, is just what some people tend to do, it is human nature in the context of believing what we are taught, and it may take a while to look deeper at certain aspects.
    A person can worship a vile ideology, believe in it, and still be a good person... People have the ability to pick and choose what they will and will not adhere to... We call it cherry picking while pretending the rest of it doesn't exist in order to justify their devotion to said religion.. Like I have pointed out, you seem to have an entirely different definition of peace and love than the rest of us do if you are suggesting that is what Christianity was all about.. I literally pointed out to you in black and white...., direct from your own bible, why it is not.. Now whether if you can deal with that and admit it is not my problem..., that is your problem. So you can either ignore it woefully, or accept it and realize that your arguments and claims to the latter are inconsistent to the reality to which contradicts your preconceived belief.

    Taking things literally from a bible, or from a newspaper, or a weekly fashion magazine, is just what some people tend to do, it is human nature in the context of believing what we are taught, and it may take a while to look deeper at certain aspects.
    None of us were quote mining the Bible out of context.. , and I am certainly not ill educated when it concerns it. Most Christians know less about the bible than I had when I was 8 years old.. The things I brought up here is not the stuff you are going to learn in Church.. We often refer to such Christians as Sunday school educated..., they know a lot about the social aspect of their churches and religious practices, but little to next to nothing academically ... It's pretty difficult to maintain a belief in a religion that is nothing more than assimilated pagan mythology.. Hence if you consider the Canaanite Pantheon as mythical, it's pretty difficult to take El's son Yahweh, and his son Yashuah (Jesus doesn't actually exist) seriously.. Especially when Yahwism was the assimilation of El and Christianity the assimilation of Yahwism.. Now with 33,000 plus denominations / sects of Christianity, it has become an incoherent mess of its own to where they all believe they are the "true version" of all this mythology from the 3rd Millennium BC to the present day.

  16. #136

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    I understand perfectly. I explained my position, elaborated it on it reasonably extensively, You appear, tell me I am wrong, simply because you say so,

    With that type of approach, if that is called 'logic', to say someone is wrong simply because you say so, you will not get very far with it.

    Perhaps this is why you have been spinning round in circles about the flat earth since at least 2010 and getting nowhere, as if proof were needed for the pudding

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/f...=42246.30;wap2
    Seriously, your arguments have become somewhat of a bad joke at this point Job.. You either understand the differences or you don't.. You clearly didn't appear to... Your approach was like comparing apples to beef steak... I don't think you understand the definition of "Proof" either., and you can't realistically get anywhere logically with the woefully crank and ignorant.. I never address them to convince them of anything, they aren't the target audience, and we both know that. And you do realize the reference you posted dealt with their FAQ having once posted the known Circumference of Earth at the equator as their diameter right? I don't think you much comprehend or what went on... It didn't take them long to edit that out of their FAQ though. This to which had at one point stated the following:

    Circumference: 125,891 km (78,225 miles)
    Diameter: 40,073 km (24,900 miles)

    O.o... Let that sink in when you consider my response... When you can figure out the 7th grade level math of why this is hilarious... They literally had to do that in order to have any hope of having a reasonably scaled model to which they could play for an argument that appeals to people's ignorance. Adjust it in any further in any direction and the distortion gets worse and more obvious.. It's a laughable joke job, it always was.. It is also not my "job" to disprove your nonsense, it is your job to substantiate it..., I only did what I had to make it bluntly obvious that you having to substantiate your claim with.., and you don't.. Let me know when you have a working navigable coordinate system for us to which doesn't have to compensate for Earth's curvature..

  17. #137
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal
    Seriously, your arguments have become somewhat of a bad joke at this point Job.. You either understand the differences or you don't.. You clearly didn't appear to... Your approach was like comparing apples to beef steak... I don't think you understand the definition of "Proof" either., and you can't realistically get anywhere logically with the woefully crank and ignorant.. I never address them to convince them of anything, they aren't the target audience, and we both know that. And you do realize the reference you posted dealt with their FAQ having once posted the known Circumference of Earth at the equator as their diameter right? I don't think you much comprehend or what went on... It didn't take them long to edit that out of their FAQ though. This to which had at one point stated the following:

    Circumference: 125,891 km (78,225 miles)
    Diameter: 40,073 km (24,900 miles)

    O.o... Let that sink in when you consider my response... When you can figure out the 7th grade level math of why this is hilarious... They literally had to do that in order to have any hope of having a reasonably scaled model to which they could play for an argument that appeals to people's ignorance. Adjust it in any further in any direction and the distortion gets worse and more obvious.. It's a laughable joke job, it always was.. It is also not my "job" to disprove your nonsense, it is your job to substantiate it..., I only did what I had to make it bluntly obvious that you having to substantiate your claim with.., and you don't.. Let me know when you have a working navigable coordinate system for us to which doesn't have to compensate for Earth's curvature..
    I see your manners have improved

    I am not really sure where you are going, and your previous post in a way backed up what I had indicated, with you providing another example of it, as you responded with something unconnected, to at least, rather unconnected to what you quoted, and indeed about something I had indeed already covered, and with it you supported what I had said about black and white approaches, independent thinking and fundamentalism not just from a religious perspective, but a life perspective.

    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.

    As I had stated earlier, few things in life are truly black and white, and one of the purposes of a text such as the Bible, is it wonder in context of meaning, insights, perspective, contemplation, wisdom and higher connections of thought. Many people speak of the same thing in terms of spiritual connections, indeed, tying this together with life, afterlife, and what people refer to as 'communicating with God', these are all wonders of the human mind, spiritual, and indeed exists with as much rights as anything, it is a wonderful thing to appreciate and indeed, from some perspectives, it can be said to be the wonder of God.

    I don't think we will get any further in this discussion, I suppose I will thank you for your time, and I wish you all the best.

    Peace be with you brother.

  18. #138

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    The best I can do for you is that you want to create new divisions in the discussion, that of

    Science and applied science
    Theology and religion

    They have both been used interchangeably through the whole discussion until you decided to make a trivial distinction about science to apparently save face about eugenics, or perhaps for no realistic practical purpose, and now I have no clue what you are even talking about anymore. Sorry, I will thank you regardless because I am now thinking that perhaps you meant well in your own way, but I cannot see anything further that can come from what we are talking about, can you?
    It is quite clear that you essentially don't even have any clue as to what you yourself is talking about.. The distinction isn't just "trivial", it shows how incoherent your argument was regarding eugenics and science.. Nobody was even defending "Eugenics", you might want to try not using Straw-man fallacies . At this point this discussion is killing brain cells..

    I see your manners have improved
    There was nothing wrong with my manners..


    I am not really sure where you are going, and your previous post in a way backed up what I had indicated, with you providing another example of it, as you responded with something unconnected, to at least, rather unconnected to what you quoted, and indeed about something I had indeed already covered, and with it you supported what I had said about black and white approaches, independent thinking and fundamentalism not just from a religious perspective, but a life perspective.
    The only person posting unconnected nonsense and ad naseam is you ... You appear to have no idea what you are even talking about. We aren't the one's trying to equate Eugenics as "science"..., you're trying to blur the lines between philosophy, ideology, and science. There is no grey area there Job, Eugenics is not "science", it is a Philosophy which suggests using science to accomplish a goal or tenant of its Philosophy.. PERIOD!. This is clearly above your education's grade level if you can't manage to understand the difference, this difference to which entirely invalidated your incoherent post that tried to justify the immorality and promotion of violence in Christianity and it's doctrines.. Nothing I said was "unconnected", your posts however are increasingly in the realm of cognitive dissonance, and largely through pleading apologetic arguments such as:

    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.
    Your lack of intellectual integrity seems to have no bounds..., you are now trying to suggest that I am like the immoral and brutally violent things I have outlined because I oppose them.. You are trying to suggest that my criticism there of is a fundamentalist view of said religious texts.. You're trying to attack the criticism of the immorality of your religious texts as "immoral" and as "fundamentalism".. Just about every religious cult makes this sort of pleading appeal as an attack on the person and character of those who call them out on their bull shit .. The way I presented the Bible quotations are academic, and within their contexts... Your arguments are pleading to try and suggest they don't mean what they say because you can try and argue "Well it's not black and white"..., and that it all should mean the very opposite of what they say and do!.. Genocide isn't genocide, It's righteous cleansing of sin!.. Rape isn't Rape!.. That sort of thought process is what you are attempting to apply here while claiming your religion doesn't condone it! No Job, I am not the person here with a disconnection with reality here..., I am afraid you are projecting your own problem on to me..


    As I had stated earlier, few things in life are truly black and white, and one of the purposes of a text such as the Bible, is it wonder in context of meaning, insights, perspective, contemplation, wisdom and higher connections of thought. Many people speak of the same thing in terms of spiritual connections, indeed, tying this together with life, afterlife, and what people refer to as 'communicating with God', these are all wonders of the human mind, spiritual, and indeed exists with as much rights as anything, it is a wonderful thing to appreciate and indeed, from some perspectives, it can be said to be the wonder of God.

    Sorry, if your perspective is to redefine what is actually said to mean the opposite of what is said, you're doing it wrong! You're trying to avoid the immorality of the Christian doctrine ..., and you are trying to justify it by calling such woeful ignorance and redefinition to fit your own narratives as a means of spiritual connections in attempt to tying it all together in life, afterlife, and the communication with said god.. This as if you were to do so would magically make all the immorality cited and outlined become morally righteous acts and behavior.. Rape ceases to be rape, genocide ceases to be genocide, and threats there of suddenly aren't.. This at times in the context of a two wrongs make a right fallacy.. You are basically begging me and others here to ignore it and to consider it to mean entirely something different than what it actually says.. Every immoral thing becomes abstract allegory and or an abstract metaphor through apologetic arguments that often rest on further quote mining the bible. You seriously think any of us here are that stupid? The worst part of this is that this here is your argument and response :

    these are all wonders of the human mind, spiritual, and indeed exists with as much rights as anything, it is a wonderful thing to appreciate and indeed, from some perspectives, it can be said to be the wonder of God.
    You have got to be kidding me.. So from some perspectives, genocide, narcissism, rape, and other immoral aspects of your religion are wonderful things to appreciate from some perspectives.. You have to be either seriously sociopathic, crank, or dense to seriously suggest this. You are trying hard to defend this crap.., and I must ask what sort of person actively defends that sort of crap? Furthermore, one doesn't need or require Christianity or any immoral, violent, or narcissistic religion for that matter to have spiritual beliefs and connections to the world, the believed to be afterlife, the universe, or anything ... And the rights as anything to exist doesn't make it right or morally defensible with poor apologetic arguments that try to justify it all. Sorry Job, A good Christian isn't going to make Christianity a moral doctrine.., and neither will your poor analogy regarding science and Eugenics in regards to the Christian religion.
    Last edited by TheJackal; 02-02-2016 at 08:42 PM.

  19. #139
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,671
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    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.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  20. #140

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    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.
    Last edited by TheJackal; 02-05-2016 at 02:14 AM.

  21. #141
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,671
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am relieved to know there are no scientists or atheists who are sociopaths. That is a very good thing!
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  22. #142
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Catholic church does not believe in murder.

    The relationship of course is not black and white, which is what I have tried to explain at various times on various subjects, despite insistence to the contrary. So I shall do so for a short while here.

    Nations have the rights to carry out the death penalty, and people have the rights to defend themself. What this means is that the Church believes a nation has the right to carry out the death penalty, but only if all other conditions are exhausted, and this applies to the right of the individual for self defense.

    If for instance you have a person who is bent on killing people, will just keep killing people, then clearly a society has to restrain this individual. In modern societies, we have the ability to restrain these individuals through the use of lifelong imprisonment. Historically, there have been (and can be) nations, and societies, which do not have the means to imprison an individual. In that situation, one cannot allow the person to keep on killing everyone, one does not have the means to restrain them, the option at that point is for the state, that society, to carry out the death penalty.

    The same applies to individuals who are protecting themself. The force used must be proportionate and all other angles must be exhausted.

    Christians are against killing, in all instances everything must be done to avert this. In some circumstances the use of the death penalty, and of course the use of war, is required due to there being no other alternative. This is how in certain instances, an individual who is inexperienced, or has another agenda, could look at something which occurred historically, which has a religious connection, and not be able to understand the historical circumstances at that time.

    Of course, this application, is very much the same application used in just about every Western and that is every Christian influenced society, What some individuals here are doing, whether due to their inexperience or other factors, do not make the connection, that they view the use of force as per that which has been historically and currently influenced Christian law, to be reasoned, understandable and acceptable, however when they view the same thing with Christianity, for instance the position of the Catholic church, the reasoning somehow breaks down, even although it is largely the same principles being applied.

    It is quite silly to make these obvious points, but it would appear some people, and I will add, just about any individual I will meet, regular, ordinary individuals, like myself, understand these positions quite easily. It is a strange thing indeed to see other individuals for instance evidenced in their ways through this conversation, who are not able to perform what every day people are able to do using I would say rather instinctive reasoning. It may suggest a lack of something, whether it is reasoning skills, morals or some other factor. I have my own opinions, and that it is all three.

    As I have stated, there is not much point really in continuing, I considered calling out those who perhaps are silent supporters, those who perhaps have expressed a form of satisfaction on certain posts here, through the liking and the constructiving, to ask them directly, to reveal themselves and with revealing themselves, to express what it is that they have issues with in terms of Christianity so perhaps it can be addressed. Perhaps that would be more constructive, rather than engaging what appears to be the same conversations here, but it also takes time, and time is not something that I always have at the moment, which I am grateful for.

    People, if they wish, can read this and other things and decide for themselves, and that is how it is, and I respect and appreciate people if they decide to do this or another decision. If anyone has any questions, please post them on this thread and I will do my best to respond.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason
    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.
    @eliza, you do just fine in my opinion

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason
    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.
    I may look into this further, in regards to the Socionics type. I too have some things to attend to, if I cannot post further about it in the next few days I will try to return after Easter. I don't wish to spend too much time on the internet forum.

    God bless you too Eliza And Peace Be With You!

    I wanted to post a modern hymn, simply because this particular song came to mind. I enjoy many, this one and some others come to mind at different times too, There is no need to comment, do not worry if you feel compelled too, we have our things to do and a particular type of conversation and also a break from an internet forum to do other things is rarely an unwanted thing I would say




    Lord, if that is your name
    I'm afraid I'm beyond honor and shame
    There's nothing special that i would like to say
    Most of the time I'm Okay
    I know I may need you someday
    It's long since I heard from Thee
    Lord, it's long since you heard from me
    There's nothing special I would like to say
    Most of the time I've been Okay
    You know I'm gonna need you someday
    Why you put me, Lord, on this road of lust
    From ashes to ashes, from dust to dust
    There's nothing special I would like to say
    Most of the time I've been Okay
    You know I will need you some day


  23. #143

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    I am relieved to know there are no scientists or atheists who are sociopaths. That is a very good thing!
    I am sure there probably is..., but again, it isn't science or atheism that would make them sociopaths.., them being sociopathic would have nothing to do with the scientific method itself.. Sociopaths are driven by mental illnesses and ideological and philosophic beliefs.., and science is only the methodology for testing and acquiring knowledge.
    Last edited by TheJackal; 02-03-2016 at 11:19 PM.

  24. #144

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    Catholic church does not believe in murder.
    How can they not when they worship a god that has so committed it? Let me guess, it's not murder if they are doing the killing , or if their God is doing the killing .. Or are you saying they don't believe murder exists? It sounds to me that you are trying to have your cake and eat it to.

    The relationship of course is not black and white, which is what I have tried to explain at various times on various subjects, despite insistence to the contrary. So I shall do so for a short while here.
    First off, my comment on Black and White dealt with in the context of being written in black and white. I gave you direct citations from the Bible itself... You haven't explained anything, you're avoiding the elephant in the room. Your religion is violent, corrupt, vile, and evil by it's own doctrine.., as in printed right there for you in black and white.

    Nations have the rights to carry out the death penalty, and people have the rights to defend themself. What this means is that the Church believes a nation has the right to carry out the death penalty, but only if all other conditions are exhausted, and this applies to the right of the individual for self defense.
    Again you seem to be appealing to a two wrongs make a right fallacy... It is irrelevant if Nations have the right to carry out the death penalty, or if people have the right to defend themselves. None of that is an excuse to commit genocide, infanticide, rape, to subjugate women, or to tell people that they must hate themselves and their families to be worthy of your lord Savior.. None of that is an excuse to tell people that they are unworthy if they love their families more than you.. That is egotistical Narcissism by definition .. And the last time I checked, your god doesn't need defend itself from mere mortal men..., so you are still left with having to address the immorality and atrocities committed by the very deity you worship. Job, you yourself despise abortion and consider it infanticide, and yet you worship a being you believe committed world abortion / genocide. You then tell me that it is I who is disconnected.. I don't think you understand how ridiculous your position is and how ironically hypocritical it is.. Your religion spread by the sword, and not even the prophets or the god there of it even gave a shit about "thou shall not kill" while pandering to the other commandments to which are mostly nothing but "worship me" commandments ..

    If for instance you have a person who is bent on killing people, will just keep killing people, then clearly a society has to restrain this individual. In modern societies, we have the ability to restrain these individuals through the use of lifelong imprisonment. Historically, there have been (and can be) nations, and societies, which do not have the means to imprison an individual. In that situation, one cannot allow the person to keep on killing everyone, one does not have the means to restrain them, the option at that point is for the state, that society, to carry out the death penalty.
    So when are you going to make this case in regards to your GOD?... And since when do you think two wrongs make a right? You start killing, you are no better than those doing the killing.. If you go to a city like Moses did and then order the slaughter of all the women and children etc, I don't think self-defense is any longer applicable... Genocide is not Justifiable, and neither was Moses and Yahweh justified in killing the first born of Egypt.. God is not good trial might be a good video for you to watch:





    Christians are against killing,
    For the most part this is true..., again you are conflating Christians vs "Christianity"... Christianity, the religion is definitely not against killing within it's scripture and written doctrines. This is where you fundamentally go wrong..



    in all instances everything must be done to avert this. In some circumstances the use of the death penalty, and of course the use of war, is required due to there being no other alternative. This is how in certain instances, an individual who is inexperienced, or has another agenda, could look at something which occurred historically, which has a religious connection, and not be able to understand the historical circumstances at that time.
    For the rational among us yes.. Not so much for those in the Bible or many Christians and Christian sects throughout history.. There is a reason why the Abrahamic religions are dominion theologies..

    Of course, this application, is very much the same application used in just about every Western and that is every Christian influenced society,
    Incorrect.. That is more like a product of secular societies and secular influences.. Go to Africa, and you have Christian societies burning kids as witches.., or wars and genocide between competing Abrahamic religions. It was the age of enlightenment and secularism that had the greatest impact and influence to which also tamed Christianity ... I will tell you this though, if America becomes a Christian Theocracy, you will see the rise of the genocide of gays and lesbians and other atrocities....

    It is quite silly to make these obvious points, but it would appear some people, and I will add, just about any individual I will meet, regular, ordinary individuals, like myself, understand these positions quite easily.
    Like I said, a good Christian will not make Christianity a moral religion when it is by doctrine the very opposite.. Good Christians are very good at cherry picking their Bibles and ignoring all the bad stuff..
    It is a strange thing indeed to see other individuals for instance evidenced in their ways through this conversation, who are not able to perform what every day people are able to do using I would say rather instinctive reasoning. It may suggest a lack of something, whether it is reasoning skills, morals or some other factor. I have my own opinions, and that it is all three.
    Irony

    As I have stated, there is not much point really in continuing, I considered calling out those who perhaps are silent supporters, those who perhaps have expressed a form of satisfaction on certain posts here, through the liking and the constructiving, to ask them directly, to reveal themselves and with revealing themselves, to express what it is that they have issues with in terms of Christianity so perhaps it can be addressed. Perhaps that would be more constructive, rather than engaging what appears to be the same conversations here, but it also takes time, and time is not something that I always have at the moment, which I am grateful for.
    Translation:

    I don't want to discuss the immoral stuff of my religion, lets skip this as there is no point in continuing it...

    The issue with Christianity is that it is immoral regardless if moral Christians exist... PERIOD.. Do not conflate the difference between a Christian and the religious ideology itself.. Thankfully not all Christians follow their religion to the "T", we would be back in the dark ages if they did.

    People, if they wish, can read this and other things and decide for themselves, and that is how it is, and I respect and appreciate people if they decide to do this or another decision. If anyone has any questions, please post them on this thread and I will do my best to respond.
    Yes they can... They can at any point directly address the examples provided, these to which you have not as you sit there pretending they don't exist
    Last edited by TheJackal; 02-05-2016 at 01:19 AM.

  25. #145

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    I am relieved to know there are no scientists or atheists who are sociopaths. That is a very good thing!
    I am sure there probably is..., but again, it isn't science that would make them sociopaths.., but that would have nothing to do with science itself..

  26. #146
    LϺαο Not A Communist Shill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,136
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Weinberg
    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.

  27. #147
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Eliza Thomason

    I logged on whilst there was a conversation taking place on the main page, where people gather to talk, and I saw this taking place when I logged on:

    Subteigh: I enjoy it a little, at least when it is a new collection of arguments to argue against.

    In regards to his speaking with you. Some other things were said but it is irrelevant.

    It's not as if it were not easy to see, but it was not admitted by the individual. He is not interested in learning anything, he is just likely some bored person wanting to argue no matter what is said. That is just the way that we have pointed out, he is a fundamentalist in his own views, not wishing to have an enlightening discussion where either party can equally learn, his mind is made up, arguing, being difficult, awkward, annoying other people who try to make an effort to take time out of their day, these things, are his, at least current ways of obtaining enjoyment in his life.

    Edit: And show himself as a trustworthy individual by discussing a private matter in public:

    Subteigh: Eliza actually PMed me to post in her defence in that recent thread that got locked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh
    You really ought not feel pressured or harried, it's only me.
    What a lovely little wolf in sheeps clothing you must be

    I won't stand by and see an individual who is putting their heart into something, who is doing something with good intentions, be hurt or bullied if I can prevent it somehow, so I am glad I came across it, and when I did, I would not ignore it.
    Last edited by job; 02-04-2016 at 07:49 PM.

  28. #148
    LϺαο Not A Communist Shill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,136
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    @Eliza Thomason

    I logged on whilst there was a conversation taking place on the main page, where people gather to talk, and I saw this taking place when I logged on:

    Subteigh: I enjoy it a little, at least when it is a new collection of arguments to argue against.

    In regards to his speaking with you. Some other things were said but it is irrelevant.

    It's not as if it were not easy to see, but it was not admitted by the individual. He is not interested in learning anything, he is just likely some bored person wanting to argue no matter what is said. That is just the way that we have pointed out, he is a fundamentalist in his own views, not wishing to have an enlightening discussion where either party can equally learn, his mind is made up, arguing, being difficult, awkward, annoying other people who try to make an effort to take time out of their day, these things, are his, at least current ways of obtaining enjoyment in his life.
    Why do you say I am not interested in learning anything? How I am a fundamentalist?

    I am frequently interested in reading about religious, philosophical, and scientific matters. I am also interested in discussing such matters with people who have different views from the same old tired religious positions of old. I find it boring to argue against the same old arguments time and time again, why wouldn't I? I have already made it clear how awful and tedious I find it that people in the 21st century believe that others should suffer for eternity. I do not see how I can be a fundamentalist because I consider the doctrine of Damnation fundamentally evil: it is undeniably the greatest evil that could be thought up in the realm of "ethics".

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    Edit: And show himself as a trustworthy individual by discussing a private matter in public:

    Subteigh: Eliza actually PMed me to post in her defence in that recent thread that got locked.
    I'm not sure what this has to do with lack of trustworthiness? I was directed to a thread I knew nothing about, and asked to post my comments on the matter. I was happy to do so, and did not put any comments that were not my own thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    What a lovely little wolf in sheeps clothing you must be

    I won't stand by and see an individual who is putting their heart into something, who is doing something with good intentions, be hurt or bullied if I can prevent it somehow, so I am glad I came across it, and when I did, I would not ignore it.
    I do not need to be chastised by someone supporting someone who believes that are all humans should be eternally damned. I am no threat to Eliza, I am only challenging her religious and ethical beliefs. You should not take it so personally. Those who deprive the rights of others to such a degree have no right to claim they are being persecuted when their views are challenged.

  29. #149
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I won't engage in a bully and an abuser, whom has been shown operating, through use of writing and twisting what has been written, things exist as they are and it can be seen as it is, it needs no further elaboration to explain. How would I know you are not doing the same thing, arguing because you enjoy arguing, not to actually reach a conclusion and an understanding. There is no point, but thank you for the 'invitation'

  30. #150
    LϺαο Not A Communist Shill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,136
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    I won't engage in a bully and an abuser, whom has been shown operating, through use of writing and twisting what has been written, things exist as they are and it can be seen as it is, it needs no further elaboration to explain. How would I know you are not doing the same thing, arguing because you enjoy arguing, not to actually reach a conclusion and an understanding. There is no point, but thank you for the 'invitation'
    You won't engage in facts, nevermind anything else. If you don't engaged with bullies and abusers, why do you worship one? One that does not exist and can be seen to not exist?

    In summary: 1) The Earth is essentially spherical. 2) a benevolent god does not exist 3) god does not exist 4) you believe in the most immoral doctrine ever devised 5) I wish that people would improve the world rather than spreading ignorance about things such as about the shape of the Earth and ascribing to evil doctrines such as Damnation 6) I sometimes like to argue, especially amongst those I respect 7) I am probably not perfect, but I do not believe I deserve damnation.

  31. #151

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    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.

  32. #152
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,671
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Disappointments, its a part of life

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    Subteigh: I enjoy it a little, at least when it is a new collection of arguments to argue against.
    Ah, @Subteigh,the truth comes out. I have often wondered aloud to you in our overlong debates, that seem to go nowhere, if you like to argue just to argue. Which I have explained is NOT my thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    Edit: And show himself as a trustworthy individual by discussing a private matter in public:

    Subteigh: Eliza actually PMed me to post in her defence in that recent thread that got locked.

    What a lovely little wolf in sheep clothing you must be)
    Oh, dear. Well, I do not know what to make of that. I'll withhold judgement on his character. But to judge his action that's another matter. All I know is, when someone PMs you, you do not divulge the contents of the PM without asking that person permission. Never. It was my FIRST PM to Subteigh, ever. I told him that I was writing to him because I was UPSET over that thread. I asked for his help, because I thought in him there was a basic sense of justice (despite our differing religious views) and believing that, I had confidence to PM him when I had trouble, when I felt bad. That was my first PM to him, I will add again, since that matters to me. But divulging to others in private or public conversation what has been shared with one privately - that's not good. That's just wrong. Its something that I would NOT to to him or anyone else, and it rather smarts right now to see it done to me. Disappointed.

    Trust is earned, but sometimes it seems generous to take a leap with that. But thats not always prudent.


    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    I won't stand by and see an individual who is putting their heart into something, who is doing something with good intentions, be hurt or bullied if I can prevent it somehow, so I am glad I came across it, and when I did, I would not ignore it.
    Thanks, Job. For all the ranting in this thread, particularly Jackal but sometimes Subteigh too, about the bad character and horrible things that allegedly come out of Christianity, I can attest that what I see in real life, a long life of acquaintance and friendship with Christians of every kind practice and every kind of person, chivalry and justice is far from dead among Christians, whom I find to be trustworthy people, and trustworthiness means a lot in my book. And kindness and charity is the common thread that you can count on. Its the rule, not the exception. And you don't break that rule. So thanks.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  33. #153

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    I won't engage in a bully and an abuser, whom has been shown operating, through use of writing and twisting what has been written, things exist as they are and it can be seen as it is, it needs no further elaboration to explain. How would I know you are not doing the same thing, arguing because you enjoy arguing, not to actually reach a conclusion and an understanding. There is no point, but thank you for the 'invitation'
    Basically, you are saying that anyone who intellectually challenges your position is somehow a bully and an abuser.... No, you won't engage because you can't deal with the subject on a point by point basis with in an adult conversation, debate, or discussion. Like I said, you came here to phish and now you're playing the role of the victim.. You seriously thought you would get away with this argument?

    "Playing the Victim"
    Victim playing (also known as playing the victim or self-victimization) is the fabrication of victimhood for a variety of reasons such as to justify abuse of others, to manipulate others, a coping strategy or attention seeking. Where a person is known for regular victim playing, the person may be referred to as a professional victim.


    By abusers

    Victim playing by abusers is either:

    • diverting attention away from acts of abuse by claiming that the abuse was justified based on another person's bad behavior (typically the victim)
    • soliciting sympathy from others in order to gain their assistance in supporting or enabling the abuse of a victim (known as proxy abuse).

    It is common for abusers to engage in victim playing. This serves two purposes:

    • justification to themselves – as a way of dealing with the cognitive dissonance that results from inconsistencies between the way they treat others and what they believe about themselves.
    • justification to others – as a way of escaping harsh judgment or condemnation they may fear from others.

    By manipulators

    Manipulators often play the victim role ("poor me") by portraying themselves as victims of circumstances or someone else's behavior in order to gain pity or sympathy or to evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. Caring and conscientious people cannot stand to see anyone suffering, and the manipulator often finds it easy and rewarding to play on sympathy to get cooperation.[1]
    Other types

    Victim playing is also:

    No, you don't address any of the issues in good faith, you play the victim... You have labeled the critical environment to your position as hostile and as a bully to your beliefs..., and in that labeling you use the fallacy that on that merit they should be disregarded and not engaged in good faith. This falls under the confirmation bias fallacy, and presents you as knowing your position cannot withstand criticism.. Hence, you are presenting yourself as a crank who only came here for the purpose of phishing.. Thus since you are not finding people here who you feel you can easily manipulate, you have chosen to abstain from honestly engaging in the discussion.

  34. #154
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,671
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    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.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  35. #155
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    7,019
    Mentioned
    422 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Eliza Thomason

    Trust is earned, but sometimes it seems generous to take a leap with that. But thats not always prudent.
    That also goes for accusations that are being thrown around in a thread and just left there. Just saying. Just because a thread is locked doesn't mean you have the right to unfairly accuse me without having the decency of explaining.
    “Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
    ― Anais Nin

  36. #156

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


    Trust is earned, but sometimes it seems generous to take a leap with that. But thats not always prudent.
    I cannot stress enough how Ironic that statement is giving how this discussion has gone thus far. You use terms like "trust" and "truth" like cheap words..


    Thanks, Job. For all the ranting in this thread, particularly Jackal but sometimes Subteigh too, about the bad character and horrible things that allegedly come out of Christianity,
    This is avoidance ... , you are now trying to label arguments against your position as "ranting" so you don't have to deal with them.. Furthermore, it's not just what has come out of Christianity, it is what is in the Doctrines of Christianity itself.. What part of the word "Doctrine" do you not understand, or examples there from it do you not get?

    I can attest that what I see in real life, a long life of acquaintance and friendship with Christians of every kind practice and every kind of person,
    Half my family is Christian..., I was a Christian... I know exactly what it is to be a Christian here in the 21st Century.. Like I said, a good Christian does not invalidate that the Christian Doctrine as being immoral.. The woeful ignoring of that doesn't make it magically not exist, and neither does convincing yourself it doesn't.... You were given direct examples, all of which are immoral from both the doctrine and those who practiced and followed said religion.. They say, if you can convince good people of absurdities, you can convince them to commit atrocities... This has rung true throughout Christian history, and remains true to this day. In fact, the more extreme and fundamental Christians are, the more true to the doctrines they are.. This being whether it is Narcacism, greed, hypocrisy, misogyny, or advocating the total destruction and damnation of those who don't subscribe or are deemed as satans and abominations ... This will 90+ percent of them have literally no formal academic education concerning the history of the Bible. It is utterly painful that we have to sit here and debunk Bronze Age mythology in the 21st Century while trying to keep it from slipping back in the dark ages..

    chivalry and justice is far from dead among Christians,
    In America, that is quickly slipping away.., and in some places that doesn't even seem to exist.. But yes, Christians can be good people even if they subscribe to a sociopathic religion... Yes, I can differentiate between a person and their religion.. I can also see what negative impacts that has had on them as person..., and that test of character often arises when discussing their religion.. Hence how honest can they be when the tough questions are asked, and the moral fortitude there of it is put on trial.. Job for example doesn't seem to have a problem with the idea of drowning every breathing life form on the planet because his god was sorry for ever having made man..., and yet he will declare abortion as infanticide and scream up and down about the immorality of it.. We call that cognitive dissonance with the idea that it's ok if they do it..., this to which is sometimes used in a two wrongs make a right fallacy.. I could never take someone like Job seriously..., and I would have to question the character of someone who literally worships a sociopathic deity from Bronze Age Pagan mythology.. Just ask Job if he thinks drowning all the first born puppies in the world is ok because his sister sinned and stole a cookie from the cookie jar and wouldn't worship Yahweh.. That is the sort of logic we are dealing with here..

    whom I find to be trustworthy people, and trustworthiness means a lot in my book. And kindness and charity is the common thread that you can count on. Its the rule, not the exception. And you don't break that rule. So thanks.
    The most trust worthy people are those who are brutally honest with you... You want to use the word "trust", use it like it actually means something.. When I see people use such words cheaply, I have nothing but disrespect for them.

  37. #157
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,671
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    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?
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  38. #158

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    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?
    Last edited by TheJackal; 02-05-2016 at 06:03 AM.

  39. #159
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    @Eliza Thomason



    That also goes for accusations that are being thrown around in a thread and just left there. Just saying. Just because a thread is locked doesn't mean you have the right to unfairly accuse me without having the decency of explaining.
    I don't know why you are here. You were particularly frequent in your negative writing in regards to this individual, along with Subteigh. In fairness to others, they perhaps had opinions either way but were relatively neutral. You have said nothing in this debate what so over, but you appear and make a passive aggressive comment to start a personal argument for your own particular selfish, not related to the discussion, reason. You do not seem very bright, but have a personal huff which is interfering with objectivity. Perhaps you could comment on FE or Christianity, or take your problems to PM. Thanks.

    And before you write, the comments of Subteigh are relevant to the thread. Not every individual wishes to devote their time and energy to discussing with someone who has motives contrary to what they would like others to think, I simply did not mention you because you had no bearing on the matter in this discussion.
    Last edited by job; 02-05-2016 at 06:43 AM.

  40. #160
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    7,019
    Mentioned
    422 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    I don't know why you are here. You were particularly frequent in your negative writing in regards to this individual, along with Subteigh. In fairness to others, they perhaps had opinions either way but were relatively neutral. You have said nothing in this debate what so over, but you appear and make a passive aggressive comment to start a personal argument for your own particular selfish, not related to the discussion, reason. You do not seem very bright, but have a personal huff which is interfering with objectivity. Perhaps you could comment on FE or Christianity, or take your problems to PM. Thanks.

    And before you write, the comments of Subteigh are relevant to the thread. Not every individual wishes to devote their time and energy to discussing with someone who has motives contrary to what they would like others to think, I simply did not mention you because you had no bearing on the matter in this discussion.
    I guess I am just not very bright.
    Last edited by Kim; 02-05-2016 at 01:48 PM.
    “Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
    ― Anais Nin

Page 4 of 25 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •