FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: Willie353 on January 30, 2011, 01:55:29 pm
-
If so how do you think it will be? There are lot of questions about the quality of life there
-
yes I do. after we die there are only to place we can go and that is heaven or hell.
-
Sure, I believe in 'the afterlife' and there's actually a name for it..........DEATH. We all live for a given number of years and then we all die. Unless you want to include the get-togethers after the funeral (or whatever people choose to do), but those are usually attended by the living.
-
yes I do. after we die there are only to place we can go and that is heaven or hell.
I agree.
-
i balive that we all will have our own heven a palce that you will love to be or around people you wont to see if were good. but who knows :dontknow:
-
Exactly like before you were born.
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
Mark Twain
Y'all are kidding yourselves if you think the only 2 options are heaven or hell.
-
Exactly like before you were born.
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
Mark Twain
Y'all are kidding yourselves if you think the only 2 options are heaven or hell.
When you come down to it, who is kidding who? If we are wrong (we aren't)...nothing happens, if you are wrong....oops! How can anybody think this is all there is?
-
If so how do you think it will be? There are lot of questions about the quality of life there
No idea. But it's neat to think about the possibilities.
When you come down to it, who is kidding who? If we are wrong (we aren't)...nothing happens, if you are wrong....oops!
Nobody knows that they're right. They just think they do. If they did know, they would be able to provide "beyond-the-grave" proof in a realistic manner. But to say one is right is a ridiculously absurd gamble considering the infinite amount of possibilities.
How can anybody think this is all there is?
The ones who aren't subjecting their minds to follow many unnecessary philosophies that aggressively prevent free thought. Usually provided by ancient belief systems.
-
Afterlife their is the return so why does it matter. Some of us will return to the cup of life to rejuvinate the souls of life. Others will be smitten to hades and gone forever.
Tales of the afterlife are made up from mans imagination because we all fear death - after all it is the end to our life as we know it and in our new life we will recycle these thoughts maybe repeated the same or looked upon differently.
-
If so how do you think it will be? There are lot of questions about the quality of life there
No idea. But it's neat to think about the possibilities.
When you come down to it, who is kidding who? If we are wrong (we aren't)...nothing happens, if you are wrong....oops!
Nobody knows that they're right. They just think they do. If they did know, they would be able to provide "beyond-the-grave" proof in a realistic manner. But to say one is right is a ridiculously absurd gamble considering the infinite amount of possibilities.
How can anybody think this is all there is?
The ones who aren't subjecting their lives to follow many unnecessary philosophies that aggressively prevent free thought. Usually provided by ancient belief systems.
Proof is all around you, you just choose not to see it.
The absurdly ridiculous gamble would be on the believer's part, or the agnostic/atheist's part?
Wait......infinite possibilities ??? If you don't believe in God, then what possible scenario do you think is left? I would really like to know what you think is after this life?
-
Proof is all around you, you just choose not to see it.
Okay, Obi Wan. If you're so adamant that I'm 'blind' to it, state the proof that surpasses basic skepticism. And fyi- those out-of-body experiences that get published in religious books are not proof. The mind does really quirky things when there's a lack of air not going into the body. I have my own story about it. So does my aunt.
The absurdly ridiculous gamble would be on the believer's part, or the agnostic/atheist's part?
I'd say it's on the part that believes faith healers are legitimate.
Wait......infinite possibilities If you don't believe in God, then what possible scenario do you think is left? I would really like to know what you think is after this life?
I'm not pompous enough to state that I do know. Because I don't. You, or anyone else here, does not know either. I can give you some speculative ideas, but nothing I state will be proof. They're just ideas. Just like the overly-popular one you support. That's where the infinite possibilities comes into the mix. But if you want the other popular ones, here ya go- http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/text_games/80265
-
Proof is all around you, you just choose not to see it.
Okay, Obi Wan. If you're so adamant that I'm 'blind' to it, state the proof that surpasses basic skepticism.
The absurdly ridiculous gamble would be on the believer's part, or the agnostic/atheist's part?
I'd say it's on the part that believes faith healers are legitimate.
Wait......infinite possibilities If you don't believe in God, then what possible scenario do you think is left? I would really like to know what you think is after this life?
I'm not pompous enough to state that I do know. Because I don't. You, or anyone else here, does not know either. I can give you some speculative ideas, but nothing I state will be proof. They're just ideas. Just like the overly-popular one you support. That's where the infinite possibilities comes into the mix. But if you want the other popular ones, here ya go- http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/text_games/80265
How typical an answer. You just had to "slam" me no matter what? You couldn't give a concise answer to my question about what your thoughts are? I was curious about what you thought....nothing more.
Waste of time.........
-
How typical an answer. You just had to "slam" me no matter what? You couldn't give a concise answer to my question about what your thoughts are? I was curious about what you thought....nothing more.
You claimed that you know. That's quite a claim! You are in a position to mislead people by words. I'm jokingly saying that you don't know. You just think you do.
Edit: Though not really concise, I answered your question via the link.
Waste of time.........
lol ok
-
you will look like you do now!wich is how you looted before you came hear.
-
When you come down to it, who is kidding who? If we are wrong (we aren't)...nothing happens, if you are wrong....oops!
You people and your feeble, illogical Pascal's Wager! That's all you have to your names, apparently! You better check your motivations at the door, Annella, because your god does not take kindly to this sort of cost benefit analysis.
http://www.fusioncash.net/forum.php?topic=23608.msg300981#msg300981
-
Yes, I believe in an afterlife.
-
When you come down to it, who is kidding who? If we are wrong (we aren't)...nothing happens, if you are wrong....oops!
You people and your feeble, illogical Pascal's Wager! That's all you have to your names, apparently! You better check your motivations at the door, Annella, because your god does not take kindly to this sort of cost benefit analysis.
http://www.fusioncash.net/forum.php?topic=23608.msg300981#msg300981
You better check your own post. We serve God because we love Him. My post was nothing more than pointing out that (from your point of view....not ours), YOU will lose everything if YOU are wrong. We are neither feeble or weak, but mighty in our belief of an afterlife, and a loving God who rules it.
If someone is "hedging their bets" as you put it, then God, who searches the hearts knows what is the thoughts and intents of such. I don't have to "check" my motivations qon, because my God knows the desires of my heart. Something that I don't have to prove to you.
You know the saying "there's going to be hell to pay"? Get ready...........
-
I believe after everyone is judged during the 1,000 year reign with christ occurs, the people who are in God's book of life will live forever on earth while the elect or 144,000 will rule in God's Kingdom or government forever.
John 5:27-29 reads 27 And he has given him authority to do judging, because Son of man he is. 28 Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.
cross reference it to Revelation 20:12 which reads And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. But another scroll was opened; it is the scroll of life. And the dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds.
final revelation verse i'm going to point out is Revelation 21:3 which reads... With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them.
Some people use this verse to prove that Earth will be in heaven or we all will be in heaven but a cross reference with
Leviticus 26:11, 12 which reads... And I shall certainly put my tabernacle in the midst of YOU, and my soul will not abhor YOU. 12 And I shall indeed walk in the midst of YOU and prove myself YOUR God, and YOU, on YOUR part, will prove yourselves my people.
Clearly then the tent is coming to earth, not the earth coming to the tent. Please fell free to ask more questions.
-
YOU will lose everything if YOU are wrong. We are neither feeble or weak, but mighty in our belief of an afterlife, and a loving God who rules it.
I can totally see some old hooded-robed hermit woman from Lord of the Rings telling the hero character to heed her words before he goes on to slaughter a dragon or something when I read this.
You know the saying "there's going to be hell to pay"? Get ready...........
*sigh* We've been over this before! Queen is going to be reincarnated as a happy kitten. I'm going to serve with Cthulhu and sink ships. You can go be in your happy fantasy cloud city and watch random people burn below you. Done! There's plenty of room for all afterlife ideas on this playground! :D
Clearly then the tent is coming to earth, not the earth coming to the tent. Please fell free to ask more questions.
Legitimately, what other afterlife concepts have you researched (dead or still popular)? If you have with any, have those ever interested you to take part in those belief systems?
-
I guess the only way for everyone to know for sure is after we all die. Maybe we can continue this forum topic then, if we have internet connection in the afterlife (whatever it may be).
I think everyone is becoming far too defensive/offensive. Just state your beliefs. There is no reason to ridicule or point fingers and shout "You're wrong!". There is no way to prove anything.
-
Queen is going to be reincarnated as a happy kitten.
Heck yeah! :D
-
I guess the only way for everyone to know for sure is after we all die. Maybe we can continue this forum topic then, if we have internet connection in the afterlife (whatever it may be).
I think everyone is becoming far too defensive/offensive. Just state your beliefs. There is no reason to ridicule or point fingers and shout "You're wrong!". There is no way to prove anything.
I don't see the problem if no one is calling other people names, stating your reason why you feel others are wrong is not that bad IMO, at the same time you don't have to use so many words to tell them their wrong!!
@Falconor: The other belief systems about afterlife either promote immortality of the soul(one of the six traits of babylon) or lower your nature(get put in a creature man was made to dominate), "then there's the forget it and just live like this is the last life because there's nothing when we die we are gone forever belief" even if I was to agree with you there's stuff I can't do no matter how hard I work in 100 years :P.
-
I do believe in the afterlife. I believe in Heaven with everything in me. I have to. My Grandma(on my moms side) told me about the Lord and all his glory all my life and how happy she would be to finally be with her Lord. She passed away in March of 2010 and what keeps me sane is the fact that she no longer suffers and she is happier than she has been in a very long time. I have to believe that she is where she told me about. It does make her death somewhat easier. I would do just about anything to have her back but, I know she is happier where she is and she still takes care of me and loves me everyday.
-
The other belief systems about afterlife either promote immortality of the soul(one of the six traits of babylon)
Technically, isn't that what you believe in? Just with the addition of immortality of the physical self?
"then there's the forget it and just live like this is the last life because there's nothing when we die we are gone forever belief" even if I was to agree with you there's stuff I can't do no matter how hard I work in 100 years
I'm under the impression that not very many people hold the nihilist approach to life. When you use the words "like this", everyone's view of life is different depending on where one was born, the society one lives in, how one was raised, etc. so it's not like everyone has a stereotypically dull american life. The "like this" can be absolutely amazing, so one should concentrate on the here-and-now and not just sit back and be hopeful for a defined afterlife that one was taught. If there is one, cool. I'd apply the same philosophy there. If not, I'm not going to be conscious of it so who gives a damn if there is one or not. That's just my 2 cents on the issue.
-
I do believe in the afterlife. I believe in Heaven with everything in me. I have to. My Grandma(on my moms side) told me about the Lord and all his glory all my life and how happy she would be to finally be with her Lord. She passed away in March of 2010 and what keeps me sane is the fact that she no longer suffers and she is happier than she has been in a very long time. I have to believe that she is where she told me about. It does make her death somewhat easier. I would do just about anything to have her back but, I know she is happier where she is and she still takes care of me and loves me everyday.
Same here, TamRomLop. Your grandmother and mine knew the Lord and that's a precious bond between grandmother and grandchild knowing that you both know Him and will see each other in Heaven again, someday! :)
-
I do believe in the afterlife. I believe in Heaven with everything in me. I have to. My Grandma(on my moms side) told me about the Lord and all his glory all my life and how happy she would be to finally be with her Lord. She passed away in March of 2010 and what keeps me sane is the fact that she no longer suffers and she is happier than she has been in a very long time. I have to believe that she is where she told me about. It does make her death somewhat easier. I would do just about anything to have her back but, I know she is happier where she is and she still takes care of me and loves me everyday.
Same here, TamRomLop. Your grandmother and mine knew the Lord and that's a precious bond between grandmother and grandchild knowing that you both know Him and will see each other in Heaven again, someday! :)
I have a grandma and grandpa who died in the Lord, among many friends. I will see them one day on the other side.
-
The other belief systems about afterlife either promote immortality of the soul(one of the six traits of babylon)
Technically, isn't that what you believe in? Just with the addition of immortality of the physical self?
"then there's the forget it and just live like this is the last life because there's nothing when we die we are gone forever belief" even if I was to agree with you there's stuff I can't do no matter how hard I work in 100 years
I'm under the impression that not very many people hold the nihilist approach to life. When you use the words "like this", everyone's view of life is different depending on where one was born, the society one lives in, how one was raised, etc. so it's not like everyone has a stereotypically dull american life. The "like this" can be absolutely amazing, so one should concentrate on the here-and-now and not just sit back and be hopeful for a defined afterlife that one was taught. If there is one, cool. I'd apply the same philosophy there. If not, I'm not going to be conscious of it so who gives a damn if there is one or not. That's just my 2 cents on the issue.
Technically, isn't that what you believe in? Just with the addition of immortality of the physical self?
Almost, the believe of immortality of the soul means you never die usually without God's approval and you are born with it. While people who reject this belief know that they will die and God will bring them back some day so that they can live forever!
In short yes there are similar, but one is earned and one believes that it's not a reward but a given. In simple terms immortality of the soul rejects the statement "you will postivitely die" in Genesis, while the other follows it.
-
Exactly like before you were born.
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
Mark Twain
Y'all are kidding yourselves if you think the only 2 options are heaven or hell.
When you come down to it, who is kidding who? If we are wrong (we aren't)...nothing happens, if you are wrong....oops! How can anybody think this is all there is?
Its funny because when QON said we are kidding ourselves falconer had no problem with how 100% sure she was that we were wrong
but when you said you were 100% sure we were right he said theres no way you can no
QON doesnt have to prove her belief, yet you are immediately prompted to prove yours
it's been months since ive subjected myself to all the crap on here and nothings changed haha
-
Exactly like before you were born.
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
Mark Twain
Y'all are kidding yourselves if you think the only 2 options are heaven or hell.
When you come down to it, who is kidding who? If we are wrong (we aren't)...nothing happens, if you are wrong....oops! How can anybody think this is all there is?
Its funny because when QON said we are kidding ourselves falconer had no problem with how 100% sure she was that we were wrong
but when you said you were 100% sure we were right he said theres no way you can no
QON doesnt have to prove her belief, yet you are immediately prompted to prove yours
it's been months since ive subjected myself to all the crap on here and nothings changed haha
LOL You are right on that for sure! How is college treating you girlfriend?
-
Its funny because when QON said we are kidding ourselves falconer had no problem with how 100% sure she was that we were wrong
The beliefs are based around the realms of mythology. Hers are not. Heaven and hell are very old concepts that are seen throughout other tales within religions (both active and dead). Do I need to go further into this? Considering every other possibility that could be after this life, the christian viewpoint is one in an infinite amount-- and even then, they can't even agree on what that is most of the time. Her answer is within the same statistic, though it's obviously more realistic to any rational person than an old superstitious myth.
QON doesnt have to prove her belief, yet you are immediately prompted to prove yours
One goes into non-existence --such as what we were before we were conscious of anything-- and therefore cannot really be proven. It's just a grounded rational answer. But a religious doctrine is usually full of people coming back from the dead and talking to the main characters such as in the bible. Surely this could be demonstratable in some respect considering the interaction and preaching of the followers, but it's not.
-
Its funny because when QON said we are kidding ourselves falconer had no problem with how 100% sure she was that we were wrong
The beliefs are based around the realms of mythology. Hers are not. Heaven and hell are very old concepts that are seen throughout other tales within religions (both active and dead). Do I need to go further into this? Considering every other possibility that could be after this life, the christian viewpoint is one in an infinite amount-- and even then, they can't even agree on what that is most of the time. Her answer is within the same statistic, though it's obviously more realistic to any rational person than an old superstitious myth.
QON doesnt have to prove her belief, yet you are immediately prompted to prove yours
One goes into non-existence --such as what we were before we were conscious of anything-- and therefore cannot really be proven. It's just a grounded rational answer. But a religious doctrine is usually full of people coming back from the dead and talking to the main characters such as in the bible. Surely this could be demonstratable in some respect considering the interaction and preaching of the followers, but it's not.
::)Same old....same old
-
Same old same old........
Yup!
-
Yes, I do believe in an afterlife. I have no clue what it will look like though, what it will be. I simply trust that whatever it is like, that God will take care of me.
-
Yes I believe in an afterlife. It's hard not to when you're me. ;D
-
The afterlife is a definite truth. The Bible declares that "it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this, the judgment." Hebrews 9:27
-
The afterlife is a definite truth. The Bible declares that "it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this, the judgment." Hebrews 9:27
I agree. "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." (2 Peter 2:9 );
"For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." (2 Peter 2:21)
The way around all of the "nonproof"? Faith (trust in something you cannot see or touch): You can, however, touch God's Word and receive answers to questions and also draw closer to Him.
-
I don't know if I believe in the afterlife. I know I wouldn't want to have to live on in some weird state forever.... sure, I'd love to live on earth longer, but not in an "afterlife." I mean, even if there is an afterlife, with all of our technology, how do we have no proof, not one little shred of proof? Until I see evidence of a heaven or hell or purgatory, I'd say I'm a skeptic. There may be, there may not be! ???
-
I think we are reborn as someone/ something else. Or maybe people who die form their own towns and cities just like ours on a different plane of reality than ours
-
There could be an afterlife. But I can't answer that one way or another. I believe that anything is possible though. I just don't think that what I was taught growing up, when it comes to christianity, makes any sense at all. Sounds.... this may seem harsh.... INSANE.
So, I could go on to be what I was before I was born, I could turn into a talking mushroom, or burn in a lake of fire, or go to a heavenly city in the clouds (depending on if I was saved and/or met the standards of the god of that city).... Maybe we're all apart of a reality tv show to the aliens and when we all die, we get recycled by the aliens so they can put us back to work. For the lulz, you know, on the reality show.
-
If so how do you think it will be? There are lot of questions about the quality of life there
Light & darkness will be separated at the end. Light will be eternally in Heaven
as darkness will be eternally in hell.
the quality of life? there will be none in the darkness
quality will be in the light
Do you like walking blindly with no light at all, perhaps a fire to issue a little light here in there?
-
I think we are reborn as someone/ something else. Or maybe people who die form their own towns and cities just like ours on a different plane of reality than ours
Hmm! Seems like a cool idea. I like it.
There could be an afterlife. But I can't answer that one way or another. I believe that anything is possible though. I just don't think that what I was taught growing up, when it comes to christianity, makes any sense at all. Sounds.... this may seem harsh.... INSANE. So, I could go on to be what I was before I was born, I could turn into a talking mushroom, or burn in a lake of fire, or go to a heavenly city in the clouds (depending on if I was saved and/or met the standards of the god of that city).... Maybe we're all apart of a reality tv show to the aliens and when we all die, we get recycled by the aliens so they can put us back to work. For the lulz, you know, on the reality show.
Ha! Yeah. And you know what's really funny? This idea is just as legitimate as every religion's idea of an afterlife.
Light & darkness will be separated at the end. Light will be eternally in Heaven
as darkness will be eternally in hell.
the quality of life? there will be none in the darkness
quality will be in the light
Do you like walking blindly with no light at all, perhaps a fire to issue a little light here in there?
Weirdo.
-
Quote from angelhome:
Light & darkness will be separated at the end. Light will be eternally in Heaven
as darkness will be eternally in hell.
the quality of life? there will be none in the darkness
quality will be in the light
Do you like walking blindly with no light at all, perhaps a fire to issue a little light here in there?
Quote from Falconer:
Weirdo.
See? Name-calling. You are still doing what I said you would do!! Please stop the sarcasm - she is responding on topic. Good grief......
-
Ha! Yeah. And you know what's really funny? This idea is just as legitimate as every religion's idea of an afterlife.
lol ;D
Oh, and I guess I forgot that we COULD go on to a paradise with 72 virgins.... not sure if that's a heavenly kind of place or not, but hey, it could happen, right?
-
Ha! Yeah. And you know what's really funny? This idea is just as legitimate as every religion's idea of an afterlife.
lol ;D
Oh, and I guess I forgot that we COULD go on to a paradise with 72 virgins.... not sure if that's a heavenly kind of place or not, but hey, it could happen, right?
If you're a virgin, and you go to a paradise with 72 virgins... what are you gonna do? Honestly, I've always wondered this.
-
If so how do you think it will be? There are lot of questions about the quality of life there
Light & darkness will be separated at the end. Light will be eternally in Heaven
as darkness will be eternally in hell.
the quality of life? there will be none in the darkness
quality will be in the light
Do you like walking blindly with no light at all, perhaps a fire to issue a little light here in there?
Before electricity, wasn't fire the way people had light in the evenings? You know, candlelight? So the eternal darkness thing doesn't make much sense to me...
I'm not trying to be hateful or sarcastic here; just honest.
-
Ha! Yeah. And you know what's really funny? This idea is just as legitimate as every religion's idea of an afterlife.
lol ;D
Oh, and I guess I forgot that we COULD go on to a paradise with 72 virgins.... not sure if that's a heavenly kind of place or not, but hey, it could happen, right?
If you're a virgin, and you go to a paradise with 72 virgins... what are you gonna do? Honestly, I've always wondered this.
What woman in her right mind would sign up for this? lol
Kind of like another sect believes a lot of women belong to one man (like plural marriages in heaven). Oh, and if you die single, don't worry, a man with lots of wives will be your husband also in heaven.
-
I believe we will be the same as here. Spirits and the sorts.
-
Oh, and I guess I forgot that we COULD go on to a paradise with 72 virgins.... not sure if that's a heavenly kind of place or not, but hey, it could happen, right?
In my afterlife, I'm getting 144. To hell with the mainstream ideas!
See? Name-calling. You are still doing what I said you would do!! Please stop the sarcasm - she is responding on topic. Good grief......
No can do. That post was creepy-weird.
-
I definitely believe in the afterlife. Why, because it is part of my belief system. I sometimes think, that if this is all there is, it is pretty cruddy. :angel11:
-
I sometimes think, that if this is all there is, it is pretty cruddy. :angel11:
Why do you assume an existence after this one will be any better? Not only do you not have any proof for this after death existence, you don't even have any concrete details on what it's going to be like. You just assume it's gong to be all sunshine and rainbows, but once again, your proof comes up short for this one. People are so scared of death that they don't stop to think that an eternity of ANYTHING would not be "just peachy".
This is "all there is", and life is beautiful. I suggest you start looking into some new hobbies or something, because *this* existence is the only one you can be sure of, and contrary to delusional wishful thinking, it WON'T last forever.
-
If so how do you think it will be? There are lot of questions about the quality of life there
Light & darkness will be separated at the end. Light will be eternally in Heaven
as darkness will be eternally in hell.
the quality of life? there will be none in the darkness
quality will be in the light
Do you like walking blindly with no light at all, perhaps a fire to issue a little light here in there?
Before electricity, wasn't fire the way people had light in the evenings? You know, candlelight? So the eternal darkness thing doesn't make much sense to me...
I'm not trying to be hateful or sarcastic here; just honest.
No problem. ever read Genesis? GOD created the light and the darkness. in hell it will be like a candle being lit all the time.
no true light because YESHUA/JESUS is the light of this world - GOD has given satan to power of the air until the end.
satan was an arch angel who had every musical instrument in his body - that is one reason music has been such a tool
that leads to darkness. you really should read the Bible, it is alive and issues strength, endurance, faith, light, power,
integrity, etc. all the good things for GOD is only good, evil comes from below.
The Bible says by HIS stripes we are healed and I assure you it works. and I am not trying to be smart either. I have seen
many miracles done in the name of YESHUA/JESUS. May you come to know HIM, but HE lives in HIS WORD.
-
I sometimes think, that if this is all there is, it is pretty cruddy. :angel11:
Why do you assume an existence after this one will be any better? Not only do you not have any proof for this after death existence, you don't even have any concrete details on what it's going to be like. You just assume it's gong to be all sunshine and rainbows, but once again, your proof comes up short for this one. People are so scared of death that they don't stop to think that an eternity of ANYTHING would not be "just peachy".
This is "all there is", and life is beautiful. I suggest you start looking into some new hobbies or something, because *this* existence is the only one you can be sure of, and contrary to delusional wishful thinking, it WON'T last forever.
STOP bashing the newbies! This newbie said nothing about being scared of death, neither are they delusional or have wishful thinking. All they said was they believed in an afterlife. You added the sunshine, rainbows, just peachy, etc....in sarcasm. Whatever "proof" your trying to extract from them was not even offered, or mentioned.
There you go again swooping down on the newbies, and trying to verbally shred them from their one sentence. comment. Your post was rude, and totally uncalled for.....like always.
-
If so how do you think it will be? There are lot of questions about the quality of life there
Light & darkness will be separated at the end. Light will be eternally in Heaven
as darkness will be eternally in hell.
the quality of life? there will be none in the darkness
quality will be in the light
Do you like walking blindly with no light at all, perhaps a fire to issue a little light here in there?
Before electricity, wasn't fire the way people had light in the evenings? You know, candlelight? So the eternal darkness thing doesn't make much sense to me...
I'm not trying to be hateful or sarcastic here; just honest.
No problem. ever read Genesis? GOD created the light and the darkness. in hell it will be like a candle being lit all the time.
no true light because YESHUA/JESUS is the light of this world - GOD has given satan to power of the air until the end.
satan was an arch angel who had every musical instrument in his body - that is one reason music has been such a tool
that leads to darkness. you really should read the Bible, it is alive and issues strength, endurance, faith, light, power,
integrity, etc. all the good things for GOD is only good, evil comes from below.
The Bible says by HIS stripes we are healed and I assure you it works. and I am not trying to be smart either. I have seen
many miracles done in the name of YESHUA/JESUS. May you come to know HIM, but HE lives in HIS WORD.
Really? I have read the Tanakh...in depth, and I've been working on my Hebrew so I can come to my own interpretations and conclusions about it.
I've come to learn when posting in a forum online that flowery words don't always get a point across. If you have something to say, you should say what you mean, and you should know what you are talking about before you say it. If you don't, you'll get called on it, and sometimes harshly.
-
some people believe in the after life.... like reencarnation, and coming back like someone else
-
There you go again swooping down on the newbies, and trying to verbally shred them from their one sentence. comment. Your post was rude, and totally uncalled for.....like always.
Whatever, Mom! You're the only one who has a bug up your rear about what I say......like always!
-
There you go again swooping down on the newbies, and trying to verbally shred them from their one sentence. comment. Your post was rude, and totally uncalled for.....like always.
Whatever, Mom! You're the only one who has a bug up your rear about what I say......like always!
Not the only one! I told you I would be sticking up for the newbies from your bullying and sarcasm. You don't like being called on it? Then stop! Your post WAS rude and uncalled for to someone new who wrote one small sentence.
You remind me of the class bully picking on the new person in school. Except now your on a public forum spewing out your miserable sarcasm to those who don't know how obnoxious you can be.
-
There you go again swooping down on the newbies, and trying to verbally shred them from their one sentence. comment. Your post was rude, and totally uncalled for.....like always.
Whatever, Mom! You're the only one who has a bug up your rear about what I say......like always!
Not the only one! I told you I would be sticking up for the newbies from your bullying and sarcasm. You don't like being called on it? Then stop! Your post WAS rude and uncalled for to someone new who wrote one small sentence.
You remind me of the class bully picking on the new person in school. Except now your on a public forum spewing out your miserable sarcasm to those who don't know how obnoxious you can be.
There could be some merit to your criticism if it were not for the fact that you are far from innocent of the same types of behavior.
Before you say that I am also guilty, I will say it first, of course I am, and......I can even admit it.
Wishing you a wonderful day as always. :o)
-
There you go again swooping down on the newbies, and trying to verbally shred them from their one sentence. comment. Your post was rude, and totally uncalled for.....like always.
Whatever, Mom! You're the only one who has a bug up your rear about what I say......like always!
Not the only one! I told you I would be sticking up for the newbies from your bullying and sarcasm. You don't like being called on it? Then stop! Your post WAS rude and uncalled for to someone new who wrote one small sentence.
You remind me of the class bully picking on the new person in school. Except now your on a public forum spewing out your miserable sarcasm to those who don't know how obnoxious you can be.
There could be some merit to your criticism if it were not for the fact that you are far from innocent of the same types of behavior.
Before you say that I am also guilty, I will say it first, of course I am, and......I can even admit it.
Wishing you a wonderful day as always. :o)
Negative!! I do not jump on and shred newbies just because they say they believe in God, nor do I curse, call names, call people delusional, stupid, ignorant, brain washed, bully people, or insult their intelligence, etc.
qon thought it was a good idea to backbite me in other threads without talking to me directly. I called her on it. Also, the fact that she waits until someone new comes in, and then she verbally "blasts" them for no reason except that they said they are Christian.
Yeah, I know how proud you are of how verbally abrasive you can be also. Someone should tell you...it's not an attribute!
-
If so how do you think it will be? There are lot of questions about the quality of life there
Light & darkness will be separated at the end. Light will be eternally in Heaven
as darkness will be eternally in hell.
the quality of life? there will be none in the darkness
quality will be in the light
Do you like walking blindly with no light at all, perhaps a fire to issue a little light here in there?
Before electricity, wasn't fire the way people had light in the evenings? You know, candlelight? So the eternal darkness thing doesn't make much sense to me...
I'm not trying to be hateful or sarcastic here; just honest.
No problem. ever read Genesis? GOD created the light and the darkness. in hell it will be like a candle being lit all the time.
no true light because YESHUA/JESUS is the light of this world - GOD has given satan to power of the air until the end.
satan was an arch angel who had every musical instrument in his body - that is one reason music has been such a tool
that leads to darkness. you really should read the Bible, it is alive and issues strength, endurance, faith, light, power,
integrity, etc. all the good things for GOD is only good, evil comes from below.
The Bible says by HIS stripes we are healed and I assure you it works. and I am not trying to be smart either. I have seen
many miracles done in the name of YESHUA/JESUS. May you come to know HIM, but HE lives in HIS WORD.
Really? I have read the Tanakh...in depth, and I've been working on my Hebrew so I can come to my own interpretations and conclusions about it.
I've come to learn when posting in a forum online that flowery words don't always get a point across. If you have something to say, you should say what you mean, and you should know what you are talking about before you say it. If you don't, you'll get called on it, and sometimes harshly.
I read the Tanakh every day and have for years... and thanks, I do know what I am talking about. and i don't mind being called on it. I can only smile,knowing I have done my best. obviously you haven't studied the Tanakh because the musical instruments are certainly mentioned as being in Lucifer so laugh if you please because I don't have to answer for you,nor you for me. and I certainly don't fear you or Anna - I can only pity you because your heart is hard and hard hearts cause hardened arteries and heart attacks ... read the New Covenant too, not only will it issue truth & light but it also issues Salvation.
and Anna I do have a hobby. I have been in prison ministry for many many many years.
Ever read the 10 Commandments? it says 'honor your father & your mother because it will give you long life.' I appreciate your mom defending me [i suppose that who she is defending] and I wish to thank her, but again, I think you are funny and all your rants & raves grieve me for you, but you are funny. If it is all "not true" why are you so angry? I certainly am not. I am busy, but not worrying about you.
This is a forum, and this is still America and I am still a free American. You can accept or reject, that is your choice but I do not argue the Bible. Don't take it so hard - in 10 years you will laugh, hopefully.
-
If so how do you think it will be? There are lot of questions about the quality of life there
Light & darkness will be separated at the end. Light will be eternally in Heaven
as darkness will be eternally in hell.
the quality of life? there will be none in the darkness
quality will be in the light
Do you like walking blindly with no light at all, perhaps a fire to issue a little light here in there?
Before electricity, wasn't fire the way people had light in the evenings? You know, candlelight? So the eternal darkness thing doesn't make much sense to me...
I'm not trying to be hateful or sarcastic here; just honest.
No problem. ever read Genesis? GOD created the light and the darkness. in hell it will be like a candle being lit all the time.
no true light because YESHUA/JESUS is the light of this world - GOD has given satan to power of the air until the end.
satan was an arch angel who had every musical instrument in his body - that is one reason music has been such a tool
that leads to darkness. you really should read the Bible, it is alive and issues strength, endurance, faith, light, power,
integrity, etc. all the good things for GOD is only good, evil comes from below.
The Bible says by HIS stripes we are healed and I assure you it works. and I am not trying to be smart either. I have seen
many miracles done in the name of YESHUA/JESUS. May you come to know HIM, but HE lives in HIS WORD.
Really? I have read the Tanakh...in depth, and I've been working on my Hebrew so I can come to my own interpretations and conclusions about it.
I've come to learn when posting in a forum online that flowery words don't always get a point across. If you have something to say, you should say what you mean, and you should know what you are talking about before you say it. If you don't, you'll get called on it, and sometimes harshly.
I read the Tanakh every day and have for years... and thanks, I do know what I am talking about. and i don't mind being called on it. I can only smile,knowing I have done my best. obviously you haven't studied the Tanakh because the musical instruments are certainly mentioned as being in Lucifer so laugh if you please because I don't have to answer for you,nor you for me. and I certainly don't fear you or Anna - I can only pity you because your heart is hard and hard hearts cause hardened arteries and heart attacks ... read the New Covenant too, not only will it issue truth & light but it also issues Salvation.
and Anna I do have a hobby. I have been in prison ministry for many many many years.
Ever read the 10 Commandments? it says 'honor your father & your mother because it will give you long life.' I appreciate your mom defending me [i suppose that who she is defending] and I wish to thank her, but again, I think you are funny and all your rants & raves grieve me for you, but you are funny. If it is all "not true" why are you so angry? I certainly am not. I am busy, but not worrying about you.
This is a forum, and this is still America and I am still a free American. You can accept or reject, that is your choice but I do not argue the Bible. Don't take it so hard - in 10 years you will laugh, hopefully.
Uh, who are you calling Anna? If you think I'm qon mom, please put that out of your mind immediately! We are not related....at all!! She was being sarcastic to me, by calling me mom (I'm older than she is). qon is an atheist. I'm a Christian Evangelist. My posts were to qon and basically only to her.
Note: I agree........ The Bible clearly addresses that pipes were built into Lucifer to lead the Heavenly Host in song and praise unto God. He was the covering cherub. He was most beautifully made, and was instrumental in showing forth the Glory of God....until he got lifted up with pride and jealousy.
-
I read the Tanakh every day and have for years... and thanks, I do know what I am talking about. and i don't mind being called on it. I can only smile,knowing I have done my best. obviously you haven't studied the Tanakh because the musical instruments are certainly mentioned as being in Lucifer so laugh if you please because I don't have to answer for you,nor you for me. and I certainly don't fear you or Anna - I can only pity you because your heart is hard and hard hearts cause hardened arteries and heart attacks ... read the New Covenant too, not only will it issue truth & light but it also issues Salvation.
Did I say you didn't know what you were talking about? I made a simple comment and from that you felt the need to condescend to me...which I find offensive coming from someone who has claimed to be Jewish yet accepts Jesus as g-d. However, to each their own and I'm not the type of person to bash someone based on their religious beliefs.
You're clearly new here and have only been posting for a couple of months, so I offered a few words of advice for posting on this forum. It was never my intention to try to scare you away or beat you down. If you want to believe I have a hard heart, be my guest, but please do your research first, otherwise you will not be taken seriously here. I give credit where it is due, regardless of religion or creed, and had you taken the time to read my posts you would have learned this. It is no skin off my back, though, whether you pity me, disagree with me, or look down upon me.
As for the "New Covenant"... I've read that, too. Take your proselytizing elsewhere as it is wasted on me.
-
I read the Tanakh every day and have for years... and thanks, I do know what I am talking about. and i don't mind being called on it. I can only smile,knowing I have done my best. obviously you haven't studied the Tanakh because the musical instruments are certainly mentioned as being in Lucifer so laugh if you please because I don't have to answer for you,nor you for me. and I certainly don't fear you or Anna - I can only pity you because your heart is hard and hard hearts cause hardened arteries and heart attacks ... read the New Covenant too, not only will it issue truth & light but it also issues Salvation.
Did I say you didn't know what you were talking about? I made a simple comment and from that you felt the need to condescend to me...which I find offensive coming from someone who has claimed to be Jewish yet accepts Jesus as g-d. However, to each their own and I'm not the type of person to bash someone based on their religious beliefs.
You're clearly new here and have only been posting for a couple of months, so I offered a few words of advice for posting on this forum. It was never my intention to try to scare you away or beat you down. If you want to believe I have a hard heart, be my guest, but please do your research first, otherwise you will not be taken seriously here. I give credit where it is due, regardless of religion or creed, and had you taken the time to read my posts you would have learned this. It is no skin off my back, though, whether you pity me, disagree with me, or look down upon me.
As for the "New Covenant"... I've read that, too. Take your proselytizing elsewhere as it is wasted on me.
Whoa amy, she was not proselytizing at all. You don't believe in the New Testament, or Jesus, and have said so. If she is Jewish that believes in Jesus, why does this make you angry? She is entitled to her belief.
Sorry, but I'm going to call you on this one: You do not give credit regardless of religion or creed. You have slammed me at times, because we disagreed. You get very sensitive with your posting when nothing is actually being projected at you, just answering to your post.
Angelhome: You should go back and read her previous posts, as it will give you a good foundation of what she does believe.....or not. It will also give you a good understanding with what/who you are dealing with on this forum. Don't worry, because you are being taken seriously, and have every right to post your opinion.
-
Yes I believe in the afterlife. For sure.
-
Whoa amy, she was not proselytizing at all. You don't believe in the New Testament, or Jesus, and have said so. If she is Jewish that believes in Jesus, why does this make you angry? She is entitled to her belief.
Sorry, but I'm going to call you on this one: You do not give credit regardless of religion or creed. You have slammed me at times, because we disagreed. You get very sensitive with your posting when nothing is actually being projected at you, just answering to your post.
Angelhome: You should go back and read her previous posts, as it will give you a good foundation of what she does believe.....or not. It will also give you a good understanding with what/who you are dealing with on this forum. Don't worry, because you are being taken seriously, and have every right to post your opinion.
I've slammed you, Annella? I think you need to go back and rethink that. Yes, we've disagreed a great many times, but I have never thrown down on you based on your religious belief. In fact, on several occasions I've been your sole defender. I have seen over the past few months, though, that my effort was wasted.
I said offended at her condescension, not angry. Honestly, you really do need to read posts more carefully before you respond to them.
We've been over this before, Annella. Once you bring Jesus being a savior into the equation, it ceases to be Judaism. I direct you back here: http://www.fusioncash.net/forum.php?topic=19516.msg304720#msg304720 and here: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/
Yes, Angelhome is entitled to their belief. I never claimed otherwise.
As for taking this personally, I believe this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Who have I blasted based on their religion or creed, Annella, other than your belief that I have blasted you based on it? My only harsh words against you were because of your actions, not your religion.
I realize now that when I said I was done, I should have placed you on ignore. I won't make that mistake again. I remain disappointed, though, because I really did value and love you one time as a friend.
-
Whoa amy, she was not proselytizing at all. You don't believe in the New Testament, or Jesus, and have said so. If she is Jewish that believes in Jesus, why does this make you angry? She is entitled to her belief.
Sorry, but I'm going to call you on this one: You do not give credit regardless of religion or creed. You have slammed me at times, because we disagreed. You get very sensitive with your posting when nothing is actually being projected at you, just answering to your post.
Angelhome: You should go back and read her previous posts, as it will give you a good foundation of what she does believe.....or not. It will also give you a good understanding with what/who you are dealing with on this forum. Don't worry, because you are being taken seriously, and have every right to post your opinion.
I've slammed you, Annella? I think you need to go back and rethink that. Yes, we've disagreed a great many times, but I have never thrown down on you based on your religious belief. In fact, on several occasions I've been your sole defender. I have seen over the past few months, though, that my effort was wasted.
I said offended at her condescension, not angry. Honestly, you really do need to read posts more carefully before you respond to them.
We've been over this before, Annella. Once you bring Jesus being a savior into the equation, it ceases to be Judaism. I direct you back here: http://www.fusioncash.net/forum.php?topic=19516.msg304720#msg304720 and here: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/
Yes, Angelhome is entitled to their belief. I never claimed otherwise.
As for taking this personally, I believe this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Who have I blasted based on their religion or creed, Annella, other than your belief that I have blasted you based on it? My only harsh words against you were because of your actions, not your religion.
I realize now that when I said I was done, I should have placed you on ignore. I won't make that mistake again. I remain disappointed, though, because I really did value and love you one time as a friend.
Okay, that's what the ignore button is for.
I felt you came down really hard on Angelhome, and all she was doing was expressing her opinion. The "proselyte" comment was not cool, as nobody here has done that, but all Christians on here have been accused of it.
You also chided her with "do your research, otherwise you will not be taken seriously here". She did do her research, and she came across very clear in her postings. You put her down like she didn't know what she was talking about.......and she DID!
And since when can a Jewish person believing in Jesus, not a Jew? No, they don't practice Judaism, but they are still Jewish, are they not?
My actions? Or because you were just way too sensitive with opinions, like you are being now. A true friend loves at all times. Also, the wounds of a friend are faithful. That's Old Testament, not New. So you should know what that means since that's the only part of the Bible you believe in anyway.
-
the fact that she waits until someone new comes in, and then she verbally "blasts" them for no reason except that they said they are Christian.
Like reason and logic, the following statement goes in one ear and out the other (because I've said it before): it makes no difference to me how long a person has been here; if their ideas don't stand up to reality, I will surely point it out. And you are highly incorrect that it has to do with one being a Christian.
Walks believes in a Creator; Amy is Jewish...and I have never "blasted" either of them. There's a reason for that. Try to figure it out.
Uh, who are you calling Anna?
lol Here's yet another example of a hypocrite in action. You being way too peeved at a "newbie" getting your name wrong!
She was being sarcastic to me, by calling me mom (I'm older than she is).
We could technically even go the grandma route, but "Mom" rolled off the tongue better. ;)
-
the fact that she waits until someone new comes in, and then she verbally "blasts" them for no reason except that they said they are Christian.
Like reason and logic, the following statement goes in one ear and out the other (because I've said it before): it makes no difference to me how long a person has been here; if their ideas don't stand up to reality, I will surely point it out. And you are highly incorrect that it has to do with one being a Christian.
Walks believes in a Creator; Amy is Jewish...and I have never "blasted" either of them. There's a reason for that. Try to figure it out.
Uh, who are you calling Anna?
lol Here's yet another example of a hypocrite in action. You being way too peeved at a "newbie" getting your name wrong!
She was being sarcastic to me, by calling me mom (I'm older than she is).
We could technically even go the grandma route, but "Mom" rolled off the tongue better. ;)
For one thing, I wasn't peeved, LIAR!! I was agreeing with her. She wasn't even addressing me but Amy. go back and read the thread trouble maker.
You've never blasted either one of them because neither one of them believe in Christianity or being a Christian..so YOU figure it out smart mouth! Walks has blasted Christians, and Amy doesn't even believe in Jesus or the New Testament. Oh, but just let someone say they are a Christian, and here you come with your claws out.
I'm ABSOLUTElY NO RELATION to you!! In this life OR the next. In fact, such a reprobate (as you are). God forbid!!
You have a habit of verbally shredding newbies just because they profess a belief in God. You have done it over and over again qon. I've watched you do it, and so has everybody else.
Act all innocent all you want, I'm on to you (and so are a lot of others), and will call you on it.
-
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g228/walksalone11/smileys/snackin.gif)
-
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g228/walksalone11/smileys/snackin.gif)
LOL...pulling up a chair are ya?
-
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g228/walksalone11/smileys/snackin.gif)
LOL...pulling up a chair are ya?
Mother may I....errr....uhhhh...I ...uhhh mean...hummmm.....you don't object do you?
-
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g228/walksalone11/smileys/snackin.gif)
LOL...pulling up a chair are ya?
Mother may I....errr....uhhhh...I ...uhhh mean...hummmm.....you don't object do you?
Now I'm your mother too? As far as I know, I only had 1 son.
-
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g228/walksalone11/smileys/snackin.gif)
LOL...pulling up a chair are ya?
Mother may I....errr....uhhhh...I ...uhhh mean...hummmm.....you don't object do you?
Now I'm your mother too? As far as I know, I only had 1 son.
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g228/walksalone11/smileys/36_1_12.gif)
-
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g228/walksalone11/smileys/survivor.gif)
-
Quote from queenofnines:
if their ideas don't stand up to reality, I will surely point it out. And you are highly incorrect that it has to do with one being a Christian.
Walks believes in a Creator; Amy is Jewish...and I have never "blasted" either of them. There's a reason for that. Try to figure it out.
I do disagree with you, qon. Whether it is a newbie or a seasoned poster (you are correct about that part), if they are Christian or try to bring something up about God, or disagree with evolution, then you are quick to come in and jump on them. Your reality (atheism/evolution) is the total opposite of a Christian's reality. You cannot stand that they believe in God, so here comes the comments to them.
I removed my comment here out of respect to Walks and Amy.
-
Not the only one! I told you I would be sticking up for the newbies from your bullying and sarcasm. You don't like being called on it? Then stop! Your post WAS rude and uncalled for to someone new who wrote one small sentence. You remind me of the class bully picking on the new person in school. Except now your on a public forum spewing out your miserable sarcasm to those who don't know how obnoxious you can be.
I read her post and I don't see what you're talking about. She pointed out obvious holes that most religious people do not acknowledge in order to spark a debate/argument. That's acceptable considering the forum area. This wasn't some needless personal attack like you keep thinking-- it was on topic.
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g228/walksalone11/smileys/36_1_12.gif
Arrharharharrrr!
-
I have been gone for a few weeks. My kids bought me a round trip flight for Christmas so I could NOT come up with an excuse for not taking a vacation due to work as I have for last 5 years. I thought it would be good to see what has happened around FC. It is GREAT that I am seeing posts from Walks again, yay to that! ;) Thumbs down to the self appointed 'Ruler of Rhetoric' aka Annella, Anna, Mom. I thought you might have backed off, possibly humbled yourself and made nice with Amy again, and regained a bit of sanity in addition to taking the appropriate amount of time necessary to understand what is actually being said in posts. I would have been closer if I had hoped to find a pile of gold in my foyer when I came home. Life goes on and some things just never change. I have to ask this. Do you have a special pop-up window installed on your computer monitor that alerts you when QON posts so you can swoop in and 'stand up' for newbies (or anyone else you deem worthy) whether THEY want or need it, Annella? It sure seems like it judging by the amount of time between replies. Nothing, zero, zip, zilch.....newbie posts.....Queen replies with valid words.....BOOM! You come flying in to set things back in order as YOU see fit. Utilize the ignore button before you actually do find out if your heaven exists through a self-imposed stroke.....
This below really caught me off guard though. Did I miss something huge?!
Amy is Jewish and does not believe in God
-
Read what the "reward for incoruptability is. Look at the fact Jesus will get the jewel of incorruptability in his crown. See the fact that he will rule a few thousand years in the flesh in the new heaven and jeruselem. Then lastly look up the old testiment when the entire army of" dry bones" was brought back to life and won the war they were brought back for. A prophet was made to stack the dry bones and comand them to rise! If that is so. Recieve immortality like Jesus will. By being incorupt. Simple!
-
Good post, Sheryl, and thank you for what you said, would miss you too. ;) I have also noticed, reading back to catch up, all the warnings and instructions re "go back through and read their posts". What new person has the time or desire to go through thousands of writings? If they have a mind of their own, they are certainly able to form an opinion of their own.
Note on my previous post: When I asked if I had missed something huge and quoted jcribb re Amy, I meant the part about not believing in god, NOT the part about being Jewish. :)
I just looked and have not had enough posts to claim the $3 bonus since December. That just reinforces how redundant things have gotten in D&D - I haven't even bothered to put in my thoughts and that's unusual for me.
-
Walks may believe in a creator, but we both know it is not God.
Excuse me???
There is only one Creator, whether one calls them Creator, God, Yahweh, Messiah or what have you. It's just that some people believe that through their interpretation of what is divinely inspired they can find justification to act in very superior ways and force, by what ever means necessary, others to adopt their dogmatic ways. Whether that force is by way of intense peer pressure, intimidation and literally scaring "hell" out of someone, up to and including genocide. I do not. I believe every single individual has the divine right to be who they are and no other individual has the right to attempt to force them to be else.
I have been accused of christian bashing. Bull *bleep*. There are christian s on this forum I have openly supported and even encouraged them to further their studies and pursue a position within the clergy. I will speak out and probably even "bash" on anyone of any mindset who acts as if they are superior or preaches intolerance of anyone else.
Some people in here need to learn the differance between "fact" and "opinion" and not try to force acceptance of one represented as the other.
-
Walks may believe in a creator, but we both know it is not God.
Excuse me???
There is only one Creator, whether one calls them Creator, God, Yahweh, Messiah or what have you. It's just that some people believe that through their interpretation of what is divinely inspired they can find justification to act in very superior ways and force, by what ever means necessary, others to adopt their dogmatic ways. Whether that force is by way of intense peer pressure, intimidation and literally scaring "hell" out of someone, up to and including genocide. I do not. I believe every single individual has the divine right to be who they are and no other individual has the right to attempt to force them to be else.
I have been accused of christian bashing. Bull *bleep*. There are christian s on this forum I have openly supported and even encouraged them to further their studies and pursue a position within the clergy. I will speak out and probably even "bash" on anyone of any mindset who acts as if they are superior or preaches intolerance of anyone else.
Some people in here need to learn the differance between "fact" and "opinion" and not try to force acceptance of one represented as the other.
Setting the record straight with fact and NOT opinion, Walks. :peace:
"I believe every single individual has the divine right to be who they are and no other individual has the right to attempt to force them to be else." Hooyah!
-
Do you have a special pop-up window installed on your computer monitor that alerts you when QON posts so you can swoop in and 'stand up' for newbies (or anyone else you deem worthy) whether THEY want or need it, Annella? It sure seems like it judging by the amount of time between replies. Nothing, zero, zip, zilch.....newbie posts.....Queen replies with valid words.....BOOM! You come flying in to set things back in order as YOU see fit.
Glad to see I'm not the only one who has noticed this!
Utilize the ignore button before you actually do find out if your heaven exists through a self-imposed stroke.....
Haha, totally. SCREAMING that I'm a liar because I pointed out how she got annoyed by being called Anna? Get a grip!!
You've never blasted either one of them because neither one of them believe in Christianity or being a Christian..so YOU figure it out smart mouth!
Leave it to a Christian to try to weasel the situation into something it's not. There's much more to this "common denominator" than them not believing in Christianity; that is beside the point. It's the fact that they don't run around spewing fallacies left and right nor are they trying to overthrow society with any dogma.
Geez, I really had to spell it out for ya, huh?
-
Walks may believe in a creator, but we both know it is not God. So that doesn't rankle you, of course. Amy is Jewish and does not believe in God, and is still waiting for her Messiah. So that doesn't cross you either. So, duh, it wasn't hard to figure out....
Wow, that is incredibly disrespectful of you, jcribb. Your invisible, unprovable god can beat up their invisible, unprovable gods, can he?
Christians are so supremacist. Of course many religions like to tout how they are the correct one (which is laughable); Christians in particular seem to do it more than anyone else.
And I've already explained above why Walks and Amy's beliefs don't "rankle" me.
I can assure you Christians aren't the only ones worthy off criticism. If you're a fundamentalist nut about anything, gtfo!
-
Walks may believe in a creator, but we both know it is not God. So that doesn't rankle you, of course. Amy is Jewish and does not believe in God, and is still waiting for her Messiah. So that doesn't cross you either. So, duh, it wasn't hard to figure out....
Wow, that is incredibly disrespectful of you, jcribb. Your invisible, unprovable god can beat up their invisible, unprovable gods, can he?
Christians are so supremacist. Of course many religions like to tout how they are the correct one (which is laughable); Christians in particular seem to do it more than anyone else.
And I've already explained above why Walks and Amy's beliefs don't "rankle" me.
I can assure you Christians aren't the only ones worthy off criticism. If you're a fundamentalist nut about anything, gtfo!
I hope Sheryl sees your disrespect as well, qon. Especially your ending. I have never and will never speak to you that way.
I was only saying what they have inferred in other posts in other threads. I will remove it as I was reacting to your posts. And I apologize to them. Whether Sheryl has read your comments in other threads, I don't know. But I sure do hope she will see the one you just finished with.
-
Christianity aside, we are all human here. qon has just as much right to post her opinions/ beliefs on whatever topic she chooses just like anyone else, and the right to question what is posted. Noone has the right to treat another human being like dirt. What kind of d&d section would it be if everyone agreed about everything with everyone else? qon always has people posting that they enjoy her posts & style---she inspires people, she makes them think. I have to applaud anyone that can make any person "stop and really think" about anything these days. (I'm not saying I always agree with her but I do know that she is a very intelligent, compassionate, fun and witty individual with a great sense of humor and I love that.) qon's posts have gotten shorter (from what they used to be) and I don't think she hasn't posted as frequently as before... and it does seem to me like she's being bullied on the forum. I think it's petty to be "warning" newbies about other FC members as soon as they (newbies) post. People should be able to form their own opinions/impressions of others and not have someone else do it for them. FC rules says to observe the golden rule and treat others the way you'd like to be treated--- how many FC members would like another member warning newbies right on the forum for everyone else to see...about you? qon is very well & able of defending/taking care of herself, it's just that I have noticed these things and I don't believe all this "strife" is right. Falconer contributes alot of wit, humor and knowledge to the forum. I don't have to always agree with him to enjoy his "presence" in the forum. Same goes for Amy, Walks and Jordandog. I consider them all to be "treasures" that I appreciate having found on FC and if they were missing, I would most definitely miss them. They are all unique & special individuals. There is no need to "warn" newbies about anybody. According to my Bible, we all came from Adam & Eve. That makes qon AND Annella my "sisters"...whether they like it or not. ;) That makes ALL of us "brothers" & "sisters" until the day we stop breathing. :peace: and :heart: (**walks...the emoticons...you are precious!)
Sheryl, I totally agree with you. And it was that way for awhile. But you have apparently missed many threads as of late with how she spoke to newbies and others who differed in her views. Debating is great, but not when they are called idiots, not in reality, make-believe security blankets (toward their belief in God.) Even God's Word says to "Do unto others as they would do unto you." People, including myself, have respected her choice and her reasons and don't cut her down. She does not usually offer the same in return. People can only take so much and either ignore or spark back. I enjoy debating with her as long as there is respect between us.
-
Out of respect to Amy, what I meant by my comment in regards to her, is that Jesus is not God. In my faith, Jesus is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. To her, it means different when it comes to Jesus and the New Testament. She does not follow that. So when I said she didn't believe in God, I should have said Jesus instead. (It is confusing since to me Jesus is God.) So, my apologies to Amy for my wrong comment. I did not mean it that way at all, as I have explained why.
-
I addressed qon personally because she thought it was a good idea to bash me in various threads without addressing me one on one. I called her on it!! I'll do it again! I called her a liar because she lied in her responses.
Yes, newbies do need an explanation if someone swoops down on them and attacks them for no good reason except they said they believe in God. Anybody can go back and read anybody's posts to get a good idea about what they are all about. I will educate whomever to explain why they are being shredded just because they say they are a believer. One newbie got qon's number right quick last week, and qon didn't respond to her anymore. However, there are newbies that have just as much right to post whatever they feel, without the verbal sarcasm. Everybody on here deserves to be heard if we believe like they do or not, without being called names, put downs, cursed at, etc.
Jordondog, your on ignore so I don't know your responses, and won't go back to read them.....that's just how it is.
Sheryl, the Bible says we are brothers and sisters if we do the will of the Father. Not everyone in the world is our brother or sister. What agreement has light with darkness? How can two walk together unless they agree? There are children of perdition. We do fight the enemy of our souls, or do you not believe that? You don't have to answer.
I came back into D&D because I was defending a friend. However, she can defend herself just fine.
To qon: Expect to get the same kind of treatment you dish out to me. That's a promise!
Amy, you don't believe in God as we believe that He is Jesus (God manifested in the flesh). You do not believe in Jesus at all, that's what Jcribb was saying. She was not disrespecting you.
I read one of Mackenzies post a couple weeks ago, and she said something like, she had been away for months and came back to see what was up, and it was the same negative crap (her words). I'm going to have to agree. Time to do something else.
No matter what is said back and forth......we do not agree, and will not. That's the bottom line. I won't change your mind, and you won't change mine. There comes a time when you realize there is nothing left to do, but shake the dust off, wash your hands of it, and move on.
-
jcribb: I've been sick off & on and hadn't been on FC much so I missed something, apparently. I think if newbies or anyone else has a gripe with how qon is "speaking" to them then they either need to take it up with qon and if that doesn't settle it then try Admin or the "ignore" button. There's only been 1 person that I had warned newbies to stay away from and that is because whatever had been going on there was just wasting everyone's time and was an emotional drain on many. Unless someone is really doing something wildly crazy...I do not think anyone has the right to be telling newbies anything about other members right on the forum. Here's ONE post I saw today and it bothered me: Trebor and Willie......come in here any time you want and say what you want. This is your forum also. qon is a miserable woman who hates God, Bible, etc. Oh wait, she confesses to be an Atheist. She spends her time putting down Christians, and those who believe in His existence and the Bible. While a lot of people don't believe that way, they are courteous about it. qon has not learned the common art of manners.
It's one thing to welcome a newbie, another to do "THAT". I have never been under the impression that QON is miserable. If she ever posted as such, I missed that too. I don't believe I ever seen qon post that she "hated God", I only have seen her post that she didn't believe in God. So what if she says she's an atheist? EVERYONE is entitled to be what they choose. So what if she spends time putting down Christians? Christians on this forum have spent a considerable amount of time themselves putting down atheists & everyone else BUT themselves. The ending sentence was the "clincher" for me: "qon has not learned the common art of manners". I don't believe it was "good manners" to post something like that for "newbies" to see as a "welcome". I don't believe that post says "courtesy, shows maturity or the love of God. I don't think Annella means to come across as "holier than thou", but she does. I love her, but I don't enjoy reading most of her posts when they start getting innaccurate or hateful. I don't believe a Christian or any other person has to be treated like a doormat anywhere in life but I think if they truly have the love of God in their hearts then it should always show in their words, actions and attitude. "idiots, not in reality, make-believe security blankets etc." ---is our God NOT BIGGER than this? "God's Word" and what is in it doesn't apply to qon while she's an atheist, she doesn't believe in it. You can't force her to adhere to priciples in a faith she wants nothing to do with...that's not fair. Have you ever read or seen the book/movie "The Cross & the Switchblade"? Nicky Cruz was a tough guy. David Wilkerson was a Christian/preacher. Nicky Cruz threatened to kill David if he came near him. David didn't go nuts and start spewing how Nicky was evil, wicked, filthy and vile. What David said was "Yeah, you could do that. You could cut me up into a thousand pieces and lay them in the street, and every piece will still love you". THAT was the LOVE I've been talking about. If a Christian doesn't have the LOVE of GOD inside them, they don't have much. David Wilkerson eventually brought Nicky Cruz to the Lord and what a testimony he has. He has accomplished great things for the Lord. I don't know about you & Annella but I sure would love to see everyone on the FC forum someday in heaven-- but it's never going to happen if our God is so small that we can't be overcomers of this. ***Note: I HATE having to say when I have a problem with how another Christian is posting but for me to see what has been posted and to not say anything gives all other non-believers the impression that because I said nothing then I must be in agreement when I surely am not. I know Annella isn't perfect, I know I surely am not perfect. When I see something that "bugs" me, I am going to say something...it's the honest thing to do. I did notice that Annella had a number of posts that were "different" from the "mud-slinging" before and some were very informative or helpful as well so I'm not saying her posts aren't appreciated...only that it's a fine line we start walking when we start imitating a non-believer's behavior.
Sheryl, your certainly entitled to your opinion, but you are not my spiritual authority and you don't or have not gotten all the facts. You don't have to be in agreement. If you want to give them a platform to continue their blasphemy of everything a Christian holds dear, then go ahead.....I will not. So, I suppose your on here to receive all the accusations, name calling, put downs, calling our God a sky daddy, blasphemies, etc., and turn the other cheek? Okay, good for you. I no longer want to give the enemy the time and place to blaspheme my God that I hold precious.
You know, it's real funny how you can go back and pull my posts out of context, and not pull qon's posts backbiting me for no reason at all, shredding newbies, ect. That's what I called her on. You don't think that's a good welcome for newbies, but to shred them verbally because they wrote one sentence that they believed in God is a good welcome? Since when am I forcing my Faith on her? That's not true. My problem is her lack of manners, name calling, cursing, etc.
As a matter of fact, one newbie did stand up to her, and then qon didn't post to her anymore. If you had been sick and don't know everything that's been said in other threads leading up to this, then how can you judge me? Again, you are not my spiritual authority, and have no right to judge me on anything. God judges me, and believe me, I don't get away with anything.
Idiots, not in reality, security blankets? What are you talking about? I never said those words.
Since you don't enjoy reading my posts Sheryl, there's an ignore button for anybody who wants to use it.
Your post last time, and this time, makes me realize that I shouldn't have come back in here. I cannot take plates of blasphemy and garbage and smile while I eat it and say....yummmm this is good! Go ahead if you want to, but it's not for me. My zeal and passion for God will always be there and nothing can dampen it......nothing!
-
Sheryl, your certainly entitled to your opinion, but you are not my spiritual authority and you don't or have not gotten all the facts. You don't have to be in agreement. If you want to give them a platform to continue their blasphemy of everything a Christian holds dear, then go ahead.....I will not. So, I suppose your on here to receive all the accusations, name calling, put downs, calling our God a sky daddy, blasphemies, etc., and turn the other cheek? Okay, good for you. always be there and nothing can dampen it......nothing!
& ETC. :o W-O-W Annella, you outdid yourself with this one, truly. I never claimed to be your "spiritual authority", CLEARLY you are your own. I don't give anyone a platform to do anything, FC has given the forum to EVERYBODY regarless of how they "believe" or "don't". QON is just 1 person with accusations, name calling, put downs, calling our God a sky daddy, blasphemies, etc. ALL of this and more happens in the REAL world---I can't help but wonder how in the world you can handle it out there if one person doing so little on a on-line forum can "bring out the devil" like that in you. I didn't "pull your post out of context", I pulled it for what it was---"distasteful". I also pulled it "line by line" so if it was "out of context" somehwere, feel free to clarify and clear up the "real meaning" for everyone. Not everyone has good manners, some people do participate in name calling, cursing, etc. It's been my experience that this is how the majority of the world IS. Do you really expect to make a difference in the world by doing the same as well? If a newbie had a problem with qon and called her on it...and then qon didn't respond back---I would call that "problem solved", WHY don't you? Quote from Annella:" Idiots, not in reality, security blankets? What are you talking about? I never said those words". Ok, here's one of the reasons everyone is having such a problem with you. I NEVER SAID you said those words, my post was to jcribb...do ya see "jcribb" at the beginning of that post? I know all about the "ignore" button Annella and because I serve a BIG & MIGHTY God and actually have the faith to back that up---I don't need to use an "ignore" button. (I don't think God uses one either.) God gives me all the strength I need to "deal" on a forum. lol. I wasn't trying to dampen your "zeal & passion for God", just trying to get you to realize that there should be some "LOVE of God" in your heart to go with it!!
;D
-
Sheryl, the Bible says we are brothers and sisters if we do the will of the Father. Not everyone in the world is our brother or sister. What agreement has light with darkness? How can two walk together unless they agree? There are children of perdition. We do fight the enemy of our souls, or do you not believe that? You don't have to answer.
The Bible says we all are made of the same stuff---"All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." Ecc 3:20 and that Adam & Eve were the first humans from where all humans come, even Jesus' genealogy is traced back to Eve. So yes, we are ALL related. (We can have our "sisters & brothers in Christ" but what does that really mean when many of those "sisters & brothers in Christ" aren't authentic Christians and know more about "lip-service" than having a personal relationship with the Lord?) There is no agreement with light & darkness,however in John 8:12 Jesus Himself says He is the light of the WORLD, Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." Since noone is born "walking in the Light", I would assume you were once in darkness? I would also assume it was a Christian that showed you the Light? If that Christian had been so obsessed with "what agreement light has with darkness", I wonder where would you be today? I'm not sure what the "walking together" has to do with anything, we are on a forum. If you don't want to go where people of all sorts of beliefs & non-beliefs "walk" then there are other topics to post in besides d&d however, it's not an all-Christian group that treads through there either. Yes I do believe we fight the enemy of our souls. I also think we give the enemy way too much credit and we are a big enemy to ourselves all by ourself. You act like it's all over and anyone that doesn't believe or believe like you do can just go to hell right now, and that is NOT your call to make. Not now---not ever. It's an odd attitude for an Christian to have let alone an evangelist too, btw. This might just be a "forum" and I would expect QON to despise my gutts. I still pray for her and will continue to pray for her until either God finds a way to prove Himself to her or the day I die, whichever comes first. ( If a Christian doesn't pray for her...WHO will?) Someday, I expect to find her in Heaven. As long as a person is breathing, there is still hope. A Christian that believes in fighting the enemy for souls doesn't just give up on a person that doesn't believe the way they do and let the enemy have them! qon isn't really guilty of anything except of having been deceived by the enemy and various false christians which has put her in the place she is in TODAY. God loves qon just as much as He loves anyone else on this earth, God doesn't have any favorites. Hate from a non-Christian toward a Christian is to be expected. Hate from a Christian right back toward a non-Christian is unacceptable. I would also say that the way you respond to the others with various beliefs haven't been so pleasant either. This isn't the first time you've managed to stir up a bee's nest in the forum, MANY have called you on it. If there wasn't a problem there with your personal self...this wouldn't be. just say'in..
You are certainly entitled to your opinion Sheryl. However, you have no idea what is in my heart. In fact, your posts are nothing but critical. No, you are not my spiritual authority, and I do have a "head" over me. Your posting about my being my own authority certainly opens up that you yourself have a problem with spiritual authority.
I do not participate in name calling, and cursing, and I take great offense of you accusing me of it.
I've read how you have had so many problems with your neighbors and so on, you have posted many posts about how your Christian friends did not treat you right, and so and so right, and on and on. You, my dear, have a critical spirit against your own brothers and sisters, and everybody else. I have to call it as I see it. Take the mote out of your own eye, before you try to remove it from mine.
Btw, God does have an ignore button, He most certainly says he will ignore the prayers and pleadings of the wicked at times. Read your Bible. There is a goodness and a severity to God. Do you know that God said "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated"? Because of the reprobate and idolatry Esau fell into and taught his house to do, God cut him off. Yes, God is Love, but also he is just. Hate is an emotion just like love, anger, kindness, etc, and God gave them all to us. There is a time to hate and a time to love?
I hate every blasphemy that is thrown out. It vexes my spirit. Maybe you are different or it doesn't affect you like it does me. God is everything to me, and I will defend His Name, Supreme King that He is! You are correct about one thing. I came in here to defend another Christian and got caught up in the "mess" again. I regret that. Easily remedied.
You feel you should pray for qon, by all means, we are to pray for those that are lost. How do you know I don't pray for her too? See, you have made a lot of assumptions that you really don't know. We are to pray for those who despitefully use us, who offends us. By doing so, we reap a blessing. I pray for all on here, but that's actually between me and my personal time with God. Since you felt like you should chide me, I wanted to let you know that you are making assumptions that you don't really know.
I do want to address one thing, because I've been accused of it over and over, and somehow you have picked it up and accused me of it also. I never had said that if people don't believe as I do, they will go to hell...never have I said that. What I have said, is if people neglect the plan of Salvation which is in the Bible, there is a hell to look forward to. With it, you also insulted my position as an Evangelist with this accusation.
Now, again, you are entitled to your opinion Sheryl.
-
I do want to answer this after going back and reading your post again. You criticized me not being able to stand the blasphemies, cursings, etc., in the real world. Sometimes people blaspheme because they don't know any better. They have never know Christ, and are doing it ignorantly. It's different. However, even if someone was doing it ignorantly in a church service, they would be asked to leave. What I'm saying is that we overlook that because they don't know any better, and have never come to the knowledge of Christ.
Now...those on here that blatantly blasphemes DELIBERATELY, have been professed former Christians. They know what they are doing, and do it with deliberate spite, and full knowledge. The Bible calls someone like that a reprobate. I agree. That kind of filth and blasphemy comes from nothing else but a bitter reprobate heart and spirit. Now.....there are some on here who believes in a God who is doing it ignorantly. Others are not.
-
I think it will be interesting to find out what, if anything happens. If nothing happens that's fine. I had a good life and some great times. That's all I know for sure. As I get older though, I find life gets a lot harder to cope with but that's just me.
-
I think it will be interesting to find out what, if anything happens. If nothing happens that's fine. I had a good life and some great times. That's all I know for sure. As I get older though, I find life gets a lot harder to cope with but that's just me.
No Marieelissa, it's not just you. Life can be difficult at times. The Bible says man that is born of woman is of few days and full of trouble (I'm paraphrasing). Sometimes it's just the general environment of which we live, or right now how the economy is and affects everyone.
Then you get to an age where you realize that you don't control anything. Life really is a gift, and you need to unwrap it everyday and see what it holds, and embrace it. I try to leave the previous days troubles or trials in the previous day, and face a new day with new promise. I don't always succeed, but many times do, with God's help. Knowing that God has hold of my life, He can take the bad, and make it good, certainly helps.
-
Yes, i believe that we all have our place in Heaven when we die. Those that call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved and have everlasting life in the Kingdom of God. God Bless you all! <3 †
-
Yes, i believe that we all have our place in Heaven when we die. Those that call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved and have everlasting life in the Kingdom of God. God Bless you all! <3 †
Welcome to the forum :wave:
-
Sheryl, the Bible says we are brothers and sisters if we do the will of the Father. Not everyone in the world is our brother or sister. What agreement has light with darkness? How can two walk together unless they agree? There are children of perdition. We do fight the enemy of our souls, or do you not believe that? You don't have to answer.
The Bible says we all are made of the same stuff---"All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." Ecc 3:20 and that Adam & Eve were the first humans from where all humans come, even Jesus' genealogy is traced back to Eve. So yes, we are ALL related. (We can have our "sisters & brothers in Christ" but what does that really mean when many of those "sisters & brothers in Christ" aren't authentic Christians and know more about "lip-service" than having a personal relationship with the Lord?) There is no agreement with light & darkness,however in John 8:12 Jesus Himself says He is the light of the WORLD, Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." Since noone is born "walking in the Light", I would assume you were once in darkness? I would also assume it was a Christian that showed you the Light? If that Christian had been so obsessed with "what agreement light has with darkness", I wonder where would you be today? I'm not sure what the "walking together" has to do with anything, we are on a forum. If you don't want to go where people of all sorts of beliefs & non-beliefs "walk" then there are other topics to post in besides d&d however, it's not an all-Christian group that treads through there either. Yes I do believe we fight the enemy of our souls. I also think we give the enemy way too much credit and we are a big enemy to ourselves all by ourself. You act like it's all over and anyone that doesn't believe or believe like you do can just go to hell right now, and that is NOT your call to make. Not now---not ever. It's an odd attitude for an Christian to have let alone an evangelist too, btw. This might just be a "forum" and I would expect QON to despise my gutts. I still pray for her and will continue to pray for her until either God finds a way to prove Himself to her or the day I die, whichever comes first. ( If a Christian doesn't pray for her...WHO will?) Someday, I expect to find her in Heaven. As long as a person is breathing, there is still hope. A Christian that believes in fighting the enemy for souls doesn't just give up on a person that doesn't believe the way they do and let the enemy have them! qon isn't really guilty of anything except of having been deceived by the enemy and various false christians which has put her in the place she is in TODAY. God loves qon just as much as He loves anyone else on this earth, God doesn't have any favorites. Hate from a non-Christian toward a Christian is to be expected. Hate from a Christian right back toward a non-Christian is unacceptable. I would also say that the way you respond to the others with various beliefs haven't been so pleasant either. This isn't the first time you've managed to stir up a bee's nest in the forum, MANY have called you on it. If there wasn't a problem there with your personal self...this wouldn't be. just say'in..
I do not participate in name calling, and cursing, and I take great offense of you accusing me of it.
ur gunna go ta hell MeeMaw....
quote from you to QON:
For one thing, I wasn't peeved, LIAR!! I was agreeing with her. She wasn't even addressing me but Amy. go back and read the thread trouble maker.
You've never blasted either one of them because neither one of them believe in Christianity or being a Christian..so YOU figure it out smart mouth! Walks has blasted Christians, and Amy doesn't even believe in Jesus or the New Testament. Oh, but just let someone say they are a Christian, and here you come with your claws out.
I'm ABSOLUTElY NO RELATION to you!! In this life OR the next. In fact, such a reprobate (as you are). God forbid!!
You have a habit of verbally shredding newbies just because they profess a belief in God. You have done it over and over again qon. I've watched you do it, and so has everybody else.
Act all innocent all you want, I'm on to you (and so are a lot of others), and will call you on it.
-
Sheryl, the Bible says we are brothers and sisters if we do the will of the Father. Not everyone in the world is our brother or sister. What agreement has light with darkness? How can two walk together unless they agree? There are children of perdition. We do fight the enemy of our souls, or do you not believe that? You don't have to answer.
The Bible says we all are made of the same stuff---"All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." Ecc 3:20 and that Adam & Eve were the first humans from where all humans come, even Jesus' genealogy is traced back to Eve. So yes, we are ALL related. (We can have our "sisters & brothers in Christ" but what does that really mean when many of those "sisters & brothers in Christ" aren't authentic Christians and know more about "lip-service" than having a personal relationship with the Lord?) There is no agreement with light & darkness,however in John 8:12 Jesus Himself says He is the light of the WORLD, Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." Since noone is born "walking in the Light", I would assume you were once in darkness? I would also assume it was a Christian that showed you the Light? If that Christian had been so obsessed with "what agreement light has with darkness", I wonder where would you be today? I'm not sure what the "walking together" has to do with anything, we are on a forum. If you don't want to go where people of all sorts of beliefs & non-beliefs "walk" then there are other topics to post in besides d&d however, it's not an all-Christian group that treads through there either. Yes I do believe we fight the enemy of our souls. I also think we give the enemy way too much credit and we are a big enemy to ourselves all by ourself. You act like it's all over and anyone that doesn't believe or believe like you do can just go to hell right now, and that is NOT your call to make. Not now---not ever. It's an odd attitude for an Christian to have let alone an evangelist too, btw. This might just be a "forum" and I would expect QON to despise my gutts. I still pray for her and will continue to pray for her until either God finds a way to prove Himself to her or the day I die, whichever comes first. ( If a Christian doesn't pray for her...WHO will?) Someday, I expect to find her in Heaven. As long as a person is breathing, there is still hope. A Christian that believes in fighting the enemy for souls doesn't just give up on a person that doesn't believe the way they do and let the enemy have them! qon isn't really guilty of anything except of having been deceived by the enemy and various false christians which has put her in the place she is in TODAY. God loves qon just as much as He loves anyone else on this earth, God doesn't have any favorites. Hate from a non-Christian toward a Christian is to be expected. Hate from a Christian right back toward a non-Christian is unacceptable. I would also say that the way you respond to the others with various beliefs haven't been so pleasant either. This isn't the first time you've managed to stir up a bee's nest in the forum, MANY have called you on it. If there wasn't a problem there with your personal self...this wouldn't be. just say'in..
I do not participate in name calling, and cursing, and I take great offense of you accusing me of it.
ur gunna go ta hell MeeMaw....
quote from you to QON:
For one thing, I wasn't peeved, LIAR!! I was agreeing with her. She wasn't even addressing me but Amy. go back and read the thread trouble maker.
You've never blasted either one of them because neither one of them believe in Christianity or being a Christian..so YOU figure it out smart mouth! Walks has blasted Christians, and Amy doesn't even believe in Jesus or the New Testament. Oh, but just let someone say they are a Christian, and here you come with your claws out.
I'm ABSOLUTElY NO RELATION to you!! In this life OR the next. In fact, such a reprobate (as you are). God forbid!!
You have a habit of verbally shredding newbies just because they profess a belief in God. You have done it over and over again qon. I've watched you do it, and so has everybody else.
Act all innocent all you want, I'm on to you (and so are a lot of others), and will call you on it.
bahahahahahaha!!!!!!
There's more where that came from too.
-
Sheryl, the Bible says we are brothers and sisters if we do the will of the Father. Not everyone in the world is our brother or sister. What agreement has light with darkness? How can two walk together unless they agree? There are children of perdition. We do fight the enemy of our souls, or do you not believe that? You don't have to answer.
The Bible says we all are made of the same stuff---"All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." Ecc 3:20 and that Adam & Eve were the first humans from where all humans come, even Jesus' genealogy is traced back to Eve. So yes, we are ALL related. (We can have our "sisters & brothers in Christ" but what does that really mean when many of those "sisters & brothers in Christ" aren't authentic Christians and know more about "lip-service" than having a personal relationship with the Lord?) There is no agreement with light & darkness,however in John 8:12 Jesus Himself says He is the light of the WORLD, Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." Since noone is born "walking in the Light", I would assume you were once in darkness? I would also assume it was a Christian that showed you the Light? If that Christian had been so obsessed with "what agreement light has with darkness", I wonder where would you be today? I'm not sure what the "walking together" has to do with anything, we are on a forum. If you don't want to go where people of all sorts of beliefs & non-beliefs "walk" then there are other topics to post in besides d&d however, it's not an all-Christian group that treads through there either. Yes I do believe we fight the enemy of our souls. I also think we give the enemy way too much credit and we are a big enemy to ourselves all by ourself. You act like it's all over and anyone that doesn't believe or believe like you do can just go to hell right now, and that is NOT your call to make. Not now---not ever. It's an odd attitude for an Christian to have let alone an evangelist too, btw. This might just be a "forum" and I would expect QON to despise my gutts. I still pray for her and will continue to pray for her until either God finds a way to prove Himself to her or the day I die, whichever comes first. ( If a Christian doesn't pray for her...WHO will?) Someday, I expect to find her in Heaven. As long as a person is breathing, there is still hope. A Christian that believes in fighting the enemy for souls doesn't just give up on a person that doesn't believe the way they do and let the enemy have them! qon isn't really guilty of anything except of having been deceived by the enemy and various false christians which has put her in the place she is in TODAY. God loves qon just as much as He loves anyone else on this earth, God doesn't have any favorites. Hate from a non-Christian toward a Christian is to be expected. Hate from a Christian right back toward a non-Christian is unacceptable. I would also say that the way you respond to the others with various beliefs haven't been so pleasant either. This isn't the first time you've managed to stir up a bee's nest in the forum, MANY have called you on it. If there wasn't a problem there with your personal self...this wouldn't be. just say'in..
I do not participate in name calling, and cursing, and I take great offense of you accusing me of it.
ur gunna go ta hell MeeMaw....
quote from you to QON:
For one thing, I wasn't peeved, LIAR!! I was agreeing with her. She wasn't even addressing me but Amy. go back and read the thread trouble maker.
You've never blasted either one of them because neither one of them believe in Christianity or being a Christian..so YOU figure it out smart mouth! Walks has blasted Christians, and Amy doesn't even believe in Jesus or the New Testament. Oh, but just let someone say they are a Christian, and here you come with your claws out.
I'm ABSOLUTElY NO RELATION to you!! In this life OR the next. In fact, such a reprobate (as you are). God forbid!!
You have a habit of verbally shredding newbies just because they profess a belief in God. You have done it over and over again qon. I've watched you do it, and so has everybody else.
Act all innocent all you want, I'm on to you (and so are a lot of others), and will call you on it.
bahahahahahaha!!!!!!
There's more where that came from too.
;o) **High Five***
I wouldn't say a word but jebus, its just down right pathetic when a self proclaimed reverend is a compulsive liar.
-
Okay, you got me there. I did "label" qon. I've never cussed anybody out though. I admit, that post was written in anger, and probably should have been worded better. The injustice of her accusations got to me.
I have some egg to clean off my face. I'm not a compulsive liar, and will admit when I'm wrong.
-
Okay, you got me there. I did "label" qon. I've never cussed anybody out though. I admit, that post was written in anger, and probably should have been worded better. The injustice of her accusations got to me.
I have some egg to clean off my face. I'm not a compulsive liar, and will admit when I'm wrong.
Of course what you mean is, "ahhh!!!! I didnt get to the edit button fast enough that time!!!! GODDAMN YOU WALKS!!!!!!!"
ennit?
-
Nope
-
Of course what you mean is, "ahhh!!!! I didnt get to the edit button fast enough that time!!!! GODDAMN YOU WALKS!!!!!!!"
Nope
There she goes again...lol. This has been wildly entertaining!
-
Wow... just wow.
I signed onto FC just over an hour ago and have spent that time wading through this. There is so much here in this thread that I couldn't begin to address it all even if I tried. Here, though, is my attempt.
First, I have to say that yesterday I had a bad day at work (for which I am grateful, because I now have a job, but still...) and therefore, when I felt my fuse burning out, I had to walk away and hit "ignore" to keep myself from saying something harsh and way out of line. Sheryl was right; I was hurt badly. I do not like, however, to say something in the heat of the moment that I may later regret. Consider it my personal "pause" button.
I have to say, though, that Annella chiding me for "slamming" her seemed incredibly hypocritical since a few months back I issued a simple hello to both her and Jordandog and I was jumped as though I was a spectator with popcorn foaming at the mouth to see a dog fight. I no longer feel it worth my time to attempt to defend myself or anyone else to Annella as I feel nothing but pity for her now. She lost an amazing friend: me. I am like Mr. Darcy... my good opinion, once it is lost, is lost forever. People may attempt to earn it back, but I will not lie around as a doormat in an effort to make someone comfortable.
I do want to see, though, proof of my slamming anyone based on their religion. I will be waiting for the proof.
As for my when a Jewish person that believes in Jesus is not a Jew... uh, why don't you try reading the links I posted instead of arguing with me repeatedly about it? In fact, the entire statement here:
And since when can a Jewish person believing in Jesus, not a Jew? No, they don't practice Judaism, but they are still Jewish, are they not?
is quite incorrect. Messianics practice Judaism except for the fact that they believe Jesus was the Messiah. Looks like someone else should do their research, or at least read the links that an "Honest to G-d Jew" (TM) has posted for their reference. Honestly. I'll wait...
...still waiting...
Uh, I'd like to point out that Queen actually has a good relationship with both Sheryl and Sherene from my view here. I've said it several times before, and each time it has been ignored. Queen does not hate g-d or the bible itself, but the oppressive actions that people sometimes take on behalf of their interpretations of it.
As far as I know, I still believe in G-d... Why does everything have to be related to either being "Christian" or "anti-Christian"? Its a big big world, with many many beliefs in it. Quite honestly, I can't see any other way than to take some of the comments I've seen as personal. Anyone is welcome to disagree with me, to disagree with my faith, or to even hate me, but to disrespect me that way (and this isn't just directed at you, jcribb, because I know you well enough to know that your intention was not to hurt me with your words; whether or not they did is another story)...I'm at a loss for words. My heart is in my throat. I've done everything I could to give credit where it was due, to take words at face value, to defend where I saw injustice, and to be open enough to make friends with anyone wanting to be my friend regardless of whether their religion or ideology matched mine. I don't see why its my name and my faith that has to get dragged in here, when, quite honestly, I have done nothing wrong. In fact, why drag Walks in? He has proven time and again to be steadfast and loyal to his faith and his people. Why drag anyone's faith, at least anyone who doesn't happen to agree, be they Christian or not? Why y'all be hatin'? http://bible.org/seriespage/lord-save-me-your-followers-matthew-71%E2%80%9312
Sheryl as a moral authority? I'll take that deal as long as you add a Sherene. Both of them have demonstrated time and again through their words on here, no matter how vexed or slighted (I've been on a Jane Austen kick lately... so sue me, lol) they may have felt that they have a good moral compass.
...as for this:
I know people that have found God after MANY years of people praying for them. If you're any kind of evangelist at all---you should KNOW that.
I felt it was beautiful. I would like to say that it is easier to believe that people have found g-d as a result of prayer than it is to believe that someone has been cured of a deadly and incurable disease because of it. /endsnarkycomment
-
I've already admitted that the titles I used to qon was not a very good thing. However, I've never cussed anyone out and took offense to that accusation from you.
Your mention of authority Sheryl clearly tells me you have a great deal of animosity against spiritual authority. Just an observance in your writings.
You twisted some of my answers around like the "hate" issue. You said that God does not have an "ignore button", and I elaborated on that there are 2 sides to that. God does ignore the prayers of the wicked, He also said "I will laugh when your fear cometh". I mentioned "hate" because it's mentioned in the Bible by God. What's wrong with you that you can't read my posts correctly and then "jump" on "meanings" that I didn't say? It also says that God is angry with the wicked everyday. I did not say there is a time to hate a sinner, I was showing there are 2 sides to God, the goodness and the severity. You jump to the conclusion that I said to hate the sinner. Really Sheryl, that was stretch.
You will not answer for me, and I will not answer for you on that day. We are not perfect, but striving for perfection. While you think your way is absolutely right in your stance, I think mine is also. In that we disagree. Jesus never minced words. As He was God incarnate, then we know something about the personality of God. God does love us everyone, but he hates sin. You made the statement hate the sin, but love the sinner. Do you have any idea how many times I've said that on here and got slammed for it?
In conclusion, I think we need to shelve this as I think the enemy is getting a kick out of it. It's not edifying to either one of us as professing Christians.
-
Well....I guess an apology is in order to those who have felt offended. I can say I didn't mean to offend, and for the most part that was true. I did mean to tell qon what for, and probably should have used better language. I've had to repent of that anger.
Christians are not perfect, but forgiven. Yes, it's a forum, and we are all behind our computer screens and really don't know each other in the real world. There are those I've cultivated friendships with outside the forum, and hope to meet someday, and maybe get to know better.
-
Yes, I think we are spiritual beings here on earth in physical bodies to learn lessons. When our physical bodies die our spirits continue on.
-
Yes, I think we are spiritual beings here on earth in physical bodies to learn lessons. When our physical bodies die our spirits continue on.
Your right, we will all spend eternity somewhere.
-
Annella, if you're going to say something, then say it. Stand by your words. If that means taking 5 minutes before posting something to think it over, then do it. This posting and deleting is childish.
And, yes, I know you deleted me. You deleted your entire profile. Speak in truths. You may not have considered me more than an acquaintance; yet, how many acquaintances do you invite to stay at your house? You also mentioned once you wanted to meet me just so you could hug my little girl. If that is something you say to all your acquaintances, I find it quite creepy.
Again, you disappoint me.
-
Wow... just wow.
I signed onto FC just over an hour ago and have spent that time wading through this. There is so much here in this thread that I couldn't begin to address it all even if I tried. Here, though, is my attempt.
First, I have to say that yesterday I had a bad day at work (for which I am grateful, because I now have a job, but still...) and therefore, when I felt my fuse burning out, I had to walk away and hit "ignore" to keep myself from saying something harsh and way out of line. Sheryl was right; I was hurt badly. I do not like, however, to say something in the heat of the moment that I may later regret. Consider it my personal "pause" button.
I have to say, though, that Annella chiding me for "slamming" her seemed incredibly hypocritical since a few months back I issued a simple hello to both her and Jordandog and I was jumped as though I was a spectator with popcorn foaming at the mouth to see a dog fight. I no longer feel it worth my time to attempt to defend myself or anyone else to Annella as I feel nothing but pity for her now. She lost an amazing friend: me. I am like Mr. Darcy... my good opinion, once it is lost, is lost forever. People may attempt to earn it back, but I will not lie around as a doormat in an effort to make someone comfortable.
I do want to see, though, proof of my slamming anyone based on their religion. I will be waiting for the proof.
As for my when a Jewish person that believes in Jesus is not a Jew... uh, why don't you try reading the links I posted instead of arguing with me repeatedly about it? In fact, the entire statement here:
And since when can a Jewish person believing in Jesus, not a Jew? No, they don't practice Judaism, but they are still Jewish, are they not?
is quite incorrect. Messianics practice Judaism except for the fact that they believe Jesus was the Messiah. Looks like someone else should do their research, or at least read the links that an "Honest to G-d Jew" (TM) has posted for their reference. Honestly. I'll wait...
...still waiting...
Uh, I'd like to point out that Queen actually has a good relationship with both Sheryl and Sherene from my view here. I've said it several times before, and each time it has been ignored. Queen does not hate g-d or the bible itself, but the oppressive actions that people sometimes take on behalf of their interpretations of it.
As far as I know, I still believe in G-d... Why does everything have to be related to either being "Christian" or "anti-Christian"? Its a big big world, with many many beliefs in it. Quite honestly, I can't see any other way than to take some of the comments I've seen as personal. Anyone is welcome to disagree with me, to disagree with my faith, or to even hate me, but to disrespect me that way (and this isn't just directed at you, jcribb, because I know you well enough to know that your intention was not to hurt me with your words; whether or not they did is another story)...I'm at a loss for words. My heart is in my throat. I've done everything I could to give credit where it was due, to take words at face value, to defend where I saw injustice, and to be open enough to make friends with anyone wanting to be my friend regardless of whether their religion or ideology matched mine. I don't see why its my name and my faith that has to get dragged in here, when, quite honestly, I have done nothing wrong. In fact, why drag Walks in? He has proven time and again to be steadfast and loyal to his faith and his people. Why drag anyone's faith, at least anyone who doesn't happen to agree, be they Christian or not? Why y'all be hatin'? http://bible.org/seriespage/lord-save-me-your-followers-matthew-71%E2%80%9312
Sheryl as a moral authority? I'll take that deal as long as you add a Sherene. Both of them have demonstrated time and again through their words on here, no matter how vexed or slighted (I've been on a Jane Austen kick lately... so sue me, lol) they may have felt that they have a good moral compass.
...as for this:
I know people that have found God after MANY years of people praying for them. If you're any kind of evangelist at all---you should KNOW that.
I felt it was beautiful. I would like to say that it is easier to believe that people have found g-d as a result of prayer than it is to believe that someone has been cured of a deadly and incurable disease because of it. /endsnarkycomment
You wanted proof of slamming someone's religion? Read your last comments.
-
...as for this:
I know people that have found God after MANY years of people praying for them. If you're any kind of evangelist at all---you should KNOW that.
I felt it was beautiful. I would like to say that it is easier to believe that people have found g-d as a result of prayer than it is to believe that someone has been cured of a deadly and incurable disease because of it. /endsnarkycomment
You wanted proof of slamming someone's religion? Read your last comments.
Again, Annella, tell yourself whatever you need to so that you can sleep tonight with the knowledge that you are right and I am wrong. How about really thinking about this and looking over my posts and showing me something substantial? That's because you won't find it. Believe me when I say if you prove me wrong, I will apologize profusely.
-
I believe in the after life. This life is so complex and someone great had to put all this together. I dont believe this experience we are having now just exists and then all go away. I believe what the Bible says about new jeruslem here on earth and lake of fire for the wicked who dont recieve God.
-
Annella, if you're going to say something, then say it. Stand by your words. If that means taking 5 minutes before posting something to think it over, then do it. This posting and deleting is childish.
And, yes, I know you deleted me. You deleted your entire profile. Speak in truths. You may not have considered me more than an acquaintance; yet, how many acquaintances do you invite to stay at your house? You also mentioned once you wanted to meet me just so you could hug my little girl. If that is something you say to all your acquaintances, I find it quite creepy.
Again, you disappoint me.
I deleted my whole profile because of ID theft, and informed everyone of it. Those I wanted to have my private information got it.....did you?
However, I invite all kinds of people to my home. I've had the homeless in my home spending the night. I have invited Sherene and Jcribb also. I do remember telling you that your little girl was very beautiful, and I always wanted a daughter or grand daughter. I'm very partial to little girls. If that makes me creepy then so be it. I think you are just trying to be as insulting as you can be at this point.
-
Annella, if you're going to say something, then say it. Stand by your words. If that means taking 5 minutes before posting something to think it over, then do it. This posting and deleting is childish.
And, yes, I know you deleted me. You deleted your entire profile. Speak in truths. You may not have considered me more than an acquaintance; yet, how many acquaintances do you invite to stay at your house? You also mentioned once you wanted to meet me just so you could hug my little girl. If that is something you say to all your acquaintances, I find it quite creepy.
Again, you disappoint me.
I deleted my whole profile because of ID theft, and informed everyone of it. Those I wanted to have my private information got it.....did you?
However, I invite all kinds of people to my home. I've had the homeless in my home spending the night. I have invited Sherene and Jcribb also. I do remember telling you that your little girl was very beautiful, and I always wanted a daughter or grand daughter. I'm very partial to little girls. If that makes me creepy then so be it. I think you are just trying to be as insulting as you can be at this point.
I already had your email, remember?
Go ahead and judge and throw out all the accusations you want, Annella. I'm no more insulting to you than your own behavior has been. Quite honestly, no one needs to insult you... you do a good enough job tearing yourself down.
-
Again, Annella, tell yourself whatever you need to so that you can sleep tonight with the knowledge that you are right and I am wrong. How about really thinking about this and looking over my posts and showing me something substantial? That's because you won't find it. Believe me when I say if you prove me wrong, I will apologize profusely.
You said you have NEVER slammed anyone's religion, and demanded proof......okay? Read your last comments:
Amy Wrote
I felt it was beautiful. I would like to say that it is easier to believe that people have found g-d as a result of prayer than it is to believe that someone has been cured of a deadly and incurable disease because of it. /endsnarkycomment
If that's not a slam against my belief in faith healing which I have been slammed over and over again on this forum, then I don't know what is!
-
Annella, if you're going to say something, then say it. Stand by your words. If that means taking 5 minutes before posting something to think it over, then do it. This posting and deleting is childish.
And, yes, I know you deleted me. You deleted your entire profile. Speak in truths. You may not have considered me more than an acquaintance; yet, how many acquaintances do you invite to stay at your house? You also mentioned once you wanted to meet me just so you could hug my little girl. If that is something you say to all your acquaintances, I find it quite creepy.
Again, you disappoint me.
I deleted my whole profile because of ID theft, and informed everyone of it. Those I wanted to have my private information got it.....did you?
However, I invite all kinds of people to my home. I've had the homeless in my home spending the night. I have invited Sherene and Jcribb also. I do remember telling you that your little girl was very beautiful, and I always wanted a daughter or grand daughter. I'm very partial to little girls. If that makes me creepy then so be it. I think you are just trying to be as insulting as you can be at this point.
I already had your email, remember?
Go ahead and judge and throw out all the accusations you want, Annella. I'm no more insulting to you than your own behavior has been. Quite honestly, no one needs to insult you... you do a good enough job tearing yourself down.
No you don't Amy, you were blocked a long time ago.....among others. ID theft remember?
-
...as for this:
I know people that have found God after MANY years of people praying for them. If you're any kind of evangelist at all---you should KNOW that.
You wanted proof of slamming someone's religion? Read your last comments.
Again, Annella, tell yourself whatever you need to so that you can sleep tonight with the knowledge that you are right and I am wrong. How about really thinking about this and looking over my posts and showing me something substantial? That's because you won't find it. Believe me when I say if you prove me wrong, I will apologize profusely.
You said you have NEVER slammed anyone's religion, and demanded proof......okay? Read your last comments:
Amy Wrote
I felt it was beautiful. I would like to say that it is easier to believe that people have found g-d as a result of prayer than it is to believe that someone has been cured of a deadly and incurable disease because of it. /endsnarkycomment
If that's not a slam against my belief in faith healing which I have been slammed over and over again on this forum, then I don't know what is!
Again, Annella, you read what you wanted to read and ignored the rest. Yes, I made a snarky comment to you in that post and I readily and wholeheartedly admit it. Show me proof in my other posts, because you accused me looooong before I posted that one. Quite honestly, you are one of the worst backbiters I've ever seen. How many times have I defended you in here, even when you didn't deserve my defense? How many times have you slammed or jumped me over innocent comments?
Want to know what I mean about accepting responsibility for your actions and being accountable? Perfect example.
I'm tired of this. Quite honestly, this back and forth is just a waste of my time when I could be playing Oregon Trail on Facebook.
-
Again, Annella, tell yourself whatever you need to so that you can sleep tonight with the knowledge that you are right and I am wrong. How about really thinking about this and looking over my posts and showing me something substantial? That's because you won't find it. Believe me when I say if you prove me wrong, I will apologize profusely.
You said you have NEVER slammed anyone's religion, and demanded proof......okay? Read your last comments:
Amy Wrote
I felt it was beautiful. I would like to say that it is easier to believe that people have found g-d as a result of prayer than it is to believe that someone has been cured of a deadly and incurable disease because of it. /endsnarkycomment
If that's not a slam against my belief in faith healing which I have been slammed over and over again on this forum, then I don't know what is!
Again, Annella, you read what you wanted to read and ignored the rest. Yes, I made a snarky comment to you in that post and I readily and wholeheartedly admit it. Show me proof in my other posts, because you accused me looooong before I posted that one. Quite honestly, you are one of the worst backbiters I've ever seen. How many times have I defended you in here, even when you didn't deserve my defense? How many times have you slammed or jumped me over innocent comments?
Want to know what I mean about accepting responsibility for your actions and being accountable? Perfect example.
I'm tired of this. Quite honestly, this back and forth is just a waste of my time when I could be playing Oregon Trail on Facebook.
So go play...........
-
Ya kno, I have met many many people in the real that I had first known online, and the vast majority of them I could hardly recognize them in person. After years of online forums it has become obvious that most folks invent online personas that reflect what they wish they were.
If I had to make a wager, Id say Annella is just some old kook that wishes she was some kind of an authority figure.
I think there are lessons in all things.
Mommas and Daddys......give your Babies the attention they need for their emotional growth so they don't grow up attempting to deceive others with their fantastical fantasies.
-
Ya kno, I have met many many people in the real that I had first known online, and the vast majority of them I could hardly recognize them in person. After years of online forums it has become obvious that most folks invent online personas that reflect what they wish they were.
I AM FALCONER! TRAINER OF HAWKS AND DESTROYER OF WORLDS!
If I had to make a wager, Id say Annella is just some old kook that wishes she was some kind of an authority figure.
But didn't you hear? AIDS has been cured through christian witchcraftery! Millions can be saved now!!! lol I am never gonna leave that one alone...I should tell you the whole story of it. One for the "Fusion Cash Hall of Records" for sure.
Quite honestly, this back and forth is just a waste of my time when I could be playing Oregon Trail on Facebook.
Still an awesome game. Back in elementary school we played that a lot. I named one of my characters Jesus. He died from dysentery :(
-
Ya kno, I have met many many people in the real that I had first known online, and the vast majority of them I could hardly recognize them in person. After years of online forums it has become obvious that most folks invent online personas that reflect what they wish they were.
I AM FALCONER! TRAINER OF HAWKS AND DESTROYER OF WORLDS!
If I had to make a wager, Id say Annella is just some old kook that wishes she was some kind of an authority figure.
But didn't you hear? AIDS has been cured through christian witchcraftery! Millions can be saved now!!! lol I am never gonna leave that one alone...I should tell you the whole story of it. One for the "Fusion Cash Hall of Records" for sure.
Quite honestly, this back and forth is just a waste of my time when I could be playing Oregon Trail on Facebook.
Still an awesome game. Back in elementary school we played that a lot. I named one of my characters Jesus. He died from dysentery :(
dork.
J/K J/K
well.....sorta ;o)
-
You removed me from your friends list, dear, several times on accident and re-friended me, among others. Doesn't mean I was blocked. I have blocked people from my facebook, and I work in IT. I know how its done. Until your account was "deactivated" (which I guarantee you it wasn't, since as long as you go to a facebook supported website, they will keep your profile active in case you change your mind), I was able to look at your profile if I wanted. And, no, I'm not a hacker; I just have a brain.
So...I was "blocked" on facebook because of ID Theft, I didn't have your real email address, and yet you invited me to your home? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Ya kno, I have met many many people in the real that I had first known online, and the vast majority of them I could hardly recognize them in person. After years of online forums it has become obvious that most folks invent online personas that reflect what they wish they were.
I'm with you there, Walks. Makes the real deal that much greater to find! And it also makes you wonder about those that go to such pains to hide everything about who they are regardless of what social networking site they happened to be on. :dontknow:
-
Ya kno, I have met many many people in the real that I had first known online, and the vast majority of them I could hardly recognize them in person. After years of online forums it has become obvious that most folks invent online personas that reflect what they wish they were.
I'm with you there, Walks.
***looks over left shoulder....looks over right shoulder.....under the table...***
Really? Want some dinner?
-
Falconer, you are officially my favorite person of the day.
-
Quote from Walks:
If I had to make a wager, Id say Annella is just some old kook that wishes she was some kind of an authority figure.
I don't really want to argue this. I would just like to point out that if posters are going to scold Annella for name-calling (which she apologized for towards qon) then why should someone else not get scolded for name-calling her? No one in here is "some old kook."
-
You removed me from your friends list, dear, several times on accident and re-friended me, among others. Doesn't mean I was blocked. I have blocked people from my facebook, and I work in IT. I know how its done. Until your account was "deactivated" (which I guarantee you it wasn't, since as long as you go to a facebook supported website, they will keep your profile active in case you change your mind), I was able to look at your profile if I wanted. And, no, I'm not a hacker; I just have a brain.
So...I was "blocked" on facebook because of ID Theft, I didn't have your real email address, and yet you invited me to your home? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Ya kno, I have met many many people in the real that I had first known online, and the vast majority of them I could hardly recognize them in person. After years of online forums it has become obvious that most folks invent online personas that reflect what they wish they were.
I'm with you there, Walks. Makes the real deal that much greater to find! And it also makes you wonder about those that go to such pains to hide everything about who they are regardless of what social networking site they happened to be on. :dontknow:
You removed me from your friends list, dear, several times on accident and re-friended me, among others. Doesn't mean I was blocked. I have blocked people from my facebook, and I work in IT. I know how its done. Until your account was "deactivated" (which I guarantee you it wasn't, since as long as you go to a facebook supported website, they will keep your profile active in case you change your mind), I was able to look at your profile if I wanted. And, no, I'm not a hacker; I just have a brain.
So...I was "blocked" on facebook because of ID Theft, I didn't have your real email address, and yet you invited me to your home? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Ya kno, I have met many many people in the real that I had first known online, and the vast majority of them I could hardly recognize them in person. After years of online forums it has become obvious that most folks invent online personas that reflect what they wish they were.
I'm with you there, Walks. Makes the real deal that much greater to find! And it also makes you wonder about those that go to such pains to hide everything about who they are regardless of what social networking site they happened to be on. :dontknow:
You removed me from your friends list, dear, several times on accident and re-friended me, among others. Doesn't mean I was blocked. I have blocked people from my facebook, and I work in IT. I know how its done. Until your account was "deactivated" (which I guarantee you it wasn't, since as long as you go to a facebook supported website, they will keep your profile active in case you change your mind), I was able to look at your profile if I wanted. And, no, I'm not a hacker; I just have a brain.
So...I was "blocked" on facebook because of ID Theft, I didn't have your real email address, and yet you invited me to your home? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Ya kno, I have met many many people in the real that I had first known online, and the vast majority of them I could hardly recognize them in person. After years of online forums it has become obvious that most folks invent online personas that reflect what they wish they were.
I'm with you there, Walks. Makes the real deal that much greater to find! And it also makes you wonder about those that go to such pains to hide everything about who they are regardless of what social networking site they happened to be on. :dontknow:
They only keep your profile active for 2 weeks in case you change your mind. My friends list was completely deleted and could not be viewed. Everybody got an email from me explaining why I was deleting my account.
No Amy, you were blocked on my email site, and the Facebook site. What you need to ask yourself is how long ago was it that we even conversed at all...email or otherwise? A very long time. There was a reason for that.
This is petty Amy, even for you.
-
Quote from Walks:
If I had to make a wager, Id say Annella is just some old kook that wishes she was some kind of an authority figure.
I don't really want to argue this. I would just like to point out that if posters are going to scold Annella for name-calling (which she apologized for towards qon) then why should someone else not get scolded for name-calling her? No one in here is "some old kook."
Jcribb, it doesn't matter what they think. Time will unfold all. Don't have to prove a thing. God's got my back and will declare what is what....lol
-
Ya kno, I have met many many people in the real that I had first known online, and the vast majority of them I could hardly recognize them in person. After years of online forums it has become obvious that most folks invent online personas that reflect what they wish they were.
If I had to make a wager, Id say Annella is just some old kook that wishes she was some kind of an authority figure.
I think there are lessons in all things.
Mommas and Daddys......give your Babies the attention they need for their emotional growth so they don't grow up attempting to deceive others with their fantastical fantasies.
I'll take that wager Walksalone, and will collect one day in the future. ;)
-
They only keep your profile active for 2 weeks in case you change your mind. My friends list was completely deleted and could not be viewed. Everybody got an email from me explaining why I was deleting my account.
No Amy, you were blocked on my email site, and the Facebook site. What you need to ask yourself is how long ago was it that we even conversed at all...email or otherwise? A very long time. There was a reason for that.
This is petty Amy, even for you.
Anyone who has saved your old url from facebook can still access your profile, Annella. I know you don't believe me, and it is no skin off my back.
Plus, anything that anyone has said about you in any, say forums, on facebook is still there. All anyone has to do is a simple google search of your name and it will pop up. Looks like the FC forum isn't the only one where you've irritated some people.
OK, you blocked me, I give. Whatev. I'm the petty one.
Cool.
-
Sheryl as a moral authority? I'll take that deal as long as you add a Sherene. Both of them have demonstrated time and again through their words on here, no matter how vexed or slighted (I've been on a Jane Austen kick lately... so sue me, lol) they may have felt that they have a good moral compass.
I don't & won't claim to be a "moral authority". I simply tell others what is (or what isn't) in the Bible. I do try to explain Biblical things to make it easier for people to understand. I try to live my life the best I can according to the Scriptures but living a "perfect" life is possible for any human. I won't sit idly by and let someone tell someone else that something is in the Bible when it clearly isn't and pretend I didn't notice. I've always encouraged people to KNOW their sources from which they are basing their life answers on because "it's your life, choose smart". I won't "beat down" someone because they don't believe exactly as I do but I won't hold their hand and pretend the wrong things they are doing is ok with me either---people always know where they stand with me. I love them but not the wrong when they KNOW they are doing wrong. I am not so "superior" that I can't take advice from someone that doesn't believe as I do. Some of the best advice I have ever gotten has come from "non-believers". One example would be the "eye opener" I got from Falconer & qon when I hadn't been on the forum that long. At the time I posted with the purpose of "defending God", I thought I was in the right too. Prayer revealed to me that I was most definitely in the wrong and I did what I could do to try and make things right rather than simply say "God will be my judge" and just take that whole superior route like I've seen alot of christians do (it's quite common). Someday God WILL be my judge but God is also my judge in the here and now and He let me know that what was in my heart was wrong. Who knows, someone "warning a newbie" about qon & falconer might be to "rob" them of something they need...a Christian needs to KNOW how to defend what they believe in, without bashing or being rude to others for not believing the same way. I don't think it's up to a Christian to wonder how another Christian can defend a person(s) "outside the faith", God works in mysterious ways & His ways are NOT our ways. I can honestly say, I get in the forum sometimes (d&d) and I fell like I have been to hell and back. I don't enjoy the "blasphemy" posted, the crude remarks and foul language. But it's a small price to pay if it means just one more person will enjoy God because someone decided to take God there. I would hope that noone could deny the person I was back then (when I began in the FC forum) compared to now...has changed. Back then, I didn't have much love in my heart for people...in fact, most of them I couldn't stand and I remember posting so to marieelissa after she had said the same. I have made it a personal goal to work on that commandment of "loving they neighbor" for quite awhile now and it's led me to a "service job" (as in doing things for others) I can make a difference in helping others and hopefully brighten their day/lives. I NEVER was a "people person"...I absolutely love them now. God has been the change made in me. I would always hope that people look to God rather than to me for their spiritual authority. People will ALWAYS disappoint---God NEVER does. :peace:
Sheryl, you have no need to claim to be a moral authority. Your actions speak it for you. I feel lucky to know you on here because you live your example (as far as I can see from where I sit behind this computer). I feel the same way about Sherene.
-
I would just like to point out that if posters are going to scold Annella for name-calling (which she apologized for towards qon)
Uh, she never apologized directly to me. ::) It was a case of, "Gee golly! More people than just qon are calling me on my crap!!"
I, of course, do not desire any insincere "face saving" on her part. I can, and will always be able to see through the lies.
-
Quote from Walks:
If I had to make a wager, Id say Annella is just some old kook that wishes she was some kind of an authority figure.
I don't really want to argue this. I would just like to point out that if posters are going to scold Annella for name-calling (which she apologized for towards qon) then why should someone else not get scolded for name-calling her? No one in here is "some old kook."
Naa, I didn't scold her for calling anyone names, I couldn't care less. I was simply pointing out that she lied when she made the claim that she doesn't call people names. Just as she did when she continually lied about insinuating QON was a "swine" in the past.
If one doesn't like being called a liar, well....they probably shouldn't lie so much, dontcha think?
I don't care who calls others names, I don't care who uses rough language, hell I don't even care if someone isn't a perfect speller (GASP!!!) as long as the information gets out, the importance of the rest is very low to me.
-
the afterlife is a myth for people to have something to hold on to a fantasy :star:
-
the afterlife is a myth for people to have something to hold on to a fantasy :star:
For real????
well damn......
-
This thread became hilariously insane while I was at work last night! Now that I am on 'Ignore' from Annella tells me another huge clue into how she works. The fact that others, who never have in the past, have finally called her out on not reading posts, turning words into what she wants them to be, and her insincere 'apologies' because she is caught holding the bag shows how right my gut was about her. She is 'ignoring' me because she doesn't have the ability to answer my accusations with anything other than more pettiness and superiority. She can't bring herself to ignore QON because then she would be unable to WARN OTHERS, what a joke. Just because a person doesn't curse, it makes their very unchristian remarks 'okey-dokey'? Nope, not now, not ever. Take this anyway you want to - (the "Purveyor of Pentecostal Poison" would accuse me of trying to divide her from her sisters in the Lord, have only heard that one umpteen times) - but I am SO glad to see Amy and Sheryl finally speaking up fully about what has been done to them on here!
I would love to have a way, off of FC, to communicate with QON, Amy, Falconer, Walks, Sheryly, and Sherene. Not to talk about FC, just to be able to get to know you all more. I realize none of you may want to talk to ME away from here, but that's okay too. ;) I have broad shoulders and thick skin, trust that.
I'll end this with a very appropriate quote IMO:
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." ~Anne Lamott~
-
I need to do this before I leave.
Amy, This apology is for you. I felt it was in my best interest to delete certain people a little bit at a time because I knew that my Facebook page was going away. I also deleted my whole YouTube account also. My ID has been compromised twice. They have my SSI number, mother's maiden name, everything. It's been a nightmare. I've changed banks twice, credit cards, etc. I still get credit cards in the mail I never applied for, calls asking me if I'm buying something online, etc. Two weeks before Christmas, someone in Illinois got my (new) debit card number and wiped out any extra money I had in my account. I had to scramble around and call people that I had written checks to, to not cash them.........it was embarrassing. It got cleared up.....after Christmas.
I'm a bit paranoid because it keeps happening again and again, and I can't seem to plug the leak. I'm not saying that you are one of the people, but I deleted people without contact that I knew better than you, so don't take it personally. The fraud detective I'm working with has advised me to do what I have done. A lot of ID theft happens online. I've even thought about deleting this account.
Yes, we were friends. I'm sorry for whatever my offense has hurt you. I have went back and read over some of my previous posts to you, and tried to put myself in your place and see how you would have read it. I understand how you have taken some as a negative stance, I'm sorry. Last night you hurt me too, and it's never a good thing to retaliate with the same hurt as being dished out.
I was wrong....absolutely. Forgive me. I would have written you privately, but you deserve a public apology.
-
qon, there is no apology for you except that I used words I shouldn't have. Everything I wrote to you is the absolute truth! Only should have used better words.
-
As for the rest of the lynch mob here :wave:
-
As for the rest of the lynch mob here :wave:
I for one will see how long this lasts. People who are 'right-fighters' and 'last-worders' NEVER seem to be able to NOT come back for more. You left D&D, for good, a couple months ago and then came back to help out jcribb. The result of that was more hurt feelings, you cannot take back words once they are said or written, and quite a few posters also figured you out for what you really are - not the 'well of christian kindness' you tried to portray yourself as. Peace out, beeatch. 8)
-
I, for one, just am too low to argue, anyway. There are some great people on here and just because we differ in our religious/non-religious belief, doesn't mean we can't speak of other things outside of religion. I have things going on right now - I'm just way down in the valley. I hope some Christian friends will pray for me. I hope things cool down in here. Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend...
-
Everything I wrote to you is the absolute truth! Only should have used better words.
Your statement right here reminded me of this quote:
"Religion is the art of sugar-coating a turd and selling it as a donut." - Pat Condell
;D
-
I, for one, just am too low to argue, anyway. There are some great people on here and just because we differ in our religious/non-religious belief, doesn't mean we can't speak of other things outside of religion. I have things going on right now - I'm just way down in the valley. I hope some Christian friends will pray for me. I hope things cool down in here. Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend...
Well I'm not a christian but if it wont offend you I would be happy to "send up a little smoke" on your behalf JC.
Sorry you are feeling down, just take it day by day and eventually......
-
Quote from Walks:
I don't even care if someone isn't a perfect speller (GASP!!!)
:o you still remember that...? (All a person's gotta do is suggest a "spell checker" on FC... and noone ever lets ya forget et!)
Actually, no I don't remember any post about spell check, lol. I argue with spell check all the time trying to tell me what to do, lolol.
-
I, for one, just am too low to argue, anyway. There are some great people on here and just because we differ in our religious/non-religious belief, doesn't mean we can't speak of other things outside of religion. I have things going on right now - I'm just way down in the valley. I hope some Christian friends will pray for me. I hope things cool down in here. Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend...
Well I'm not a christian but if it wont offend you I would be happy to "send up a little smoke" on your behalf JC.
Sorry you are feeling down, just take it day by day and eventually......
Thank you, Walks. Much appreciated..
-
I, for one, just am too low to argue, anyway. There are some great people on here and just because we differ in our religious/non-religious belief, doesn't mean we can't speak of other things outside of religion. I have things going on right now - I'm just way down in the valley. I hope some Christian friends will pray for me. I hope things cool down in here. Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend...
Well I'm not a christian but if it wont offend you I would be happy to "send up a little smoke" on your behalf JC.
Sorry you are feeling down, just take it day by day and eventually......
Thank you, Walks. Much appreciated..
No Charge.
-
We find the most terrible form of atheism, not in the militant and passionate struggle against the idea of God himself, but in the practical atheism of everyday living, in indifference and torpor. We often encounter these forms of atheism among those who are formally Christians. - Nicolai A. Berdyaev
-
Well, I tell you, if I have been wrong in my agnosticism, when I die I'll walk up to God in a manly way and say, Sir, I made an honest mistake. --H. L. Mencken
LOLOLOLOLOL
-
jcribb,
I'm sorry you are feeling low, know that feeling. I will send positive thoughts your way and hope you're able to 'climb back up' soon.
QON,
Love the donut quote!
As the one by Berdyaev, pfft. I am neither indifferent or lacking sensibility. :P
-
To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias
-
I would love to have a way, off of FC, to communicate with QON, Amy, Falconer, Walks, Sheryly, and Sherene. Not to talk about FC, just to be able to get to know you all more.
ya got a pen handy?
-
To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias
Infinite knowledge? ::) You're the one who can't prove your god exists, despite having the burden of proof. We're expected to rule out all of the thousands of gods that have come and gone before you have to prove yours? Uh-uh, doesn't work like that!
And this quote is invalid because *a theism* does not deal with knowledge...that would be gnosticism, hello!
-
To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias
Infinite knowledge? ::) You're the one who can't prove your god exists, despite having the burden of proof. We're expected to rule out all of the thousands of gods that have come and gone before you have to prove yours? Uh-uh, doesn't work like that!
And this quote is invalid because *a theism* does not deal with knowledge...that would be gnosticism, hello!
To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias
Infinite knowledge? ::) You're the one who can't prove your god exists, despite having the burden of proof. We're expected to rule out all of the thousands of gods that have come and gone before you have to prove yours? Uh-uh, doesn't work like that!
And this quote is invalid because *a theism* does not deal with knowledge...that would be gnosticism, hello!
Prove he doesn't. The burden of proof is not on our side. You and Falconer keep saying this like a broken record and have been answered x times over.
Are you saying you don't use knowledge? Everything requires knowledge. I'll go get another one. It's right up your ally.
And gnosticism is neither a Christian concept or attribute.
-
Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God. -- Tom Stoppard
This one is classic.....love it.
The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful, and has nobody to thank.--Dante Gabriel Rossetti
Think about this one for a moment. It really does require some insight.
-
Quickly, because I only have a couple of minutes to spare (visiting with family this weekend)...
Anyone that would like to contact me can reach me on facebook by searching my userid (only add a space in my name). As for email, same thing, only with dots and an f in the middle by way of hotmail.
-
I'm not religious in any sort (no church, no declared faith) but I simply believe that whatever we believe to be after will be after. If I had to find anything to be true it'd be the following statements: 1) - Perception is reality 2) The Laws of Conservation for Mass and Energy. Mass and Energy cannot be created or destroyed so our 'mass and energy' has to go somewhere, kinda like the Force in Star Wars. But our subconscious will always be our own and that, I believe, can NOT die at all, so we'd live on subconsciously with whatever we feel is true.
-
There are some great people on here and just because we differ in our religious/non-religious belief, doesn't mean we can't speak of other things outside of religion. I have things going on right now - I'm just way down in the valley. I hope some Christian friends will pray for me. I hope things cool down in here. Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend...
jcribb...totally agree with you!! I will pray for you and know things will get better for you soon. I'm expecting you to have a splendid weekend!! :)
Thank you.
-
Quote from jordandog:
jcribb,
I'm sorry you are feeling low, know that feeling. I will send positive thoughts your way and hope you're able to 'climb back up' soon.
Thank you very much.
-
To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias
That gives way to some critical thinking. :thumbsup:
-
Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God. -- Tom Stoppard
This one is classic.....love it.
The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful, and has nobody to thank.--Dante Gabriel Rossetti
Think about this one for a moment. It really does require some insight.
A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere--'Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,' as Herbert says, 'fine nets and stratagems.' God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous.
Author: C.S. Lewis
If there were no God, there would be no atheists.
Author: G.K. Chesterton
-
dork.
J/K J/K
well.....sorta ;o)
Trust me-- with what I do, that's a compliment. I would also accept nerd.
Falconer, you are officially my favorite person of the day.
Yay!
Prove he doesn't. The burden of proof is not on our side. You and Falconer keep saying this like a broken record and have been answered x times over.
*sigh* I guess I'll have to post this once more to make everyone understand what you're doing here-
(http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/religious-logic.jpg?w=391&h=391)
Would you listen to a math teacher who adamantly says that 2 + 3 = 40,000,000,000,000 and they have nothing to back up their equational method but with crazy astrological patterns? Probably not, right? Well, metaphorically, that math teacher is you in these forum arguments.
You really have never answered our questions unless we're talking on fantastical terms; they have never been realistic or unbroken from the get-go. I could tell you how the gods stem from sun worship or how yours was built up through the ages, etc. etc. but you wouldn't listen. You really never do much. You can hide behind your blind faith all you want. I don't really care much. Especially because there's no reason talking sense to someone who believes in something as genuinely ignorant as christian witchcraft :angry7:. Do I need to state anything more for anyone reading this? Christian. Witchcraft. How out-of-touch with reality does one have to be to believe in this faith-healing garbage? It's sad that crap like this is still promoted, and here's a shining example of the methods of reasoning behind it.
The fact of the matter is you really shot yourself in the foot...no wait. That's too small of an example. You blew your leg off in the recent past with that one. And even when it was disproven 10-times over, you shut your eyes infront of the proof (though it was quite fun though ultimately pointless doing the IRL research that Jdog and I did). Many are witness to that, so don't try to reword your error and downplay it. The burden of proof is usually on the side of the believers. But with you, there's really no way of getting around it. I'd say now, considering your predictable pathways, it should be completely mandatory with the way you act. But of course you won't do that and I predict a pointless emotional uproar as usual. It's a perfect example seeing how it constantly happens in this forum and it's exactly what happens in the picture above.
So what is it? Are you that psycho evil-looking stickman in the picture, or are you the smiling person above it who simply presents the decent rational proof?
-
I'm not religious at all, but there is a lot of undebunked paranormal evidence which might indicate the existence of an afterlife.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
-
dork.
J/K J/K
well.....sorta ;o)
Trust me-- with what I do, that's a compliment. I would also accept nerd.
Falconer, you are officially my favorite person of the day.
Yay!
Prove he doesn't. The burden of proof is not on our side. You and Falconer keep saying this like a broken record and have been answered x times over.
*sigh* I guess I'll have to post this once more to make everyone understand what you're doing here-
(http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/religious-logic.jpg?w=391&h=391)
Would you listen to a math teacher who adamantly says that 2 + 3 = 40,000,000,000,000 and they have nothing to back up their equational method but with crazy astrological patterns? Probably not, right? Well, metaphorically, that math teacher is you in these forum arguments.
You really have never answered our questions unless we're talking on fantastical terms; they have never been realistic or unbroken from the get-go. I could tell you how the gods stem from sun worship or how yours was built up through the ages, etc. etc. but you wouldn't listen. You really never do much. You can hide behind your blind faith all you want. I don't really care much. Especially because there's no reason talking sense to someone who believes in something as genuinely ignorant as christian witchcraft :angry7:. Do I need to state anything more for anyone reading this? Christian. Witchcraft. How out-of-touch with reality does one have to be to believe in this faith-healing garbage? It's sad that crap like this is still promoted, and here's a shining example of the methods of reasoning behind it.
The fact of the matter is you really shot yourself in the foot...no wait. That's too small of an example. You blew your leg off in the recent past with that one. And even when it was disproven 10-times over, you shut your eyes infront of the proof (though it was quite fun though ultimately pointless doing the IRL research that Jdog and I did). Many are witness to that, so don't try to reword your error and downplay it. The burden of proof is usually on the side of the believers. But with you, there's really no way of getting around it. I'd say now, considering your predictable pathways, it should be completely mandatory with the way you act. But of course you won't do that and I predict a pointless emotional uproar as usual. It's a perfect example seeing how it constantly happens in this forum and it's exactly what happens in the picture above.
So what is it? Are you that psycho evil-looking stickman in the picture, or are you the smiling person above it who simply presents the decent rational proof?
I believe in faith healing. experienced it, and seen it. Whatever or however you want to debunk it is up to you. that's my own personal belief based on reality and the Biblical Word. I'm not the only one on here who believes in faith healing. I may be the only one that has not been ashamed or afraid to say so. Why is this such a threat to you? This is a difference of opinion, and faith. You have yours, I have mine.
Something else......there is no such thing as Christian witchcraft. That's something you made up.
You don't believe it right? So go your way and don't believe it. You have never been able to answer me in any post without being sarcastic Falconer. What does that say about you? However, if I don't listen as you say, and hide behind blind faith, and you really don't care much? Why are you posting to me then?
Guess what? I promote it everywhere I go.
-
You know, if there are so many on here that you consider to be "such a lost cause"...there ARE "christian forums" out there, it might save you some time trying to figure out who's actually vile and swine and all.
That's a point I have wondered myself, but they don't pay cash, so.....
I'll add this question. What happened to the forum/website she was starting on her own? We kept hearing about it. Maybe it did get started, but she was unable to be the Webmaster and the Supreme Ultimate Authority when faced with real, caring christians? :dontknow:
She keeps coming back because she is what I said - a "right-fighter" and a "last-worder". They will resort to anything in order to maintain their own idea of how superior and important they are, regardless of who they hurt in doing so. It is no different than the man who beats his wife and does it 'because he loves her' and 'is looking out for her'. ::)
-
Quote from Sheryl:
I don't know how many times I've seen falconer's illustration there but it's getting "old" and that's what I see in his post...not sarcasm. Even he is getting weary of trying to sincerely explain to you what his thoughts are.
I'm sorry but I have to respond here. No offense to anyone, but Christians on here are trying to do the same thing Falconer is: to try and "sincerely explain" what their thoughts are. In the Christians' view they are speaking of truths/faith concerning God. I, for one, don't like being sarcastic, either. However, in some of these threads, there has been sarcasm directed to me (and others.) We did have a one-on-one debate recently between him and I in which things were staying pretty cordial. That's good.
Then sarcasm steps in, in another similar thread, in a demeaning cut-off way towards me (and others.) Now, I suppose I just should drop out and not respond in like kind. Sometimes that is difficult to do when others "see" what is happening, and when it happens to newbies who just want to share what they believe, who are right away mocked and made to look foolish. So, do I let the sarcasm and cut-downs bully me down or do I make my stand for myself and for my beliefs? Yet, it seems that it's quite okay to get on to some people if they respond in like kind (sarcasm to sarcasm), but it's okay for the other/s to be rude and show mockery of what we as Christians are trying to share about. I respect their beliefs and will willingly hear them and rebut with them. However, I expect the same respect in turn. If they want to be demeaning and sarcastic instead of presenting their side and listening to my side then they are the ones who need to be scolded and reminded that we are, after all, adults on here and need to act like it, whether Christian or not. I honestly believe that some people have had their buttons pushed too far and too long, and can't help but to get upset and tell it like they feel.
As of late, there's a few banding together and pushing certain ones into the corner. That's not fair. You haven't been in some of these threads for awhile and I have certainly missed your good points and Christian stability. However, you are coming down on someone unfairly without knowing a lot of what has been going on for awhile. I just feel there should be a knowledge of what has been happening on both sides, and why, before scolding someone like this.
Above all, everyone of us should act like the adults we are in here. Debate and discuss should not be one-sided because of sarcasm and cut-offs and cut-downs. Things can get sparked because of disagreeing views, but should not be demeaning and resorting to calling names and calling their beliefs names. I agree with nonbelievers on here that we disagree with our beliefs, but I certainly feel it would be wrong of me, and of them, to be ugly about it and try to make the other side look like idiots for believing like we or they do. I want to hear their views and reasons why they don't believe there is God behind Creation. I want answers to questions. I would like the same in return.
I probably should not have responded to this at all right now, considering what's going on with me outside of this forum. But my heart responded to what's going on in here. Once again, no offense to anyone, and hopefully, this thread will get back on the right track topic. :-
-
Could it be that you always see people as "sarcastic" because that is how you are? "Sarcastic" is how you sound about 99% of the time. A person can't treat people like complete trash but still want others to shower them with praise at all times! Honestly Annella, it's like you keep hashing & re-hashing the "same old-same old" and forcing everyone on here to believe every single thing you say and if you can't drive your point home then it's more "re-hashing"...and it's not long at all before you start your "crying" that someone has used a bad word or started calling names. Yet, there you are right in the middle of it all with the nasty put-downs but you seem to think as long as you are a "Christian", then it's justifed.
:notworthy: :notworthy:
(here's some of my unused worship for ya!)
-
I beleive there is afterlife in Heaven or Hell and our choices and beliefs here in our life time designate where we will be. It is our choice to believe in the Bible and having a relationship with Jesus Christ and this is our faith. I know with out a shadow of doubt that I will go to Heaven, because of my relationship with Christ and my faith.
-
Yes Sheryl, for everything the enemy has, the devil has a substitute and tries to mimic God. I would call someone like that a false Christian. A deceiver, a charlatan, but never put the word Christian in front of witchcraft. I've seen the enemy mimic the spirit of God. He does it right here in this forum. The Bible says that satan can present himself as an angel of light, but actually, he's a deceiver and accuser of the redeemed.
My last post was neither sarcastic or demeaning to Falconer. It was reiterating again what I believe. That's acceptable on this forum.....or was last time I looked.
Sheryl, do you even read your posts? The very thing you are hammering me about, is glaringly clear in your own posts. You will knock me down to bring someone to Jesus? What?
Don't ever believe what hateful things Annella has told you?
Are you talking about the Bible scriptures I've given or what? Yes, God does make it very clear what he thinks of the wicked. He does love the sinner. However, the point I was bringing out was there is a goodness and severity of God: You just can't teach one without the other (Ezekiel 3:17-21). There IS a Heaven and there IS a Hell. Uh, I didn't write the book. You accused me of twisting scriptures. If I post scripture, it stands by itself, and I post so others know what the BIBLE actually says on a given subject, not what I say.
A real Christian should be able to answer a non-Christian's answers respectfully. It's a HUGE part of being a witness for Him.
I have always given an answer to honest non believers questions if they ask. However, asking is not demeaning, put downs, or dragging your belief in the mud. That's not a question. That's an insult. Since we are talking to certain ones here that have professed to past Christianity, and have throw it by the wayside, doesn't qualify as someone who has an honest question of Salvation or whatever.
You also accused me of "baiting", which I've never done. I can't think of one Christian topic that I have started in this forum anywhere.
When you consider the estimated ages of qon & falconer vs. Annella...and then you consider that the oldest one is the source of most of the immaturity & childishness going on in here (including "rushing to newbies" to "warn them about qon & falconer") I would have to agree. I think people should be commending falconer & qon for being as good to her as they have been, because if she had been warning others about me---I would have reported her to Admin, no doubt about it.
Huh? What has age got to do with it? If I want to help newbies in here so they don't just post once and then don't ever post again because they have been flamed, then what concern is that to you? Anybody can fill out a support ticket to Admin. anytime they please......Go for it! However, this is D&D, which clearly states to enter at your own risk.
Sheryl, if you prayed and prayed today, then you surely did not hear from the God I serve. It was wasted time, if you actually prayed. That's right! Your bitterness and critical spirit is paramount in your postings. Again, take the beam from your own eye, before you take it from mine.
Two newbies came into this thread and had something to say. Has anyone welcomed them? No, you were too busy being the "righteous" voice here, and trying to reprimand me. The so called religious leaders reprimanded Christ also, because he went against what they had been practicing for hundreds of years. They were a very pious and lifted up group of individuals that finally ended up crucifying their very Messiah.
Who is Dr. Oz? Since I don't believe in TV preachers or TV for that matter, your statement is lost on me. I think the real spirit of God gets mimicd falsely by individuals who want to go on National TV and spout whatever. They are seeking self glory and not Christ's. "look at me how holy I am". If you send me X amount of dollars, I'll send you this honest to goodness prayer rug, that if you pray on it, you can have anything you want! Because God told me you need it desperately! Absurd! Charlatans....my opinion. Snake oil salesmen. Like I said before, whatever genuine person God has, the devil has a plethora of imitations.
I'm going to answer these 2 newbies, and then get out in this beautiful day, a couple wants to get married and I need to speak with them, and other errands. This is the day the Lord hath made, I will rejoice and be glad in it! See ya.
-
I beleive there is afterlife in Heaven or Hell and our choices and beliefs here in our life time designate where we will be. It is our choice to believe in the Bible and having a relationship with Jesus Christ and this is our faith. I know with out a shadow of doubt that I will go to Heaven, because of my relationship with Christ and my faith.
Your absolutely right vmcutshall! Your relationship with God is the most important thing in this life. The more you seek Him, the more He will reveal Himself to you. It is a choice as you have stated, and the just shall live by Faith!
Welcome to the forum.
-
I'm not religious at all, but there is a lot of undebunked paranormal evidence which might indicate the existence of an afterlife.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
There is a lot of undebunked paranormal evidence. There are also things that happen (some say miracles), that can't be explained because it is outside the realm of our understanding. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't be a miracle, or unexplained phenomena.
-
Sheryl, if you prayed and prayed today, then you surely did not hear from the God I serve. It was wasted time, if you actually prayed. That's right! Your bitterness and critical spirit is paramount in your postings. Again, take the beam from your own eye, before you take it from mine.
WTF?!?!?
are you like, Creators personal secretary or something?
-
I'm not religious in any sort (no church, no declared faith) but I simply believe that whatever we believe to be after will be after. If I had to find anything to be true it'd be the following statements: 1) - Perception is reality 2) The Laws of Conservation for Mass and Energy. Mass and Energy cannot be created or destroyed so our 'mass and energy' has to go somewhere, kinda like the Force in Star Wars. But our subconscious will always be our own and that, I believe, can NOT die at all, so we'd live on subconsciously with whatever we feel is true.
Yes, we will live on in an afterlife. Welcome to the forum.
-
WTF?!?!?
are you like, Creators personal secretary or something?
An observation.....doesn't ring true. You don't threaten physical violence to anyone, if your touting the "love" message. I'm feeling "checked" in the Holy Ghost. While you may not understand what that means Walks, every Christian on here does.
-
WTF?!?!?
are you like, Creators personal secretary or something?
An observation.....doesn't ring true. You don't threaten physical violence to anyone, if your touting the "love" message. I'm feeling "checked" in the Holy Ghost. While you may not understand what that means Walks, every Christian on here does.
"Checked"?
Right...I'm getting a pretty clear mental picture.
-
Quote from Sheryl:
A real Christian should be able to answer a non-Christian's answers respectfully. It's a HUGE part of being a witness for Him. If someone feels someone else has "cut them off", been sarcastic or whatever---is it SO HARD to post back and ask them why? Is it so hard to let them know you will not be responding to them in the future if that continues? Is it SO HARD to hear out the other person before accusing them of something? People on here, they have their own beliefs-- most of them aren't on here with empty cups waiting for some "stranger" to fill it. Chances are---you won't change their minds and they won't change yours. Is it so hard to realize that and let that topic go BEFORE it comes down to "degrading" someone??
Quote
Sheryl, are you giving this advice to me, individually, or to others it may apply to? I have asked why they have been sarcastic to me, (I'm really only speaking of 2 posters) and their response to me is usually along the lines of not being in reality or being in a make-believe world with a security blanket or an idiot for believing like I do. I ask you, is that a fair and mature response from an unbeliever? No, it is just as wrong as you are accusing Christians in here of. I'm saying both sides need to be mature about their responses, not just one side or the other. I am a Christian and I have tried to maintain that testimony in here as much as I humanly can. I am human and have gone too far a couple of times to a particular poster because it rankled me how this poster would respond to newbies, with sarcasm as listed above, and then you may never see them again. That is wrong in my book, too. So I have done what you are doing right now, and say something to the poster. Even Jesus overturned the moneytables in the temple and was angry. The Bible says we can respond in righteous anger; and to be angry and sin not.
There are nonchristians in this forum I have no problem with. They are wonderful, kind, and treat me as adult with my own views. We don't agree on certain religious things, but we maintain civility. We also communicate in other threads about our careers, family, etc. There are a couple of them in this very thread. I appreciate what they have to offer and challenge me with, and they, in return accept my challenging questions and responses.
-
God does make it very clear what he thinks of the wicked. He does love the sinner.
Why am I "wicked" and a "sinner" just because I don't buy the Bible? Those are some harsh words towards someone who hasn't even gotten a speeding ticket.
What has age got to do with it?
Because it is believed that humans are supposed to mature as they climb in years, not the opposite. I've quickly figured out in my relatively short time as an adult that this is not the case, but I know many other people still expect it. :P
If I want to help newbies in here so they don't just post once and then don't ever post again because they have been flamed, then what concern is that to you?
The only service you're doing with this is to your own ego. 95% of the people who post a sentence or two and never come back do so NOT because they've been "flamed", but because they don't actually read more than the OP and don't actually give a damn about doing anything more than their minimum posts. You haven't figured this out by now? Ha.
Two newbies came into this thread and had something to say. Has anyone welcomed them?
See above. They won't be back, anyway, so you shouldn't be concerned with what does or doesn't get said to them.
-
Welcome Noobs!
Please....no whinners.
-
Thank you for your apology, Annella.
May this be the last thing I ever say to you.
-
qon wrote:
Why am I "wicked" and a "sinner" just because I don't buy the Bible? Those are some harsh words towards someone who hasn't even gotten a speeding ticket.
Uh.........You don't even believe in God or the Bible. However...............the words "wicked" and "sinner" are just two of the Biblical words/expressions assigned to unbelievers, and those who reject God. There are much harsher words used to describe sin, and the unbeliever in the Bible. To be honest, the words wicked and sinner are relatively "tame" according to some others in the Word.
While it's commendable that you have never gotten a speeding ticket (I can't say that, I have a lead foot). It's irrelevant to the definition of what the Bible defines as wickedness and sin.
qon wrote:
Because it is believed that humans are supposed to mature as they climb in years, not the opposite. I've quickly figured out in my relatively short time as an adult that this is not the case, but I know many other people still expect it.:P
How you rate maturity could be foolishness, childishness, or wisdom to someone else, or visa versa. Remember this one?
At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus , saying, Who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto Him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Matthew 18:1-3
Did you know that the words "mature" or "maturity" are not in the Bible?
qon wrote:
The only service you're doing with this is to your own ego. 95% of the people who post a sentence or two and never come back do so NOT because they've been "flamed", but because they don't actually read more than the OP and don't actually give a damn about doing anything more than their minimum posts. You haven't figured this out by now? Ha.
My ego? Insulting, Inconclusive, and only your opinion..... Uh, do you have a crystal ball that tells you what people will or will not do? However, you HAVE swooped down on newbies and HAVE flamed them, and they haven't been back. I think we should at least be cordial, and let them make up their own minds about how and what they want to post. They are called newbies for a reason. They are brand new, and are looking to be accepted in a forum and site that is new to them. By all means, lets make them feel unwelcome. Especially those who post about God, and/or a belief in Him. How dare they!!
qon wrote:
They won't be back, anyway, so you shouldn't be concerned with what does or doesn't get said to em.
Really? So I guess, if I'm in a foreign country, I can be just as obnoxious as I want to be, because I'll be going home in a few days anyway, and won't ever see those particular people again. Or I'm on a road trip, and stop in a restaurant. Might as well treat the wait person like they are beneath me because after all, they are servants right? I won't be seeing them after I leave anyway. Might as well leave them with the impression that their idiots for even being in the customer service industry.
qon do you have any idea what your posts are revealing about your overall character?
-
STILL disagree with me falconer about the "demon possession" thingy?
Bravo, m'lady. Bravo. Also, thanks for keeping things pretty sane here for the last 2 pages or so. Though at this point I don't see why anyone would even post back to her with anything heavily insightful (no offense to you). She spreads witchcraft and makes christianity look pretty awful-- I'm sure that much is apparent to everyone. What a goofball! Oh wait-- I forgot to answer one of her questions-
Why is this such a threat to you?
You want a basic non-sarcastic answer? Sure! Because it has hurt and killed a lot of people through superstitious idiocy and spreading it around is the spawn of exponential foolishness. Only my opinion? Tell that to the dead, witchcraft courier.
-
I would call someone like that a false Christian.
Annella, You might want to get some facts straight or pop some med's before you go posting away. It doesn't matter that YOU would call them a false christian, you didn't trademark the term "christian", ANYONE can use it. HOW MANY posts have I posted stating that anyone & anything can call themselves a "christian anything" and people had better have enough sense to check out all their sources before believing anything? It wasn't MY idea to call them "christian witches", it was THEIRS. It ONLY came up because YOU ACCUSED falconer of making up that term, and I was pointing out that he didn't. This is what you said: Something else......there is no such thing as Christian witchcraft. That's something you made up.
and here's the link to learn all about how they do exist: http://witchychristian.tripod.com/ChristianWitch.html Maybe you should apologize to Falconer for being incorrect and NOT knowing that such a thing existed---instead of trying to act like you knew rightly all along? My last post was neither sarcastic or demeaning to Falconer.
I didn't mean to imply that you were sarcastic or demeaning to JUST Falconer...you're "fair", you really believe in "spreading it all around". Sheryl, do you even read your posts? The very thing you are hammering me about, is glaringly clear in your own posts. You will knock me down to bring someone to Jesus? What?
Yes ma'am, I do re-read my own posts. You got your "knickers-in-a-knot" all thinking I threatened physical violence which is beyond hysterical so let me re-phrase that for you since you apparently worship a god so tiny that he would be no match for me.... Anyone that has that much of the devil in them is no match for a child of God, God will knock them down. You just keep piling up those bricks of manure and they'll keep getting knocked down! NEWSFLASH: YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHO GETS TO GO TO HEAVEN OR HELL! ANOTHER NEWSFLASH: If you keep letting all those bitter feelings you got toward qon drag you down, then down is where you will be going. If you can't forgive her, you yourself won't be forgiven. The Bible says so...yours does too unless that's another one of the verses you've torn out. I've seen the enemy mimic the spirit of God. He does it right here in this forum. The Bible says that satan can present himself as an angel of light, but actually, he's a deceiver and accuser of the redeemed.
Yeah, if you're referring to me there---how Christian of YOU. There IS a Heaven and there IS a Hell. Uh, I didn't write the book.
No kidding! That's a good thing to do Annella...keep reminding yourself that YOU didn't write the book. However, asking is not demeaning, put downs, or dragging your belief in the mud. That's not a question. That's an insult.
Um, yeah...do you re-read your own posts Annella? THAT IS AN INSULT, I AGREE--- THAT is what you have been doing to MANY on here!! ( ;) hopefully, she's FINALLY beginning to see the light!) You also accused me of "baiting", which I've never done. I can't think of one Christian topic that I have started in this forum anywhere.
Really? One doesn't need to start a topic to "bait". All they need to do is post all "nicey" and wait for the first person to post something that doesn't coincide with what you believe...and "it's on". The we get the " :wave:" and it isn't long before it all begins again. THAT ISN'T "baiting"?? You aren't putting a worm on your little old hook there and waiting to catch someone? r i g h t. Huh? What has age got to do with it?
REALLY? You don't think the older one is, the more concerned they should be with setting a good example for the younger generations then? Hey whatever...it's your right to act childish then. It's not very becoming for an "evangelist" and all but, whatever. If I want to help newbies in here so they don't just post once and then don't ever post again because they have been flamed, then what concern is that to you? Anybody can fill out a support ticket to Admin. anytime they please......Go for it! However, this is D&D, which clearly states to enter at your own risk.
Exactly, "enter at your own risk"---INCLUDING newbies. My "concern" wasn't that great, the point was you are overstepping your bounds. How would you like it if I issued a welcome warning about you to every newbie? I wouldn't because I am not about to stoop to your level of madness...and also because by now I'm sure they're ALL be aware of your foolishness. (Do you do this in your church too because you are quite the busy-body here. You can act all innocent if you wish, you aren't fooling anyone. Sheryl, if you prayed and prayed today, then you surely did not hear from the God I serve.
How right you are there...lol I don't want NUTTIN to do with whatever it is you are serving! NO thank you. It was wasted time, if you actually prayed.
No because I prayed to Jesus. The same Jesus that died on the cross and has forgiven me of my sins. The same Jesus I have had a close personal relationship for many years. The same Jesus I have spent years studying so that I might be a better follower. The same Jesus that taught me if a person doesn't have God's love in their heart---then they don't have a very effective ministry (which is what YOU got, isn't it? An "ineffective" ministry? Because there is NOT much in your posts that says love for others at all.) I don't "worship" you and never will. Get over it. Your bitterness and critical spirit is paramount in your postings
Really? That's hilarious. I'm not "bitter" and just like God...I am totally willing to let you keep on making a total "whatever-you-wanna-call-it" of yourself. Keep posting away, keep digging that hole deeper & deeper. The BIBLE says that if a person's words & actions aren't 100% in line with the Bible, then what one is looking at is a "phony". I measure every Christian to that and double if they say they are an evangelist. If that makes me "critical" so be it. It also keeps me from having the "wool" pulled over my eyes...so of course that would upset you. Two newbies came into this thread and had something to say. Has anyone welcomed them? No, you were too busy being the "righteous" voice here, and trying to reprimand me.
My bad...I thought YOU WERE the welcoming committee! WHY would I feel like welcoming someone new into this mess that all began because you were mean to multiple people on here? Makes no sense! The so called religious leaders reprimanded Christ also, because he went against what they had been practicing for hundreds of yearsThey were a very pious and lifted up group of individuals that finally ended up crucifying their very Messiah.
HOW DARE YOU compare yourself to Christ! Unbelievable. That was about as blasphemous as one could get on this forum & in life! :angry7: Who is Dr. Oz?
A well known medical doctor with a daily tv show. Actually my mentioning him would have been a benefit to your post about "faith healing" because Dr. Oz is a very well known, popular & well known doctor but forget it. Interesting though how you can not even know who he is or know anything about him and yet claim he has an imitation religion. My mentioning him didn't even have anything to do with his religion. I think the real spirit of God gets mimicd falsely by individuals who want to go on National TV and spout whatever. They are seeking self glory and not Christ's.
REALLY? , are you aware that there are some GREAT evangelists & Christians on tv with their own networks? They are FANTASTIC, you might want to watch them and try to learn something. Summation: My patience has all run out with you. I've tried to be as nice as I could be. Your blasphemous statement above was the last straw for me. I can forgive you for even that because you won't be keeping me out of heaven. Everyone can see you have some BIG problems. I'm quite convinced you might be demon possessed from your last post to me here. Put a person with a demon in a chit-chat with a Christian and the demons can't help but get nervous and then the REAL comes out as demonstrated multiple times in Annella's last post. (STILL disagree with me falconer about the "demon possession" thingy?) Good luck with trying to fool the newbies, mentioning your "plans" to try & make it seem like you are such an accomplished evangelist is wasted on me---even Kelly Rippa's husband could get hisself ordained to marry Howard Stern... so? Anyone can get ordained, anyone can be an evangelist, etc. The point is, after all this....WHO wants to go to church with Annella? Come on now, raise your hands...don't be shy!!
Sheryl :o I'm afraid for you.
-
Quote from Sheryl:
Again, here's a verse being used out of context. If one bothers to read the next verse, they would see this: "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven".
Obviously the chapter is less about being immature (a.k.a. "childish") and more about being humble. (I can see how that word "humble" though would fly right over someone's head...) WHAT a GREAT evangelist posting a Bible verse out of context as an excuse for inexcusable behavior. And then try to be all "Mr. Rogers" by asking
Quote
I would like to add the next 3 verses:
KJV:
4Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea .
There is offending going on in here. We need to be very careful when using God's Word. There are consequences as the verses read above.
-
I would like to add the next 3 verses:
There is offending going on in here. We need to be very careful when using God's Word. There are consequences as the verses read above.
You're right, I was offended. Someone compares themself to Christ and I'm supposed to be ok with that and not call that for what it is...TOTAL BLASPHEMY? Someone posts a load of garbage and expects people to believe it's in the Bible when it isn't---I have EVERY RIGHT to point out the inacurracies and I WILL.
Jesus left the great commission with us. We are His witness's. We are in Christ's stead. We will reign and rule with Christ someday. Especially those in the Ministry are anointed to stand in Christ's stead. We are not God, but we stand and work in his stead to bring souls into the Kingdom. He filled His Children with the Holy Ghost, which is Christ IN US, the hope of Glory. If we have the Holy Ghost abiding IN us? Who's spirit is that? That makes us heirs and joint heirs with Christ. One with Him. If you do it to one of these little ones, you do it to me? Your "blasphemy" comment is no more than sensationalism.
As far as my post back to qon, there was nothing wrong with the post. I answered all her questions, and gave my own opinion about some things, as she gave hers.
Sheryl, you are becoming increasingly volatile in your postings. How could you call any Christian (Minister or not), demon possessed? Be careful, God is very clear about His anointed.
-
So I guess, if I'm in a foreign country, I can be just as obnoxious as I want to be, because I'll be going home in a few days anyway, and won't ever see those particular people again. Or I'm on a road trip, and stop in a restaurant. Might as well treat the wait person like they are beneath me because after all, they are servants right? I won't be seeing them after I leave anyway. Might as well leave them with the impression that their idiots for even being in the customer service industry.
Any chance you can get to twist my words and "make me look bad", huh?
This is a faulty comparison because my being blunt in response to something illogical someone says is NOT on the same scale as being rude in a foreign country. It doesn't even make sense because said newbies are Americans, too, and thus familiar with our ridiculous Christian culture and its tenets.
As a sidenote, it's quite funny who you chose to use that particular comparison against someone like me. Don't you remember that I've been to 18 (soon to be 19) countries and counting? lol
-
from Annella:
We are in Christ's stead. We will reign and rule with Christ someday. Especially those in the Ministry are anointed to stand in Christ's stead.
Well howdy-doody and pass the plate! That puts YOU in the same league as Fred Phelps, Jim Jones, Ayatollah R. Khomeini, and countless others all of whom were/are 'ministers' of their faith. Now, if I were NOT on ignore ;D, I know you would tell me that is incorrect because you are different, you are of a 'true faith' ie christian. Like Walks pointed out, there is one Creator - name varies depending on your belief system, but the way I see it, all 'ministers of faith' worship and serve the same being so you are NO better than any other. You'll be 'standing' alongside millions of online degreed 'ministers' too.
Feelings of self importance and specialness, anyone? :confused1:
As a sidenote, it's quite funny who you chose to use that particular comparison against someone like me. Don't you remember that I've been to 18 (soon to be 19) countries and counting? lol
Ah, BUT QON you and your hubby paid for your vacations to other countries. Who paid for your's, Annella? Ah yes, your worshipful and blind 'flock of followers'. ::)
-
I am looking forward to see what, if anything happens. I can personalize my after life but who knows if I will get it. Anyone ever wonder how if people can't get along on earth then how in the world will they get along in heaven?
Also, what about my scars? Do they magically disappear?
I find all this stuff very silly, you know?
-
Jordandog--- You said: "That puts YOU in the same league as Fred Phelps, Jim Jones, Ayatollah R. Khomeini, and countless others all of whom were/are 'ministers' of their faith" and it was then I realized you pointed out something that I had missed. Annella:We will reign and rule with Christ someday.[/b] Especially those in the Ministry are anointed to stand in Christ's stead
"Especially those in the ministry"... What?? :dontknow: According to the Bible verse "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:1-3) That DOESN'T say "especially those in the ministry" (another scriptural inaccuracy). You are so right, that phrase DOES sound like a "cult" belief. So I started searching and I found a link that was interesting. It pertains to "oneness pentecostalism". The preface: "I need to say right up front that I am not saying that all Pentecostalism is cultic. However, I am convinced that this particular strain of Pentecostalism is a cult". (Scroll down to *Spiritual elitism--- sound familiar? ::) ) (http://www.gospeloutreach.net/opgospel.html#spir (http://www.gospeloutreach.net/opgospel.html#spir) ) The Biblical definition of a cult: A cult according to the Word of God is any group of people that worship anything or anyone other than Jesus Christ, and believe anything contrary to His Word as found in the Bible. It's a FALSE RELIGION. If one believes someone could pick up a evil spirit or two (like I do) ...it could most definitely be while someone was in a cult, or false religion. J-dog, I think you found the missing piece to the puzzle. I don't think I need to say it, but Christians on here please pray for Annella.
Sheryl, This is copied/pasted from a post I wrote to Annella back in January in the thread "I don't believe in the devil or hell". You tell ME if you see any similarities to what YOU wrote above:
Annella,
Why you bother encouraging other christians on here, when you are part of a belief system that considers itself above the rest and you interpret (and change) scripture to fit the way you want things to be, amazes me. The examples of the Trinity deal come to mind because all you did was post a load of words that you believe countered what the experts at CARM (not me) wrote - amazing. You add to the gospel when it fits your agenda. I think that is horrendously screwed up, a total mindgame, and especially on kids who grow up in the religion. I have 2 very close friends I grew up with who left the UPC, Oneness Pentacostalists, as soon as they were old enough and never looked back. They still carry scars from the mindgames to this day, but have NEVER walked away from god or religion, just from this one. I understand that many Oneness followers also believe you are the only ones who will get into heaven anyway, so maybe that is why I have felt you come across as superior when these discussions get into how everyone views scripture. This has been in the back of my mind since I first saw you declare what your religion actually was. Your religion has been accused of interpreting to fit the O.P. doctrines and theology, even when it is vastly different than other Protestant interpretations. O.P.'s have been charged with spiritual legalism by members of other faiths and have even been referred to as a 'cultlike' group because you are so strict when it comes to appearances, pride, superiority, and you put the laws of the bible, again as you interpret them, over any grace from god. Either everyone follows the rules or they have no chance and a person's own spirit is meant to be broken instead of encouraged. My friends were never allowed to do any of the perfectly innocent things the rest of us did when we were growing up. Add this to the fact that you cannot, or will not, answer anything in your own words like others do (jcribb does), but instead you have to post a mile long list of passages. Do you actually possess a mind of your own anymore? I have a mind and I use it in real time with real actions. Maybe I should try talking people out of cancer, etc., and then I would certainly be less exhausted, would get a LOT more sleep, and would get off the emotional roller coaster because I wouldn't have to worry about any patients. I might even recommend it at the next team meeting or mortality review!
I don't belive in coincidences myself. Of course, after I wrote that, I was 'informed' that she knew now what my problem with her was - I don't like HER religion and because of what happened with my friends. She also told me HER church had left the UPC....a whole 4 months before, as if that made any difference. When the entire religios community views a particular sect as dangerous, unorthodox, etc., what does that tell anyone with half a brain?
-
It's one thing to name-call a belief or call a religion ridiculous or illogical, etc., but it's another whole thing to actually start cutting down or judging a person. Even Jesus indicates that judgement of others is forbidden (unless an appointed judge, such as in courts, etc.) I would like to back this up with scripture:
Matthew 7:1-3 says, "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
James 4:10-12 says, "Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He shall lift you up. Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?"
I really feel that things are going too far in here in regards to actually judging others. We should be respectful of their beliefs, even if we don't agree with them. When we start judging their very character as a person, then we are in the wrong, me included. It's really hard when our buttons are pushed and we've had enough of it. We can tell them to knock it off, put them on ignore, or even back out of the argument going on. We just need to be careful what we are doing in here. For those of us who are Christians, we will have to account for ourselves. Others will too. They may not agree with that because of not believing in the Lord. That is their perogative and not for me to judge them about.
-
I do believe in the afterlife as I read the Holy Scriptures (The Bible) evidently there is an afterlife.Your spirit and Soul (Consciousness) lives on as your physical body dies but also beware of the second death. ( The death of spirit and soul)
-
Yes I do believe in the afterlife wwhy shouldn't I? :)
-
jcribb Matthew 7:1-3 says, "Judge not, that ye be not judged.
That's another verse that is frequently taken out of context. "Do not judge." There is a righteous kind of judgment we are supposed to exercise—with careful discernment (John 7:24). When Jesus told us not to judge (Matthew 7:1), He was telling us not to judge hypocritically. The Bible exhorts us to beware of evildoers and false prophets and to avoid those who practice all kinds of evil. How are we to discern who these people are if we do not make some kind of judgment about them? The Bible says (Proverbs 20:11) "Even a child is known by his actions, by whether his conduct is pure and right". and (Matt. 7:16) "By their fruit you will recognize them". Any believer who has studied the Bible should immediately begin to question any doctrine that is contrary to Scriptures. Many will call themselves "christian" but seldom few have religions or beliefs that go by what the Bible says. We are supposed to judge ALL teachings by what the Scripture says. The person that is looking to follow the real, genuine Jesus will have no problem accepting the Bible and ALL that is in it as His Word and will follow His instruction. To do anything else is to be "out of line" with His Word---something He didn't ever say to be.
I know what you are saying. But the rest of the verse needs to be included, "... For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." I think we still need to be careful in how far we go with "righteous judgment", lest we become hypocritical ourselves, by going too far. God, Himself, will do the final judging of us all.
-
jcribb Matthew 7:1-3 says, "Judge not, that ye be not judged.
That's another verse that is frequently taken out of context. "Do not judge." There is a righteous kind of judgment we are supposed to exercise—with careful discernment (John 7:24). When Jesus told us not to judge (Matthew 7:1), He was telling us not to judge hypocritically. The Bible exhorts us to beware of evildoers and false prophets and to avoid those who practice all kinds of evil. How are we to discern who these people are if we do not make some kind of judgment about them? The Bible says (Proverbs 20:11) "Even a child is known by his actions, by whether his conduct is pure and right". and (Matt. 7:16) "By their fruit you will recognize them". Any believer who has studied the Bible should immediately begin to question any doctrine that is contrary to Scriptures. Many will call themselves "christian" but seldom few have religions or beliefs that go by what the Bible says. We are supposed to judge ALL teachings by what the Scripture says. The person that is looking to follow the real, genuine Jesus will have no problem accepting the Bible and ALL that is in it as His Word and will follow His instruction. To do anything else is to be "out of line" with His Word---something He didn't ever say to be.
You are judging me by implying I'm an evildoer, false prophet, and someone who practices in all kinds of evil, my religion does not follow the Bible, my doctrine is not Bible based?
I'm in a cult? You even posted the definition of a cult:
The Biblical definition of a cult: A cult according to the Word of God is any group of people that worship anything or anyone other than Jesus Christ, and believe anything contrary to His Word as found in the Bible. It's a FALSE RELIGION.
Uh, I don't worship anything or anyone but the Lord Jesus Christ.
Sheryl, while you are riding the wave of criticism, you are doing more damage than you can imagine. While you may have some people jumping on your bandwagon of judgement, there are more watching you tear down a person that professes to love God, and holds precious the Blood of Jesus. Not good. You are not looking very much like the Christian you yourself are trying to profess.
Please, by all means, stop this berating. Like Jcribb said, with what judgement you judge, you will be judged. Our judge is the Lord Jesus Christ (God). You are looking very bad.
Something else. If the Spirit of God has filled a person (evidence of speaking in other tongues), and is working and living in that vessel, then the enemy can no more possess that person than anything. The Lord, and the devil cannot occupy the same vessel. This is Bible. A Christian full of the Holy Ghost cannot lend habitation to the enemy. They can backslide, denounce God and His goodness, blaspheme the Holy Ghost, and be lost eternally. Then the devil can enter that vessel. Those who have opened a "door" and have invited the devil in, can be possessed. Things like drugs, sexual perversion, murder, dabbling in the black arts, satanism, etc., can open doors for the enemy to come in and inhabit that person.
While we as Christians fail, say things we shouldn't, do sin, etc. However, we have an advocate with the Father to repent and be forgiven for those sins (I repent everyday), but never does that open an invitation for the devil to possess us. The Holy Ghost lets me know when I need to get my life right. If we don't repent, and get those under the blood, or hang on to bitterness, resentment, unforgiveness, etc., then we are in danger of giving place to the enemy, and letting him control us. There are a few times I've messed up in this forum and had to repent, apologize, what have you, to get back on the right track. Every Christian worth their salt (pun intended) has to.
Yes, pray for me, I'll take all the prayer I can get! We ALL need prayer. We are to lift each other up in prayer, not tear down our brothers and sisters. You have said 3 times now "I'm done with this", but you keep coming back with more berating. Even non believers can tell something is very wrong here. Your talking of humbling ourselves. We all need to. None of us has arrived on the heavenly shores yet. We are still striving for perfection.
-
So I guess, if I'm in a foreign country, I can be just as obnoxious as I want to be, because I'll be going home in a few days anyway, and won't ever see those particular people again. Or I'm on a road trip, and stop in a restaurant. Might as well treat the wait person like they are beneath me because after all, they are servants right? I won't be seeing them after I leave anyway. Might as well leave them with the impression that their idiots for even being in the customer service industry.
Any chance you can get to twist my words and "make me look bad", huh?
As a sidenote, it's quite funny who you chose to use that particular comparison against someone like me. Don't you remember that I've been to 18 (soon to be 19) countries and counting? lol
Twisting your words? Making you look bad? Oh please, you make yourself look bad, and all the rest of us make ourselves look bad at times. I'm answering your post. You have daunted newbie believers with words like: idiots, brain washed, delusional, simple minded, etc.
Uh. I didn't pick that particular comparison, because you had been to many foreign countries ??? I've been to many countries myself, and have seen how "tourists" can be very rude. it just something that came to my mind because I've witnessed it in my travels. Okay, how about just being obnoxious and rude to a salesclerk out of town, etc.
This is a faulty comparison because my being blunt in response to something illogical someone says is NOT on the same scale as being rude in a foreign country. It doesn't even make sense because said newbies are Americans, too, and thus familiar with our ridiculous Christian culture and its tenets.
What? The newbies are newbies (American or not). You swoop down on the newbies who are professing a belief in God, wether they be Americans, French, whatever. So this statement doesn't make sense. I don't see you swooping down on the unbeliever newbies and verbally shredding them. Your clouding the issue here and I know your smarter than that. Bluntness and being rude are different things all together. I know when I'm being rude qon, and you do too.
Something you find illogical is okay, but do you have to verbally shred them so they never come back into D&D? At least let them get their feet wet first before you shoot them out of the atheistic cannon.
-
Off-topic, but I've made money fast last month....and this month. The surveys are really paying off!
-
You are judging me by implying I'm an evildoer, false prophet, and someone who practices in all kinds of evil
Implying? Most here will agree that you do. You have already admitted to it. I'm sure your bloated pompous view of yourself will obviously reject this obvious aspect, but spreading ruses like faith healing via a questionable metaphysical authority that cannot be proven is all of the above. Congratulations.
-
Quote from Falconer:
questionable metaphysical authority that cannot be proven
For those who demand proof and don't have faith to believe in Him now, He will show Himself when it's the time of His return.
-
Quote from queenofnines:
It doesn't even make sense because said newbies are Americans, too, and thus familiar with our ridiculous Christian culture and its tenets.
You know, it's a real shame that certain sects of their so-called religion, make sincere Christians look that way. Those ones really mess it up for the Christians who truly love God and are honestly trying to make a difference.
-
You are judging me by implying I'm an evildoer, false prophet, and someone who practices in all kinds of evil
Implying? Most here will agree that you do. You have already admitted to it. I'm sure your bloated pompous view of yourself will obviously reject this obvious aspect, but spreading ruses like faith healing via a questionable metaphysical authority that cannot be proven is all of the above. Congratulations.
MOST here?, uh, you mean you, qon, walks, jdog, and Sheryl. Hardly "most" compared to the whole forum. I DO believe in faith healing, it's Biblical, experienced it, and seen it in action. Not something I made up. However, since you don't believe in the Bible yourself, this can be classified as YOUR opinion.
As far as "proving" anything to you? I don't have to. See, this is the misconception that we as Christians have to prove that there is a God. It's a choice to believe or not. The material is presented, we have the Bible, some scientific results that point to a Creator, etc. You can debunk it and go on...it's a choice. There is nothing that I have to do, or any other Christian, to prove God's existence to you.....nothing! Even those in Jesus day wanted a sign, and Jesus said: Nope!
Bloated pompous view of myself? How typical that you cannot post me without put downs or sarcasm...every single time!
-
You are judging me by implying I'm an evildoer, false prophet, and someone who practices in all kinds of evil
Implying? Most here will agree that you do. You have already admitted to it. I'm sure your bloated pompous view of yourself will obviously reject this obvious aspect, but spreading ruses like faith healing via a questionable metaphysical authority that cannot be proven is all of the above. Congratulations.
MOST here?, uh, you mean you, qon, jdog, walks, and Sheryl. Hardly most, in the whole forum. I DO believe in faith healing, it's Biblical, experienced it, and seen it in action. Not something I made up. However, since you don't believe in the Bible yourself, this can be classified as YOUR opinion.
As far as "proving" anything to you? I don't have to. See, this is the misconception that we as Christians have to prove that there is a God. It's a choice to believe or not. The material is presented, we have the Bible, some scientific results that point to a Creator, etc. You can debunk it and go on...it's a choice. There is nothing that I have to do, or any other Christian, to prove God's existence to you.....nothing! Even those in Jesus day wanted a sign, and Jesus said: Nope!
Bloated pompous view of myself? How typical that you cannot post me without put downs or sarcasm...every single time!
Why you gonna bring my name up?
Do you have something to say to me, Puta?
So you lived south of the imaginary line in the sand for awhile eh?
Then you should be able to understand this.... Vete a la chingada, Pinche!!!!
-
jordondog: Had to see what you posted to Sheryl in order to get the flow of the postings.
I'm in a church that went Autonomous and Independent. Now....I preach in UPC churches all the time, and know they follow the Bible closer than any other religion I've found. Your animosity against them is unfounded. They are wonderful people and live their Bible. They are neither a cult or a false religion. While I said that my church went Independent does not mean I'm against the UPC....far from it!! Sorry your friends had a bad experience. Not knowing the details, I can't comment on it. Every church or denomination has it's problems. If there is one that says they don't....their lying. Nobody is perfect. Not even the Ministry. People in the UPC are good, God loving people, and live strictly by the Bible. I use their study materials, etc., and have not found one thing that is not Bible based. Our Articles of Faith match theirs. In fact, I'll go as far to say I am UPC, as I believe as they do.
As far as going abroad as an Evangelist or Missionary, because my church (and other churches) finance me, what is the problem with that? I don't know a Minister, Evangelist, Missionary, etc., who doesn't rely on the donations of others in the church. How do you think Ministers are paid? It takes money to send someone to a foreign land to take the gospel. It takes money to live period. Because someone is in the Ministry, doesn't mean that they are not worthy of support. When I go to different churches to preach, hold revivals, etc., I'm given a love offering and expenses. There is no difference than a salesman going out and doing business. His way is paid by his company including his expenses. My career is my Father's business. My career is the Ministry. Every Minister of every kind in ANY denomination is paid.
Of course I realize that your post was to goad, and find fault. Your back on ignore.
-
You are judging me by implying I'm an evildoer, false prophet, and someone who practices in all kinds of evil
Implying? Most here will agree that you do. You have already admitted to it. I'm sure your bloated pompous view of yourself will obviously reject this obvious aspect, but spreading ruses like faith healing via a questionable metaphysical authority that cannot be proven is all of the above. Congratulations.
MOST here?, uh, you mean you, qon, jdog, walks, and Sheryl. Hardly most, in the whole forum. I DO believe in faith healing, it's Biblical, experienced it, and seen it in action. Not something I made up. However, since you don't believe in the Bible yourself, this can be classified as YOUR opinion.
As far as "proving" anything to you? I don't have to. See, this is the misconception that we as Christians have to prove that there is a God. It's a choice to believe or not. The material is presented, we have the Bible, some scientific results that point to a Creator, etc. You can debunk it and go on...it's a choice. There is nothing that I have to do, or any other Christian, to prove God's existence to you.....nothing! Even those in Jesus day wanted a sign, and Jesus said: Nope!
Bloated pompous view of myself? How typical that you cannot post me without put downs or sarcasm...every single time!
Why you gonna bring my name up?
Do you have something to say to me, Puta?
So you lived south of the imaginary line in the sand for awhile eh?
Then you should be able to understand this.... Vete a la chingada, Pinche!!!!
Now why did I include you ??? ::)
-
Thank you for your apology, Annella.
May this be the last thing I ever say to you.
Amy....I wish I could undo what's been done. I don't like to see you hurting, you're always so sweet on here. I've been hurt/disappointed before in others too, it happens. Think of it as one of life's learning lessons without letting it affect your search for life's answers or learning about God . There's always a brighter future ahead. I'm praying for you. Hugs, :peace: & :heart: !
Thank you, Sheryl, but I'm beyond being hurt. I've been disappointed, and I refuse to drag myself down any farther than I've already been. I've said and done things I am not proud of on here, and I refuse to do it again. That was my resolution to keep myself in check and not waste my time anymore. I know, however, that I may be tempted to say something again, but I will do my best to resist. Don't feel sorry for me; feel sorry for her. She's the one that has lost something amazing here (if I may be so bold to call myself such). :wave:
-
MOST here?, uh, you mean you, qon, walks, jdog, and Sheryl. Hardly "most" compared to the whole forum.
1.) I meant the majority that keep posting in this thread.
2.) If people were to read the entire thing and they'd have a decent amount of intelligence, I'd put a lot of money that they'd agree with me here.
DO believe in faith healing, it's Biblical, experienced it, and seen it in action. Not something I made up. However, since you don't believe in the Bible yourself, this can be classified as YOUR opinion.
You have seen it. But it's called being gullible. You succumb to basic trickery which says a lot about your ability to reason things out. It's not just my opinion-- you've demonstrated it numerous times for everyone. Also as I've stated before, people die from this basic trickery that you promote which further proves that it's just not my opinion. Stop using your immature tactic by calling it that and face reality for once. Witchcraft is a no-no.
As far as "proving" anything to you? I don't have to. See, this is the misconception that we as Christians have to prove that there is a God. It's a choice to believe or not. The material is presented, we have the Bible, some scientific results that point to a Creator, etc. You can debunk it and go on...it's a choice. There is nothing that I have to do, or any other Christian, to prove God's existence to you.....nothing!
You have no scientific results pointing to a creator-- much less your creator. What you do have are cheap and ugly watchmaker analogies which are naively speculative at best. That's also not a 'choice' to believe in such things. It's a lack of education and ignorance on ones part to say it. The difference here is one is prone to skepticism and rationale, and your viewpoint is based off of a mixture of flaming emotion and deception which, again, you've demonstrated here.
Even those in Jesus day wanted a sign, and Jesus said: Nope!
Very convenient.
Bloated pompous view of myself? How typical that you cannot post me without put downs or sarcasm...every single time!
Well I apologize for pointing out the obvious, but I don't sugar-coat things for liars and hypocrites. I call it as I see it, sista. And it's pretty obvious I'm not alone here.
-
Came back to life after feeling myslef die. Guess that qualifies as life after death! lol
-
1.) I meant the majority that keep posting in this thread.
2.) If people were to read the entire thing and they'd have a decent amount of intelligence, I'd put a lot of money that they'd agree with me here.
The ones I'm mentioning are the ones posting in this thread and other threads. Oh, I think anyone who reads all the way through this thread would not be as agreeable as you might think.
You have seen it. But it's called being gullible. You succumb to basic trickery which says a lot about your ability to reason things out. It's not just my opinion-- you've demonstrated it numerous times for everyone. Also as I've stated before, people die from this basic trickery that you promote which further proves that it's just not my opinion. Stop using your immature tactic by calling it that and face reality for once. Witchcraft is a no-no.
It's not trickery Falconer, it's Faith and experience. Deny it all you want. Doesn't make it any less true for me and others that believe and have experienced it. Go ahead and ask other Christians on here if they believe it? I'm not the only one on here that does.
You have no scientific results pointing to a creator-- much less your creator. What you do have are cheap and ugly watchmaker analogies which are naively speculative at best. That's also not a 'choice' to believe in such things. It's a lack of education and ignorance on ones part to say it. The difference here is one is prone to skepticism and rationale, and your viewpoint is based off of a mixture of flaming emotion and deception which, again, you've demonstrated here.
I've never knowingly deceived anyone on this forum. I pretty much tell it like it is. My viewpoint is based on the Word of God. Whatever "proof" your looking for is going to elude you because you have no faith that it can be. A person that comes to God, must believe in who He is. Once you have that Faith, and take the step, then God does His part. The more you live a Christian life, the more it resonates in you. The Bible which were words before, come alive. Your wanting the cart before the horse, and it doesn't work that way.
Very convenient.
It happens to be the Truth in the Bible, not convenience. You want a sign to prove God is real. I know people that God actually did give them a sign, and they became Christians. However, God knows who would really believe or not if He did give them a sign. I don't know your heart Falconer, but God does.
Well I apologize for pointing out the obvious, but I don't sugar-coat things for liars and hypocrites. I call it as I see it, sista. And it's pretty obvious I'm not alone here.
Your opinion. Ya know, I've said this before, so I'll say it again. Go your way and believe what you want, and I'll go my way and believe what I want. Like I said, the material gets presented and it's a choice. Why is it necessary to brow beat someone over the head because they have Faith in something you don't believe?
Talking to you Falconer, is just spinning my wheels, and giving you another chance for put downs, name calling, etc. So. I'm going to be very selective who I want to talk to in the forum from now on. We don't agree, so let's move on shall we?
-
The ones I'm mentioning are the ones posting in this thread and other threads. Oh, I think anyone who reads all the way through this thread would not be as agreeable as you might think.
If they knew your post history in d+d, I doubt it.
It's not trickery Falconer, it's Faith and experience. Deny it all you want. Doesn't make it any less true for me and others that believe and have experienced it. Go ahead and ask other Christians on here if they believe it? I'm not the only one on here that does.
I'm sure there are others, but I doubt any decent or intelligent christian would. I don't know you, but if you act even 1/10th the way you do on these threads, you are neither decent or intelligent.
I pretty much tell it like it is.
You do? Like the f#$&@&g AIDS virus being cured by your faith healing tricksters? You are a liar and this quote is undeniable proof.
Why is it necessary to brow beat someone over the head because they have Faith in something you don't believe?
Well, for instance, that one thing you said you willingly promote hurts and kills children. That is unacceptable to everyone but the mentally ill.
Talking to you Falconer, is just spinning my wheels, and giving you another chance for put downs, name calling, etc.
Sick of my name calling? Well I apologize. Might I suggest that you stop constantly fitting the bill after every 3 words you post.
We don't agree, so let's move on shall we?
I'll agree and quote Walksalone here. Vete a la chingada pinche vato. And take your harmful tribal christian-witchcraft *bleep* with you. Your promoting of harmful idiocy is offensive to anyone with a moral sense.
http://www.deism.com/harrison.htm (http://www.deism.com/harrison.htm) :angry7:
-
Talking to you Falconer, is just spinning my wheels, and giving you another chance for put downs, name calling, etc.
I''m really surprised you haven't learned by now that there's a difference between mere "name calling" and constructive criticism. Name calling usually has very little (or faulty) reasoning behind it. It is common amongst children, but not adults. Adults tend to have more of a solid reason for calling you unfavorable things. Instead of listening to the criticism and admitting and analyzing your flaws, you do one of the worst things you can do in such a situation: be closed-minded. If you brush off others' criticisms as "name calling", you never have to grow as a person. How convenient.
So. I'm going to be very selective who I want to talk to in the forum from now on.
No you won't. Get some self-control and stick to your word for a change...
-
I'll agree and quote Walksalone here. Vete a la chingada pinche vato. And take your harmful tribal christian-witchcraft *bleep* with you. Your promoting of harmful idiocy is offensive to anyone with a moral sense.
http://www.deism.com/harrison.htm (http://www.deism.com/harrison.htm) :angry7:
DAMNIT BOY!!!!
Why I ought to wash your mouth out with soap, heh heh heh heh ;o)
-
"Speaking in tongues" is NOT proof that someone is "filled with the Holy Spirit". Demon possessed people can also "speak in tongues". [Excerpt to follow is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_possession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_possession)] "Descriptions of demonic possessions often include erased memories or personalities, convulsions, “fits” and fainting as if one were dying. Other descriptions include access to hidden knowledge (gnosis) and foreign languages (glossolalia), drastic changes in vocal intonation and facial structure, the sudden appearance of injuries (scratches, bite marks) or lesions, and superhuman strength. Unlike in channeling or other forms of possession, the subject has no control over the possessing entity and so it will persist until forced to leave the victim, usually through a form of exorcism. The New Testament's description of people who had evil spirits includes a capacity for hidden knowledge (e.g., future events, innermost thoughts of the people around them) (Acts 16:16) and great strength (Act 19:16), among others, and shows those with evil spirits can speak of Christ (Acts 19:16, Mark 3:11). Other religious groups been observed to practice some form of theopneustic glossolalia. It is perhaps most commonly in Paganism, Shamanism, and other mediumistic religious practices. Glossolalia has also been observed in the Voodoo religion of Haiti. ***I have witnessed people "speaking in tongues" that were not doing so because they were "filled with the Holy Spirit" in "tongue-speaking, Holy Spirit-filled" churches/services. They were removed from the service to be prayed for at a later time when it was more proper for prayer regarding "deliverance" from the evil spirits, and they claimed they had been "saved"/were Christians as well. A few that were known for having mental illness were banned from the churches.
Sheryl, I guess you don't have it. It's okay to not understand it, but to call it the devil's work in someone that you don't know, is the most horrible form of blasphemy you can do. Since you have not got it yourself, what makes you think you can judge what is real and not in me? Your posts have gotten more and more vicious each time you post.
However, I got the gift at 19 and have had it all these years. The Bible clearly talks of the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. I think after all these years, and countless services, shoulder to shoulder with the Ministry, one of them would have surely called me on it if my gift wasn't real. I guess you are more wise than the thousands of Ministers, Missionaries, Evangelists, etc., I have rubbed shoulders with?
What I find amazing in all this is your insinuation that I'm demon possessed, etc., etc. You don't know me, and what makes you think you have the power and wisdom to make a call like that? A judgement like you are doing? You surely are not as spiritual as you think yourself with the viciousness of your posts. Your "love" that you tote so much is not shining through not one bit. Something is very wrong.
James 4:12
Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He shall lift you up. Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: But if thou judge the law, thou are not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?
-
How typical an answer. You just had to "slam" me no matter what? You couldn't give a concise answer to my question about what your thoughts are? I was curious about what you thought....nothing more.
You claimed that you know. That's quite a claim! You are in a position to mislead people by words. I'm jokingly saying that you don't know. You just think you do.
Edit: Though not really concise, I answered your question via the link.
Waste of time.........
lol ok
Time is all you have here on earth, and when we walk by faith, we do know
GOD gives us that knowing - those who do not know GOD walk in darkness
but you would need to apply yourself to read & study the Bible to understand
that. and that is a matter of choice.
-
from Annella re 'speaking in tongues':
However, I got the gift at 19 and have had it all these years. The Bible clearly talks of the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. I think after all these years, and countless services, shoulder to shoulder with the Ministry, one of them would have surely called me on it if my gift wasn't real. I guess you are more wise than the thousands of Ministers, Missionaries, Evangelists, etc., I have rubbed shoulders with?
What a lame (and hilarious) example for justifying an absurd thing as real! People who are as fanatical and screwed up as you are would tell you that you aren't? This is as credible as a bunch of alcoholics who sit together night after night, month after month, year after year in the same bar and tell each other "they don't have a drinking problem".....are you kidding me?! :confused1:
edited to add, since we were writing/posting at the same time: I will also reiterate a reference made by Sheryl in her last post about things taken from a site (Wiki) and NOT her opinion or words. When I pulled my old post up about your sect and how it is viewed by the Protestant community et al? Those were NOT my thoughts or opinion. They were taken, as I clearly stated, from CARM aka Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry - a non-biased group that researches and provides facts on all religious groups.
READ POSTS BEFORE REPLYING. IF YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, ASK.
-
Great post sweetie...but I thought you were on "ignore". (Ohhhh, this is must be for when she decides she doesn't want to miss anything a few days from now, when she "un-ignores you" and then tells you again that you are on "ignore".)
Thanks, back at ya. Seems we were on the same wavelength again. ;) Yeah, the IGNORE is actually a fake IGNORE, there's a special button for that I believe. Why do you think the off topic comment about making all the money from surveys lately was made? Didn't I bring up the website she was starting, after you mentioned all the christian forums out there, and said, "but THEY don't pay money..."? Yeah, I am definitely not blind. She's still reading what I post and not to get the flow.
-
Time is all you have here on earth, and when we walk by faith, we do know
GOD gives us that knowing - those who do not know GOD walk in darkness
but you would need to apply yourself to read & study the Bible to understand
that. and that is a matter of choice.
Been there done that. 15+ years of my life. And YOUR whole 'walking in the darkness' sentence SOUNDS like something out of LORD of the Rings, so HOW am I supposed to TAKE you seriously?
Why I ought to wash your mouth out with soap, heh heh heh heh ;o)
But daaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaad!
-
Sheryl, I guess you don't have it. It's okay to not understand it, but to call it the devil's work in someone that you don't know, is the most horrible form of blasphemy you can do. Since you have not got it yourself, what makes you think you can judge what is real and not in me? Your posts have gotten more and more vicious each time you post.
However, I got the gift at 19 and have had it all these years. The Bible clearly talks of the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. I think after all these years, and countless services, shoulder to shoulder with the Ministry, one of them would have surely called me on it if my gift wasn't real. I guess you are more wise than the thousands of Ministers, Missionaries, Evangelists, etc., I have rubbed shoulders with?
What I find amazing in all this is your insinuation that I'm demon possessed, etc., etc. You don't know me, and what makes you think you have the power and wisdom to make a call like that? A judgement like you are doing? You surely are not as spiritual as you think yourself with the viciousness of your posts. Your "love" that you tote so much is not shining through not one bit. Something is very wrong.
James 4:12
Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He shall lift you up. Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: But if thou judge the law, thou are not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?
FYI Annella---my last post wasn't "just MY opinion", I listed the source from where it come from...but I guess you know more than what is listed on wikipedia... ::) BTW, since I have not gotten "what" myself? What are you being so judgmental about now and saying I have not got? You don't know me---you don't know what I got & haven't. (And...My posts are "vicious" now---what? lol...) I never said the scriptures DON'T talk of the "infilling of the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues". However, if you have been "with the gift since age 19" as you put it, common sense says you should be making ALOT more Christian sense than you do---especially when EVEN the non-believers know better than what you're doing. (*Note: About the "years of service"---Satan has believed in God his entire lifetime too...so what?)Annella: but to call it the devil's work in someone that you don't know, is the most horrible form of blasphemy you can do
NO it isn't. Blasphemy against God IS---you aren't God (even though you yourself compared yourself equal to Christ. Isn't that what got satan kicked out of heaven, btw???) I guess you are more wise than the thousands of Ministers, Missionaries, Evangelists, etc., I have rubbed shoulders with?
Annella: If those thousands only "rubbed shoulders" with you, how would they know exactly what you are all about? If they seen your words & actions on here, they wouldn't call you out? Really? (If so...you know I would not want anything to do with a church that would approve of your behavior on here...but that's just my personal, honest opinion). I can't see Jesus being on here acting like you do. I can't fathom the disciples being on here acting like you do---what does THAT say?Annella:Something is very wrong.
Something is also very right. For over a year I have been trying to explain to others on here that there are all kinds of "christians", AND that "christians" shouldn't all be considered "one and the same". I tried to explain to some who'd tried giving "christianity" a shot before and it didn't "take" why that might have been (how they could have been in the "wrong church" or trusted the wrong kind of "christian"). I repeatedly told them if they are looking for God, to always check their sources, and know what is actually in the Bible. I told them they should know for themselves what is actually in the Bible, instead of letting someone else TELL them---and so they would know a false teaching when they came upon it. Until lately, all that was just "words in a forum" to them, they couldn't see what I was trying to show them. Now, they're finally able to see what I had been unsuccessfully trying to tell them! You are right though, by saying something is very wrong. My posts haven't been vicious or judgmental, they've consisted of kindness, apologetics, forgiveness, admission that I may be wrong about a thing or two, admission that I do not know you other than on-line, and quite a few of your own words. btw, I haven't used any sarcasm, any put downs and no name calling---yet you say my posts are becoming more & more vicious? You haven't seen "vicious" out of me at all, ask falconer & qon. Sad to say, they've seen my "vicious" side. What you've been seeing isn't "vicious" at all. If you have a problem with someone posting facts/thoughts on-line that don't coincide with your "opinions"... then you have a problem. (P.S.- You don't need to keep posting Bible verses to me that you have selected to "suit your purpose" as they are wasted on me, I know what the Bible says. ;) )
No Sheryl....you do NOT have it. You know why I know? Because anyone with the Spirit of God living in them would NEVER accuse or insinuate another (even a weak Christian) of being demon possessed, or insinuate that the Spirit of God in them was the devil. Yes, blasphemy is against God. God is the Holy Ghost (His Spirit).
If your calling someone demon possessed, and they have the real Holy Ghost living inside them, and you insinuate that that same Holy Ghost is actually the devil, who are you really blaspheming against? The person, or God that lives inside them? Or are they joined if God has filled them, and made His abode with/in them? If you call the Spirit of God in a person the devil, and it really is God, then you are blaspheming the Holy Ghost for real. That's why having the Spirit of God is so important for discernment.
Now, someone who has never had the Holy Ghost can blaspheme ignorantly because they don't know any better. However, if someone that Has the Holy Ghost and says the things you have said to me regarding devil possession, etc., and my Holy Ghost is real, you are actually blaspheming God. We that have the Holy Ghost are very careful to call anyone demon possessed until we know for sure because we know better through discernment through the Spirit.
That's why I posted you were in a dangerous place. Now you have the knowledge.
As far as the scriptures I've posted. Do you not post scripture that lends credence to what you write? The Word of God is for all things.
This is finished for me. Read Matthew 12:24-32 Talks of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Don't have time to write it out.
-
everyone belief in something
-
I believe the ressurection is the afterlife and there's 2 different resurrections. There's the resurrection of the 144K to heaven(first resurection) and then the rest of mankind who are bad or good to earth to be judged(second ressurrection).
6 Happy and holy is anyone having part in thefirst resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and will rule as kings with him for the thousand years.(Revelation 20:6 emphasis added)
16 “And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those also I must bring, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.(John 10:16)
and I have hope toward God, which hope these [men] themselves also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous. (Acts 24:15)
If you believe that all good people go to heaven when resurrected please answer the 3 questions below.
1. How will the Earth be inhabitated if all good people go to Heaven which is God's purpose for the planet?(Isaiah 45:18)
2. How can the Earth which is physical go into something that's not made with hands(not physical)?(Hebrews 9:11-12)
3. Who will the Holy ones rule over on earth if there's no one on Earth?(Revelation 5:9-10)
-
I am looking forward to an eternity of bliss in the presence of the Lord.
-
Afterlife it's either heaven or hell.
-
Yes, there is an afterlife. Where you will be spending it depends on how much trust you have placed in the Lord for salvation through His shed blood. There will be an afterlife in heaven or in hell. The choice is yours. I personally am anxiously awaiting to be in the presence of the Lord even though I don't deserve it. It will be wonderful!
-
Why do you guys ignore the scriptures in my post :'(
If you believe that all good people go to heaven when resurrected please answer the 3 questions below.
1. How will the Earth be inhabitated if all good people go to Heaven which is God's purpose for the planet?(Isaiah 45:18)
2. How can the Earth which is physical go into something that's not made with hands(not physical)?(Hebrews 9:11-12)
3. Who will the Holy ones rule over on earth if there's no one on Earth?(Revelation 5:9-10)
-
No. Death is the end for all be they plant or animal. This includes humans. We are animals.
-
Nope! No afterlife. Just an after effect. I want to get to the end of my life and know that I set up my children to be great people. I want to know that what I've done in my life has made a difference to somebody. I want to know that when I die, I've lived to the fullest and helped others do the same. We get one chance here, so we need to make the most of it.
-
I know for a fact that there is an afterlife, which is why you have to consider the effects of all your actions. My entire family believe, because we have seen/heard/experienced things that cannot be explained. I wish I knew what it would be like, but I can only hope for the best. ;)
-
We have seen/heard/experienced things that cannot be explained.
Do tell.
-
I believe there is a "heaven" for all of us. It will be different for each of us to suit our personalities.
-
Who knows. I will never be too vain to claim there is or is not the existence of something.
-
I do not, but I definitely know many people who made me wish there was a hell just for them.
-
I believe there is a God, and with that I blieve there is more to life than what we can see with the eyes. Heaven or Hell is a reality that is only expreienced by human beings, in my opinion.
-
I believe that man is appointed a time to live and a time to die...After God's second coming, the dead in him will arise first and all will face the Judgement.
-
Sure, I believe in 'the afterlife' and there's actually a name for it..........DEATH. We all live for a given number of years and then we all die. Unless you want to include the get-togethers after the funeral (or whatever people choose to do), but those are usually attended by the living.
Perfect. I couldn't of said it better my self.
-
I absolutely believe in the AfterLife.... I believe our spirit & souls live on in the people we have touched... & within mother earth :angel11: :peace:
-
I do not, but I definitely know many people who made me wish there was a hell just for them.
Wow, amyrouse. I'm really surprised to see you say this. NO ONE deserves to be tortured forever, regardless of what they did while alive.
Passe attitudes about hell make me sick. Where is your humanity? I don't like all people in general as a rule, but even I have basic humanity to know that wishing torture to other human beings is WRONG.
-
Passe attitudes about hell make me sick. Where is your humanity? I don't like all people in general as a rule, but even I have basic humanity to know that wishing torture to other human beings is WRONG.
Not even Fred Phelps or Warren Jeffs!? lol jk jk
-
I do not, but I definitely know many people who made me wish there was a hell just for them.
Wow, amyrouse. I'm really surprised to see you say this. NO ONE deserves to be tortured forever, regardless of what they did while alive.
Passe attitudes about hell make me sick. Where is your humanity? I don't like all people in general as a rule, but even I have basic humanity to know that wishing torture to other human beings is WRONG.
I know...I agree with you, QON. I was in a very bad place when I wrote this. I'm still partially there. I really try to see the good in all people, but sometimes the things I see take a toll on me, the things I see people do to the people they claim to love and honor...it makes me ill. I feel like Sam L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction...I'm trying to be the shephard, but sometimes its really hard... call it a moment of weakness. Its my human nature: I can name some people that I would like to see suffer, but I really don't want to see them suffer, if it makes any sense. I don't know if any of this makes any sense. :dontknow:
-
There is an afterlife. It is called Heaven. Where there will be no more tears, no funerals, no loss of loved ones.
There will be joy unspeakable and love we have never even felt a fraction of.
Jesus had to leave also to build us mansions in the skies.
Read Revelations and study it and you will see what to expect.
-
To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias
Infinite knowledge? ::) You're the one who can't prove your god exists, despite having the burden of proof. We're expected to rule out all of the thousands of gods that have come and gone before you have to prove yours? Uh-uh, doesn't work like that!
And this quote is invalid because *a theism* does not deal with knowledge...that would be gnosticism, hello!
To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias
Infinite knowledge? ::) You're the one who can't prove your god exists, despite having the burden of proof. We're expected to rule out all of the thousands of gods that have come and gone before you have to prove yours? Uh-uh, doesn't work like that!
And this quote is invalid because *a theism* does not deal with knowledge...that would be gnosticism, hello!
Prove he doesn't. The burden of proof is not on our side.
You are requesting proof of a negative assertion; this is not rational. Specifically, the burden of proof rests with the initial claimant - that would be those who insist upon the existence of a "god" sans any verifiable evidence, (note: "faith" does not constitute verifiable evidence). Your entire rebuttal is a non sequitur.
[/quote]
You and Falconer keep saying this like a broken record and have been answered x times over.
[/quote]
Logic remains consistant, which is why QoN & Falconer, (who happens to share a variation of my 'nym and many of my views however, isn't me), keep reiterating reason to oppose your unreasoned and unsubstantiated claims.
-
There is an afterlife. It is called Heaven. Where there will be no more tears, no funerals, no loss of loved ones.
There will be joy unspeakable and love we have never even felt a fraction of.
And knowing that your mom/child/best friend/cousin/grandfather/insert the name of any apostate you're close to is being tortured forever in hell...does that not spoil the party a bit?
Jesus had to leave also to build us mansions in the skies.
Wow, you're pretty full of yourself. What have YOU done in your life to deserve a magical mansion? Saved someone from a burning building...donated thousands to cancer research? No? You just believed some ridiculous myth crafted for weak minded sheep?
-
I do. I also believei nthe the recycling of souls.
Because if there is an afterlife, it's just going to be come overpopulated otherwise.
And there are plenty of down to earth people who do happen to believe that they have lived before. Not al lof htem are the new agy hippies.
-
There is an afterlife. It is called Heaven. Where there will be no more tears, no funerals, no loss of loved ones.
There will be joy unspeakable and love we have never even felt a fraction of.
And knowing that your mom/child/best friend/cousin/grandfather/insert the name of any apostate you're close to is being tortured forever in hell...does that not spoil the party a bit?
Jesus had to leave also to build us mansions in the skies.
Wow, you're pretty full of yourself. What have YOU done in your life to deserve a magical mansion? Saved someone from a burning building...donated thousands to cancer research? No? You just believed some ridiculous myth crafted for weak minded sheep?
how do you possibly feel that you have the right to downplay someone's life? Especially on an internet forum, when you know nothing of what they have or have not done in their life- and nowhere near enough to assert that you are the one who should decide whether they deserve to spend their afterlife in heaven.
-
I do not, but I definitely know many people who made me wish there was a hell just for them.
Wow, amyrouse. I'm really surprised to see you say this. NO ONE deserves to be tortured forever, regardless of what they did while alive.
Passe attitudes about hell make me sick. Where is your humanity? I don't like all people in general as a rule, but even I have basic humanity to know that wishing torture to other human beings is WRONG.
I know...I agree with you, QON. I was in a very bad place when I wrote this. I'm still partially there. I really try to see the good in all people, but sometimes the things I see take a toll on me, the things I see people do to the people they claim to love and honor...it makes me ill. I feel like Sam L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction...I'm trying to be the shephard, but sometimes its really hard... call it a moment of weakness. Its my human nature: I can name some people that I would like to see suffer, but I really don't want to see them suffer, if it makes any sense. I don't know if any of this makes any sense. :dontknow:
No one said Christians were supposed to be perfect. God knew that human nature is to make mistakes, which is why he sent his son to die for our sins. That is the beauty of being Christians. And hating the things that people do is not the same as hating people- it is easy to hate some of the actions people take these days...
-
I do not, but I definitely know many people who made me wish there was a hell just for them.
Wow, amyrouse. I'm really surprised to see you say this. NO ONE deserves to be tortured forever, regardless of what they did while alive.
Passe attitudes about hell make me sick. Where is your humanity? I don't like all people in general as a rule, but even I have basic humanity to know that wishing torture to other human beings is WRONG.
Why does this bother you so much if you do not even believe in hell?
-
???wow thats a good one i do because i belive in god
-
I do not, but I definitely know many people who made me wish there was a hell just for them.
Wow, amyrouse. I'm really surprised to see you say this. NO ONE deserves to be tortured forever, regardless of what they did while alive.
Passe attitudes about hell make me sick. Where is your humanity? I don't like all people in general as a rule, but even I have basic humanity to know that wishing torture to other human beings is WRONG.
Why does this bother you so much if you do not even believe in hell?
A mythical hell isn't required in order to not like the idea of torturing others on this non-mythical world.
-
Yes, I believe in the afterlife, but I won't get to see it until I die and neither will anyone else... :angel12:
-
how do you possibly feel that you have the right to downplay someone's life? Especially on an internet forum, when you know nothing of what they have or have not done in their life- and nowhere near enough to assert that you are the one who should decide whether they deserve to spend their afterlife in heaven.
It seems you don't know your own doctrine -- it really doesn't matter what a Christian has done in their life... they could be a murderer, rapist, or just plain lazy waste of a human being who neither did any harm NOR good...none of this matters, all that matters is how gullible you are to a ridiculous ancient fable that defies all logic. So, it is quite self-centered if you ask me to expect fantastical things when you die just because you believe "god" murdered himself to himself as some kind of loophole because a talking snake convinced a ribwoman to eat a cursed fruit and now all of humanity is f--ked because of that. Let's not forget that on the other side of the coin, anyone who doesn't share your belief in this ridiculous story is doomed to eternal torture simply for not believing...again, one's actions in life matter squat in this case.
You are correct that the poster I addressed could indeed be a good person who does wonderful things; however, it doesn't matter if they are or aren't, because Christians don't get their afterlife "reward" due to actions... and everyone who does not partake in their mythology are damned all to hell. 4 BILLION currently damned to hell to be exact. That is an incredibly messed up ideology to base your life on, if you ask me.
-
how do you possibly feel that you have the right to downplay someone's life? Especially on an internet forum, when you know nothing of what they have or have not done in their life- and nowhere near enough to assert that you are the one who should decide whether they deserve to spend their afterlife in heaven.
It seems you don't know your own doctrine -- it really doesn't matter what a Christian has done in their life... they could be a murderer, rapist, or just plain lazy waste of a human being who neither did any harm NOR good...none of this matters, all that matters is how gullible you are to a ridiculous ancient fable that defies all logic. So, it is quite self-centered if you ask me to expect fantastical things when you die just because you believe "god" murdered himself to himself as some kind of loophole because a talking snake convinced a ribwoman to eat a cursed fruit and now all of humanity is f--ked because of that. Let's not forget that on the other side of the coin, anyone who doesn't share your belief in this ridiculous story is doomed to eternal torture simply for not believing...again, one's actions in life matter squat in this case.
You are correct that the poster I addressed could indeed be a good person who does wonderful things; however, it doesn't matter if they are or aren't, because Christians don't get their afterlife "reward" due to actions... and everyone who does not partake in their mythology are damned all to hell. 4 BILLION currently damned to hell to be exact. That is an incredibly messed up ideology to base your life on, if you ask me.
That was a cute little rant, however irrelevant. Especially considering I didn't even mention Christianity- just that you do not have the authority to determine where someone should or shouldn't spend their afterlife, especially someone you do not know. And as for me not knowing my own doctrine, that was an ill-infomed statement as I said nothing about it NOR did i say anything about the "everyone better believe what i believe" philosophy that you tried to claim as my words, when really you are the one saying everyone who is not an athiest believes in fairytales. Love the hypocrisy though, never changes :)
-
Especially considering I didn't even mention Christianity- just that you do not have the authority to determine where someone should or shouldn't spend their afterlife, especially someone you do not know.
Well that's incredibly ironic of you to say. This is exactly what your religion does. I'm hardly on the same playing field when it comes to being guilty of such a thing considering I don't consider the afterlife to be existent in the first place!
And why are you pretending there's this huge possibility that I might not be addressing Christians when I say all of this?! We live in one of the most religious, Christian-dominated countries in the world. Come on now. Plus I know for a fact that you're Christian from speaking to you before. All of this is quite relevant when dealing with a concept ( the afterlife) that stems largely from a religious belief.
NOR did i say anything about the "everyone better believe what i believe" philosophy that you tried to claim as my words, when really you are the one saying everyone who is not an athiest believes in fairytales. Love the hypocrisy though, never changes :)
I didn't claim in that particular response that you, SurveyMack, do this. I meant the Christian belief in general (which encompasses some - but not all - Christians).
As for me wanting everyone to be atheist... no. I'd be happy with simply more "mushy Christians" -- those that claim to believe on god when pressed, but live their lives like secular people.
[/quote]
-
yes. i do. 144,000 will go to Heaven with God. The rest will go to a New World that has streets paved with gold, etc. much like the garden of Eden where we will have houses of our own and crowns with jewls, etc. Then those who dont make it there, will spend enternity in hell, but it is really called something that starts with S. (This is all in the Bible) It is dark, there is fire, there are things that rip apart flesh but you dont "die", etc. I am trying to get to at least the New World. I believe the 144,000 will be either from the original 12 tribes of Israel...or Judah (wich ever one it was) or select people who were righteous in God's sight like how Mary the Virgin was (only not her b/c she is allready there.)
-
Why does this bother you so much if you do not even believe in hell?
Going down this road again...
Really? You can't think of any possible reason(s) why it could be harmful to preach that those who do not adhere to the same faith as you will be tortured, tormented, burned, punished FOREVER? ...Really?
It doesn't matter that your hell isn't real in reality, it's still incredibly sick to delight in the thought that your fellow human beings...billions of them...deserve to be in excruciating agony because your god failed to provide sufficient evidence for his existence, all the while shouting from the rooftops that this monster you all invented is a "god of love". Please. Anyone who truly believes this will be the majority of humanity's fate and is fine with it should be ashamed...and get their head examined.
If you ever stopped for long enough to really THINK about the whole hell dilemma, you'd see where I'm coming from, you'd see how it's a sham, and how it's an incredibly demented form of religious control.
-
I believe in an afterlife, but I don't think there is any "hell" involved. Jesus died for our sins, Right?
-
Especially considering I didn't even mention Christianity- just that you do not have the authority to determine where someone should or shouldn't spend their afterlife, especially someone you do not know.
Well that's incredibly ironic of you to say. This is exactly what your religion does. I'm hardly on the same playing field when it comes to being guilty of such a thing considering I don't consider the afterlife to be existent in the first place!
And why are you pretending there's this huge possibility that I might not be addressing Christians when I say all of this?! We live in one of the most religious, Christian-dominated countries in the world. Come on now. Plus I know for a fact that you're Christian from speaking to you before. All of this is quite relevant when dealing with a concept ( the afterlife) that stems largely from a religious belief.
NOR did i say anything about the "everyone better believe what i believe" philosophy that you tried to claim as my words, when really you are the one saying everyone who is not an athiest believes in fairytales. Love the hypocrisy though, never changes :)
I didn't claim in that particular response that you, SurveyMack, do this. I meant the Christian belief in general (which encompasses some - but not all - Christians).
As for me wanting everyone to be atheist... no. I'd be happy with simply more "mushy Christians" -- those that claim to believe on god when pressed, but live their lives like secular people.
[/quote]
Still avoiding the point that you do not have the authority to sit around on a forum and tell people who they do or do not deserve to spend their afterlife. You complain constantly that Christians have a belief that nonbelievers will end up in hell, yet you sit here and tell someone on a forum where they will end up? That is SO hypocritical. How can you possible judge someone's entire life by a post you read on a thread on fusion cash.
Beyond that, you say that the Christian belief is based on judging people's actions and where they will end up. That is not even close to the Christian doctrine. I am not saying that Christians do not judge people, we are human too and we make mistakes, but it is clearly stated in the Bible that we are not the ones who should judge one another, that only God can judge us. So when you say that Christianity is based on that you are COMPLETELY wrong.
-
Quote from queenofnines:
As for me wanting everyone to be atheist... no. I'd be happy with simply more "mushy Christians" -- those that claim to believe on god when pressed, but live their lives like secular people.
That's a lot to ask of Christians who are dedicated to the Lord. To only acknowledge their belief in God when pressed is like asking them to be afraid of being a Christian openly and speaking of God openly. It's a good example of a young elementary student saying to another, "I'll be your friend if you don't talk about God." Christians aren't cowards. They are also asked by Jesus, Himself, "to go out in the streets, and the hedgeways,,, telling and spreading the news of salvation." I am not going to be "mushy" and hide my belief in God. It then affects any secular activity or otherwise that I may go and do.
What exactly do you mean by secular? You are almost making it sound like "mushy Christians" can have their cake, and eat it, too. It seems as if you are okaying these to go out and do whatever they want with no regard to right or wrong and yet not have to be accountable to God at the same time.
-
I hope I'm not intruding, but I'd like to comment here...
That's a lot to ask of Christians who are dedicated to the Lord. To only acknowledge their belief in God when pressed is like asking them to be afraid of being a Christian openly and speaking of God openly.
It's called being courteous. For instance I try not to bring up these type of things unless they're introduced into a conversation. I just don't randomly bring them up and assert them like chrisitians do. It would seem those dedicated to your lord are very rude and naively disrespectful to others.
"I'll be your friend if you don't talk about God." Christians aren't cowards.
Except when it comes to proof! lol seriously though, normal people aren't asking this. Any decent person wouldn't mind talking about politics, sex, music, sports, philosophy, or religion to someone they already know decently. Someone coming up to you that starts introducing and asserting wild and crazy ideas is just...I'm sorry...F'd up beyond belief. I have a few friends who do this type of thing (with my list above) to people and it's...ugh...I just either sit their facepalming or I walk away for a while.
It seems as if you are okaying these to go out and do whatever they want with no regard to right or wrong and yet not have to be accountable to God at the same time.
I'm under the impression she's talking about other belief systems and how they're respectful to others and wish to not bring them up unless asked. Your god should not bully the playground. There are plenty of other gods on it too.
-
What exactly do you mean by secular?
Not being able to tell what religion someone is (or if they have a lack of religion) because we conduct ourselves in a way that separates faith from public life.
You are almost making it sound like "mushy Christians" can have their cake, and eat it, too.
They sure can! If someone wants to believe in a god because they are scared of dying, or it gives them a sense of not being alone when things go wrong, but they otherwise conduct themselves as secular, that's a lot, lot better than someone who is actively spreading poisonous lies that are associated with their faith.
It seems as if you are okaying these to go out and do whatever they want with no regard to right or wrong and yet not have to be accountable to God at the same time.
Just because someone is a mushy Christian doesn't mean they are without morals. I know plenty of mushy Christians, and they are just regular, normal people...the main difference being, they are not the nuts who forbid their kids to read Harry Potter or mass email all of their acquaintances warnings about hell like a Christian of "better" faith might be more inclined to.
-
It is so arrogant to sit around and say "all Christians bring up their religion and throw it in everyone's face." 1st of all, you haven't met all Christians. 2nd of all, living a certain way isn't throwing your religion in someone's face. And 3rd, if someone DOES bring up their religion, and does it in the right way, they they aren't throwing it in your face- but are instead just sharing their way of life and faith with others. Something very different then hanging out on a forum all day saying "God is not real, God is like santa claus, anyone who believes in God can't think for themself and is delusional." Seems like the atheists around here are the ones throwing their beliefs or lack thereof in someone's face, so PLEASE try to think about how hypocritical you may sound before you speak.
-
It is so arrogant to sit around and say "all Christians bring up their religion and throw it in everyone's face." 1st of all, you haven't met all Christians. 2nd of all, living a certain way isn't throwing your religion in someone's face. And 3rd, if someone DOES bring up their religion, and does it in the right way, they they aren't throwing it in your face- but are instead just sharing their way of life and faith with others
No, obviously not all of them do this. But a lot of them do and that's what we're talking about.
Something very different then hanging out on a forum all day saying "God is not real,
Perhaps you're not familiar with the usual pattern of events with your claim. Most of the time there is a christian thread that is full of contradictions and naivety (example = end of the world threads), and we just comment and debate such claims mainly asking for proof and showing our proof of why it's wrong.
Seems like the atheists around here are the ones throwing their beliefs or lack thereof in someone's face, so PLEASE try to think about how hypocritical you may sound before you speak.
Count how many atheist threads there are that throw beliefs in peoples faces. Now count how many christian threads there are that do the same thing.
-
I believe in Eternal Life in Heaven or Hell.
-
yes I believe in afterlife..
-
I'm beginning to see a pattern of what some nonbelievers think about Christians. Queenofnines, it does appear more and more that you are boxing ALL Christians into one box only without regards to morals, personalities, thoughts, claims, beliefs, etc. Not every Christian reacts the same to certain ways of others. There are some who forbid their children to read Harry Potter, this is true. There are just as many, if not more, that do allow them to read Harry Potter. Harry Potter can be symbolized by some as good vs. evil, just as in real life. That, in itself, can be a great family discussion.
Just because someone calls themselves a Christian, doesn't mean they go out and THROW it up in people's faces, or go to funerals and do those protests lead by some weird and crazy "preachers" or "leaders." They are taking judgment in their own hands and that is not what we as Christians are supposed to do. Ultimately, God is our judge. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay," says the Lord. It's people like those weirdos who totally make the genuine Christians look crazy and stupid and pushy, etc.
I don't push my God on anyone. If someone asks, I'm glad to share. If I feel led and it's a right time, then I'll go from there. You can have conversations with people and never know if they are a Christian or not. It won't take long, however, for one or the other, or both, to eventually sense or know where each other stands spiritually/not spiritually. I'm just saying to please not box Christians in one box - that is judgmental and not looking at individuals for who they are and what they represent.
-
It is so arrogant to sit around and say "all Christians bring up their religion and throw it in everyone's face." 1st of all, you haven't met all Christians. 2nd of all, living a certain way isn't throwing your religion in someone's face. And 3rd, if someone DOES bring up their religion, and does it in the right way, they they aren't throwing it in your face- but are instead just sharing their way of life and faith with others
No, obviously not all of them do this. But a lot of them do and that's what we're talking about.
Something very different then hanging out on a forum all day saying "God is not real,
Perhaps you're not familiar with the usual pattern of events with your claim. Most of the time there is a christian thread that is full of contradictions and naivety (example = end of the world threads), and we just comment and debate such claims mainly asking for proof and showing our proof of why it's wrong.
Seems like the atheists around here are the ones throwing their beliefs or lack thereof in someone's face, so PLEASE try to think about how hypocritical you may sound before you speak.
Count how many atheist threads there are that throw beliefs in peoples faces. Now count how many christian threads there are that do the same thing.
"and we just comment and debate such claims mainly asking for proof and showing our proof of why it's wrong"
When have you ever showed proof that God is not real?
And if a Christian posts a thread about Christianity, they probably want to discuss their religion. If you disagree with it, why not just go on to the next thread and leave them be? You want Christians to leave everyone else to their beliefs, but when you are faced with the choice to pass by a thread where Christians are gathered you always choose to jump in and tell them how wrong they are. Also, if someone posts a thread about their beliefs why is that considered "throwing it in people's face?" This doesn't make sense to me considering when you see that the title of a thread is about Christianity all you have to do is not click it...
-
I'm beginning to see a pattern of what some nonbelievers think about Christians. Queenofnines, it does appear more and more that you are boxing ALL Christians into one box only without regards to morals, personalities, thoughts, claims, beliefs, etc. Not every Christian reacts the same to certain ways of others. There are some who forbid their children to read Harry Potter, this is true. There are just as many, if not more, that do allow them to read Harry Potter. Harry Potter can be symbolized by some as good vs. evil, just as in real life. That, in itself, can be a great family discussion.
Just because someone calls themselves a Christian, doesn't mean they go out and THROW it up in people's faces, or go to funerals and do those protests lead by some weird and crazy "preachers" or "leaders." They are taking judgment in their own hands and that is not what we as Christians are supposed to do. Ultimately, God is our judge. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay," says the Lord. It's people like those weirdos who totally make the genuine Christians look crazy and stupid and pushy, etc.
I don't push my God on anyone. If someone asks, I'm glad to share. If I feel led and it's a right time, then I'll go from there. You can have conversations with people and never know if they are a Christian or not. It won't take long, however, for one or the other, or both, to eventually sense or know where each other stands spiritually/not spiritually. I'm just saying to please not box Christians in one box - that is judgmental and not looking at individuals for who they are and what they represent.
Great post! This is a lot of what I have been trying to say but you put it in a much more effective way!!
-
I will try to answer this without a religious position just for sake of clarity.
I have to believe in the afterlife or I would go insane (possibly a few of you may think I already am and maybe that is true). The reason I say this is based on how I tend to think -- I stretch things out and look at them outward-in from start to end, even before and after. View your life sometime as a spectator watching your casket being planted within a grave or your urn discarded among some refuse to get a better understanding of what I mean. As the spectator, who has no memory of the deceased, what relevance are they to you or anything. In a hundred years, none of those that might have even attended the grave site will be there. Now such a tale is all too sad for me and I am not a mushy sympathetic type either.
Perhaps it is my vanity or my weakness but I simply cannot accept such an end to all my struggles and all of my endeavors. That nothing at all matters in my case means it doesn't matter at all in any and all cases (yes I meant to say that and am quite positive about it). It would be just as well to not be at all then to be in this fashion. A shadow, a ghost of a dream, an echo of a distant and accidental sound. One would be no more than the number zero added infinitely with a simple cry to only be allowed to reach one, yet lacking even the ability to vocalize the utterance of hope or misery.
No, I cannot accept such a fate and therefore I must choose the only choice that allows me to live now and that is a choice that allows me to live in the afterlife as well.
-
I guess it depends on what you really mean, there is no life after death. When you die, you die and go to heaven or hell, so if you mean life after death, no.
-
When have you ever showed proof that God is not real?
Which one? Yours? I can't disprove the existence of any god in the same respect I can't disprove the invisible green fire-breathing dragon in my neighbors basement. I can't disprove irrational beliefs. When you allow for the impossible in an argument, you can literally get away with anything. Disproving any god when talking on realistic terms is quite easy and I've done so plenty of times in the past.
And if a Christian posts a thread about Christianity, they probably want to discuss their religion. If you disagree with it, why not just go on to the next thread and leave them be? You want Christians to leave everyone else to their beliefs, but when you are faced with the choice to pass by a thread where Christians are gathered you always choose to jump in and tell them how wrong they are.
1.) This is debate and discuss. I'm here to debate and discuss.
2.) There's always biased or misinformed ideas presented in these threads and I'm just here to explain either the other side or show what's wrong with their argument. It's fair game here and, with all due respect, I think you're taking it a bit too personally.
Also, if someone posts a thread about their beliefs why is that considered "throwing it in people's face?" This doesn't make sense to me considering when you see that the title of a thread is about Christianity all you have to do is not click it...
Because many of these threads are "I believe this and if you dont, you'll burn for eternity! Sorry!". The religious need to understand that that's not a proper way to introduce the topic of their beliefs and that's a major point we argue for.
-
I have to believe in the afterlife or I would go insane
Would you not similarly go insane never being able to die? Having to be conscious for all eternity would become painfully boring after a few hundred/thousand years. Unless you assume heaven will be this endless Disneyland crafted specifically for your deepest desires...which is a really naive way to think, because the Bible speaks very little of what heaven will offer. So people assume it will be better than death, and fail completely to think about the important issues:
* When I get to heaven and notice quite a few people missing, how will I forget about/cope with all of my loved ones burning in hell?
* How can I realistically expect to be happy for ALL ETERNITY when my brain is wired to get bored with things fairly quickly?
* How will god prevent people from even THINKING about a sin...will I risk getting kicked out? My personality will have to be modified BIG TIME to get rid of all the "sinful" parts of me...including many things I enjoy/find central to who I am.
So as you can see, god will have to give everyone routine lobotomies in order for heaven to run smoothly. There is no other way. Don't ask me how people get lobotomies without physical brains (because you'll be dead)...it's magic!
I stretch things out and look at them outward-in from start to end, even before and after.
And this is a common problem among people. We are wired to find purpose/patterns in pretty much everything. As my husband likes to say, this is how people think (subconsciously): "I put on my shoes so I can protect my feet, which carry me to work, I work to receive a paycheck, so I can feed my family and take care of my home, which provides shelter from the elements. This cycle keeps refreshing itself each day, until the end when I...die? What the hell was the point then?!"
Not like heaven really solves this problem, IMO. What will be the point of existing forever in heaven? To worship god for all eternity? Why does god need worship?!
In a hundred years, none of those that might have even attended the grave site will be there. Now such a tale is all too sad for me and I am not a mushy sympathetic type either.
Yep. Unless you do something really, really important that changes humanity for the better (or worse), there's a very high likelihood that you will be forgotten soon after you die. But this is the case for most people.
Being forgotten is not what saddens me in the slightest...what saddens me is that currently, we all only get 70 to 80 years on average of we're lucky, and I would like to live a few hundred years beyond the usual life expectancy, because I like life. It would be entirely possible for humanity to achieve this IF people could stop wasting their potential away on religious efforts...and this is what makes me sad most of all.
Perhaps it is my vanity or my weakness but I simply cannot accept such an end to all my struggles and all of my endeavors.
How does wishful thinking solve anything, though? You know what would be better...fill your life with rich experiences so you don't regret what you did with the time you were given when you're old and about to die. That's what I aim to do.
That nothing at all matters in my case means it doesn't matter at all in any and all cases (yes I meant to say that and am quite positive about it).
You are correct that ultimately, none of what it going on right now matters. However...the limited time you get to be alive can be quite wonderful; you can create your own "purposes" and goals...and yes, while it will be all for naught in another 100 years, it matters NOW. Enjoy the ride and try not to worry that the sun will one day engulf the earth...because there's nothing you can do to change this.
No, I cannot accept such a fate and therefore I must choose the only choice that allows me to live now and that is a choice that allows me to live in the afterlife as well.
I don't see how fooling yourself makes things any better. You still have to finish out this life either way*, and living like you won't get to your "real" life until after you die is not advisable. This is your one and only guaranteed life, right now. Why not treat it as such? You'll be much happier for it.
* Well, technically you don't, but I don't want to go off on a tangent about suicide.
-
Would you not similarly go insane never being able to die? Having to be conscious for all eternity would become painfully boring after a few hundred/thousand years. Unless you assume heaven will be this endless Disneyland crafted specifically for your deepest desires...which is a really naive way to think, because the Bible speaks very little of what heaven will offer.
Remember in my previous post I wasn't speaking from a religious point of view in any way at all and I will try to continue that with my reply. Regarding boredom though, I am the sort of person who is never bored. Everything fascinates me but not in the way as a simpleton is fascinated (least I hope not anyways).
How does wishful thinking solve anything, though? You know what would be better...fill your life with rich experiences so you don't regret what you did with the time you were given when you're old and about to die. That's what I aim to do.
You are correct that ultimately, none of what it going on right now matters. However...the limited time you get to be alive can be quite wonderful; you can create your own "purposes" and goals...and yes, while it will be all for naught in another 100 years, it matters NOW. Enjoy the ride and try not to worry that the sun will one day engulf the earth...because there's nothing you can do to change this.
It isn't about wishful thinking. I don't delude myself and imagine a "what I want" type scenario. I accept and approach it as if it is a bargain where the only thing I can control is my end of it. There are a lot of experiences I might like to indulge in, unfortunately they are mostly illegal though, but that isn't why I don't do them.
If one took the position to "enjoy the ride and try not to worry" then why wouldn't one carry that a little bit further and simply take from this earth every single thing you wanted with no care or regard for anyone or anything. I have mentioned this in another topic but bring it up again as that is what I would be if I didn't believe in the afterlife. I know that is how a sociopath would think but if one knew absolutely as true the claims you put forth then the only way to live is as a sociopath. Any other choice and you are impeding your experience or you would allow yourself to be a slave to emotion instead of an owner of emotion.
I don't see how fooling yourself makes things any better. You still have to finish out this life either way*, and living like you won't get to your "real" life until after you die is not advisable. This is your one and only guaranteed life, right now. Why not treat it as such? You'll be much happier for it.
It isn't about fooling oneself, but I understand where you are coming from with that. This is the accepted gamble (again in a non religious point of view or I would apply the word faith). I generally am a happy individual and one of the sorts that even has a strange fascination with the worst of days one experiences. I feel 'life' constantly, but especially during the challenging times. I can't really quite explain it in a way that anyone who doesn't understand where I am coming from would understand.
I must say you do ask the right questions and quite a few of them are questions I myself have asked before but there are also some new ones in there (to me) as well. I suppose this falls back to the point of view that I am one of those people who is better off in believing (for myself and for those around me). You mentioned that before regarding some people and I would say that by your imaginations I most definitely qualify. I think we would at least agree on that, assuming all we have stated is truth.
-
I'm beginning to see a pattern of what some nonbelievers think about Christians. Queenofnines, it does appear more and more that you are boxing ALL Christians into one box only without regards to morals, personalities, thoughts, claims, beliefs, etc. Not every Christian reacts the same to certain ways of others. There are some who forbid their children to read Harry Potter, this is true. There are just as many, if not more, that do allow them to read Harry Potter. Harry Potter can be symbolized by some as good vs. evil, just as in real life. That, in itself, can be a great family discussion.
Just because someone calls themselves a Christian, doesn't mean they go out and THROW it up in people's faces, or go to funerals and do those protests lead by some weird and crazy "preachers" or "leaders." They are taking judgment in their own hands and that is not what we as Christians are supposed to do. Ultimately, God is our judge. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay," says the Lord. It's people like those weirdos who totally make the genuine Christians look crazy and stupid and pushy, etc.
I don't push my God on anyone. If someone asks, I'm glad to share. If I feel led and it's a right time, then I'll go from there. You can have conversations with people and never know if they are a Christian or not. It won't take long, however, for one or the other, or both, to eventually sense or know where each other stands spiritually/not spiritually. I'm just saying to please not box Christians in one box - that is judgmental and not looking at individuals for who they are and what they represent.
Great post! This is a lot of what I have been trying to say but you put it in a much more effective way!!
Thank you. I still can't seem to say what I'm really wanting to, but the main thing here is that all Christians and sects are not the same and shouldn't be stereotyped, so to speak. It's great to "see" you again. I hope school is going well for you! :)
-
No, when you die you die. Everything else on Earth just dies, so why should people be any different. :notworthy:
-
If one took the position to "enjoy the ride and try not to worry" then why wouldn't one carry that a little bit further and simply take from this earth every single thing you wanted with no care or regard for anyone or anything. I have mentioned this in another topic but bring it up again as that is what I would be if I didn't believe in the afterlife. I know that is how a sociopath would think but if one knew absolutely as true the claims you put forth then the only way to live is as a sociopath. Any other choice and you are impeding your experience or you would allow yourself to be a slave to emotion instead of an owner of emotion.
I didn't say there were no limits. Obviously you can't do EVERYTHING that comes to your mind...because like I said before, if there weren't basic guidelines in place, society would be in chaos. But that's just one reason not to be completely selfish...I, for one, don't have natural desires to go around "taking every single thing I want with no care or regard for anyone or anything". And I don't think most people do either, fortunately. Call it the Golden Rule or whatever, but I also think it runs much deeper than that why it's important not to screw people over.
There's a lot more of a balance to a finite existence (not believing in an afterlife) than you think. There's a middle ground between being a sociopath like you claim is inevitable, and being a complete sheep to the status quo du jour. What I mean is, you can be more free in the middle ground to make your own choices than you would be following the cookie cutter guidelines of an average person's life (so long as you don't hurt anyone). You're not burned by "shoulds" and b.s. expectations as much in the middle ground. In other words, you can make a life for yourself that's far different than the usual: graduate college, get a respectable career, get a nice car, get a nice house, watch TV in the little free time you have, get married, have kids, go on vacation to the same tired beach year after year, retire, blah blah...
-
I didn't say there were no limits. Obviously you can't do EVERYTHING that comes to your mind...because like I said before, if there weren't basic guidelines in place, society would be in chaos. But that's just one reason not to be completely selfish...I, for one, don't have natural desires to go around "taking every single thing I want with no care or regard for anyone or anything". And I don't think most people do either, fortunately. Call it the Golden Rule or whatever, but I also think it runs much deeper than that why it's important not to screw people over.
I didn't mean to imply that you meant there were no limits. That is just the way I would be if I believed the position you put forth. For me to be any less just wouldn't make sense. That could come from a gender point of view or even a cultural trait. I know in many places in the past and even now it is quite acceptable to bash someones skull in and allow your family to participate and call the act 'good' in the eyes of those committing the act. I actually believe the 'golden rule' tendencies are entirely the result of religious influence and not native to the species at all. Having freedom from religious devotion should surely be a stepping stone to a freedom from societal obligations as well. Remember, from the position you put to me, that this is my life and the only life I will have, why would I intentionally worsen my life for these husks around me that don't really exist (If I were to end them they would no longer exist and thus their existence depends entirely upon me).
Let us assume though that the societal structure is so strong as to enforce compliance from me. Given a choice, I would chose anything over being a slave to society and forced to comply to the will and whims and imaginations and ridiculous and confining rules of a collective. The failings of all democracies lies in them ultimately turning into an oligarchy, with a few ruling the many and being well aware of that I would not be such a subject.
Again I am not saying that all that don't believe in an afterlife would be sociopaths. I am simply saying that being a sociopath is the optimum way to live such a life with everything else being self deception and conformance to some sort of illusion that is undeniably meaningless and only as real as the fragments of a dream fading from memory.
-
i do believe in an afterlife, not sure what it looks like, but i believe we come back to finish what the big guy (or gal) has put us on earth to accomplish ...
-
When have you ever showed proof that God is not real?
Which one? Yours? I can't disprove the existence of any god in the same respect I can't disprove the invisible green fire-breathing dragon in my neighbors basement. I can't disprove irrational beliefs. When you allow for the impossible in an argument, you can literally get away with anything. Disproving any god when talking on realistic terms is quite easy and I've done so plenty of times in the past.
And if a Christian posts a thread about Christianity, they probably want to discuss their religion. If you disagree with it, why not just go on to the next thread and leave them be? You want Christians to leave everyone else to their beliefs, but when you are faced with the choice to pass by a thread where Christians are gathered you always choose to jump in and tell them how wrong they are.
1.) This is debate and discuss. I'm here to debate and discuss.
2.) There's always biased or misinformed ideas presented in these threads and I'm just here to explain either the other side or show what's wrong with their argument. It's fair game here and, with all due respect, I think you're taking it a bit too personally.
Also, if someone posts a thread about their beliefs why is that considered "throwing it in people's face?" This doesn't make sense to me considering when you see that the title of a thread is about Christianity all you have to do is not click it...
Because many of these threads are "I believe this and if you dont, you'll burn for eternity! Sorry!". The religious need to understand that that's not a proper way to introduce the topic of their beliefs and that's a major point we argue for.
I am not at all taking it too personally, just telling you that it makes no sense to say that Christians are throwing their religion in your face in this forum when you are the one clicking the thread. I am not saying you do not have the right to debate and discuss, but you do not have the right to accuse Christians of throwing their religion in your face when you voluntarily clicked a Christian thread. Also, there is rarely threads titles with extreme titles like the one you referred too, if at all. And usually when there are titles like that they are from marielisa or however you spell it, which hardly counts as a Christian throwing their religion in your face, as sometimes she claims to be a million other religions. Overall, Christians usually post on this thread to talk about their religion, and it ALWAYS turns into a "debate". Lately though it can not really be called a debate because it is just a small group of atheists insulting the intelligence of Christians.
-
I'm beginning to see a pattern of what some nonbelievers think about Christians. Queenofnines, it does appear more and more that you are boxing ALL Christians into one box only without regards to morals, personalities, thoughts, claims, beliefs, etc. Not every Christian reacts the same to certain ways of others. There are some who forbid their children to read Harry Potter, this is true. There are just as many, if not more, that do allow them to read Harry Potter. Harry Potter can be symbolized by some as good vs. evil, just as in real life. That, in itself, can be a great family discussion.
Just because someone calls themselves a Christian, doesn't mean they go out and THROW it up in people's faces, or go to funerals and do those protests lead by some weird and crazy "preachers" or "leaders." They are taking judgment in their own hands and that is not what we as Christians are supposed to do. Ultimately, God is our judge. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay," says the Lord. It's people like those weirdos who totally make the genuine Christians look crazy and stupid and pushy, etc.
I don't push my God on anyone. If someone asks, I'm glad to share. If I feel led and it's a right time, then I'll go from there. You can have conversations with people and never know if they are a Christian or not. It won't take long, however, for one or the other, or both, to eventually sense or know where each other stands spiritually/not spiritually. I'm just saying to please not box Christians in one box - that is judgmental and not looking at individuals for who they are and what they represent.
Great post! This is a lot of what I have been trying to say but you put it in a much more effective way!!
Thank you. I still can't seem to say what I'm really wanting to, but the main thing here is that all Christians and sects are not the same and shouldn't be stereotyped, so to speak. It's great to "see" you again. I hope school is going well for you! :)
I definitely agree with that! No one can group all Christians into one category!! And thanks so much, school is going great, keeping me very busy!
-
am not saying you do not have the right to debate and discuss, but you do not have the right to accuse Christians of throwing their religion in your face when you voluntarily clicked a Christian thread.
Yes I do. Because we're not just talking about on this forum. Christianity is over-bloated in this country to the point where it's infecting politics still. Besides, I can't go 3 blocks w/o seeing a church with a sign out front saying "God is with our troops!" or "Come here and be saved!", having people come to my door on a saturday or sunday morning to talk about god, advertisements on billboards or ads on utube for churches, etc. etc. I know that not all christians/churches do this though, so my attack is just on those specific ones (which you must admit is a lot of them).
And usually when there are titles like that they are from marielisa or however you spell it, which hardly counts as a Christian throwing their religion in your face, as sometimes she claims to be a million other religions.
Well fortunately she's kinda died out on this part of the forums, but the threads do keep popping up a lot. I don't mind discussing religion as a whole or out-of-the-box, but there are a lot of assertion threads that advertise/implore superstitious ideas. The freethinking group usually jumps in at this point and...you know the rest.
Lately though it can not really be called a debate because it is just a small group of atheists insulting the intelligence of Christians.
Well I do hope I'm not being too rude, but if the intelligent christians can't answer the questions and instead try to work around them and call the askers insulting, they really shouldn't be in d+d.
-
Well I do hope I'm not being too rude, but if the intelligent christians can't answer the questions and instead try to work around them and call the askers insulting, they really shouldn't be in d+d.
In the interests of being even-handed, I really should be requesting some substantiating proof for the presumptive claim of intelligent christians however, there must be some statistical basis for the existance of at least some some critters, right?
-
Quote from SurveyMack:
Lately though it can not really be called a debate because it is just a small group of atheists insulting the intelligence of Christians.
Quote from Falconer:
Well I do hope I'm not being too rude, but if the intelligent christians can't answer the questions and instead try to work around them and call the askers insulting, they really shouldn't be in d+d.
Actually, yes that is very rude. Christians have answered questions - you refuse to accept most answers. Most of us do not call the askers insulting either. Anyone can come in and debate/discuss. However, you are making it sound as if you are the absolute smart one who knows all of the answers and no one else need debate.
-
Quote from queenofnines:
Being forgotten is not what saddens me in the slightest...what saddens me is that currently, we all only get 70 to 80 years on average of we're lucky, and I would like to live a few hundred years beyond the usual life expectancy, because I like life. It would be entirely possible for humanity to achieve this IF people could stop wasting their potential away on religious efforts...and this is what makes me sad most of all.
How does this make you sad? If these people are happy with their life working with religious efforts, then that shouldn't even bother you in the least. You are enjoying your life your way, so let them enjoy life their way.
-
Quote from SurveyMack:
Lately though it can not really be called a debate because it is just a small group of atheists insulting the intelligence of Christians.
Quote from Falconer:
Well I do hope I'm not being too rude, but if the intelligent christians can't answer the questions and instead try to work around them and call the askers insulting, they really shouldn't be in d+d.
Actually, yes that is very rude. Christians have answered questions - you refuse to accept most answers. Most of us do not call the askers insulting either. Anyone can come in and debate/discuss. However, you are making it sound as if you are the absolute smart one who knows all of the answers and no one else need debate.
I haven't seen a substantive response to the questions asked yet. Instead, I've seen prevarications and side-stepping in lieu of answering without circular 'reasoning' or, claiming dubious "evidence" as substantiation. Although those debate tactics may seem a bit rude to some, "rude" is in the mind of the beholder. For instance, my view might be that some dancing around the questions could be considered to be quite rude. Should I determine that to be the case, I'll be sure to strongly substantiate such a contention.
-
How does this make you sad? If these people are happy with their life working with religious efforts, then that shouldn't even bother you in the least. You are enjoying your life your way, so let them enjoy life their way.
Really? I'm dumbfounded that you would ask such a question.
You could stay home and knit for 8 hours a day...and you're correct, that's not so much of a problem if you keep it to yourself. It's when you go out and try to enforce your knitting into politics, actively hurt and hold society back...then we have a problem. It isn't just a matter of "to each his own"...religion doesn't mind its own business, that's the issue.
-
How does this make you sad? If these people are happy with their life working with religious efforts, then that shouldn't even bother you in the least. You are enjoying your life your way, so let them enjoy life their way.
Really? I'm dumbfounded that you would ask such a question.
You could stay home and knit for 8 hours a day...and you're correct, that's not so much of a problem if you keep it to yourself. It's when you go out and try to enforce your knitting into politics, actively hurt and hold society back...then we have a problem. It isn't just a matter of "to each his own"...religion doesn't mind its own business, that's the issue.
That's a good analogy, QoN. Although I may have taken further and suggested that stridently insisting that others knit like your knitter does and then asserting that their god-of-knitting will commit others to an eternity of hand-stitching with dull needles if they don't knit as they do might push the analogy too far. :angel12:
-
Quote from queenofnines:
Being forgotten is not what saddens me in the slightest...what saddens me is that currently, we all only get 70 to 80 years on average of we're lucky, and I would like to live a few hundred years beyond the usual life expectancy, because I like life. It would be entirely possible for humanity to achieve this IF people could stop wasting their potential away on religious efforts...and this is what makes me sad most of all.
How does this make you sad? If these people are happy with their life working with religious efforts, then that shouldn't even bother you in the least. You are enjoying your life your way, so let them enjoy life their way.
I belive in Heaven. It's still scary to think of dying. I would like to live beyond my years just to see what the future holds. At the same time I kind of look forward to the end of my life. It's when I'll finally when I'll be able to me my son. He died 30 minutes after being born.
-
I do believe the afterlife, I like to think that there is something better than this life. I am not in a hurry to find out.
-
I believe in heaven and in hell and that God gives us the choice and I'm going to heaven!!
-
I sure do. A friend of mine died and paid me a visit before taking off on his jouney. He was young again and excited about his new adventures he was about to have. It gives me hope.
-
haven't seen a substantive response to the questions asked yet. Instead, I've seen prevarications and side-stepping in lieu of answering without circular 'reasoning' or, claiming dubious "evidence" as substantiation. Although those debate tactics may seem a bit rude to some, "rude" is in the mind of the beholder. For instance, my view might be that some dancing around the questions could be considered to be quite rude. Should I determine that to be the case, I'll be sure to strongly substantiate such a contention.
Well said, good sir. I would consider it simply an annoyance paralleled to that of a child.
-
am not saying you do not have the right to debate and discuss, but you do not have the right to accuse Christians of throwing their religion in your face when you voluntarily clicked a Christian thread.
Yes I do. Because we're not just talking about on this forum. Christianity is over-bloated in this country to the point where it's infecting politics still. Besides, I can't go 3 blocks w/o seeing a church with a sign out front saying "God is with our troops!" or "Come here and be saved!", having people come to my door on a saturday or sunday morning to talk about god, advertisements on billboards or ads on utube for churches, etc. etc. I know that not all christians/churches do this though, so my attack is just on those specific ones (which you must admit is a lot of them).
And usually when there are titles like that they are from marielisa or however you spell it, which hardly counts as a Christian throwing their religion in your face, as sometimes she claims to be a million other religions.
Well fortunately she's kinda died out on this part of the forums, but the threads do keep popping up a lot. I don't mind discussing religion as a whole or out-of-the-box, but there are a lot of assertion threads that advertise/implore superstitious ideas. The freethinking group usually jumps in at this point and...you know the rest.
Lately though it can not really be called a debate because it is just a small group of atheists insulting the intelligence of Christians.
Well I do hope I'm not being too rude, but if the intelligent christians can't answer the questions and instead try to work around them and call the askers insulting, they really shouldn't be in d+d.
Well, to say Christians are not intelligent enough to answer the questions is a joke- because I have many times seen questions answered by Christians with eloquence and evidence and STILL had the response of "oh ya what a fairytale" or some other sort of put-down. Also, seeing a church on a corner does not constitute Christians throwing religion in your face- because you can easily KEEP WALKING and not enter the church. No one is forcing you to even acknowledge the church or why it is there. That is like saying that you can't quit gaining weight because everywhere you go you spot a McDonald's...
Also, if a Christian does come to your door and you say no thank you and they still pressure you- then yes that is a mistake. However, if they knock on the door and offer to talk about God and you say no thank you and they politely leave I do not see how that is throwing it in your face. That is like taking offense to anyone in the world who tries to spread the word about something you do not agree with, even if they are not overbearing in their tactics.
Also, Christianity is a religion based on love, so it is not as if these people are going around trying to spread violence and rounding people up to hurt others or anything like that, and if they are then they are not practicing Christianity in the way it is meant to be practiced.
-
Quote from queenofnines:
Being forgotten is not what saddens me in the slightest...what saddens me is that currently, we all only get 70 to 80 years on average of we're lucky, and I would like to live a few hundred years beyond the usual life expectancy, because I like life. It would be entirely possible for humanity to achieve this IF people could stop wasting their potential away on religious efforts...and this is what makes me sad most of all.
How does this make you sad? If these people are happy with their life working with religious efforts, then that shouldn't even bother you in the least. You are enjoying your life your way, so let them enjoy life their way.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
How does this make you sad? If these people are happy with their life working with religious efforts, then that shouldn't even bother you in the least. You are enjoying your life your way, so let them enjoy life their way.
Really? I'm dumbfounded that you would ask such a question.
You could stay home and knit for 8 hours a day...and you're correct, that's not so much of a problem if you keep it to yourself. It's when you go out and try to enforce your knitting into politics, actively hurt and hold society back...then we have a problem. It isn't just a matter of "to each his own"...religion doesn't mind its own business, that's the issue.
If you can claim that ALL Christians try to throw their religion in people's faces and enforce only their own beliefs, then even if I only use my experience on this forum as an example I can make the stereotype that all atheists try to tell every religious person that they encounter that they are irrational people who sit around and put all their faith in fairytales all while insulting their intelligence. That is not a fair description of all atheists, just as your description does not depict all Christians.
-
Well, to say Christians are not intelligent enough to answer the questions is a joke- because I have many times seen questions answered by Christians with eloquence and evidence and STILL had the response of "oh ya what a fairytale" or some other sort of put-down. Also, seeing a church on a corner does not constitute Christians throwing religion in your face- because you can easily KEEP WALKING and not enter the church. No one is forcing you to even acknowledge the church or why it is there. That is like saying that you can't quit gaining weight because everywhere you go you spot a McDonald's...
Eloquence? Definitely. Evidence? Never seen any that could escape the bounds of the Creationist museum. But that's an argument and a half though and I doubt either of us want to go there.
But it's annoying to see a Mcdonald's on every corner as well-- that people are promoting such unhealthy food to make society into a bunch of fatties! lol
Also, if a Christian does come to your door and you say no thank you and they still pressure you- then yes that is a mistake. However, if they knock on the door and offer to talk about God and you say no thank you and they politely leave I do not see how that is throwing it in your face. That is like taking offense to anyone in the world who tries to spread the word about something you do not agree with, even if they are not overbearing in their tactics.
I completely agree. Though I must say I have run into many who attempt to guilt-trip, won't let me say something, or ring the doorbell at 8 AM on a sat/sun. I just find it odd that people think they can just rub their beliefs in so shamelessly and for no decent/rational reason. It isn't about discussion with many of these people, it's practically a scam-art business proposal.
Also, Christianity is a religion based on love, so it is not as if these people are going around trying to spread violence and rounding people up to hurt others or anything like that, and if they are then they are not practicing Christianity in the way it is meant to be practiced.
Wellllll....I could open a long history lesson, but I'm just going to nod here since you seem to be answering 500 posts directed at ya.
Actually, yes that is very rude. Christians have answered questions - you refuse to accept most answers. Most of us do not call the askers insulting either. Anyone can come in and debate/discuss. However, you are making it sound as if you are the absolute smart one who knows all of the answers and no one else need debate.
When the answer is clear or has a rational explanation but there are those who refuse to accept the reality of it and direly implore superstitious beliefs, you bet I'm going to be that way if delusional thinking is fogging up the thread. For instance if one says a lens reflection was one of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse, I (or anyone with any ability to reason within themselves) will refuse corrupted nonsensical explanations.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on September 09, 2011, 11:26:14 pm
Actually, yes that is very rude. Christians have answered questions - you refuse to accept most answers. Most of us do not call the askers insulting either. Anyone can come in and debate/discuss. However, you are making it sound as if you are the absolute smart one who knows all of the answers and no one else need debate.
Quote from Falconer:
When the answer is clear or has a rational explanation but there are those who refuse to accept the reality of it and direly implore superstitious beliefs, you bet I'm going to be that way if delusional thinking is fogging up the thread. For instance if one says a lens reflection was one of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse, I (or anyone with any ability to reason within themselves) will refuse corrupted nonsensical explanations.
I agree with what you are saying here. However, most of the "rational" answers that are given are still not accepted because they can't be 100% nailed down factual to your specifications. You refuse to look at "faith" or "free will" because it muddies the waters, so to speak.
-
How does this make you sad? If these people are happy with their life working with religious efforts, then that shouldn't even bother you in the least. You are enjoying your life your way, so let them enjoy life their way.
Really? I'm dumbfounded that you would ask such a question.
You could stay home and knit for 8 hours a day...and you're correct, that's not so much of a problem if you keep it to yourself. It's when you go out and try to enforce your knitting into politics, actively hurt and hold society back...then we have a problem. It isn't just a matter of "to each his own"...religion doesn't mind its own business, that's the issue.
I can't believe you are dumbfounded by that question. You've got the right to live your life how you see fit with or without religion. So does everyone else. Most Christians do not "hold society back" and try to "enforce" their religion on others. Some do and I agree they go too far. Those who make spectacles of themselves and Christians, as a whole, make me wonder who it is they actually believe in. Like I said previously, Christians cannot all be confined to one box.
And back to the other point - to some Christians, it seems as if athiests "hold society back" and try to "enforce" no religion or God, for that matter. But most mature people know that all athiests are not confined to one box either and there is always one rotten apple in the bunch that makes all athiests look bad.
-
I agree with what you are saying here. However, most of the "rational" answers that are given are still not accepted because they can't be 100% nailed down factual to your specifications. You refuse to look at "faith" or "free will" because it muddies the waters, so to speak.
Well they are furthest from rational explanations though because they're always full of massive and obvious holes. Faith is a belief in something that cannot be seen or tested, so it cannot constitute as any real argument for something. And...yeah, there is really no way around the free will vs biblegod argument w/o slamming into Calvinism hard. All you or I have seen are explanations that hover straight over the problem or just the use of the 'god is mysterious and can do whatever he wants' card.
-
, just as I suspect
Well, to say Christians are not intelligent enough to answer the questions is a joke- because I have many times seen questions answered by Christians with eloquence and evidence and STILL had the response of "oh ya what a fairytale" or some other sort of put-down. Also, seeing a church on a corner does not constitute Christians throwing religion in your face- because you can easily KEEP WALKING and not enter the church. No one is forcing you to even acknowledge the church or why it is there. That is like saying that you can't quit gaining weight because everywhere you go you spot a McDonald's...
Eloquence? Definitely. Evidence? Never seen any that could escape the bounds of the Creationist museum. But that's an argument and a half though and I doubt either of us want to go there.
But it's annoying to see a Mcdonald's on every corner as well-- that people are promoting such unhealthy food to make society into a bunch of fatties! lol
Also, if a Christian does come to your door and you say no thank you and they still pressure you- then yes that is a mistake. However, if they knock on the door and offer to talk about God and you say no thank you and they politely leave I do not see how that is throwing it in your face. That is like taking offense to anyone in the world who tries to spread the word about something you do not agree with, even if they are not overbearing in their tactics.
I completely agree. Though I must say I have run into many who attempt to guilt-trip, won't let me say something, or ring the doorbell at 8 AM on a sat/sun. I just find it odd that people think they can just rub their beliefs in so shamelessly and for no decent/rational reason. It isn't about discussion with many of these people, it's practically a scam-art business proposal.
Also, Christianity is a religion based on love, so it is not as if these people are going around trying to spread violence and rounding people up to hurt others or anything like that, and if they are then they are not practicing Christianity in the way it is meant to be practiced.
Wellllll....I could open a long history lesson, but I'm just going to nod here since you seem to be answering 500 posts directed at ya.
Actually, yes that is very rude. Christians have answered questions - you refuse to accept most answers. Most of us do not call the askers insulting either. Anyone can come in and debate/discuss. However, you are making it sound as if you are the absolute smart one who knows all of the answers and no one else need debate.
When the answer is clear or has a rational explanation but there are those who refuse to accept the reality of it and direly implore superstitious beliefs, you bet I'm going to be that way if delusional thinking is fogging up the thread. For instance if one says a lens reflection was one of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse, I (or anyone with any ability to reason within themselves) will refuse corrupted nonsensical explanations.
Well McDonald's doesn't make people fat-- people pull into that parking lot and order that food on their own. Just as someone enters or does not enter a church on their own...just because they are there doesn't mean they are forcing something on you. And if Christians came to your door and tried giving you a guilt-trip, then yes they did not go about sharing God's word in the right way, because that can be seen as thinking they are better than you- but not all Christians are that way at all, just as i suspect not all atheists put people down and call them unintelligent like many on this forum.
-
How does this make you sad? If these people are happy with their life working with religious efforts, then that shouldn't even bother you in the least. You are enjoying your life your way, so let them enjoy life their way.
Really? I'm dumbfounded that you would ask such a question.
You could stay home and knit for 8 hours a day...and you're correct, that's not so much of a problem if you keep it to yourself. It's when you go out and try to enforce your knitting into politics, actively hurt and hold society back...then we have a problem. It isn't just a matter of "to each his own"...religion doesn't mind its own business, that's the issue.
I can't believe you are dumbfounded by that question. You've got the right to live your life how you see fit with or without religion. So does everyone else. Most Christians do not "hold society back" and try to "enforce" their religion on others. Some do and I agree they go too far. Those who make spectacles of themselves and Christians, as a whole, make me wonder who it is they actually believe in. Like I said previously, Christians cannot all be confined to one box.
And back to the other point - to some Christians, it seems as if athiests "hold society back" and try to "enforce" no religion or God, for that matter. But most mature people know that all athiests are not confined to one box either and there is always one rotten apple in the bunch that makes all athiests look bad.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
, just as I suspectWell, to say Christians are not intelligent enough to answer the questions is a joke- because I have many times seen questions answered by Christians with eloquence and evidence and STILL had the response of "oh ya what a fairytale" or some other sort of put-down. Also, seeing a church on a corner does not constitute Christians throwing religion in your face- because you can easily KEEP WALKING and not enter the church. No one is forcing you to even acknowledge the church or why it is there. That is like saying that you can't quit gaining weight because everywhere you go you spot a McDonald's...
Eloquence? Definitely. Evidence? Never seen any that could escape the bounds of the Creationist museum. But that's an argument and a half though and I doubt either of us want to go there.
But it's annoying to see a Mcdonald's on every corner as well-- that people are promoting such unhealthy food to make society into a bunch of fatties! lol
Also, if a Christian does come to your door and you say no thank you and they still pressure you- then yes that is a mistake. However, if they knock on the door and offer to talk about God and you say no thank you and they politely leave I do not see how that is throwing it in your face. That is like taking offense to anyone in the world who tries to spread the word about something you do not agree with, even if they are not overbearing in their tactics.
I completely agree. Though I must say I have run into many who attempt to guilt-trip, won't let me say something, or ring the doorbell at 8 AM on a sat/sun. I just find it odd that people think they can just rub their beliefs in so shamelessly and for no decent/rational reason. It isn't about discussion with many of these people, it's practically a scam-art business proposal.
Also, Christianity is a religion based on love, so it is not as if these people are going around trying to spread violence and rounding people up to hurt others or anything like that, and if they are then they are not practicing Christianity in the way it is meant to be practiced.
Wellllll....I could open a long history lesson, but I'm just going to nod here since you seem to be answering 500 posts directed at ya.
Actually, yes that is very rude. Christians have answered questions - you refuse to accept most answers. Most of us do not call the askers insulting either. Anyone can come in and debate/discuss. However, you are making it sound as if you are the absolute smart one who knows all of the answers and no one else need debate.
When the answer is clear or has a rational explanation but there are those who refuse to accept the reality of it and direly implore superstitious beliefs, you bet I'm going to be that way if delusional thinking is fogging up the thread. For instance if one says a lens reflection was one of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse, I (or anyone with any ability to reason within themselves) will refuse corrupted nonsensical explanations.
Well McDonald's doesn't make people fat-- people pull into that parking lot and order that food on their own. Just as someone enters or does not enter a church on their own...just because they are there doesn't mean they are forcing something on you. And if Christians came to your door and tried giving you a guilt-trip, then yes they did not go about sharing God's word in the right way, because that can be seen as thinking they are better than you- but not all Christians are that way at all, just as i suspect not all atheists put people down and call them unintelligent like many on this forum.
I can see we are on the same wave length here! :thumbsup:
-
Well McDonald's doesn't make people fat-- people pull into that parking lot and order that food on their own. Just as someone enters or does not enter a church on their own...just because they are there doesn't mean they are forcing something on you. And if Christians came to your door and tried giving you a guilt-trip, then yes they did not go about sharing God's word in the right way, because that can be seen as thinking they are better than you- but not all Christians are that way at all, just as i suspect not all atheists put people down and call them unintelligent like many on this forum.
Well there are many differences within the example- for instance food is needed to survive and popular religion is not. Promoting fast food on the radio, tv, ads, etc. (religion does all of these too) is, imo, a technical coercion and it definitely aids in getting people to go even when it is unhealthy for society to eat it. It's annoying to people who don't eat Mcdonalds and it's unnecessary and arguably inefficient to go out of our way to avoid it. We could go on and spiral the example, but I do get what you originally meant. Anyway, yeah I'm totally aware that not all christians are like that, but many of them are and I find it odd that other religions/spiritual people are usually quiet and humble about professing whereas this one has this country by the *bleep*.
To your second claim I say it's not like the freethinkers on this forum are going out of there way to type "You're stupid! lol dummy!" (unless the religious are promoting the end of the world, racism, politicians, fearmongering, superstitious lies, etc. and then personally attacking the counter-argumenters like they have many times in the past). We usually call the persons argument unintelligent, delusional, or irrational because, by definition, that's what they are. I understand it does sound mean, but sometimes it's the only way to show the man behind the curtain.
-
Well McDonald's doesn't make people fat-- people pull into that parking lot and order that food on their own. Just as someone enters or does not enter a church on their own...just because they are there doesn't mean they are forcing something on you. And if Christians came to your door and tried giving you a guilt-trip, then yes they did not go about sharing God's word in the right way, because that can be seen as thinking they are better than you- but not all Christians are that way at all, just as i suspect not all atheists put people down and call them unintelligent like many on this forum.
Well there are many differences within the example- for instance food is needed to survive and popular religion is not. Promoting fast food on the radio, tv, ads, etc. (religion does all of these too) is, imo, a technical coercion and it definitely aids in getting people to go even when it is unhealthy for society to eat it. It's annoying to people who don't eat Mcdonalds and it's unnecessary and arguably inefficient to go out of our way to avoid it. We could go on and spiral the example, but I do get what you originally meant. Anyway, yeah I'm totally aware that not all christians are like that, but many of them are and I find it odd that other religions/spiritual people are usually quiet and humble about professing whereas this one has this country by the *bleep*.
To your second claim I say it's not like the freethinkers on this forum are going out of there way to type "You're stupid! lol dummy!" (unless the religious are promoting the end of the world, racism, politicians, fearmongering, superstitious lies, etc. and then personally attacking the counter-argumenters like they have many times in the past). We usually call the persons argument unintelligent, delusional, or irrational because, by definition, that's what they are. I understand it does sound mean, but sometimes it's the only way to show the man behind the curtain.
Christians on this forum are NOT "unintelligent, delusional, or irrational by definition" and if you look back through these posts often, but not always, atheists do call them dumb whe it is totally uncalled for
Again, it is kind of sad that simply seeing a McDonald's bothers you just because you do not eat it- if someone chooses to be unhealthy it does not affect you in any way. Also, not everyone who eats at at McDonalds is unhealthy.
-
if someone chooses to be unhealthy it does not affect you in any way. Also, not everyone who eats at at McDonalds is unhealthy.
Seriously? 'Now, the reason obese people are a burden to society, and the medical industry in paticular, is that they are more susceptible to heart attacks, cancer, and diabetes than people who are not overweight. Over sixty-eight BILLION dollars a year are spent on doctor's fees and missed time at work. They are the third largest segment of the population impacting the total cost of health care.'
-
Christians on this forum are NOT "unintelligent, delusional, or irrational by definition" and if you look back through these posts often, but not always, atheists do call them dumb whe it is totally uncalled for
Like I stated before, not all of them display these traits. But many of them have. We've had such posters arguing that faith healing cures AIDS, constant end-of-the-world promoters, one saying hell is physical and lies at the center of the earth, fearmongering jerks that bash other beliefs and say 'they're taking over slowly!'. Heck, one person told me I was going to hell because I caught him in a philosophical conundrum. Another said I was posessed by a demon because I was being skeptical of her claim. If you don't think these examples fit within the "unintelligent, delusional, or irrational" group, then...umm....I really don't know what to say except 'just another day in D+D'.
if someone chooses to be unhealthy it does not affect you in any way. Also, not everyone who eats at at McDonalds is unhealthy.
Seriously? 'Now, the reason obese people are a burden to society, and the medical industry in paticular, is that they are more susceptible to heart attacks, cancer, and diabetes than people who are not overweight. Over sixty-eight BILLION dollars a year are spent on doctor's fees and missed time at work. They are the third largest segment of the population impacting the total cost of health care.'
This is why I didn't want to get too far into the example since it will get too technical, but good point nonetheless. All religions are just like fast food places-- they say they've got the best burgers, tacos, etc. and they're usually not afraid to get in your face to say they're the one and only. It can taste good, but in the end it's all junk food and it's really not healthy for society when you eat too much of it.
-
Christians on this forum are NOT "unintelligent, delusional, or irrational by definition" and if you look back through these posts often, but not always, atheists do call them dumb whe it is totally uncalled for
Like I stated before, not all of them display these traits. But many of them have. We've had such posters arguing that faith healing cures AIDS, constant end-of-the-world promoters, one saying hell is physical and lies at the center of the earth, fearmongering jerks that bash other beliefs and say 'they're taking over slowly!'. Heck, one person told me I was going to hell because I caught him in a philosophical conundrum. Another said I was posessed by a demon because I was being skeptical of her claim. If you don't think these examples fit within the "unintelligent, delusional, or irrational" group, then...umm....I really don't know what to say except 'just another day in D+D'.
The following parable was not written by me however, it exemplifies an apropo parallel in this context {edited PG version}:
"Kissing Hank's Butt*;
A parable by Rev. Jim Huber:
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I
found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first, saying
"Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
MARY: Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's butt* with us.
ME: Pardon me? What are you talking about? Who is Hank, and why would I
want to kiss his butt*?
JOHN: If you kiss Hank's butt*, he will give you a million dollars; and if
you don't, he will kick the crap** out of you.
ME: What is this, some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?
JOHN: Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank
owns this town. He can do what ever he wants and what he wants is to give
you a million dollars, but he can't until you kiss his butt*.
ME: That doesn't make any sense. Why would ...
MARY: Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million
dollars? Isn t it worth a little kiss on the butt*?
ME: Well I don't know, even if this is legit and all, but...
JOHN: Then come kiss Hank's butt* with us.
ME: Tell me, do you kiss Hank's butt* often?
MARY: Oh yes, all the time...
ME: And has he given you a million dollars?
JOHN: Well no, you don't actually get the money until you leave town.
ME: So why don't you just leave town now?
MARY: You can't leave until Hank tells you to or you don't get the
money and he kicks the crap** out of you.
ME: Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's butt*, left town, and got
the million dollars?
JOHN: My mother kissed Hank's butt* for years. She left town last year
and I'm sure she got the money.
ME: Haven't you talked to her since then?
JOHN: Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it.
ME: So what makes you think he will actually give you the money if
you have never talked to anyone who got the money?
MARY: Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you will
get a raise; maybe you will win a small lotto; maybe you will just find
a twenty dollar bill on the street.
ME: What does that got to do with Hank?
JOHN: Hank has certain ... connections.
ME: I'm sorry but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game.
JOHN: But it IS a million dollars. Can you really take the chance? And
remember, if you DON'T kiss Hank's butt* he will kick the crap** of you.
ME: Maybe if I could see Hank; talk to him and get the details straight
from him...
MARY: No one sees Hank. No one talks to Hank.
ME: Then how do you kiss his butt*?
JOHN: Sometimes we just blow him a kiss and think of his butt*. Other
times we kiss Karl's butt*, and he passes it on.
ME: Who is Karl?
MARY: A friend of ours and a personal friend of Hank's. He's the
one who taught us all about kissing Hank's butt*. All we had to do was
take him out to dinner a few times.
ME: And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank,
that Hank wanted you to kiss his butt* and that Hank would reward you?
JOHN: Oh no! Karl has got a letter Hank sent him years ago explaining
the whole thing. Here is a copy; see for your self.
John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on - From the desk of
Karl - letterhead. There were eleven items listed:
1.) Kiss Hank's butt* and he will give you a million dollars when you
leave town.
2.) Use alcohol in moderation.
3.) Kick the crap** out of people who do not believe as you do.
4.) Eat right.
5.) Hank dictated this list himself.
6.) The moon is made of green cheese.
7.) Everything Hank says is right.
8.) Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9.) Do not drink alcohol.
10.) Eat your hotdogs on buns, no condiments.
11.) Kiss Hank's butt* or he will kick the crap** out of you.
ME: This would appear to be written on Karl's Letterhead.
MARY: Hank did not have any paper. Or, a pen.
ME: I have a hunch that if we checked we would find this is Karl's handwriting.
JOHN: Of course, Hank dictated it to Karl.
ME: I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?
MARY: Not now; but years ago he would talk to some people.
ME: I thought you said Hank was a philanthropist. What sort of
philanthropist kicks the crap** out of people just because they are
different?
MARY: It's what Hank wants and Hank is always right.
ME: How do you figure that?
MARY: Item 7 says - Everything Hanks says is right.- That's good enough
for me!
ME: Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up.
JOHN (gasping) No way! Item 5 says, - Hank dictated this list himself.- Besides,
item 2 says, - Use alcohol in moderation. - Item 4 says, - Eat right.- And
item 8 says, - Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.- Everyone
knows *those* things are right; so the rest must be true, too.
ME: But 9 says, - Do not drink alcohol - which does not quite go with item 2.
And 6 says, - The moon is made of green cheese. - which is just plain wrong.
JOHN: There is no contradiction between 9 and 2. 9 just clarifies 2. As far as
6 goes, you have never been to the moon; so you cannot say for sure.
ME: Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock.
MARY: But they do not know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of
space, so it could just as easily be green cheese.
Me: I am not really an expert but I think the theory that the Moon came
from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing *where* the rock
came from doesn't mean it *could* be green cheese rather than rock.
JOHN: Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know
Hank is always right!
ME: We do?
MARY: Of course we do, Item 5 says so.
ME: So, you're saying that Hank is always right because the list
says so? The list is right because Hank dictated it and we know that Hank
dictated it because the list says that he dictated says so?
JOHN: Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around
to Hank's way of thinking.
ME: But...Oh, never mind. What's the deal with the hotdogs?
Mary blushes.
JOHN: Hotdogs; in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else
is wrong.
ME: What if I don't have a bun?
JOHN: No bun, no weiner. A weiner without a bun is wrong.
ME: No relish? No Mustard?
Mary looks positively stricken.
JOHN shouts, "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any
kind are wrong!"
ME: So a big pile of sauerkraut with some weiners chopped up in it
would be out of the question?
MARY (sticking her fingers in her ears): I am not listening to this!
La la la, la la, la la la.....
JOHN: That is disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that.
ME: But it's good! I eat it lots of times.
Mary faints. John catches her.
JOHN: Well, if I had known you were one of THOSE, I wouldn't have wasted
my time. When Hank kicks the *bleep* out of you, I want to be there.
John drags Mary to their waiting car and speeds off to another house down the way."
{* - euphemism ** - another eumphemism}
-
if someone chooses to be unhealthy it does not affect you in any way. Also, not everyone who eats at at McDonalds is unhealthy.
Seriously? 'Now, the reason obese people are a burden to society, and the medical industry in paticular, is that they are more susceptible to heart attacks, cancer, and diabetes than people who are not overweight. Over sixty-eight BILLION dollars a year are spent on doctor's fees and missed time at work. They are the third largest segment of the population impacting the total cost of health care.'
I am going to continue to have an intelligent conversation with falconer and opt out of the word games you like to play on every forum- ALSO, if someone wants to spend their money on healthcare instead of dieting that is their free will. Your lifestyle choices do not reflect those of everyone else, and as long as you want that to happen you are going to live a very unsatisfactory life. Great thing about America is that we have freedom. Once again, NOT EVERYONE WHO EATS AT MCDONALDS IS UNHEALTHY.
-
Christians on this forum are NOT "unintelligent, delusional, or irrational by definition" and if you look back through these posts often, but not always, atheists do call them dumb whe it is totally uncalled for
Like I stated before, not all of them display these traits. But many of them have. We've had such posters arguing that faith healing cures AIDS, constant end-of-the-world promoters, one saying hell is physical and lies at the center of the earth, fearmongering jerks that bash other beliefs and say 'they're taking over slowly!'. Heck, one person told me I was going to hell because I caught him in a philosophical conundrum. Another said I was posessed by a demon because I was being skeptical of her claim. If you don't think these examples fit within the "unintelligent, delusional, or irrational" group, then...umm....I really don't know what to say except 'just another day in D+D'.
if someone chooses to be unhealthy it does not affect you in any way. Also, not everyone who eats at at McDonalds is unhealthy.
Seriously? 'Now, the reason obese people are a burden to society, and the medical industry in paticular, is that they are more susceptible to heart attacks, cancer, and diabetes than people who are not overweight. Over sixty-eight BILLION dollars a year are spent on doctor's fees and missed time at work. They are the third largest segment of the population impacting the total cost of health care.'
This is why I didn't want to get too far into the example since it will get too technical, but good point nonetheless. All religions are just like fast food places-- they say they've got the best burgers, tacos, etc. and they're usually not afraid to get in your face to say they're the one and only. It can taste good, but in the end it's all junk food and it's really not healthy for society when you eat too much of it.
I do agree that those extremists are not exemplifying what Christianity is supposed to be about, and they often give the whole group of Christians a bad name. Which is one reason many of us join in these debates to explain that not all Christians are that way. On the same note, I have encountered many atheists- even here on D&D- that dont give atheists a very good name either, and I don't loop them all into one category because of it.
-
To be or not to be that is a question! to believe it or not! ancient emperors must have believed it so much that they built massive tombs to protect their bodies.
-
if someone chooses to be unhealthy it does not affect you in any way. Also, not everyone who eats at at McDonalds is unhealthy.
Seriously? 'Now, the reason obese people are a burden to society, and the medical industry in paticular, is that they are more susceptible to heart attacks, cancer, and diabetes than people who are not overweight. Over sixty-eight BILLION dollars a year are spent on doctor's fees and missed time at work. They are the third largest segment of the population impacting the total cost of health care.'
I want to remind you that not all obese people are that way because they don't care and/or let themselves get that way on their own. There are a lot of obese or heavier people who have pre-existing health issues; develop a health issue; etc., and in return, by not being able to do what they were used to doing, or by certain medications and/or disabilites they have, are affected with the extra gaining of weight.
Flipping the coin, there are just as many anorexic-looking people who cannot gain weight, and have issues as well. My point? This country is not and will never be made up of "perfect" sized people. And you must be one of the "perfect" sized people to make such a comment as to obese people being a burden to society. That is an insult to them: you don't know them personally and you do not know their health issues.
-
Quote from SurveyMack:
Christians on this forum are NOT "unintelligent, delusional, or irrational by definition" and if you look back through these posts often, but not always, atheists do call them dumb whe it is totally uncalled for
Quote from: Falconer02 on September 16, 2011, 10:43:05 pm
Like I stated before, not all of them display these traits. But many of them have. We've had such posters arguing that faith healing cures AIDS, constant end-of-the-world promoters, one saying hell is physical and lies at the center of the earth, fearmongering jerks that bash other beliefs and say 'they're taking over slowly!'. Heck, one person told me I was going to hell because I caught him in a philosophical conundrum. Another said I was posessed by a demon because I was being skeptical of her claim. If you don't think these examples fit within the "unintelligent, delusional, or irrational" group, then...umm....I really don't know what to say except 'just another day in D+D'.
Quote from Falcon9:
The following parable was not written by me however, it exemplifies an apropo parallel in this context {edited PG version}:
"Kissing Hank's Butt*;
A parable by Rev. Jim Huber:
This is a sarcastic example of belittling God and Christians.
-
I want to remind you that not all obese people are that way because they don't care and/or let themselves get that way on their own. There are a lot of obese or heavier people who have pre-existing health issues; develop a health issue; etc., and in return, by not being able to do what they were used to doing, or by certain medications and/or disabilites they have, are affected with the extra gaining of weight.
Flipping the coin, there are just as many anorexic-looking people who cannot gain weight, and have issues as well. My point? This country is not and will never be made up of "perfect" sized people. And you must be one of the "perfect" sized people to make such a comment as to obese people being a burden to society. That is an insult to them: you don't know them personally and you do not know their health issues.
I actually agree with the above points and didn't state or, imply otherwise. What the statement made did indicate is that, for those who do make the choice to eat in an more unhealthy manner, (or smoke, or drink, or lay out exposed in the sun, or drive drunk, etc.), these choices add to the overall heathcare cost burden for everyone else who uses healthcare. The others with pre-existing health issues aren't choosing to have them, (by and large), and that segment of the population wasn't being addressed with my statement. Some people do their best to eat in a healthy way and still get sick; this wasn't the point. The point was made about those who deliberately choose to eat in a mainly unhealthy manner and then end up with subsequent health problems directly related to their choices.
-
if someone chooses to be unhealthy it does not affect you in any way. Also, not everyone who eats at at McDonalds is unhealthy.
Seriously? 'Now, the reason obese people are a burden to society, and the medical industry in paticular, is that they are more susceptible to heart attacks, cancer, and diabetes than people who are not overweight. Over sixty-eight BILLION dollars a year are spent on doctor's fees and missed time at work. They are the third largest segment of the population impacting the total cost of health care.'
I am going to continue to have an intelligent conversation with falconer and opt out of the word games you like to play on every forum- ALSO, if someone wants to spend their money on healthcare instead of dieting that is their free will. Your lifestyle choices do not reflect those of everyone else, and as long as you want that to happen you are going to live a very unsatisfactory life. Great thing about America is that we have freedom. Once again, NOT EVERYONE WHO EATS AT MCDONALDS IS UNHEALTHY.
Your ad hominem aside, I contend that it is your choice to respond or not to forum remarks in the hostile manner envinced by your snide comments. It's almost as if you were choosing to be irrational ...
-
Quote from: Falconer02 on September 16, 2011, 10:43:05 pm
Like I stated before, not all of them display these traits. But many of them have. We've had such posters arguing that faith healing cures AIDS, constant end-of-the-world promoters, one saying hell is physical and lies at the center of the earth, fearmongering jerks that bash other beliefs and say 'they're taking over slowly!'. Heck, one person told me I was going to hell because I caught him in a philosophical conundrum. Another said I was posessed by a demon because I was being skeptical of her claim. If you don't think these examples fit within the "unintelligent, delusional, or irrational" group, then...umm....I really don't know what to say except 'just another day in D+D'.
Quote from Falcon9:
The following parable was not written by me however, it exemplifies an apropo parallel in this context {edited PG version}:
"Kissing Hank's Butt*;
A parable by Rev. Jim Huber:
This is a sarcastic example of belittling God and Christians.
No, this is a parody of evangelical xtians written by a Reverand Jim Huber.
-
Yes if I believe in God and I believe there is life after this one. That’s heaven or hell. :angel12:
-
do agree that those extremists are not exemplifying what Christianity is supposed to be about, and they often give the whole group of Christians a bad name. Which is one reason many of us join in these debates to explain that not all Christians are that way. On the same note, I have encountered many atheists- even here on D&D- that dont give atheists a very good name either, and I don't loop them all into one category because of it.
I do agree that my examples of users are furthest from exemplary, but it's extremely uncommon to see anyone in the atheist group needlessly start a thread to highlight beliefs involving an irrational argument that gets everyone frustrated. I imagine 98% of the time the rudeness comes as a response to someones claim. You may lose a bit of respect for me here, but I vaguely recall myself just getting fed up with someone who said I'd burn in hell for eternity if I didn't subscribe to their beliefs-- they were needlessly pompous, pessimistic, and just childish to the point of just cursing me out. In return I called them a *bleep* (to illustrate that my durragatory term and what they said were not that different) and suddenly the entire christian group was just overly horrified that I could say such an awful thing! Nevermind that I was just cursed into oblvion and to be tormented for all eternity-- nobody highlighted that at all. Someone got called a *bleep* for being a *bleep* and therefore I'm the evildoer. :dontknow:
(Pardon my french btw)
"Kissing Hank's Butt*;
A parable by Rev. Jim Huber
Thanks for sharing. I vaguely recall reading this years ago, but I totally forgot about it. Added to my "debate" bookmarks! lol
This is a sarcastic example of belittling God and Christians
All the author did was take biblical names and replace them with everyday things. Sometimes aligning aspects from a belief system with other things can make someone understand (on either side of the spectrum) what others think of those beliefs.
-
"Kissing Hank's Butt*;
A parable by Rev. Jim Huber
Thanks for sharing. I vaguely recall reading this years ago, but I totally forgot about it. Added to my "debate" bookmarks! lol
This is a sarcastic example of belittling God and Christians
All the author did was take biblical names and replace them with everyday things. Sometimes aligning aspects from a belief system with other things can make someone understand (on either side of the spectrum) what others think of those beliefs.
Yep, that little parable had gathered dust for ten years until I remembered it from a usenet debate, rescued from the archives and reposted it here. If it really were a "sarcastic example of belittling god and xtians" then, so is xtianity. ::)
-
Quote from: Falconer02 on September 16, 2011, 10:43:05 pm
Like I stated before, not all of them display these traits. But many of them have. We've had such posters arguing that faith healing cures AIDS, constant end-of-the-world promoters, one saying hell is physical and lies at the center of the earth, fearmongering jerks that bash other beliefs and say 'they're taking over slowly!'. Heck, one person told me I was going to hell because I caught him in a philosophical conundrum. Another said I was posessed by a demon because I was being skeptical of her claim. If you don't think these examples fit within the "unintelligent, delusional, or irrational" group, then...umm....I really don't know what to say except 'just another day in D+D'.
Quote from Falcon9:
The following parable was not written by me however, it exemplifies an apropo parallel in this context {edited PG version}:
"Kissing Hank's Butt*;
A parable by Rev. Jim Huber:
This is a sarcastic example of belittling God and Christians.
No, this is a parody of evangelical xtians written by a Reverand Jim Huber.
And this was just a PG version? Also, this Jim Huber is a humanist/athiest. I maintain my comment.
-
Also, this Jim Huber is a humanist/athiest. I maintain my comment.
Being either a humanist or an atheist does not make the parody any less apropo than if a xtian, muslim or AI program wrote it. Your comment is merely your unsupported opinion of preference, rather than an objective dissent.
-
Exactly like before you were born.
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
Mark Twain
Y'all are kidding yourselves if you think the only 2 options are heaven or hell.
who knows what to become of what? are when. unless you witness it yourself and then who going to believe you when you explain it.
-
I want to remind you that not all obese people are that way because they don't care and/or let themselves get that way on their own. There are a lot of obese or heavier people who have pre-existing health issues; develop a health issue; etc., and in return, by not being able to do what they were used to doing, or by certain medications and/or disabilites they have, are affected with the extra gaining of weight.
Flipping the coin, there are just as many anorexic-looking people who cannot gain weight, and have issues as well. My point? This country is not and will never be made up of "perfect" sized people. And you must be one of the "perfect" sized people to make such a comment as to obese people being a burden to society. That is an insult to them: you don't know them personally and you do not know their health issues.
I actually agree with the above points and didn't state or, imply otherwise. What the statement made did indicate is that, for those who do make the choice to eat in an more unhealthy manner, (or smoke, or drink, or lay out exposed in the sun, or drive drunk, etc.), these choices add to the overall heathcare cost burden for everyone else who uses healthcare. The others with pre-existing health issues aren't choosing to have them, (by and large), and that segment of the population wasn't being addressed with my statement. Some people do their best to eat in a healthy way and still get sick; this wasn't the point. The point was made about those who deliberately choose to eat in a mainly unhealthy manner and then end up with subsequent health problems directly related to their choices.
So if I get skin cancer because you think I lay out too much, and I pay for all my treatments, that affects you how?
-
if someone chooses to be unhealthy it does not affect you in any way. Also, not everyone who eats at at McDonalds is unhealthy.
Seriously? 'Now, the reason obese people are a burden to society, and the medical industry in paticular, is that they are more susceptible to heart attacks, cancer, and diabetes than people who are not overweight. Over sixty-eight BILLION dollars a year are spent on doctor's fees and missed time at work. They are the third largest segment of the population impacting the total cost of health care.'
I am going to continue to have an intelligent conversation with falconer and opt out of the word games you like to play on every forum- ALSO, if someone wants to spend their money on healthcare instead of dieting that is their free will. Your lifestyle choices do not reflect those of everyone else, and as long as you want that to happen you are going to live a very unsatisfactory life. Great thing about America is that we have freedom. Once again, NOT EVERYONE WHO EATS AT MCDONALDS IS UNHEALTHY.
Your ad hominem aside, I contend that it is your choice to respond or not to forum remarks in the hostile manner envinced by your snide comments. It's almost as if you were choosing to be irrational ...
Haha your hypocrisy is almost unbearable to read.
-
do agree that those extremists are not exemplifying what Christianity is supposed to be about, and they often give the whole group of Christians a bad name. Which is one reason many of us join in these debates to explain that not all Christians are that way. On the same note, I have encountered many atheists- even here on D&D- that dont give atheists a very good name either, and I don't loop them all into one category because of it.
I do agree that my examples of users are furthest from exemplary, but it's extremely uncommon to see anyone in the atheist group needlessly start a thread to highlight beliefs involving an irrational argument that gets everyone frustrated. I imagine 98% of the time the rudeness comes as a response to someones claim. You may lose a bit of respect for me here, but I vaguely recall myself just getting fed up with someone who said I'd burn in hell for eternity if I didn't subscribe to their beliefs-- they were needlessly pompous, pessimistic, and just childish to the point of just cursing me out. In return I called them a *bleep* (to illustrate that my durragatory term and what they said were not that different) and suddenly the entire christian group was just overly horrified that I could say such an awful thing! Nevermind that I was just cursed into oblvion and to be tormented for all eternity-- nobody highlighted that at all. Someone got called a *bleep* for being a *bleep* and therefore I'm the evildoer. :dontknow:
(Pardon my french btw)
"Kissing Hank's Butt*;
A parable by Rev. Jim Huber
Thanks for sharing. I vaguely recall reading this years ago, but I totally forgot about it. Added to my "debate" bookmarks! lol
This is a sarcastic example of belittling God and Christians
All the author did was take biblical names and replace them with everyday things. Sometimes aligning aspects from a belief system with other things can make someone understand (on either side of the spectrum) what others think of those beliefs.
Well I am not one to sit here and judge you for calling someone a *bleep*, we are all sinners and I cannot say I have never said anything bad about someone or cursed at someone in my life. I agree that damning someone to hell on a forum is not at all the way to go about spreading the Christian word- especially as the Bible clearly tells us that we do not have the authority to judge others. However, I absolutely do not think that ever Christian who starts a thread about Christianity is trying to force their religion on you- many are probably just looking for other Christians to have a religious conversation with- but the same group of people always jump on those threads and insult any believers...This is the part I do not understand- if a Christian posts a Christian thread why can no one leave it be?
-
So if I get skin cancer because you think I lay out too much, and I pay for all my treatments, that affects you how?
Your poor decision which resulted in acquiring skin cancer raises the general healthcare costs for everyone else because you aren't likely to pay for all your treatments and instead, are more likely to use either a healthcare plan, (or, "free clinics", which pass the costs on to other patients). The scenario where you are paying _all_ costs, (not only any deductables or, co-pays), is possible but, dubious.
-
if someone chooses to be unhealthy it does not affect you in any way. Also, not everyone who eats at at McDonalds is unhealthy.
Seriously? 'Now, the reason obese people are a burden to society, and the medical industry in paticular, is that they are more susceptible to heart attacks, cancer, and diabetes than people who are not overweight. Over sixty-eight BILLION dollars a year are spent on doctor's fees and missed time at work. They are the third largest segment of the population impacting the total cost of health care.'
I am going to continue to have an intelligent conversation with falconer and opt out of the word games you like to play on every forum- ALSO, if someone wants to spend their money on healthcare instead of dieting that is their free will. Your lifestyle choices do not reflect those of everyone else, and as long as you want that to happen you are going to live a very unsatisfactory life. Great thing about America is that we have freedom. Once again, NOT EVERYONE WHO EATS AT MCDONALDS IS UNHEALTHY.
Your ad hominem aside, I contend that it is your choice to respond or not to forum remarks in the hostile manner envinced by your snide comments. It's almost as if you were choosing to be irrational ...
Haha your hypocrisy is almost unbearable to read.
Since I haven't envinced the blatant hypocrisy you have, your opinion is without merit:
Reply #175 on: September 05, 2011, 03:56:46 pm, Message ID: 412682
Wherein "SurveyMack10" stated her claim that:
"I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is ..."[/endquote]
-
So if I get skin cancer because you think I lay out too much, and I pay for all my treatments, that affects you how?
Your poor decision which resulted in acquiring skin cancer raises the general healthcare costs for everyone else because you aren't likely to pay for all your treatments and instead, are more likely to use either a healthcare plan, (or, "free clinics", which pass the costs on to other patients). The scenario where you are paying _all_ costs, (not only any deductables or, co-pays), is possible but, dubious.
So you chose to ignore the fact that I clearly stated "I pay for all my treatments"
-
if someone chooses to be unhealthy it does not affect you in any way. Also, not everyone who eats at at McDonalds is unhealthy.
Seriously? 'Now, the reason obese people are a burden to society, and the medical industry in paticular, is that they are more susceptible to heart attacks, cancer, and diabetes than people who are not overweight. Over sixty-eight BILLION dollars a year are spent on doctor's fees and missed time at work. They are the third largest segment of the population impacting the total cost of health care.'
I am going to continue to have an intelligent conversation with falconer and opt out of the word games you like to play on every forum- ALSO, if someone wants to spend their money on healthcare instead of dieting that is their free will. Your lifestyle choices do not reflect those of everyone else, and as long as you want that to happen you are going to live a very unsatisfactory life. Great thing about America is that we have freedom. Once again, NOT EVERYONE WHO EATS AT MCDONALDS IS UNHEALTHY.
Your ad hominem aside, I contend that it is your choice to respond or not to forum remarks in the hostile manner envinced by your snide comments. It's almost as if you were choosing to be irrational ...
Haha your hypocrisy is almost unbearable to read.
Since I haven't envinced the blatant hypocrisy you have, your opinion is without merit:
Reply #175 on: September 05, 2011, 03:56:46 pm, Message ID: 412682
Wherein "SurveyMack10" stated her claim that:
"I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is ..."[/endquote]
That is not hypocrisy at all- that is simply showing that just because I believe something does not mean it is a proven fact. This is the case with MANY things that people believe, understand?
Also, you do not have the authority to decide whether or not my opinion is with or without merit or anyone's opinion for that matter. Great effort though, try a little harder next time.
-
So if I get skin cancer because you think I lay out too much, and I pay for all my treatments, that affects you how?
Your poor decision which resulted in acquiring skin cancer raises the general healthcare costs for everyone else because you aren't likely to pay for all your treatments and instead, are more likely to use either a healthcare plan, (or, "free clinics", which pass the costs on to other patients). The scenario where you are paying _all_ costs, (not only any deductables or, co-pays), is possible but, dubious.
So you chose to ignore the fact that I clearly stated "I pay for all my treatments"
No, I simply doubted your statement based upon your previous doubtful statements.
-
So if I get skin cancer because you think I lay out too much, and I pay for all my treatments, that affects you how?
Your poor decision which resulted in acquiring skin cancer raises the general healthcare costs for everyone else because you aren't likely to pay for all your treatments and instead, are more likely to use either a healthcare plan, (or, "free clinics", which pass the costs on to other patients). The scenario where you are paying _all_ costs, (not only any deductables or, co-pays), is possible but, dubious.
So you chose to ignore the fact that I clearly stated "I pay for all my treatments"
No, I simply doubted your statement based upon your previous doubtful statements.
Meaning that you doubt I can pay for medical treatment? Hahahahaha.
Also, no matter what time of day I post here you always respond immediately as if you are constantly at the computer. I find this to be curious as you made a statement earlier implying I am not a productive member of society. Obviously I am not going to make a snap judgement from simple conversations on a forum as you do, but maybe you should find some hobbies outside of the fusioncash forum and you'd have a little less pent up anger and feelings of superiority toward anonymous online acquaintances.
-
Reply #175 on: September 05, 2011, 03:56:46 pm, Message ID: 412682
Wherein "SurveyMack10" stated her claim that:
"I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is ..."[/endquote]
That is not hypocrisy at all- that is simply showing that just because I believe something does not mean it is a proven fact.[/quote]
Again, you are either asserting a 'belief' in something which is real or unreal; which is it?
[/quote]Also, you do not have the authority to decide whether or not my opinion is with or without merit or anyone's opinion for that matter.[/quote]
It isn't a matter of authority, (especially just because you say so); it's a matter of discerning the differences between an unfounded, baseless opinion (yours) and a substantiated, informed opinion. You aren't very good at this, are you? Your school's standards must be abysmally-low.
-
Meaning that you doubt I can pay for medical treatment? Hahahahaha.
No, meaning that I've observed you dissembling, dodging, diverting and being dishonest so, I doubted your mere word for it.
[/quote]maybe you should find some hobbies outside of the fusioncash forum and you'd have a little less pent up anger and feelings of superiority toward anonymous online acquaintances.
[/quote]
I'm not currently experiencing any "pent up anger and feelings of superiority toward" anyone at the most, least of all, you. I trust psychology is not your major at school.
-
Reply #175 on: September 05, 2011, 03:56:46 pm, Message ID: 412682
Wherein "SurveyMack10" stated her claim that:
"I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is ..."[/endquote]
That is not hypocrisy at all- that is simply showing that just because I believe something does not mean it is a proven fact.
Again, you are either asserting a 'belief' in something which is real or unreal; which is it?
[/quote]Also, you do not have the authority to decide whether or not my opinion is with or without merit or anyone's opinion for that matter.[/quote]
It isn't a matter of authority, (especially just because you say so); it's a matter of discerning the differences between an unfounded, baseless opinion (yours) and a substantiated, informed opinion. You aren't very good at this, are you? Your school's standards must be abysmally-low.
[/quote]
HAHAHA actually I have a 4.0, but I guess I must go to clown school!
Also, you are not going to FORCE me to say God is real just so you can FURTHER AVOID proving* he is not.
-
Meaning that you doubt I can pay for medical treatment? Hahahahaha.
No, meaning that I've observed you dissembling, dodging, diverting and being dishonest so, I doubted your mere word for it.
maybe you should find some hobbies outside of the fusioncash forum and you'd have a little less pent up anger and feelings of superiority toward anonymous online acquaintances.
[/quote]
I'm not currently experiencing any "pent up anger and feelings of superiority toward" anyone at the most, least of all, you. I trust psychology is not your major at school.
[/quote]
Amazing that you feel yourself so superior to have claimed to know my financial status, my GPA, as well as my major. Keep it up and you will soon take over Miss Chleo's job!!
-
Reply #175 on: September 05, 2011, 03:56:46 pm, Message ID: 412682
Wherein "SurveyMack10" stated her claim that:
"I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is ..."[/endquote]
Again, you are either asserting a 'belief' in something which is real or unreal; which is it?
Also, you are not going to FORCE me to say God is real just so you can FURTHER AVOID proving* he is not.
There is no "force" being applied; you are simply (and ineptly) avoiding admitting that you claimed "I believe He is" (real). Your asserted claim has been quoted several times, are you now attempting to deny that you wrote it?
-
Also, this Jim Huber is a humanist/athiest. I maintain my comment.
Being either a humanist or an atheist does not make the parody any less apropo than if a xtian, muslim or AI program wrote it. Your comment is merely your unsupported opinion of preference, rather than an objective dissent.
I do want to clarify one thing. Not all athiests would agree with your parody listed. However, there are many that are so anti-God, that their attitude is totally biased and it shows in their writings and teachings, including this parody. This parody is biased, anti-God, and saracastic of Christians and God. As a Christian, I am stating this objectively. A non-christian friend also states that it comes through loud and clear "anti-God" with no respect of a Christian's decision to follow God. There are things listed in there that are over-exaggerated just to make a Christian's choice look stupid and foolish.
-
I do want to clarify one thing. Not all athiests would agree with your parody listed.
True, and not all xtians would agree with your biased, god-mongering which shows in the xtian writings and "teachings".
However, there are many that are so anti-God, that their attitude is totally biased and it shows in their writings and teachings, including this parody. This parody is biased, anti-God, and saracastic of Christians and God.
As a Christian, I am stating this objectively.
Your assertion is a false claim; as a xtian, you are definitely _not_ making your statement of opinion objectively since it is manifestly filtered through your belief system.
A non-christian friend also states that it comes through loud and clear "anti-God" with no respect of a Christian's decision to follow God. There are things listed in there that are over-exaggerated just to make a Christian's choice look stupid and foolish.
What specific portions are "anti-god", (since you are making the allegation through some so-called "non-xtian friend")? Additionally, could you indicate which parts of the parody are "over-exaggerated", (supposedly to make a xtian's choice look stupid and foolish ... something for which little or no assistance is required)?
-
Amazing that you feel yourself so superior to have claimed to know my financial status, my GPA, as well as my major.
No, I expressed doubts concerning the financial status of the typical college student and without documentation, GPA claims are dubious in light of a demonstrated lack of critical thinking skills, (at least here - who knows if you're shining them on at school). As far as your major is concerned, the actual statement made was an educated guess that it wasn't psychology, (again, based upon your replies here so far).
-
Reply #175 on: September 05, 2011, 03:56:46 pm, Message ID: 412682
Wherein "SurveyMack10" stated her claim that:
"I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is ..."[/endquote]
Again, you are either asserting a 'belief' in something which is real or unreal; which is it?
Also, you are not going to FORCE me to say God is real just so you can FURTHER AVOID proving* he is not.
There is no "force" being applied; you are simply (and ineptly) avoiding admitting that you claimed "I believe He is" (real). Your asserted claim has been quoted several times, are you now attempting to deny that you wrote it?
I NEVER said I did not claim to BELIEVE He is real and never will, do not even attempt to twist those words. I absolutely BELIEVE it. I said I did not claim his existence it as FACT. Huge difference.
-
I do want to clarify one thing. Not all athiests would agree with your parody listed.
True, and not all xtians would agree with your biased, god-mongering which shows in the xtian writings and "teachings".
However, there are many that are so anti-God, that their attitude is totally biased and it shows in their writings and teachings, including this parody. This parody is biased, anti-God, and saracastic of Christians and God.
As a Christian, I am stating this objectively.
Your assertion is a false claim; as a xtian, you are definitely _not_ making your statement of opinion objectively since it is manifestly filtered through your belief system.
A non-christian friend also states that it comes through loud and clear "anti-God" with no respect of a Christian's decision to follow God. There are things listed in there that are over-exaggerated just to make a Christian's choice look stupid and foolish.
What specific portions are "anti-god", (since you are making the allegation through some so-called "non-xtian friend")? Additionally, could you indicate which parts of the parody are "over-exaggerated", (supposedly to make a xtian's choice look stupid and foolish ... something for which little or no assistance is required)?
Your assertion that Christians cannot speak objectively is false. Also, if that is the case then your opinions are all biased do to your involvement in atheism therefore making all of your arguments so far tainted.
-
Ultimately,for all the pseudointellectual rhetoric that gets tossed around by the skeptics,it cannot be proven that God does not exist.As I said before,one would have to be an all knowing "god" to claim with such certainty that there is no God.It's the height of human arrogance to presume to have such complete knowledge that would preclude the possibility.
-
I do want to clarify one thing. Not all athiests would agree with your parody listed.
True, and not all xtians would agree with your biased, god-mongering which shows in the xtian writings and "teachings".
However, there are many that are so anti-God, that their attitude is totally biased and it shows in their writings and teachings, including this parody. This parody is biased, anti-God, and saracastic of Christians and God.
As a Christian, I am stating this objectively.
Your assertion is a false claim; as a xtian, you are definitely _not_ making your statement of opinion objectively since it is manifestly filtered through your belief system.
A non-christian friend also states that it comes through loud and clear "anti-God" with no respect of a Christian's decision to follow God. There are things listed in there that are over-exaggerated just to make a Christian's choice look stupid and foolish.
What specific portions are "anti-god", (since you are making the allegation through some so-called "non-xtian friend")? Additionally, could you indicate which parts of the parody are "over-exaggerated", (supposedly to make a xtian's choice look stupid and foolish ... something for which little or no assistance is required)?
Um,I believe the term you're looking for is "Christian".Not sure if your "Xtian" reference is born of superstition or some form of passive aggression.
-
I do want to clarify one thing. Not all athiests would agree with your parody listed.
True, and not all xtians would agree with your biased, god-mongering which shows in the xtian writings and "teachings".
However, there are many that are so anti-God, that their attitude is totally biased and it shows in their writings and teachings, including this parody. This parody is biased, anti-God, and saracastic of Christians and God.
As a Christian, I am stating this objectively.
Your assertion is a false claim; as a xtian, you are definitely _not_ making your statement of opinion objectively since it is manifestly filtered through your belief system.
A non-christian friend also states that it comes through loud and clear "anti-God" with no respect of a Christian's decision to follow God. There are things listed in there that are over-exaggerated just to make a Christian's choice look stupid and foolish.
What specific portions are "anti-god", (since you are making the allegation through some so-called "non-xtian friend")? Additionally, could you indicate which parts of the parody are "over-exaggerated", (supposedly to make a xtian's choice look stupid and foolish ... something for which little or no assistance is required)?
Your assertion that Christians cannot speak objectively is false.
I didn't assert that, I questioned jcribb16's assertion that "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively." That is, he made the false assertion.
Also, if that is the case then your opinions are all biased do to your involvement in atheism therefore making all of your arguments so far tainted.
Since it isn't the case, your conclusion does not follow. To reiterate the point; jcribb16 made the "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively" asserted claim.
-
I do want to clarify one thing. Not all athiests would agree with your parody listed.
True, and not all xtians would agree with your biased, god-mongering which shows in the xtian writings and "teachings".
However, there are many that are so anti-God, that their attitude is totally biased and it shows in their writings and teachings, including this parody. This parody is biased, anti-God, and saracastic of Christians and God.
As a Christian, I am stating this objectively.
Your assertion is a false claim; as a xtian, you are definitely _not_ making your statement of opinion objectively since it is manifestly filtered through your belief system.
A non-christian friend also states that it comes through loud and clear "anti-God" with no respect of a Christian's decision to follow God. There are things listed in there that are over-exaggerated just to make a Christian's choice look stupid and foolish.
What specific portions are "anti-god", (since you are making the allegation through some so-called "non-xtian friend")? Additionally, could you indicate which parts of the parody are "over-exaggerated", (supposedly to make a xtian's choice look stupid and foolish ... something for which little or no assistance is required)?
Your assertion that Christians cannot speak objectively is false.
I didn't assert that, I questioned jcribb16's assertion that "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively." That is, he made the false assertion.
Also, if that is the case then your opinions are all biased do to your involvement in atheism therefore making all of your arguments so far tainted.
Since it isn't the case, your conclusion does not follow. To reiterate the point; jcribb16 made the "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively" asserted claim.
jcribb CAN speak objectively, being a Christian does not change that- your statement is false
-
I do want to clarify one thing. Not all athiests would agree with your parody listed.
True, and not all xtians would agree with your biased, god-mongering which shows in the xtian writings and "teachings".
However, there are many that are so anti-God, that their attitude is totally biased and it shows in their writings and teachings, including this parody. This parody is biased, anti-God, and saracastic of Christians and God.
As a Christian, I am stating this objectively.
Your assertion is a false claim; as a xtian, you are definitely _not_ making your statement of opinion objectively since it is manifestly filtered through your belief system.
A non-christian friend also states that it comes through loud and clear "anti-God" with no respect of a Christian's decision to follow God. There are things listed in there that are over-exaggerated just to make a Christian's choice look stupid and foolish.
What specific portions are "anti-god", (since you are making the allegation through some so-called "non-xtian friend")? Additionally, could you indicate which parts of the parody are "over-exaggerated", (supposedly to make a xtian's choice look stupid and foolish ... something for which little or no assistance is required)?
Your assertion that Christians cannot speak objectively is false.
I didn't assert that, I questioned jcribb16's assertion that "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively." That is, he made the false assertion.
Also, if that is the case then your opinions are all biased do to your involvement in atheism therefore making all of your arguments so far tainted.
Since it isn't the case, your conclusion does not follow. To reiterate the point; jcribb16 made the "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively" asserted claim.
jcribb CAN speak objectively, being a Christian does not change that- your statement is false
Perhaps he is capable of it however, that was not demonstrated by his assertion that, "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively", clearly showing his opinion was filtered through his religious stance. My statement has not been proven false, despite your bland and unsupported contention to teh contrary. It becomes merely your unsupported opinion instead.
-
Our bodies will die, and our souls and spirit will either go to heaven or hell. I have this theory though, that everyone dies at the same time, and the already dead people are experiencing a warped sense of time now. It's confusing. But as humans we cannot understand time; time isn't even the word for it anymore. But yes, our souls are our consciousness and our spirits only exist through God. Both of those will go to heaven if you are saved. If you are not... Well. Have fun making up theories to try and prove your intelligence. It doesn't have to be confusing unless you want it to however.
-
Ultimately,for all the pseudointellectual rhetoric that gets tossed around by the skeptics
Characterizing the opposing dissent as "pseudo-intellectual rhetoric" constitutes an unsurprising degree of hypocrisy given the amount and content of such specious rhetoric coming from the 'god-mongerers' in lieu of reasoned replies.
it cannot be proven that God does not exist.
[/quote]
It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion. This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage and then challenging you to prove they don't.
-
I do want to clarify one thing. Not all athiests would agree with your parody listed.
True, and not all xtians would agree with your biased, god-mongering which shows in the xtian writings and "teachings".
However, there are many that are so anti-God, that their attitude is totally biased and it shows in their writings and teachings, including this parody. This parody is biased, anti-God, and saracastic of Christians and God.
As a Christian, I am stating this objectively.
Your assertion is a false claim; as a xtian, you are definitely _not_ making your statement of opinion objectively since it is manifestly filtered through your belief system.
A non-christian friend also states that it comes through loud and clear "anti-God" with no respect of a Christian's decision to follow God. There are things listed in there that are over-exaggerated just to make a Christian's choice look stupid and foolish.
What specific portions are "anti-god", (since you are making the allegation through some so-called "non-xtian friend")? Additionally, could you indicate which parts of the parody are "over-exaggerated", (supposedly to make a xtian's choice look stupid and foolish ... something for which little or no assistance is required)?
Your assertion that Christians cannot speak objectively is false.
I didn't assert that, I questioned jcribb16's assertion that "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively." That is, he made the false assertion.
Also, if that is the case then your opinions are all biased do to your involvement in atheism therefore making all of your arguments so far tainted.
Since it isn't the case, your conclusion does not follow. To reiterate the point; jcribb16 made the "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively" asserted claim.
jcribb CAN speak objectively, being a Christian does not change that- your statement is false
Perhaps he is capable of it however, that was not demonstrated by his assertion that, "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively", clearly showing his opinion was filtered through his religious stance. My statement has not been proven false, despite your bland and unsupported contention to teh contrary. It becomes merely your unsupported opinion instead.
Being a Christian does not change that jcribb can state something objectively- your statement is FALSE.
-
I do want to clarify one thing. Not all athiests would agree with your parody listed.
True, and not all xtians would agree with your biased, god-mongering which shows in the xtian writings and "teachings".
However, there are many that are so anti-God, that their attitude is totally biased and it shows in their writings and teachings, including this parody. This parody is biased, anti-God, and saracastic of Christians and God.
As a Christian, I am stating this objectively.
Your assertion is a false claim; as a xtian, you are definitely _not_ making your statement of opinion objectively since it is manifestly filtered through your belief system.
A non-christian friend also states that it comes through loud and clear "anti-God" with no respect of a Christian's decision to follow God. There are things listed in there that are over-exaggerated just to make a Christian's choice look stupid and foolish.
What specific portions are "anti-god", (since you are making the allegation through some so-called "non-xtian friend")? Additionally, could you indicate which parts of the parody are "over-exaggerated", (supposedly to make a xtian's choice look stupid and foolish ... something for which little or no assistance is required)?
Um,I believe the term you're looking for is "Christian".Not sure if your "Xtian" reference is born of superstition or some form of passive aggression.
I'd considered pointing out where the reference originated and then it occurred to me that you could discover that your speculations are specious.
-
Ultimately,for all the pseudointellectual rhetoric that gets tossed around by the skeptics
Characterizing the opposing dissent as "pseudo-intellectual rhetoric" constitutes an unsurprising degree of hypocrisy given the amount and content of such specious rhetoric coming from the 'god-mongerers' in lieu of reasoned replies.
it cannot be proven that God does not exist.
It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion. This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage and then challenging you to prove they don't.
[/quote]
The ACTUAL reason you cannot prove that God does not exist is likely because he is not a PHYSICAL being at this time( which is why you brought up INVISIBLE unicorns)- this is the same reason it is hard to provide the proof that is accepted SCIENTIFICALLY that He does exist. However, since this is not accepted by non-believers as a reason for not providing "substantial proof" that God exists it should not be accepted as reasons for not proving that he does not. So, you still need to provide proof that he does not exist since you require the same from believers.
-
Ultimately,for all the pseudointellectual rhetoric that gets tossed around by the skeptics
Characterizing the opposing dissent as "pseudo-intellectual rhetoric" constitutes an unsurprising degree of hypocrisy given the amount and content of such specious rhetoric coming from the 'god-mongerers' in lieu of reasoned replies.
it cannot be proven that God does not exist.
It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion. This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage and then challenging you to prove they don't.
The ACTUAL reason you cannot prove that God does not exist
I stated the actual reason and, because of the form logic takes, it is not the one you speculate about.
is likely because he is not a PHYSICAL being at this time( which is why you brought up INVISIBLE unicorns)
The purpose in using invisible unicorns in my analogy was that, were the unicorns visible we'd have verifiable evidence of the unicorns. Making them as invisible as a theorectical "god" was merely substituting a religious contention for an equally improbable one. Btw, are you asserting a non-physical "god" in order to skirt the burden of proving your prior claim?
- this is the same reason it is hard to provide the proof that is accepted SCIENTIFICALLY that He does exist.
No rational/reasonable argument has been presented, let alone any scientific evidence for the existance of a non-physical "god". Interestingly enough, there has been mathematical evidence presented for certain theoretically non-physical dimensions, for instance. I fully expect some 'god-mongerers' to latch onto that to claim that "god" exists in some dimensionless point. They may have already done so, I could check ...
However, since this is not accepted by non-believers as a reason for not providing "substantial proof" that God exists it should not be accepted as reasons for not proving that he does not. So, you still need to provide proof that he does not exist since you require the same from believers.
That sophist nonsense doesn't make any sense. Providing evidence of an assertion is not equivalent to providing evidence of a negative assertion.
Again, using illogical rhetoric as a challenge is a poor debate tactic on your part.
-
Ultimately,for all the pseudointellectual rhetoric that gets tossed around by the skeptics
Characterizing the opposing dissent as "pseudo-intellectual rhetoric" constitutes an unsurprising degree of hypocrisy given the amount and content of such specious rhetoric coming from the 'god-mongerers' in lieu of reasoned replies.
it cannot be proven that God does not exist.
It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion. This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage and then challenging you to prove they don't.
The ACTUAL reason you cannot prove that God does not exist
I stated the actual reason and, because of the form logic takes, it is not the one you speculate about.
is likely because he is not a PHYSICAL being at this time( which is why you brought up INVISIBLE unicorns)
The purpose in using invisible unicorns in my analogy was that, were the unicorns visible we'd have verifiable evidence of the unicorns. Making them as invisible as a theorectical "god" was merely substituting a religious contention for an equally improbable one. Btw, are you asserting a non-physical "god" in order to skirt the burden of proving your prior claim?
- this is the same reason it is hard to provide the proof that is accepted SCIENTIFICALLY that He does exist.
No rational/reasonable argument has been presented, let alone any scientific evidence for the existance of a non-physical "god". Interestingly enough, there has been mathematical evidence presented for certain theoretically non-physical dimensions, for instance. I fully expect some 'god-mongerers' to latch onto that to claim that "god" exists in some dimensionless point. They may have already done so, I could check ...
However, since this is not accepted by non-believers as a reason for not providing "substantial proof" that God exists it should not be accepted as reasons for not proving that he does not. So, you still need to provide proof that he does not exist since you require the same from believers.
That sophist nonsense doesn't make any sense. Providing evidence of an assertion is not equivalent to providing evidence of a negative assertion.
Again, using illogical rhetoric as a challenge is a poor debate tactic on your part.
So again your answer is NO you cannot prove that God does not exist-
the actual poor debate tactics are your attempt to repeatedly dodge a simple yes or no question.
-
I do want to clarify one thing. Not all athiests would agree with your parody listed.
True, and not all xtians would agree with your biased, god-mongering which shows in the xtian writings and "teachings".
However, there are many that are so anti-God, that their attitude is totally biased and it shows in their writings and teachings, including this parody. This parody is biased, anti-God, and saracastic of Christians and God.
As a Christian, I am stating this objectively.
Your assertion is a false claim; as a xtian, you are definitely _not_ making your statement of opinion objectively since it is manifestly filtered through your belief system.
A non-christian friend also states that it comes through loud and clear "anti-God" with no respect of a Christian's decision to follow God. There are things listed in there that are over-exaggerated just to make a Christian's choice look stupid and foolish.
What specific portions are "anti-god", (since you are making the allegation through some so-called "non-xtian friend")? Additionally, could you indicate which parts of the parody are "over-exaggerated", (supposedly to make a xtian's choice look stupid and foolish ... something for which little or no assistance is required)?
First of all, I'm a she! Second, I am a Christian, not an xtian.
Just because I am a Christian does not mean that I cannot make objective statements. Actually, in reverse, your statements are being "filtered through your belief/non-belief system." So please don't go calling my statement false unless you want to agree yours is also false.
It's late tonight and I don't have the time to specifically show you the over-exaggerated things. Besides, they are so blatantly obvious that someone of maturity and intelligence could read them for themselves. When I have more time, I will take the opportunity to show the exaggerations if it's really necessary.
You call my non-christian friend "so-called?" Would you like to explain your biased or insensitive statement? My friend is very real and is objective and considerate enough to accept my belief as mine (in the Lord) and I respect her wish to not believe in any god. She knows I'm still praying for her, but she doesn't cut Christians down for their personal choice.
-
Ultimately,for all the pseudointellectual rhetoric that gets tossed around by the skeptics
Characterizing the opposing dissent as "pseudo-intellectual rhetoric" constitutes an unsurprising degree of hypocrisy given the amount and content of such specious rhetoric coming from the 'god-mongerers' in lieu of reasoned replies.
it cannot be proven that God does not exist.
It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion. This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage and then challenging you to prove they don't.
The ACTUAL reason you cannot prove that God does not exist
I stated the actual reason and, because of the form logic takes, it is not the one you speculate about.
is likely because he is not a PHYSICAL being at this time( which is why you brought up INVISIBLE unicorns)
The purpose in using invisible unicorns in my analogy was that, were the unicorns visible we'd have verifiable evidence of the unicorns. Making them as invisible as a theorectical "god" was merely substituting a religious contention for an equally improbable one. Btw, are you asserting a non-physical "god" in order to skirt the burden of proving your prior claim?
- this is the same reason it is hard to provide the proof that is accepted SCIENTIFICALLY that He does exist.
No rational/reasonable argument has been presented, let alone any scientific evidence for the existance of a non-physical "god". Interestingly enough, there has been mathematical evidence presented for certain theoretically non-physical dimensions, for instance. I fully expect some 'god-mongerers' to latch onto that to claim that "god" exists in some dimensionless point. They may have already done so, I could check ...
However, since this is not accepted by non-believers as a reason for not providing "substantial proof" that God exists it should not be accepted as reasons for not proving that he does not. So, you still need to provide proof that he does not exist since you require the same from believers.
That sophist nonsense doesn't make any sense. Providing evidence of an assertion is not equivalent to providing evidence of a negative assertion.
Again, using illogical rhetoric as a challenge is a poor debate tactic on your part.
So again your answer is NO you cannot prove that God does not exist-
the actual poor debate tactics are your attempt to repeatedly dodge a simple yes or no question.
No one can prove or disprove that something does _NOT_ exist; it's logically impossible, not "poor debate tactics", (in one of your 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I ploys). You remain unable to coerce a claim out of me; don't be frustrated, others have tried and failed too.
-
Ultimately,for all the pseudointellectual rhetoric that gets tossed around by the skeptics
Characterizing the opposing dissent as "pseudo-intellectual rhetoric" constitutes an unsurprising degree of hypocrisy given the amount and content of such specious rhetoric coming from the 'god-mongerers' in lieu of reasoned replies.
it cannot be proven that God does not exist.
It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion. This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage and then challenging you to prove they don't.
The ACTUAL reason you cannot prove that God does not exist
I stated the actual reason and, because of the form logic takes, it is not the one you speculate about.
is likely because he is not a PHYSICAL being at this time( which is why you brought up INVISIBLE unicorns)
The purpose in using invisible unicorns in my analogy was that, were the unicorns visible we'd have verifiable evidence of the unicorns. Making them as invisible as a theorectical "god" was merely substituting a religious contention for an equally improbable one. Btw, are you asserting a non-physical "god" in order to skirt the burden of proving your prior claim?
- this is the same reason it is hard to provide the proof that is accepted SCIENTIFICALLY that He does exist.
No rational/reasonable argument has been presented, let alone any scientific evidence for the existance of a non-physical "god". Interestingly enough, there has been mathematical evidence presented for certain theoretically non-physical dimensions, for instance. I fully expect some 'god-mongerers' to latch onto that to claim that "god" exists in some dimensionless point. They may have already done so, I could check ...
However, since this is not accepted by non-believers as a reason for not providing "substantial proof" that God exists it should not be accepted as reasons for not proving that he does not. So, you still need to provide proof that he does not exist since you require the same from believers.
That sophist nonsense doesn't make any sense. Providing evidence of an assertion is not equivalent to providing evidence of a negative assertion.
Again, using illogical rhetoric as a challenge is a poor debate tactic on your part.
So again your answer is NO you cannot prove that God does not exist-
the actual poor debate tactics are your attempt to repeatedly dodge a simple yes or no question.
No one can prove or disprove that something does _NOT_ exist; it's logically impossible, not "poor debate tactics", (in one of your 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I ploys). You remain unable to coerce a claim out of me; don't be frustrated, others have tried and failed too.
I am not at all frustrated that you cannot prove that God is not real.
-
I do want to clarify one thing. Not all athiests would agree with your parody listed.
True, and not all xtians would agree with your biased, god-mongering which shows in the xtian writings and "teachings".
However, there are many that are so anti-God, that their attitude is totally biased and it shows in their writings and teachings, including this parody. This parody is biased, anti-God, and saracastic of Christians and God.
As a Christian, I am stating this objectively.
Your assertion is a false claim; as a xtian, you are definitely _not_ making your statement of opinion objectively since it is manifestly filtered through your belief system.
A non-christian friend also states that it comes through loud and clear "anti-God" with no respect of a Christian's decision to follow God. There are things listed in there that are over-exaggerated just to make a Christian's choice look stupid and foolish.
What specific portions are "anti-god", (since you are making the allegation through some so-called "non-xtian friend")? Additionally, could you indicate which parts of the parody are "over-exaggerated", (supposedly to make a xtian's choice look stupid and foolish ... something for which little or no assistance is required)?
First of all, I'm a she! Second, I am a Christian, not an xtian.
Either way, the point stands; a "christian" is a 'xtian' since they are two different spellings for the same term.
Just because I am a Christian does not mean that I cannot make objective statements. Actually, in reverse, your statements are being "filtered through your belief/non-belief system." So please don't go calling my statement false unless you want to agree yours is also false.
The two are not equivancies; a lack of a biased belief system is not the same thing as filtering through a biased belief system. Since my remarks were not filtered through such a system, there was no religious bias in them.
It's late tonight and I don't have the time to specifically show you the over-exaggerated things. Besides, they are so blatantly obvious that someone of maturity and intelligence could read them for themselves. When I have more time, I will take the opportunity to show the exaggerations if it's really necessary.
Since you were the one to wave vaguely at some "over-exaggerations", yes - it would support your contentions to actually quote them, )note; not retranslate, reinterpret, recharacterize or renege).
You call my non-christian friend "so-called?" Would you like to explain your biased or insensitive statement?
Her bias, (as shown by the remarks you attributed to her), is that she's your friend and is far more likely to agree with you on any given point as she is to disagree with you on another point. The phrase I used called into question her being a non-xtian based soley upon the remarks you'd previously attributed to her. These can be requoted for reference if you'd like.
-
Ultimately,for all the pseudointellectual rhetoric that gets tossed around by the skeptics
Characterizing the opposing dissent as "pseudo-intellectual rhetoric" constitutes an unsurprising degree of hypocrisy given the amount and content of such specious rhetoric coming from the 'god-mongerers' in lieu of reasoned replies.
it cannot be proven that God does not exist.
It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion. This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage and then challenging you to prove they don't.
The ACTUAL reason you cannot prove that God does not exist
I stated the actual reason and, because of the form logic takes, it is not the one you speculate about.
is likely because he is not a PHYSICAL being at this time( which is why you brought up INVISIBLE unicorns)
The purpose in using invisible unicorns in my analogy was that, were the unicorns visible we'd have verifiable evidence of the unicorns. Making them as invisible as a theorectical "god" was merely substituting a religious contention for an equally improbable one. Btw, are you asserting a non-physical "god" in order to skirt the burden of proving your prior claim?
- this is the same reason it is hard to provide the proof that is accepted SCIENTIFICALLY that He does exist.
No rational/reasonable argument has been presented, let alone any scientific evidence for the existance of a non-physical "god". Interestingly enough, there has been mathematical evidence presented for certain theoretically non-physical dimensions, for instance. I fully expect some 'god-mongerers' to latch onto that to claim that "god" exists in some dimensionless point. They may have already done so, I could check ...
However, since this is not accepted by non-believers as a reason for not providing "substantial proof" that God exists it should not be accepted as reasons for not proving that he does not. So, you still need to provide proof that he does not exist since you require the same from believers.
That sophist nonsense doesn't make any sense. Providing evidence of an assertion is not equivalent to providing evidence of a negative assertion.
Again, using illogical rhetoric as a challenge is a poor debate tactic on your part.
So again your answer is NO you cannot prove that God does not exist-
the actual poor debate tactics are your attempt to repeatedly dodge a simple yes or no question.
No one can prove or disprove that something does _NOT_ exist; it's logically impossible, not "poor debate tactics", (in one of your 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I ploys). You remain unable to coerce a claim out of me; don't be frustrated, others have tried and failed too.
I am not at all frustrated that you cannot prove that God is not real.
That's not what I was referring to and, unless you're being intentionally obtuse, the reference was to your being unable to coerce a negative proof out of me. Here's one in turn for you; wheel your "god" out right here, right now or admit you believe in something whose existance is speculation.
-
Ultimately,for all the pseudointellectual rhetoric that gets tossed around by the skeptics
Characterizing the opposing dissent as "pseudo-intellectual rhetoric" constitutes an unsurprising degree of hypocrisy given the amount and content of such specious rhetoric coming from the 'god-mongerers' in lieu of reasoned replies.
it cannot be proven that God does not exist.
It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion. This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage and then challenging you to prove they don't.
The ACTUAL reason you cannot prove that God does not exist
I stated the actual reason and, because of the form logic takes, it is not the one you speculate about.
is likely because he is not a PHYSICAL being at this time( which is why you brought up INVISIBLE unicorns)
The purpose in using invisible unicorns in my analogy was that, were the unicorns visible we'd have verifiable evidence of the unicorns. Making them as invisible as a theorectical "god" was merely substituting a religious contention for an equally improbable one. Btw, are you asserting a non-physical "god" in order to skirt the burden of proving your prior claim?
- this is the same reason it is hard to provide the proof that is accepted SCIENTIFICALLY that He does exist.
No rational/reasonable argument has been presented, let alone any scientific evidence for the existance of a non-physical "god". Interestingly enough, there has been mathematical evidence presented for certain theoretically non-physical dimensions, for instance. I fully expect some 'god-mongerers' to latch onto that to claim that "god" exists in some dimensionless point. They may have already done so, I could check ...
However, since this is not accepted by non-believers as a reason for not providing "substantial proof" that God exists it should not be accepted as reasons for not proving that he does not. So, you still need to provide proof that he does not exist since you require the same from believers.
That sophist nonsense doesn't make any sense. Providing evidence of an assertion is not equivalent to providing evidence of a negative assertion.
Again, using illogical rhetoric as a challenge is a poor debate tactic on your part.
So again your answer is NO you cannot prove that God does not exist-
the actual poor debate tactics are your attempt to repeatedly dodge a simple yes or no question.
No one can prove or disprove that something does _NOT_ exist; it's logically impossible, not "poor debate tactics", (in one of your 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I ploys). You remain unable to coerce a claim out of me; don't be frustrated, others have tried and failed too.
I am not at all frustrated that you cannot prove that God is not real.
That's not what I was referring to and, unless you're being intentionally obtuse, the reference was to your being unable to coerce a negative proof out of me. Here's one in turn for you; wheel your "god" out right here, right now or admit you believe in something whose existance is speculation.
I literally JUST said that my God is not a physical being- or did you simply choose to ignore that?
And I have no reason to prove God's existence as I never claimed it as fact.
-
The purpose in using invisible unicorns in my analogy was that, were the unicorns visible we'd have verifiable evidence of the unicorns. Making them as invisible as a theorectical "god" was merely substituting a religious contention for an equally improbable one. Btw, are you asserting a non-physical "god" in order to skirt the burden of proving your prior claim?
- this is the same reason it is hard to provide the proof that is accepted SCIENTIFICALLY that He does exist.
No rational/reasonable argument has been presented, let alone any scientific evidence for the existance of a non-physical "god".
I literally JUST said that my God is not a physical being- or did you simply choose to ignore that?
Your remark wasn't ignored; the response was quoted above, (but perhaps you ignored it in your rush of irrationality?). To reiterate, 'No rational/reasonable argument has been presented, let alone any scientific evidence for the existance of a non-physical "god"'
And I have no reason to prove God's existence as I never claimed it as fact.
:BangHead: And around we go again. For the third or fourth time now, you have claimed to believe in the existance of your non-physical god, (this claim has been quoted many times, in your own words). The invisible unicorn analogy belies your claim to an invisble, non-physical god since anyone can equally claim various other insubstantial entities and be just as specious.
-
The purpose in using invisible unicorns in my analogy was that, were the unicorns visible we'd have verifiable evidence of the unicorns. Making them as invisible as a theorectical "god" was merely substituting a religious contention for an equally improbable one. Btw, are you asserting a non-physical "god" in order to skirt the burden of proving your prior claim?
- this is the same reason it is hard to provide the proof that is accepted SCIENTIFICALLY that He does exist.
No rational/reasonable argument has been presented, let alone any scientific evidence for the existance of a non-physical "god".
I literally JUST said that my God is not a physical being- or did you simply choose to ignore that?
Your remark wasn't ignored; the response was quoted above, (but perhaps you ignored it in your rush of irrationality?). To reiterate, 'No rational/reasonable argument has been presented, let alone any scientific evidence for the existance of a non-physical "god"'
And I have no reason to prove God's existence as I never claimed it as fact.
:BangHead: And around we go again. For the third or fourth time now, you have claimed to believe in the existance of your non-physical god, (this claim has been quoted many times, in your own words). The invisible unicorn analogy belies your claim to an invisble, non-physical god since anyone can equally claim various other insubstantial entities and be just as specious.
Claiming to believe in a non-physical being does not require me to prove that He exists. The only claim I made it to believe in Him- to prove that claim all I have to do is say "I beleive in Him"- there is your proof that I believe. Now, sicne I never claimed his existence as fact I do not have to prove that he exists. I hope you can begin to understand this notion sometime soon and quit ignoring it just because it does not favor your argument.
You act as if I am trying to convince you that God is real. I'm not. Not at all. I do not care if you beliebe in God, you have a right to your own beliefs.
(I know that you do not agree that people have the right to believe different things but they actually do.)
However, if you are going to claim that God is not real- then prove it.
You said that since I claimed to "believe" in God that I am required to prove he exists (this is a false debate tactic)
However, if that is the game you want to play then since you claimed to believe that God does not exist you must also prove this as fact.
'However, I know that you will further avoid this questiona as you have been proven wrong by me, cribb, and abrupt and just refuse to admit it.
I hope you will read over these threads and realize the debate skills you feel you have are severely lacking and are obvious attempts to dodge each and every attempt that someone makes at having you proof your claims.
You will respond to this by claiming some sort of technicality in my response (that is all you have done so far) further proving that you have lost the argument.
-
Claiming to believe in a non-physical being does not require me to prove that He exists. The only claim I made it to believe in Him- to prove that claim all I have to do is say "I beleive in Him"- there is your proof that I believe.
Once again, your claim of "belief" wasn't being disputed; the disputed claim was/is in _what_ that belief is in. In light of your continued evasion of this point, it can only be concluded that you believe in something which doesn't exist. This constitutes a choice to make an irrational decision, as Abrupt and I were debating, (and thanks for providing an evidentiary example to support my premise).
You act as if I am trying to convince you that God is real. I'm not. Not at all.
Your 'arguments', (such as they have been), have been singularly weak and unsupported by reasoning. It must therefore be concluded that you are either unable to provide a substantial argument to show that what you believe in is "real" or, that what you believe in is unreal. After all of the foregoing repetition of this point, (without progress beyond your attempts to shift the focus of your claim from what it is in to "belief", in and of itself), you've convinced me that your belief is in something which is unreal.
(I know that you do not agree that people have the right to believe different things but they actually do.)
There is no need to fabricate things which I never stated or implied; I'm available to remark on that subject. In fact, I do agree that people have the "right" to believe whatever they wish - be it nonsense or not. Such a "right" ends when it impinges on anyone else's "right" to do the same. More specifically, an evangelical fundamentalist's "right" to spread their "beliefs" ends when they ring someone else's doorbell to 'spread the word'. Hypothetically, if someone were locked in a room with an evangelical fundamentalist, a werewolf and a weapon loaded with two silver bullets I'd have to go along with the decision to shoot the fundy. Twice.
However, if you are going to claim that God is not real- then prove it.
You can't have it both ways; either you're not claiming that "god is real" and neither am I claiming that "god is not real" or, you are making the latter initial claim and the burden of proof rests with you for making that claim.
You said that since I claimed to "believe" in God that I am required to prove he exists (this is a false debate tactic)
No, you continue to attempt to evade the crux of your claim; it isn't in your "belief", it's in _what_ you believe in, (since one could easily substitute another belief - say, in those invisible unicorns from a previous analogy - and the claim would become 'I believe in invisible unicorns' ... which would require the claimant to support their contended claim in the existance of invisible unicorns or admit that what they believe in doesn't exist). Yours is the evasive debate tactic, as you've continued to demonstrate all along.
However, if that is the game you want to play then since you claimed to believe that God does not exist you must also prove this as fact.
By now, anyone reading this exchange is aware of the fact that repeated requests for you to quote where I claimed any such thing have been repeatedly ignored by you. Since the posts in this thread show this to be the case, the only conclusion possible is that your "game" is to repeat your false accusation until the one being falsely accused simply gives up on you as a lost cause.
'However, I know that you will further avoid this questiona as you have been proven wrong by me, cribb, and abrupt and just refuse to admit it.
Your false claim as to my having been "proven wrong" is a unsubstantiated one. Merely claiming 'victory' does not confer it and doing so simply indicates that your position and arguments are weak. Thanks for tacitly conceding that.
I hope you will read over these threads and realize the debate skills you feel you have are severely lacking and are obvious attempts to dodge each and every attempt that someone makes at having you proof your claims.
Such hypocritical irony from you would be surprising, were it not so common in those who falsely accuse others of doing precisely what they are doing, (were I to speculate, I'd estimate that such a 'tactic' might be intended to divert attention away from the evidence that "the debate skills you feel you have are severely lacking and are obvious attempts to dodge each and every attempt that someone makes at having you proof your claims", as shown by following the exchanges in these threads on the subject). As the colloquialism goes, "epic fail" on your part.
You will respond to this by claiming some sort of technicality in my response (that is all you have done so far) further proving that you have lost the argument.
Again, your merely claiming 'victory' without acheiving it indicates your loss of this debate. Your tacit concession of defeat is accepted.
-
Ultimately,for all the pseudointellectual rhetoric that gets tossed around by the skeptics
Characterizing the opposing dissent as "pseudo-intellectual rhetoric" constitutes an unsurprising degree of hypocrisy given the amount and content of such specious rhetoric coming from the 'god-mongerers' in lieu of reasoned replies.
The fact that you've managed to dance all around the issue,all the while not being able to address the primary question posed to you,speaks for itself.You cannot prove to have such supreme knowledge to know for a certainty that God does not exist.Saying "I don't have to prove he doesn't exist,You must prove he exists." is simply deflecting the question yet again.
"It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion. This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage and then challenging you to prove they don't.
[/quote]
This is one of the most foolish analogies I've ever heard.Run his car for 20 minutes.Later,when you don't trip over a dead invisible unicorn,it's safe to say it was a figment of his imagination.I'm afraid you'll find it tougher to disprove the Living God.
-
At the end of the day,it's not difficult to see why these skeptics are unable to comprehend the existence of God,since they've very cleverly designed "qualifiers" that prevent any credit given to the Believer's point of view.
The Bible doesn't count as evidence,regardless of it's being historical accurate.It must be biased.
Any scientific fact supporting the Bible/Creationism is bias/lies/non-facts.
Faith is intangible and can't be excepted to any extent.
Miracles can't be scientifically explained,thus they cannot exist.(Despite the fact that the very definition of a Miracle is that it can't be scientifically explained.)
And (the one that tends to baffle me the most,) God can't possibly give us free will,extend punishment to the guilty,or have the Supreme knowledge to run the universe.
If you're stacking the deck like that,it's no wonder you can't believe.
That's why it's a waste of time debating with an obscurantist.It's like two teams meeting in the ball park.One team says to the other "Alright,we'll play.But just so you know,only hits from our bats are going to count."You may get a day's exercise,but the effort was ultimately futile.
-
Ultimately,for all the pseudointellectual rhetoric that gets tossed around by the skeptics
Characterizing the opposing dissent as "pseudo-intellectual rhetoric" constitutes an unsurprising degree of hypocrisy given the amount and content of such specious rhetoric coming from the 'god-mongerers' in lieu of reasoned replies.
The fact that you've managed to dance all around the issue,all the while not being able to address the primary question posed to you,speaks for itself.
I'm not the one evading the issue of posting a quote where I'm being accused of claiming that "god does not exist". That would be one of you god-mongerers. The fact that you aren't calling Surveymack10 on this aspect of her evasions speaks volumes for your evinced bias. Your empty opinions can be effectively disregarded then.
You cannot prove to have such supreme knowledge to know for a certainty that God does not exist.Saying "I don't have to prove he doesn't exist,You must prove he exists." is simply deflecting the question yet again.
For the 'umteenth' time; your evasion, (and that of a few others), has been to avoid substantiating your claims to believe in an existant or, non-existant "god". The burden of proof lies with the initial claimant, (and boy does it ever lie). Attempts to deflect the burden onto those who challenge that initial claim are dissembling and specious.
"It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion. This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage and then challenging you to prove they don't.
This is one of the most foolish analogies I've ever heard.
Then you must not get out much.
Run his car for 5 minutes.Later,when you don't trip over a dead invisible unicorn,it's safe to say it was a figment of his imagination.I'm afraid you'll find it tougher to disprove the Living God.
Not at all, we'll simply use your 'test' and apply it to your 'invisible god'. Let's see, according to you, we claim to believe that god in in the garage and run the car for 5 minutes. Later, when we don't trip over a dead invisible "god", it's safe to say that this was a figment of your imaginations afterall. Same test applied and it's your test. It's not the most foolish test I've ever encountered but, I do get out a lot.
-
At the end of the day,it's not difficult to see why these skeptics are unable to comprehend the existence of God,since they've very cleverly designed "qualifiers" that prevent any credit given to the Believer's point of view.
At thh beginning of any given day, unsupported opinions, (which include "faith" & "belief"), do not constitute evidence of the existance of any imaginary being claimed.
The Bible doesn't count as evidence,regardless of it's being historical accurate.It must be biased.
Your premise is false; the "bible" is not historically accurate. If you really, truly want to go down that road, no doubt around 33,000 direct references can prove that you're blowing smoke out of your nether regions about this subject.
Any scientific fact supporting the Bible/Creationism is bias/lies/non-facts.]/quote]
Of course they are since any 'sensible' believer just "knows" that the earth was created in six days, (144 hours, or 1.44 seconds if you go back to the "let there be light" claim). Additionally, 65 million year old dinosaur bones, (curiously _not_ mentioned in the "bible", despite some laying around in open deserts), are really only six days old somehow. Sure, the "bible" is just chock-full of fanciful "facts" and isn't religiously biased at all ... oh and that Kansas beachfront property you've been eying is a real bargain too!
Faith is intangible and can't be excepted to any extent.
By definition, "faith" is a belief for which there is no evidence - unless you meant to write "accepted", in which case I concur.
That's why it's a waste of time debating with an obscurantist.
Alternatively, it's more likely a greater waste of time attempting to debate with someone who doesn't possess an understanding of what a debate is and instead, uses ad hominem "obscurantist" name-calling in lieu of reasoning. Sure, it's weak and evasive but, it ain't debate.
-
At the end of the day,it's not difficult to see why these skeptics are unable to comprehend the existence of God,since they've very cleverly designed "qualifiers" that prevent any credit given to the Believer's point of view.
There's one qualifier actually. It's called reality.
The Bible doesn't count as evidence,regardless of it's being historical accurate.It must be biased.
Any scientific fact supporting the Bible/Creationism is bias/lies/non-facts.
Faith is intangible and can't be excepted to any extent.
1.) The bible is not historically accurate. The stories that parallel historical areas and dates are extremely romanticized at best.
2.) Billions of years plus Natural Selection? Proposterous! 6 days, a dirt man, rib woman, an evil talking snake, and truckloads of incest? Without a doubt!
3.) Everyone has some faith in something. Religious faith just needlessly butts too many heads for no reason, and that's why skeptics easily show it's lack of results and problems.
Miracles can't be scientifically explained,thus they cannot exist.(Despite the fact that the very definition of a Miracle is that it can't be scientifically explained.)
Well that depends on ones definition of a miracle. For instance if one little girl survives terrible odds in the ER, that's great but it's no miracle. It does not explain how the 1000s of other children die terrible deaths each day. It's very ignorant thinking. If you're referring to biblical miracles, they're all bogus because there's no proofs of them ever taking place.
And (the one that tends to baffle me the most,) God can't possibly give us free will,extend punishment to the guilty,or have the Supreme knowledge to run the universe.
If you're stacking the deck like that,it's no wonder you can't believe.
That's why it's a waste of time debating with an obscurantist.It's like two teams meeting in the ball park.One team says to the other "Alright,we'll play.But just so you know,only hits from our bats are going to count."You may get a day's exercise,but the effort was ultimately futile.
It's you who can't deal with the contradictions and therefore just avoid the problems with your beliefs all together. You are pompous and biased in your reasonings, don't show your proof ever, and then just cowardly walk away while telling yourself that you're right. I guess it's true what they say-- debating with creationists is like playing a game of chess with a pigeon. They knock over all of the pieces, crap on the table, fail to understand how to play, and then fly off thinking they won.
-
At the end of the day,it's not difficult to see why these skeptics are unable to comprehend the existence of God,since they've very cleverly designed "qualifiers" that prevent any credit given to the Believer's point of view.
The Bible doesn't count as evidence,regardless of it's being historical accurate.It must be biased.
Any scientific fact supporting the Bible/Creationism is bias/lies/non-facts.
Faith is intangible and can't be excepted to any extent.
Miracles can't be scientifically explained,thus they cannot exist.(Despite the fact that the very definition of a Miracle is that it can't be scientifically explained.)
And (the one that tends to baffle me the most,) God can't possibly give us free will,extend punishment to the guilty,or have the Supreme knowledge to run the universe.
If you're stacking the deck like that,it's no wonder you can't believe.
That's why it's a waste of time debating with an obscurantist.It's like two teams meeting in the ball park.One team says to the other "Alright,we'll play.But just so you know,only hits from our bats are going to count."You may get a day's exercise,but the effort was ultimately futile.
That was a great way to put all of that. I agree with you. :thumbsup:
-
That was a great way to put all of that. I agree with you.
WOW. Are you serious? You willingly agree with this insanely uneducated nonsense? Unless you're being sarcastic, that's...exponentially delusional thinking. :sad1:
-
That was a great way to put all of that. I agree with you.
WOW. Are you serious? You willingly agree with this insanely uneducated nonsense? Unless you're being sarcastic, that's...exponentially delusional thinking. :sad1:
Well, Jedi was pretty much summing up what different ones in here (nonbelievers or non-christians, or atheists, or what they choose to say they are) have been trying to put to the Christians. I am not surprised at your question to me! ;D
-
Well, Jedi was pretty much summing up what different ones in here (nonbelievers or non-christians, or atheists, or what they choose to say they are) have been trying to put to the Christians.
Skeptics: "Let's favor undeniable proofs, reality, logic, deep questions, and rational explanations since they've done nothing but progress our understanding of...well...everything."
Religious: "Let's set those things aside in favor of what one's narrow and overpoweringly problematic emotional speculations say and when people question it, let's just say it's unprovable to win the argument in our heads! SPREAD THE WORD!"
:dontknow:
-
Claiming to believe in a non-physical being does not require me to prove that He exists. The only claim I made it to believe in Him- to prove that claim all I have to do is say "I beleive in Him"- there is your proof that I believe.
Once again, your claim of "belief" wasn't being disputed; the disputed claim was/is in _what_ that belief is in. In light of your continued evasion of this point, it can only be concluded that you believe in something which doesn't exist. This constitutes a choice to make an irrational decision, as Abrupt and I were debating, (and thanks for providing an evidentiary example to support my premise).
You act as if I am trying to convince you that God is real. I'm not. Not at all.
Your 'arguments', (such as they have been), have been singularly weak and unsupported by reasoning. It must therefore be concluded that you are either unable to provide a substantial argument to show that what you believe in is "real" or, that what you believe in is unreal. After all of the foregoing repetition of this point, (without progress beyond your attempts to shift the focus of your claim from what it is in to "belief", in and of itself), you've convinced me that your belief is in something which is unreal.
(I know that you do not agree that people have the right to believe different things but they actually do.)
There is no need to fabricate things which I never stated or implied; I'm available to remark on that subject. In fact, I do agree that people have the "right" to believe whatever they wish - be it nonsense or not. Such a "right" ends when it impinges on anyone else's "right" to do the same. More specifically, an evangelical fundamentalist's "right" to spread their "beliefs" ends when they ring someone else's doorbell to 'spread the word'. Hypothetically, if someone were locked in a room with an evangelical fundamentalist, a werewolf and a weapon loaded with two silver bullets I'd have to go along with the decision to shoot the fundy. Twice.
However, if you are going to claim that God is not real- then prove it.
You can't have it both ways; either you're not claiming that "god is real" and neither am I claiming that "god is not real" or, you are making the latter initial claim and the burden of proof rests with you for making that claim.
You said that since I claimed to "believe" in God that I am required to prove he exists (this is a false debate tactic)
No, you continue to attempt to evade the crux of your claim; it isn't in your "belief", it's in _what_ you believe in, (since one could easily substitute another belief - say, in those invisible unicorns from a previous analogy - and the claim would become 'I believe in invisible unicorns' ... which would require the claimant to support their contended claim in the existance of invisible unicorns or admit that what they believe in doesn't exist). Yours is the evasive debate tactic, as you've continued to demonstrate all along.
However, if that is the game you want to play then since you claimed to believe that God does not exist you must also prove this as fact.
By now, anyone reading this exchange is aware of the fact that repeated requests for you to quote where I claimed any such thing have been repeatedly ignored by you. Since the posts in this thread show this to be the case, the only conclusion possible is that your "game" is to repeat your false accusation until the one being falsely accused simply gives up on you as a lost cause.
'However, I know that you will further avoid this questiona as you have been proven wrong by me, cribb, and abrupt and just refuse to admit it.
Your false claim as to my having been "proven wrong" is a unsubstantiated one. Merely claiming 'victory' does not confer it and doing so simply indicates that your position and arguments are weak. Thanks for tacitly conceding that.
I hope you will read over these threads and realize the debate skills you feel you have are severely lacking and are obvious attempts to dodge each and every attempt that someone makes at having you proof your claims.
Such hypocritical irony from you would be surprising, were it not so common in those who falsely accuse others of doing precisely what they are doing, (were I to speculate, I'd estimate that such a 'tactic' might be intended to divert attention away from the evidence that "the debate skills you feel you have are severely lacking and are obvious attempts to dodge each and every attempt that someone makes at having you proof your claims", as shown by following the exchanges in these threads on the subject). As the colloquialism goes, "epic fail" on your part.
You will respond to this by claiming some sort of technicality in my response (that is all you have done so far) further proving that you have lost the argument.
Again, your merely claiming 'victory' without acheiving it indicates your loss of this debate. Your tacit concession of defeat is accepted.
I have proven my claim that I believe in God.
I'll do it again.
I believe in God.
If someone did tell you they believed in invisible unicorns, they would not be claiming invisible unicorns are real, simply that they believe in them. So saying that they would be required to prove the existence of the unicorns is absurd.
The reason I purposely did not say "God is real" is because I know that any proof I offer you will be called "false"- for example, the Bible.
There is no need to answer this with WHY you will not accept the Bible as proof as I am not offering it as proof.
This is because I am not offering any proof at all.
This is because I am not required to offer any proof to you.
This is because I did not claim God was real, merely that I have chosen to believe in him.
I will once again prove I believe in God.
I believe in God.
There, I proved it again.
You keep trying to make me prove the existence of something that I never claimed exists, despite what I believe- I did not come on this thread and claim something is real and try convincing you of it, so why are you pretending that I did.
-
Claiming to believe in a non-physical being does not require me to prove that He exists.
Once again, your claim of "belief" wasn't being disputed; the disputed claim was/is in _what_ that belief is in. In light of your continued evasion of this point, it can only be concluded that you believe in something which doesn't exist. This constitutes a choice to make an irrational decision, as Abrupt and I were debating, (and thanks for providing an evidentiary example to support my premise).
I have proven my claim that I believe in God.
For the last time, (and for the benefit of others who are actually paying attention, unlike you); your claim of "belief" wasn't being disputed; the disputed claim was/is in _what_ that belief is in. In light of your continued evasion of this point, it can only be concluded that you believe in something which doesn't exist. This constitutes a choice to make an irrational decision, as Abrupt and I were debating, (and thanks for providing an evidentiary example to support my premise).
If someone did tell you they believed in invisible unicorns, they would not be claiming invisible unicorns are real, simply that they believe in them.
Very ... slowly ... once ... again ... for ... the ... comprehension-impaired ... Your claim of "belief" wasn't being disputed; the disputed claim was/is in _what_ that belief is in. This is inherent in your claim; characterizing your claim as a "belief" doesn't change the _object_ of belief and either that object exists or, it does not. This cannot be made any plainer and your absurd attempts to dissemble and divert attention away from this aspect of your claim are simply BS.
This is because I am not required to offer any proof to you.
You aren't required to unless you are conceding that burden of proof for making the initial claim here. Your concession that you are unable to substantiate your claim is accepted.
-
Claiming to believe in a non-physical being does not require me to prove that He exists.
Once again, your claim of "belief" wasn't being disputed; the disputed claim was/is in _what_ that belief is in. In light of your continued evasion of this point, it can only be concluded that you believe in something which doesn't exist. This constitutes a choice to make an irrational decision, as Abrupt and I were debating, (and thanks for providing an evidentiary example to support my premise).
I have proven my claim that I believe in God.
For the last time, (and for the benefit of others who are actually paying attention, unlike you); your claim of "belief" wasn't being disputed; the disputed claim was/is in _what_ that belief is in. In light of your continued evasion of this point, it can only be concluded that you believe in something which doesn't exist. This constitutes a choice to make an irrational decision, as Abrupt and I were debating, (and thanks for providing an evidentiary example to support my premise).
If someone did tell you they believed in invisible unicorns, they would not be claiming invisible unicorns are real, simply that they believe in them.
Very ... slowly ... once ... again ... for ... the ... comprehension-impaired ... Your claim of "belief" wasn't being disputed; the disputed claim was/is in _what_ that belief is in. This is inherent in your claim; characterizing your claim as a "belief" doesn't change the _object_ of belief and either that object exists or, it does not. This cannot be made any plainer and your absurd attempts to dissemble and divert attention away from this aspect of your claim are simply BS.
This is because I am not required to offer any proof to you.
You aren't required to unless you are conceding that burden of proof for making the initial claim here. Your concession that you are unable to substantiate your claim is accepted.
But that's the thing, we aren't going to agree on whether or not God exists because we have different belief systems and you will never accept my proof as proof.
Which is why I did not claim God is real.
I simply claimed to believe in God.
I'll prove this claim is true AGAIN.
I believe in God.
Oh look, it's true!
Also, why would it be any of your business whether what I believe in is considered real or not? And how would it affect you as I am not at all trying to get you to believe what I believe?
-
you will never accept my proof as proof.
You've never presented any "proof" or evidence; merely your unsubstantiated "belief", so there's nothing to accept except your tacit concession of losing this argument. Your various evasions however, are rejected.
Also, why would it be any of your business whether what I believe in is considered real or not? And how would it affect you as I am not at all trying to get you to believe what I believe?
Earlier, I may have answered such questions, (and, as this thread shows by and large, I have). Given your continued avoidance of particularly relevant questions, I've decided to ignore them until I feel like answering.
-
you will never accept my proof as proof.
You've never presented any "proof" or evidence; merely your unsubstantiated "belief", so there's nothing to accept except your tacit concession of losing this argument. Your various evasions however, are rejected.
Also, why would it be any of your business whether what I believe in is considered real or not? And how would it affect you as I am not at all trying to get you to believe what I believe?
Earlier, I may have answered such questions, (and, as this thread shows by and large, I have). Given your continued avoidance of particularly relevant questions, I've decided to ignore them until I feel like answering.
I have not shown proof that God is real because I DID NOT CLAIM HE WAS REAL.
Whyd o you ignore that haha, it's ridiculous how you wish so bad that I would claim his existence.
-
you will never accept my proof as proof.
You've never presented any "proof" or evidence; merely your unsubstantiated "belief", so there's nothing to accept except your tacit concession of losing this argument. Your various evasions however, are rejected.
Also, why would it be any of your business whether what I believe in is considered real or not? And how would it affect you as I am not at all trying to get you to believe what I believe?
Earlier, I may have answered such questions, (and, as this thread shows by and large, I have). Given your continued avoidance of particularly relevant questions, I've decided to ignore them until I feel like answering.
[/quote]
I have not shown proof that God is real[/quote]
And you have not shown proof that I claimed "god was not real", as you claimed I did. This claim is as false as your other claims.
-
you will never accept my proof as proof.
You've never presented any "proof" or evidence; merely your unsubstantiated "belief", so there's nothing to accept except your tacit concession of losing this argument. Your various evasions however, are rejected.
Also, why would it be any of your business whether what I believe in is considered real or not? And how would it affect you as I am not at all trying to get you to believe what I believe?
Earlier, I may have answered such questions, (and, as this thread shows by and large, I have). Given your continued avoidance of particularly relevant questions, I've decided to ignore them until I feel like answering.
I have not shown proof that God is real[/quote]
And you have not shown proof that I claimed "god was not real", as you claimed I did. This claim is as false as your other claims.
[/quote]
You have said multiple times that I believe in something(God) that only exists as much as invisible unicorns- are you saying that this is not equivalent to saying God is not real?
-
I have not shown proof that God is real
And you have not shown proof that I claimed "god was not real", as you claimed I did. This claim is as false as your other claims.
[/quote]
You have said multiple times that I believe in something(God) that only exists as much as invisible unicorns- are you saying that this is not equivalent to saying God is not real?
[/quote]
You have continued to fail show proof that I claimed "god was not real", as you claimed I did. This constitutes your making a false claim. Until you address this false claim you made, this aspect of the discussion remains stalled due to your evasion.
-
I have not shown proof that God is real
And you have not shown proof that I claimed "god was not real", as you claimed I did. This claim is as false as your other claims.
You have said multiple times that I believe in something(God) that only exists as much as invisible unicorns- are you saying that this is not equivalent to saying God is not real?
[/quote]
You have continued to fail show proof that I claimed "god was not real", as you claimed I did. This constitutes your making a false claim. Until you address this false claim you made, this aspect of the discussion remains stalled due to your evasion.
[/quote]
YOU HAVE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES THAT I BELIEVE IN SOMETHING(GOD) THAT DOES NOT EXIST-YOU EVEN WENT DO FAR AS TO COMPARE HIM TO INVISIBLE UNICORNS. How does is this not equivalent to claiming God does not exist? Hopefully since I put that in capitals you will not ignore it as you did in my last post-
-
You have said multiple times that I believe in something(God)
YOU HAVE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES THAT I BELIEVE IN SOMETHING(GOD)
You have continued to fail show proof that I claimed "god was not real", as you claimed I did. This constitutes your making a false claim. Until you address this false claim you made, this aspect of the discussion remains stalled due to your evasion.
-
Yes, I believe that once you die, you either go to heaven, or you go to hell.
-
yes i do believe in the afterlife.
-
You have said multiple times that I believe in something(God)
YOU HAVE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES THAT I BELIEVE IN SOMETHING(GOD)
You have continued to fail show proof that I claimed "god was not real", as you claimed I did. This constitutes your making a false claim. Until you address this false claim you made, this aspect of the discussion remains stalled due to your evasion.
There being no quoted evidence to support 'Surveymack10's" false contention, it must be concluded that her assertion was thrown into the 'debate' in order to divert attention from her unfounded contention. This may not be what she 'believes' she's done however, a belief without evidence is an empty opinion.
-
I believe that we are living in a world without end, and I believe in God and life after death. I believe that I will be judged at the time of my death and afterwards I will go with Jesus into Heaven..... :angel11:
-
You have said multiple times that I believe in something(God)
YOU HAVE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES THAT I BELIEVE IN SOMETHING(GOD)
You have continued to fail show proof that I claimed "god was not real", as you claimed I did. This constitutes your making a false claim. Until you address this false claim you made, this aspect of the discussion remains stalled due to your evasion.
I will say this one more time since you seem to be ignoring it
You have said many times that my beliefs are equivalent to that of believing in invisible unicorns.
Is this true? Yes or no.
If yes, that is saying I believe in something that is not real (unless invisible unicorns are real)
If no, you are lying because you HAVE said that.
If you ignore this message ang again say I have not proven that you claimed God is not real then you will be proving that you are once again ignoring evidence of what you said in order to avoid owning up to your own claims.
Did you or did you not compare my belief in Gof to that of invisible unicorns?
Is this or is this not equivalent to saying God is not real?
Do not answer this question with a question.
-
You have said multiple times that I believe in something(God)
YOU HAVE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES THAT I BELIEVE IN SOMETHING(GOD)
You have continued to fail show proof that I claimed "god was not real", as you claimed I did. This constitutes your making a false claim. Until you address this false claim you made, this aspect of the discussion remains stalled due to your evasion.
There being no quoted evidence to support 'Surveymack10's" false contention, it must be concluded that her assertion was thrown into the 'debate' in order to divert attention from her unfounded contention. This may not be what she 'believes' she's done however, a belief without evidence is an empty opinion.
No need to speak ABOUT me rather than TO me in order to make yourself feel better about what you lack.
-
Are we so vain and smug as to say we know UNEQUIVOCALLY that there may be no afterlife? Some things are just not meant to be explained. However I KNOW what I have personally experienced and I am by NO means a nut case or crack pot
-
You have continued to fail show proof that I claimed "god was not real", as you claimed I did. This constitutes your making a false claim. Until you address this false claim you made, this aspect of the discussion remains stalled due to your evasion.
You have said many times that my beliefs are equivalent to that of believing in invisible unicorns.
Is this true? Yes or no.
No, it is false. I did not state what you contend; I presented an analogy wherein a belief in invisible unicorns constitutes an unsupported claim. Such an unsupported claim is equivalent to making a similarly unsupported religious claim.
If yes, that is saying I believe in something that is not real (unless invisible unicorns are real)
If no, you are lying because you HAVE said that.
Even your sophistry is poor; those aren't logical conclusions based upon the premise.
Once again, you fail to provide substantiating evidence of your assertion that I made the claim you contend. Therefore, your assertion is false and you've intentionally lied.
-
Amazing that you feel yourself so superior to have claimed to know my financial status, my GPA, as well as my major.
No, I expressed doubts concerning the financial status of the typical college student and without documentation, GPA claims are dubious in light of a demonstrated lack of critical thinking skills, (at least here - who knows if you're shining them on at school). As far as your major is concerned, the actual statement made was an educated guess that it wasn't psychology, (again, based upon your replies here so far).
Ah I must have missed this message earlier as I just saw it-
I am so glad that you feel the need to come on a forum and insult others.
You think you have these great debate tactics, but anyone can see that all you do is avoid answering any questions or proving anything you say by putting the burden on the other person as well as using technical terms to attack their statements and claim they are invalid when they are not.
Moreover, I do not need your verification of whether or not I am financially stable, a good student, capable of critical thinking, and especially not on what my major should or should not be. Especially as it is clear you do not contribute much to society as every single time I have found the time to post on this forum you have replied usually in a matter of minutes- which shows that you are sitting in front of your computer unless you are breaking FC's rules and accessing them from a phone. I am mature enough to know that I could be wrong and that I am not capable of knowing someone's life story from talking to them on a forum for a few days (you lack this maturity), but just by your constant hostile tone it is easy to see you lack many social skills that are needed to be a functioning part of our society. Also, your arrogance in thinking that you can tell everyone on this forum what to do, decide if they are right or wrong, and tell what is true or not true about their lives shows immense immaturity and that you lack any ability to hold a civil, adult conversation as you believelf superior to all who you speak to that do not agree with everything that you say. Whether or not you admit this idea of superiority you show it in your habit of talking down to others, so denying it will not be necessary as it will only further prove my point.
That being said, people will take your arguments much more seriously if you consider that not everyone believe the same way you do and spend less time with subtle insults and more time proving your point.
-
You have continued to fail show proof that I claimed "god was not real", as you claimed I did. This constitutes your making a false claim. Until you address this false claim you made, this aspect of the discussion remains stalled due to your evasion.
You have said many times that my beliefs are equivalent to that of believing in invisible unicorns.
Is this true? Yes or no.
No, it is false. I did not state what you contend; I presented an analogy wherein a belief in invisible unicorns constitutes an unsupported claim. Such an unsupported claim is equivalent to making a similarly unsupported religious claim.
If yes, that is saying I believe in something that is not real (unless invisible unicorns are real)
If no, you are lying because you HAVE said that.
Even your sophistry is poor; those aren't logical conclusions based upon the premise.
Once again, you fail to provide substantiating evidence of your assertion that I made the claim you contend. Therefore, your assertion is false and you've intentionally lied.
Did you or did you not compare my belief in God to believing in invisible unicorns?
Yes or no.
-
You have continued to fail show proof that I claimed "god was not real", as you claimed I did. This constitutes your making a false claim. Until you address this false claim you made, this aspect of the discussion remains stalled due to your evasion.
There being no quoted evidence to support 'Surveymack10's" false contention, it must be concluded that her assertion was thrown into the 'debate' in order to divert attention from her unfounded contention. This may not be what she 'believes' she's done however, a belief without evidence is an empty opinion.
No need to speak ABOUT me rather than TO me in order to make yourself feel better about what you lack.
In this instance, the only thing I "lack" is your degree of irrationality; something which I'll not miss.
-
I am so glad that you feel the need to come on a forum and insult others.
I experience no such "need". Would you like your insults quoted in order sequence or, just a sampling to emphasize your hypocrisy?
You think you have these great debate tactics, but anyone can see that all you do is avoid answering any questions or proving anything you say by putting the burden on the other person as well as using technical terms to attack their statements and claim they are invalid when they are not.
The burden of proof rests with the one who makes the _initial_ claim, (that would be you). Evidence in the form of your dodging providing any substantiation for your claim exists in the form of your own words in these threads. These are not "technical terms", they constitute logical debate. If illogical "debate" tactics are instead employed by religious zealots, that does not change the burden of proof.
I am mature enough to know that I could be wrong and that I am not capable of knowing someone's life story from talking to them on a forum for a few days (you lack this maturity)
Both of your contentions, (that you are "mature enough to know" that you could be wrong), and that I "lack this maturity" are demonstrably false. These constitute mere empty insults, (ad hominem is the 'technical term' for such).
but just by your constant hostile tone it is easy to see you lack many social skills that are needed to be a functioning part of our society.]/quote]
The depths of your hypocrisy are ironic.
Also, your arrogance in thinking that you can tell everyone on this forum what to do, decide if they are right or wrong ...
Since I have not told anyone what to do, (although, in your case, I have had to make the same request that you support your false assertions many times), nor decided as yet whether anyone was "right or wrong", (beyond indicating faulty logic, outright irrationality or lack of critical thinking skills - not just on your part), there remain only a few conclusions to be drawn from your rant. One, that you apparently believe that, by making false accusational counter-attacks, your failure to defend your false contentions will go unnoticed. Two, that you can devise no substantial evidence to support your claims and must resort to diversionary tactics. The third possibility is _not_ the one you'll no doubt fabricate.
-
Did you or did you not compare my belief in God to believing in invisible unicorns?
Yes or no.
What do you think an analogy is?
-
Did you or did you not compare my belief in God to believing in invisible unicorns?
Yes or no.
What do you think an analogy is?
Did you or did you not equate my God with invisible unicorns?
You did.
Are you doing to deny it? I will quote it if need be.
So, unless you believe that invisible unicorns exist then you equated my God with something nonexistent, meaning you claimed my God to be nonexistent.
If you continue to say I did not show how you said God is not real you will only be proving that you are blatantly ignoring my proof.
-
Did you or did you not compare my belief in God to believing in invisible unicorns?
Yes or no.
What do you think an analogy is?
Did you or did you not equate my God with invisible unicorns?
Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational. Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.
Are you doing to deny it? I will quote it if need be.
Go ahead and quote it. That will show anyone will competent comprehension ability that the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational. Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.
If you continue to say I did not show how you said God is not real you will only be proving that you are blatantly ignoring my proof.
No "proof" was provided. Instead, you keep attempting to present fabrications and inaccurate interpretations in lieu of conclusive evidence.
-
Did you or did you not compare my belief in God to believing in invisible unicorns?
Yes or no.
What do you think an analogy is?
Did you or did you not equate my God with invisible unicorns?
Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational. Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.
Are you doing to deny it? I will quote it if need be.
Go ahead and quote it. That will show anyone will competent comprehension ability that the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational. Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.
If you continue to say I did not show how you said God is not real you will only be proving that you are blatantly ignoring my proof.
No "proof" was provided. Instead, you keep attempting to present fabrications and inaccurate interpretations in lieu of conclusive evidence.
Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?
-
Did you or did you not compare my belief ... ?
Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational. Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.
If you continue to say I did not show how you said God is not real you will only be proving that you are blatantly ignoring my proof.
No "proof" was provided. Instead, you keep attempting to present fabrications and inaccurate interpretations in lieu of conclusive evidence.
[/quote]
Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?
[/quote]
Evidence in the form of your dodging providing any substantiation for your initial claim exists in the form of your own words in these threads. These are not "technical terms", they constitute logical debate. If illogical "debate" tactics of ignoring this and repeating answered questions are instead employed by religious zealots, that does not change the burden of proof.
-
Did you or did you not compare my belief ... ?
Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational. Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.
If you continue to say I did not show how you said God is not real you will only be proving that you are blatantly ignoring my proof.
No "proof" was provided. Instead, you keep attempting to present fabrications and inaccurate interpretations in lieu of conclusive evidence.
Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?
[/quote]
Evidence in the form of your dodging providing any substantiation for your initial claim exists in the form of your own words in these threads. These are not "technical terms", they constitute logical debate. If illogical "debate" tactics of ignoring this and repeating answered questions are instead employed by religious zealots, that does not change the burden of proof.
[/quote]
Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?
-
Did you or did you not compare my belief ... ?
Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational. Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.
Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?
Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?[/quote]
Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational. Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.
-
Did you or did you not compare my belief ... ?
Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational. Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.
Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?
Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?
Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational. Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.
[/quote]
So, since "the belief itself" is God, then you compared "the belief itself" (God) to invisible unicorns.
This means that the answer to the question:
Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns is Yes, you did.
-
Did you or did you not compare my belief ... ?
Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational. Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.
Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?
Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?
Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational. Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.
So, since "the belief itself" is God [/quote]
No, it is NOT in _what_ was being believed in, it referred to "belief itself, (rather than "the" belief itself; again, I realize this escapes you due to your intential obfuscation. To reiterate the salient point; by substituting the _What_, (in this case, unicorns and gods), the emphasis is upon the act of believing, (no matter what the professed belief is _in_). Yet again, you base your inaccurate conclusion upon a false premise. You do that quite a bit; as references to your own words in these threads directly show.
-
Did you or did you not compare my belief ... ?
Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational. Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.
Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?
Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?
Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational. Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.
So, since "the belief itself" is God
No, it is NOT in _what_ was being believed in, it referred to "belief itself, (rather than "the" belief itself; again, I realize this escapes you due to your intential obfuscation. To reiterate the salient point; by substituting the _What_, (in this case, unicorns and gods), the emphasis is upon the act of believing, (no matter what the professed beleif is _in_). Yet again, you base your inaccurate conclusion upon a false premise. You do that quite a bit; as references to your own words in these threads directly show.
[/quote]
You are either asserting that a specific belief (in God) is nonsense
or you are asserting that any belief at all is nonsense by calling belief in general nonsense
Which is it?
-
You are either asserting that a specific belief (in God) is nonsense
or you are asserting that any belief at all is nonsense by calling belief in general nonsense
Which is it?
The latter; since any belief is essentially 'faith' without evidence.
-
You are either asserting that a specific belief (in God) is nonsense
or you are asserting that any belief at all is nonsense by calling belief in general nonsense
Which is it?
The latter; since any belief is essentially 'faith' without evidence.
So, by asserting that any belief is nonsense that would mean that a belief in God is nonsense. Right?
(Saying no will prove illogical)
-
You are either asserting that a specific belief (in God) is nonsense
or you are asserting that any belief at all is nonsense by calling belief in general nonsense
Which is it?
The latter; since any belief is essentially 'faith' without evidence.
So, by asserting that any belief is nonsense that would mean that a belief in God is nonsense. Right?
The direction you are taking is obvious and the ploy, transparent. Once again, for the comprehension-impaired, (that would be Surveymack10); an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion. Your attempts to provoke an explicit claim are duly noted and dismissed.
-
You are either asserting that a specific belief (in God) is nonsense
or you are asserting that any belief at all is nonsense by calling belief in general nonsense
Which is it?
The latter; since any belief is essentially 'faith' without evidence.
So, by asserting that any belief is nonsense that would mean that a belief in God is nonsense. Right?
The direction you are taking is obvious and the ploy, transparent. Once again, for the comprehension-impaired, (that would be Surveymack10); an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion. Your attempts to provoke an explicit claim are duly noted and dismissed.
Actually it is only logical that if all beliefs are nonsense that a belief in God is nonsense.
You said "any belief is essentially faith without evidence"
belief in God falls under the category of "any belief"
You cannot even argue that this is not true and it is not some kind of trick(that's your style not mine), it is YOUR words.
-
You are either asserting that a specific belief (in God) is nonsense
or you are asserting that any belief at all is nonsense by calling belief in general nonsense
Which is it?
The latter; since any belief is essentially 'faith' without evidence.
So, by asserting that any belief is nonsense that would mean that a belief in God is nonsense. Right?
The direction you are taking is obvious and the ploy, transparent. Once again, for the comprehension-impaired, (that would be Surveymack10); an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion. Your attempts to provoke an explicit claim are duly noted and dismissed.
Actually it is only logical that if all beliefs are nonsense that a belief in God is nonsense.
You said "any belief is essentially faith without evidence"
belief in God falls under the category of "any belief"
You cannot even argue that this is not true and it is not some kind of trick(that's your style not mine), it is YOUR words.
It is an inferred or, implicit deduction - not a directly stated or, explicit claim; which is what 'an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion' means.
-
You are either asserting that a specific belief (in God) is nonsense
or you are asserting that any belief at all is nonsense by calling belief in general nonsense
Which is it?
The latter; since any belief is essentially 'faith' without evidence.
So, by asserting that any belief is nonsense that would mean that a belief in God is nonsense. Right?
The direction you are taking is obvious and the ploy, transparent. Once again, for the comprehension-impaired, (that would be Surveymack10); an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion. Your attempts to provoke an explicit claim are duly noted and dismissed.
Actually it is only logical that if all beliefs are nonsense that a belief in God is nonsense.
You said "any belief is essentially faith without evidence"
belief in God falls under the category of "any belief"
You cannot even argue that this is not true and it is not some kind of trick(that's your style not mine), it is YOUR words.
It is an inferred or, implicit deduction - not a directly stated or, explicit claim; which is what 'an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion' means.
So the same thing as you saying that my claim to believe in God is equivalent to saying that God is real by fact. Your hypocrisy is alarming.
-
You are either asserting that a specific belief (in God) is nonsense
or you are asserting that any belief at all is nonsense by calling belief in general nonsense
Which is it?
The latter; since any belief is essentially 'faith' without evidence.
So, by asserting that any belief is nonsense that would mean that a belief in God is nonsense. Right?
The direction you are taking is obvious and the ploy, transparent. Once again, for the comprehension-impaired, (that would be Surveymack10); an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion. Your attempts to provoke an explicit claim are duly noted and dismissed.
Actually it is only logical that if all beliefs are nonsense that a belief in God is nonsense.
You said "any belief is essentially faith without evidence"
belief in God falls under the category of "any belief"
You cannot even argue that this is not true and it is not some kind of trick(that's your style not mine), it is YOUR words.
It is an inferred or, implicit deduction - not a directly stated or, explicit claim; which is what 'an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion' means.
So the same thing as you saying that my claim to believe in God is equivalent to saying that God is real by fact. Your hypocrisy is alarming.
You've amply demonstrated a severe deficiency in reading comprehension so, I pretty much expected you not to get that. Once again, I never asserted that you claimed that "god was real by fact", nor did I imply that you implied it. What I actually did do was ask you whether or not you believed that you believed in something that was real when you made your claim of belief in god. You subsequently claimed that "belief IS God". Those are your unaltered, quoted words. The logical deduction stemming from them is that, if your belief is a fact, (as you asserted), and that "belief is god", (also asserted by you), then combining your documented claims yields the conclusion that your claim consists of 'your factual belief in god is real because your belief is real and belief is god = god is real'. Not the same thing as something you inferred from my statement at all. Your accusation of hypocrisy on my part is disproven. Thanks for 'playing'.
-
You are either asserting that a specific belief (in God) is nonsense
or you are asserting that any belief at all is nonsense by calling belief in general nonsense
Which is it?
The latter; since any belief is essentially 'faith' without evidence.
So, by asserting that any belief is nonsense that would mean that a belief in God is nonsense. Right?
The direction you are taking is obvious and the ploy, transparent. Once again, for the comprehension-impaired, (that would be Surveymack10); an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion. Your attempts to provoke an explicit claim are duly noted and dismissed.
Actually it is only logical that if all beliefs are nonsense that a belief in God is nonsense.
You said "any belief is essentially faith without evidence"
belief in God falls under the category of "any belief"
You cannot even argue that this is not true and it is not some kind of trick(that's your style not mine), it is YOUR words.
It is an inferred or, implicit deduction - not a directly stated or, explicit claim; which is what 'an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion' means.
So the same thing as you saying that my claim to believe in God is equivalent to saying that God is real by fact. Your hypocrisy is alarming.
You've amply demonstrated a severe deficiency in reading comprehension so, I pretty much expected you not to get that. Once again, I never asserted that you claimed that "god was real by fact", nor did I imply that you implied it. What I actually did do was ask you whether or not you believed that you believed in something that was real when you made your claim of belief in god. You subsequently claimed that "belief IS God". Those are your unaltered, quoted words. The logical deduction stemming from them is that, if your belief is a fact, (as you asserted), and that "belief is god", (also asserted by you), then combining your documented claims yields the conclusion that your claim consists of 'your factual belief in god is real because your belief is real and belief is god = god is real'. Not the same thing as something you inferred from my statement at all. Your accusation of hypocrisy on my part is disproven. Thanks for 'playing'.
By suggesting that I owed you proof that God was real you were asserting that I had made such a claim. So you are correct that you did not accuse me in the exact words of "God is real by fact", but you are incorrect that you did not assert that notion. Therefore you are wrong once again.
-
By suggesting that I owed you proof that God was real you were asserting that I had made such a claim. So you are correct that you did not accuse me in the exact words of "God is real by fact"...
No, I 'suggested' that the burden of proof lies with the one asserting the claim, (which was/is you). That claim consists of you asserting it as "belief itself IS God", that your "belief is real" and "belief requires faith". Since "faith" is belief in that which lacks evidence, the terms are essentially synonymous and therefore "belief" is that which lacks evidence. Consequently, if belief lacks evidence of what is believed in, then your claim that "belief itself IS God" becomes 'the lack of evidence for the existance of god IS god'. That which lacks evidence of existance cannot rationally be assumed to be real in that conclusive proof substantiating the claim has never been presented.
but you are incorrect that you did not assert that notion. Therefore you are wrong once again.
You've failed to demonstrate both of these contentions. Simply asserting them without supporting your contention with evidence does not constitute evidence. Although you have, once again, demonstrated your deficient debating skills.
-
By suggesting that I owed you proof that God was real you were asserting that I had made such a claim. So you are correct that you did not accuse me in the exact words of "God is real by fact"...
No, I 'suggested' that the burden of proof lies with the one asserting the claim, (which was/is you). That claim consists of you asserting it as "belief itself IS God", that your "belief is real" and "belief requires faith". Since "faith" is belief in that which lacks evidence, the terms are essentially synonymous and therefore "belief" is that which lacks evidence. Consequently, if belief lacks evidence of what is believed in, then your claim that "belief itself IS God" becomes 'the lack of evidence for the existance of god IS god'. That which lacks evidence of existance cannot rationally be assumed to be real in that conclusive proof substantiating the claim has never been presented.
Your inability to comprehend is astounding. I will try to explain this once again.
I am not trying to convince you that God is real.
I do not care whatsoever what you believe in.
The only fact I have stated is that I have faith in the existence of God.
I believe in God.
The fact is found in the verb (believe).
This would mean that I am claiming that it is a fact that I believe in Go's existence.
I did not claim that God is real by fact.
I can choose to believe that God is real without claiming it as a scientific fact.
You want so badly for me to say God is real and it's a fact, but I am not going to make that claim because it is not a known fact- which is why there is an element of faith involved in religion.
I hope you can clear up your confusion because your total disregard of what I say is not helping your case at all.
To summarize, I do not owe you proof that God is real (no matter what you say) because I did not claim he is real by fact. Rather that I choose to put my faith in God because I have that freedom.
but you are incorrect that you did not assert that notion. Therefore you are wrong once again.
You've failed to demonstrate both of these contentions. Simply asserting them without supporting your contention with evidence does not constitute evidence. Although you have, once again, demonstrated your deficient debating skills.
No matter how many times I answer your challenges you just avoid any challenges made to you by accusing me of not answering yours. This tactic is obvious to all observors of your tired debate tactics.
-
No matter how many times I answer your challenges you just avoid any challenges made to you by accusing me of not answering yours. This tactic is obvious to all observors of your tired debate tactics.
You haven't "answered" any challenges to your unsupported claims; you've merely attempted weak diversions. On the other hand, you haven't offered a challenge which I haven't been able to refute, (as substantiated by a myriad of refutations presented in these threads). Any readers with adaquate comprehension skills, (this demonsarablt excludes you), can decide for themselves who has been dodging such challenges, (hint: they're on to you, Mack), and who has been employing logical reasoning to your detriment. No wonder you're tired; it must take some effort to be as intentionally obtuse as you appear to be.
-
No matter how many times I answer your challenges you just avoid any challenges made to you by accusing me of not answering yours. This tactic is obvious to all observors of your tired debate tactics.
You haven't "answered" any challenges to your unsupported claims; you've merely attempted weak diversions. On the other hand, you haven't offered a challenge which I haven't been able to refute, (as substantiated by a myriad of refutations presented in these threads). Any readers with adaquate comprehension skills, (this demonsarablt excludes you), can decide for themselves who has been dodging such challenges, (hint: they're on to you, Mack), and who has been employing logical reasoning to your detriment. No wonder you're tired; it must take some effort to be as intentionally obtuse as you appear to be.
Please repeat any challenges you feel I have not answered and I will repost my responses (not diversions) and clear up your confusion. Also, I am going to abstain from answering any of the rest of your post as it was just an attempt at making yourself look better by insulting me (did not work). Also please define "demonsarablt" as I guess I have never encountered that word before.
-
Please repeat any challenges you feel I have not answered and I will repost my responses
No, they're all there, upthread. Your lack of reading & comprehension skills isn't my problem, nor am I "confused" by them. That lack is merely disappointing.
(not diversions) and clear up your confusion.
As demonstrated, they were & are attempts at diversions which failed. Your bland denial, sans evidence, is accepted as your tacitly conceding this point.
Also, I am going to abstain from answering any of the rest of your post as it was just an attempt at making yourself look better by insulting me (did not work).
Your own replies, in your own words, support my contention that you possess deficient debating skills to proceed with this discussion much further. Be a woman and own your own words or, be a weasel and keep trying to weasel out of them - your choice.
Also please define "demonsarablt" as I guess I have never encountered that word before.
A grievious typo, no doubt. Perhaps I should use your same lame diversion and list your myriad typos too ... nah, that would be a cheap trick like yours and besides, they're all available as intact quotes in these threads. I could be in error in that you are implicitly requesting that your nose be rubbed in your own hypocrisy. Again.
-
Yes I do. It helps when you have loved ones who have passed on.... knowing that there is a better place for them.
-
Please repeat any challenges you feel I have not answered and I will repost my responses
No, they're all there, upthread. Your lack of reading & comprehension skills isn't my problem, nor am I "confused" by them. That lack is merely disappointing.
Since you will not provide them it is clear there are no challenges I have not answered.
(not diversions) and clear up your confusion.
As demonstrated, they were & are attempts at diversions which failed. Your bland denial, sans evidence, is accepted as your tacitly conceding this point.
I have stated that if you repeat the challenges I will show where I answered them and clear up your obvious confusion. Your inability to do so cannot be described as my "tacitly conceding" as you are the one who will not produce any challenges to be responded to and show that I am not attempting a diversion as you falsely claim.
Also, I am going to abstain from answering any of the rest of your post as it was just an attempt at making yourself look better by insulting me (did not work).
Your own replies, in your own words, support my contention that you possess deficient debating skills to proceed with this discussion much further. Be a woman and own your own words or, be a weasel and keep trying to weasel out of them - your choice.
This is false as the only part of your comment I did not answer was insults. The part that was actually debate related was responded to as follows "Please repeat any challenges you feel I have not answered and I will repost my responses." If there was anything else in the initial comment that you would like responded to and was not meant merely as an insult please repost it and I will respond as I must have mistook it as the obvious insult it appeared to be.
Also please define "demonsarablt" as I guess I have never encountered that word before.
A grievious typo, no doubt. Perhaps I should use your same lame diversion and list your myriad typos too ... nah, that would be a cheap trick like yours and besides, they're all available as intact quotes in these threads. I could be in error in that you are implicitly requesting that your nose be rubbed in your own hypocrisy. Again.
I am not sure why you are getting so riled up. I was not meaning to insult you in any way but merely did not know what word you were referring to. Usually typos resemble a known word and since I could not discern what this word was supposed to be and since you have repeatedly challenged my reading skills I assumed it was simply a term I had not encountered. If there are any of my typos that you need cleared as to what they are supposed to be please let me know and I will provide that information. Also, within being so upset you forgot to define "demonsarablt" or produce the word it was meant to be. Much appreciated, thanks.
-
Please repeat any challenges you feel I have not answered and I will repost my responses
No, they're all there, upthread. Your lack of reading & comprehension skills isn't my problem, nor am I "confused" by them. That lack is merely disappointing.
Since you will not provide them it is clear there are no challenges I have not answered.
Your assumption is based upon a false premise; I will not provide them because they had been previously quoted and inanely glossed-over by your responses. I'm not your secretary; go look yourself. Once again, your bland and unsupported denials are meaningless.
(not diversions) and clear up your confusion.
As demonstrated, they were & are attempts at diversions which failed. Your bland denial, sans evidence, is accepted as your tacitly conceding this point.
I have stated that if you repeat the challenges ...
And I have replied that your assumption is based upon a false premise; I will not provide them because they had been previously quoted and inanely glossed-over by your responses. I'm not your secretary; go look yourself. Once again, your bland and unsupported denials are meaningless.
Also, I am going to abstain from answering any of the rest of your post as it was just an attempt at making yourself look better by insulting me (did not work).
Your own replies, in your own words, support my contention that you possess deficient debating skills to proceed with this discussion much further. Be a woman and own your own words or, be a weasel and keep trying to weasel out of them - your choice.
This is false as the only part of your comment I did not answer was insults.
It isn't false because that's not the only part of my reply you declined to respond to. In fact, that part which you omitted response did contain at least one of the unanswered challenges made to you. It is said that you can lead a horse to water but, if you hold its head under, that horse will drown. So get your own drink, the trough is still upthread.
The part that was actually debate related was responded to as follows "Please repeat any challenges ..."
No, that wasn't the omitted part that was debate-related, despite your attempts to redirect it in that direction.
Also please define "demonsarablt" as I guess I have never encountered that word before.
A grievious typo, no doubt. Perhaps I should use your same lame diversion and list your myriad typos too ... nah, that would be a cheap trick like yours and besides, they're all available as intact quotes in these threads. I could be in error in that you are implicitly requesting that your nose be rubbed in your own hypocrisy. Again.
I am not sure why you are getting so riled up. I was not meaning to insult you in any way ...
I'm not riled or insulted by that particular ploy of yours, (and your request is regarded dubiously, given your previous hostility).
but merely did not know what word you were referring to. Usually typos resemble a known word and since I could not discern what this word was supposed to be and since you have repeatedly challenged my reading skills I assumed it was simply a term I had not encountered. Also, within being so upset you forgot to define "demonsarablt" or produce the word it was meant to be. Much appreciated, thanks.
So, given the context, (and the first six letters of the word as major hints), you are contending now that you could not translate that typo as "demonstrable"? No doubt you are at least peripherally-aware that reading comprehension involves such things as context and not only spelling, grammar and and undestanding of the standard meanings of words? (even if the last half of the word in question was mispelled)
-
Please repeat any challenges you feel I have not answered and I will repost my responses
No, they're all there, upthread. Your lack of reading & comprehension skills isn't my problem, nor am I "confused" by them. That lack is merely disappointing.
Since you will not provide them it is clear there are no challenges I have not answered.
Your assumption is based upon a false premise; I will not provide them because they had been previously quoted and inanely glossed-over by your responses. I'm not your secretary; go look yourself. Once again, your bland and unsupported denials are meaningless.
(not diversions) and clear up your confusion.
As demonstrated, they were & are attempts at diversions which failed. Your bland denial, sans evidence, is accepted as your tacitly conceding this point.
I have stated that if you repeat the challenges ...
And I have replied that your assumption is based upon a false premise; I will not provide them because they had been previously quoted and inanely glossed-over by your responses. I'm not your secretary; go look yourself. Once again, your bland and unsupported denials are meaningless.
Also, I am going to abstain from answering any of the rest of your post as it was just an attempt at making yourself look better by insulting me (did not work).
Your own replies, in your own words, support my contention that you possess deficient debating skills to proceed with this discussion much further. Be a woman and own your own words or, be a weasel and keep trying to weasel out of them - your choice.
This is false as the only part of your comment I did not answer was insults.
It isn't false because that's not the only part of my reply you declined to respond to. In fact, that part which you omitted response did contain at least one of the unanswered challenges made to you. It is said that you can lead a horse to water but, if you hold its head under, that horse will drown. So get your own drink, the trough is still upthread.
How can I possibly know which challenges you are referring to in a 30 page thread? Feel free to post them if you would like me to respond to them, otherwise you are proving that I have already responded and that you can produce no challenges that have not been answered.
Also, if there was anything in the rest of your initial post that needed response it must have been covered by insults instead of directly stated. Feel free to state it directly and I will be glad to respond. If not, I will assume there was no such challenge which is why you refuse to reproduce it.
The part that was actually debate related was responded to as follows "Please repeat any challenges ..."
No, that wasn't the omitted part that was debate-related, despite your attempts to redirect it in that direction.
I did not claim this was the omitted part. That would not be possible as I did not "omit" that section as the response is clearly shown above. In fact, my meaning was that I responded to the debate-related material. If there was more that I failed to respond to please reproduce it and I will surely answer.
Also please define "demonsarablt" as I guess I have never encountered that word before.
A grievious typo, no doubt. Perhaps I should use your same lame diversion and list your myriad typos too ... nah, that would be a cheap trick like yours and besides, they're all available as intact quotes in these threads. I could be in error in that you are implicitly requesting that your nose be rubbed in your own hypocrisy. Again.
I am not sure why you are getting so riled up. I was not meaning to insult you in any way ...
I'm not riled or insulted by that particular ploy of yours, (and your request is regarded dubiously, given your previous hostility).
Please show this hostility instead of just accusing.
but merely did not know what word you were referring to. Usually typos resemble a known word and since I could not discern what this word was supposed to be and since you have repeatedly challenged my reading skills I assumed it was simply a term I had not encountered. Also, within being so upset you forgot to define "demonsarablt" or produce the word it was meant to be. Much appreciated, thanks.
So, given the context, (and the first six letters of the word as major hints), you are contending now that you could not translate that typo as "demonstrable"? No doubt you are at least peripherally-aware that reading comprehension involves such things as context and not only spelling, grammar and and undestanding of the standard meanings of words? (even if the last half of the word in question was mispelled)
No, I did not realize it was supposed to be demonstrable as that word and demonsarablt only favor one another significantly in the first 5 letters...Clearly if I knew that was the word you meant to say I would not have asked for a definition. Also, you are the one who took it as an insult as all I said was please define the word which is not at all a hostile thing to say. If I could read your mind I would do so, but since I cannot I asked for clarification. This was not a "ploy" or attack though you wish it was.
-
Also, I am going to abstain from answering any of the rest of your post as it was just an attempt at making yourself look better by insulting me (did not work).
Your own replies, in your own words, support my contention that you possess deficient debating skills to proceed with this discussion much further. Be a woman and own your own words or, be a weasel and keep trying to weasel out of them - your choice.
This is false as the only part of your comment I did not answer was insults.
It isn't false because that's not the only part of my reply you declined to respond to. In fact, that part which you omitted response did contain at least one of the unanswered challenges made to you. It is said that you can lead a horse to water but, if you hold its head under, that horse will drown. So get your own drink, the trough is still upthread.
How can I possibly know which challenges you are referring to ... ?
If you haven't been paying attention and following the discussion, how is that my concern?
The part that was actually debate related was responded to as follows "Please repeat any challenges ..."
No, that wasn't the omitted part that was debate-related, despite your attempts to redirect it in that direction.
I did not claim this was the omitted part.
The part you omitted is still quoted in a recent post. Again, if you can't find what you omitted, how is this my concern?
Also please define "demonsarablt" as I guess I have never encountered that word before.
A grievious typo, no doubt. Perhaps I should use your same lame diversion and list your myriad typos too ... nah, that would be a cheap trick like yours and besides, they're all available as intact quotes in these threads. I could be in error in that you are implicitly requesting that your nose be rubbed in your own hypocrisy. Again.
I am not sure why you are getting so riled up. I was not meaning to insult you in any way ...
I'm not riled or insulted by that particular ploy of yours, (and your request is regarded dubiously, given your previous hostility).
Please show this hostility instead of just accusing.
What, you consider this merely an accusation when there are message IDs where these can be quoted? (before you waste your time asking, you wrote and posted in a clearly hostile manner and though you have a penchant for denying your own words, I tire of your pointless hand-waving).
but merely did not know what word you were referring to. Usually typos resemble a known word and since I could not discern what this word was supposed to be and since you have repeatedly challenged my reading skills I assumed it was simply a term I had not encountered. Also, within being so upset you forgot to define "demonsarablt" or produce the word it was meant to be. Much appreciated, thanks.
So, given the context, (and the first six letters of the word as major hints), you are contending now that you could not translate that typo as "demonstrable"? No doubt you are at least peripherally-aware that reading comprehension involves such things as context and not only spelling, grammar and and undestanding of the standard meanings of words? (even if the last half of the word in question was mispelled)
No, I did not realize it was supposed to be demonstrable as that word and demonsarablt only favor one another significantly in the first 5 letters...
That would be the first six letters, not five; "d" (1), "e" (2), "m" (3), "o" (4), "n" (5) and "s" (6) ... "demons", (though I could infer that "demons" might cause your eye to shear away from the partial word, 'demonstrable'). That leaves the mispelled last 6 letters; "arablt", (which means 5 of those 6 remaining letters were there in the second half of the word, while an "e" was transposed by an extra "a"). Still in all, it didn't seem that difficult to discern that "demons arablt" could be "demon strable" in context. It's really a moot point, however.
-
Also, I am going to abstain from answering any of the rest of your post as it was just an attempt at making yourself look better by insulting me (did not work).
Your own replies, in your own words, support my contention that you possess deficient debating skills to proceed with this discussion much further. Be a woman and own your own words or, be a weasel and keep trying to weasel out of them - your choice.
This is false as the only part of your comment I did not answer was insults.
It isn't false because that's not the only part of my reply you declined to respond to. In fact, that part which you omitted response did contain at least one of the unanswered challenges made to you. It is said that you can lead a horse to water but, if you hold its head under, that horse will drown. So get your own drink, the trough is still upthread.
How can I possibly know which challenges you are referring to ... ?
If you haven't been paying attention and following the discussion, how is that my concern?
The part that was actually debate related was responded to as follows "Please repeat any challenges ..."
No, that wasn't the omitted part that was debate-related, despite your attempts to redirect it in that direction.
I did not claim this was the omitted part.
The part you omitted is still quoted in a recent post. Again, if you can't find what you omitted, how is this my concern?
Also please define "demonsarablt" as I guess I have never encountered that word before.
A grievious typo, no doubt. Perhaps I should use your same lame diversion and list your myriad typos too ... nah, that would be a cheap trick like yours and besides, they're all available as intact quotes in these threads. I could be in error in that you are implicitly requesting that your nose be rubbed in your own hypocrisy. Again.
I am not sure why you are getting so riled up. I was not meaning to insult you in any way ...
I'm not riled or insulted by that particular ploy of yours, (and your request is regarded dubiously, given your previous hostility).
Please show this hostility instead of just accusing.
What, you consider this merely an accusation when there are message IDs where these can be quoted? (before you waste your time asking, you wrote and posted in a clearly hostile manner and though you have a penchant for denying your own words, I tire of your pointless hand-waving).
but merely did not know what word you were referring to. Usually typos resemble a known word and since I could not discern what this word was supposed to be and since you have repeatedly challenged my reading skills I assumed it was simply a term I had not encountered. Also, within being so upset you forgot to define "demonsarablt" or produce the word it was meant to be. Much appreciated, thanks.
So, given the context, (and the first six letters of the word as major hints), you are contending now that you could not translate that typo as "demonstrable"? No doubt you are at least peripherally-aware that reading comprehension involves such things as context and not only spelling, grammar and and undestanding of the standard meanings of words? (even if the last half of the word in question was mispelled)
No, I did not realize it was supposed to be demonstrable as that word and demonsarablt only favor one another significantly in the first 5 letters...
That would be the first six letters, not five; "d" (1), "e" (2), "m" (3), "o" (4), "n" (5) and "s" (6) ... "demons", (though I could infer that "demons" might cause your eye to shear away from the partial word, 'demonstrable'). That leaves the mispelled last 6 letters; "arablt", (which means 5 of those 6 remaining letters were there in the second half of the word, while an "e" was transposed by an extra "a"). Still in all, it didn't seem that difficult to discern that "demons arablt" could be "demon strable" in context. It's really a moot point, however.
-You say I omitted part of your challenge, yet you refuse to repeat that challenge. Since you hid it under insults it is hard to discern what is was you were asking. If you ask the question directly in your reply to this message I will be glad to answer. If you continue to avoid repeating the challenge it will be clear the challenge never existed or that you no longer feel that it is adequate.
-Since you refuse to show where I was hostile I will assume I was not, or that you do not feel you can adequately prove that point. Not that it really matters as you have been continuously hostile throughout most of this debate- as is proven in the initial post we are discussing right now. I will be glad to quote it if need be.
-I have stated already that if I knew what you were trying to say when you typed “demonsarablt” I would not have asked. If I mean it as an insult I would have said something more rude than simply asking “Please define demonsarablt.” You have spent many posts insulting my intelligence so I simply assumed it was a word I had not heard of or some slang debate term. You are correct that I miss estimated how many of the 1st letters were the same, not that I am unable to count to 6, but that I was merely using an approximation to make a point that only about half of the word was right so insinuating that I am unintelligent for not reading your mind in unnecessary. It is really quite odd that you got so upset over me asking you to define a word when I obviously did not mean it in a rude way.
-To summarize-
1.) Please restate any challenges you would like me to answer. If not, then stop bringing them up since you do not want to produce them.
2.)Please show what I omitted from the initial post. Please restate it directly without the insults surrounding it so it will be more clear.
3.) Please show where I have been hostile so that I can explain what I meant by those statements. I am not doubting that I have likely come off hostile at some point in this argument, but it would be nice for some clear evidence to be shown rather than loose accusations.
4.) Please make whatever point you are trying to make by dragging on conversations of a typo that could have been answered with a simple- “That word was supposed to be demonstrable”- rather than with all of this anger and confrontation.
-
-You say I omitted part of your challenge, yet you refuse to repeat that challenge.
Exactly. Why should I repeat what we've been discussing when you supposedly were there at the time, just as I was? To reiterate this point; if you can't be bothered to pay attention to a conversation you're participating in, why should I be bothered to keep repeating myself? This is especially significant in that I have previously repeated challenges which you then proceded to ignore. There is little incentive in a repetition of such an unproductive process. Since you are conceding that you've 'forgetten' what the prior unanswered challenges were, you've effectively substantiated my contention concerning deficient reading comprehension skills, (given that, if one cannot remember what was said, one cannot comprehend what was said). Ironically, what was said remains in documented form upthread so, being unable to recall it seems strange.
-To summarize-
1.) Please restate any challenges you would like me to answer.
No. If you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, you may wish to reconsider participating in such conversations. More specifically, this indicates that you are either unable to keep track of the conversation, (despite a readily available record of it in print), or that you are attempting to initiate another repetitious loop wherein you blithely make unsupported assertions, (and when challenged to substantiate them, keep asking me to repeat those challenges). While I've no way of knowing if this has ever worked for you before, it isn't going to work for you now.
2.)Please show what I omitted from the initial post. Please restate it directly without the insults surrounding it so it will be more clear.
No. If you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, you may wish to reconsider participating in such conversations. More specifically, this indicates that you are either unable to keep track of the conversation, (despite a readily available record of it in print), or that you are attempting to initiate another repetitious loop wherein you blithely make unsupported assertions, (and when challenged to substantiate them, keep asking me to repeat those challenges). While I've no way of knowing if this has ever worked for you before, it isn't going to work for you now.
3.) Please show where I have been hostile so that I can explain what I meant by those statements. I am not doubting that I have likely come off hostile at some point in this argument, but it would be nice for some clear evidence to be shown rather than loose accusations.
No. If you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, you may wish to reconsider participating in such conversations. More specifically, this indicates that you are either unable to keep track of the conversation, (despite a readily available record of it in print), or that you are attempting to initiate another repetitious loop wherein you blithely make unsupported assertions, (and when challenged to substantiate them, keep asking me to repeat those challenges). While I've no way of knowing if this has ever worked for you before, it isn't going to work for you now.
4.) Please make whatever point you are trying to make
By now, the point _has_ been made however, you've demonstrated a propensity for missing the point so often that it seems habitual.
-
-You say I omitted part of your challenge, yet you refuse to repeat that challenge.
Exactly. Why should I repeat what we've been discussing when you supposedly were there at the time, just as I was? To reiterate this point; if you can't be bothered to pay attention to a conversation you're participating in, why should I be bothered to keep repeating myself? This is especially significant in that I have previously repeated challenges which you then proceded to ignore. There is little incentive in a repetition of such an unproductive process. Since you are conceding that you've 'forgetten' what the prior unanswered challenges were, you've effectively substantiated my contention concerning deficient reading comprehension skills, (given that, if one cannot remember what was said, one cannot comprehend what was said). Ironically, what was said remains in documented form upthread so, being unable to recall it seems strange.
-To summarize-
1.) Please restate any challenges you would like me to answer.
No. If you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, you may wish to reconsider participating in such conversations. More specifically, this indicates that you are either unable to keep track of the conversation, (despite a readily available record of it in print), or that you are attempting to initiate another repetitious loop wherein you blithely make unsupported assertions, (and when challenged to substantiate them, keep asking me to repeat those challenges). While I've no way of knowing if this has ever worked for you before, it isn't going to work for you now.
2.)Please show what I omitted from the initial post. Please restate it directly without the insults surrounding it so it will be more clear.
No. If you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, you may wish to reconsider participating in such conversations. More specifically, this indicates that you are either unable to keep track of the conversation, (despite a readily available record of it in print), or that you are attempting to initiate another repetitious loop wherein you blithely make unsupported assertions, (and when challenged to substantiate them, keep asking me to repeat those challenges). While I've no way of knowing if this has ever worked for you before, it isn't going to work for you now.
3.) Please show where I have been hostile so that I can explain what I meant by those statements. I am not doubting that I have likely come off hostile at some point in this argument, but it would be nice for some clear evidence to be shown rather than loose accusations.
No. If you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, you may wish to reconsider participating in such conversations. More specifically, this indicates that you are either unable to keep track of the conversation, (despite a readily available record of it in print), or that you are attempting to initiate another repetitious loop wherein you blithely make unsupported assertions, (and when challenged to substantiate them, keep asking me to repeat those challenges). While I've no way of knowing if this has ever worked for you before, it isn't going to work for you now.
4.) Please make whatever point you are trying to make
By now, the point _has_ been made however, you've demonstrated a propensity for missing the point so often that it seems habitual.
1)Well I am participating in other daily activities outside of fusioncash. Also, this is not the only thread I am posting in. Also, you simply claimed that I unanswered challenges without reproducing such challenges. Lastly, I have answered all challenges which is obvious in your inability to reproduce any unanswered challenges.
2)Although you have instructed me not to participate in any further conversations, I will decline from following that advice and also let you know that your superior attitude is not becoming and not at all effective in getting your point across. I can clearly keep track of the conversation and see that I have answered all challenges. You inability to show even one unanswered challenge proves that they do not exist.
3)Although you have instructed me not to participate in any further conversations, I will decline from following that advice and also let you know that your superior attitude is not becoming and not at all effective in getting your point across. I can clearly keep track of the conversation and see that I have answered all challenges. You inability to show even one unanswered challenge proves that they do not exist.
4)Thank you for proving that you are unable to recall what your point was regarding the type and were simply dwelling on the subject out of anger.
-
1)Well I am participating in other daily activities outside of fusioncash.
As am I. If your non sequitur was intended as some sort of excuse for your losing track of the context of this, (or any other), discussion it is rejected because a written record of that discussion is available in the form of previous posts in this thread.
Also, this is not the only thread I am posting in.
Neither is this the only thread which I am posting in. Again, if you are unable to keep track of the context of a discussion in which you are participating, the entire thread is documented and available for review.
Also, you simply claimed that I unanswered challenges without reproducing such challenges.
There are three reasons for that; the first being that you were nominally present at the time I challenged your unsupported claims and you failed to substantiate them, (answer the challenges to do so). Secondly, if you can't be bothered to pay attention to a conversation you're participating in, why should I be bothered to keep repeating myself? This is especially significant in that I have previously repeated challenges which you then proceded to ignore. There is little incentive in a repetition of such an unproductive process. Thirdly, you have demonstrated a pattern of attempting an endless loop of circular 'non-reasoning' within this discussion wherein you simply 'insist' that your unsupported assertions are accurate, (despite the lack of supporting evidence).
Lastly, I have answered all challenges which is obvious in your inability to reproduce any unanswered challenges.
Thank you for repeating the evidence supporting the contention that you're doing that endless loop of circular 'non-reasoning' within this discussion wherein you simply 'insist' that your unsupported assertions are accurate, (despite the lack of supporting evidence).
2)Although you have instructed me not to participate in any further conversations ...
I've given no such "instructions". My _suggestion_, (not instruction), was that if you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, you may wish to reconsider participating in such conversations. The decision to reconsider remains yours therefore, this does not constitute an "instruction". Your reply, on the other hand, _does_ constitute further supporting evidence, (provided by your quoted text), which casts doubt upon your reading comprehension abilities.
I will decline from following that advice ...
Moments later, "instruction" becomes "advice", eh? Since you are conceding that you've 'forgetten' what the prior unanswered challenges were, you've effectively substantiated my contention concerning deficient reading comprehension skills, (given that, if one cannot remember what was said, one cannot comprehend what was said). Ironically, what was said remains in documented form upthread so, being unable to recall it seems strange.
I can clearly keep track of the conversation and see that I have answered all challenges.
On the contrary, your repeated insistance that I repeat the previous challenges, (which are still available in written form upthead and which you failed to answer), clearly shows that you are unable to keep track of contextual points in the conversation. Instead, you merely repeat your insistance that you have done so, even after your contention has been proven false.
4)Thank you for proving that you are unable to recall what your point was regarding the type and were simply dwelling on the subject out of anger.
Au contraire, not only do I recall each and every facet of this conversation but, should I need my memory jogged a look back through this _documented_ thread shows all of the posted replies and responses made. That documentation provides sufficient evidence that I have previously repeated challenges which you then proceded to ignore. There is little incentive in a repetition of such an unproductive process.
As an aside, your assumption of "anger" on my part is unfounded, (then again, you seem to prefer making unfounded claims). I'm merely replying to the nonsense you've been posting. Why should I repeat what we've been discussing when you supposedly were there at the time, just as I was? To reiterate this point; if you can't be bothered to pay attention to a conversation you're participating in, why should I be bothered to keep repeating myself?
-
It is something we won't know till we get there. The best thing is to concentrate on living a useful, honorable life on this earth.
-
1)Well I am participating in other daily activities outside of fusioncash.
As am I. If your non sequitur was intended as some sort of excuse for your losing track of the context of this, (or any other), discussion it is rejected because a written record of that discussion is available in the form of previous posts in this thread.
Also, this is not the only thread I am posting in.
Neither is this the only thread which I am posting in. Again, if you are unable to keep track of the context of a discussion in which you are participating, the entire thread is documented and available for review.
Also, you simply claimed that I unanswered challenges without reproducing such challenges.
There are three reasons for that; the first being that you were nominally present at the time I challenged your unsupported claims and you failed to substantiate them, (answer the challenges to do so). Secondly, if you can't be bothered to pay attention to a conversation you're participating in, why should I be bothered to keep repeating myself? This is especially significant in that I have previously repeated challenges which you then proceded to ignore. There is little incentive in a repetition of such an unproductive process. Thirdly, you have demonstrated a pattern of attempting an endless loop of circular 'non-reasoning' within this discussion wherein you simply 'insist' that your unsupported assertions are accurate, (despite the lack of supporting evidence).
Lastly, I have answered all challenges which is obvious in your inability to reproduce any unanswered challenges.
Thank you for repeating the evidence supporting the contention that you're doing that endless loop of circular 'non-reasoning' within this discussion wherein you simply 'insist' that your unsupported assertions are accurate, (despite the lack of supporting evidence).
2)Although you have instructed me not to participate in any further conversations ...
I've given no such "instructions". My _suggestion_, (not instruction), was that if you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, you may wish to reconsider participating in such conversations. The decision to reconsider remains yours therefore, this does not constitute an "instruction". Your reply, on the other hand, _does_ constitute further supporting evidence, (provided by your quoted text), which casts doubt upon your reading comprehension abilities.
I will decline from following that advice ...
Moments later, "instruction" becomes "advice", eh? Since you are conceding that you've 'forgetten' what the prior unanswered challenges were, you've effectively substantiated my contention concerning deficient reading comprehension skills, (given that, if one cannot remember what was said, one cannot comprehend what was said). Ironically, what was said remains in documented form upthread so, being unable to recall it seems strange.
I can clearly keep track of the conversation and see that I have answered all challenges.
On the contrary, your repeated insistance that I repeat the previous challenges, (which are still available in written form upthead and which you failed to answer), clearly shows that you are unable to keep track of contextual points in the conversation. Instead, you merely repeat your insistance that you have done so, even after your contention has been proven false.
4)Thank you for proving that you are unable to recall what your point was regarding the type and were simply dwelling on the subject out of anger.
Au contraire, not only do I recall each and every facet of this conversation but, should I need my memory jogged a look back through this _documented_ thread shows all of the posted replies and responses made. That documentation provides sufficient evidence that I have previously repeated challenges which you then proceded to ignore. There is little incentive in a repetition of such an unproductive process.
As an aside, your assumption of "anger" on my part is unfounded, (then again, you seem to prefer making unfounded claims). I'm merely replying to the nonsense you've been posting. Why should I repeat what we've been discussing when you supposedly were there at the time, just as I was? To reiterate this point; if you can't be bothered to pay attention to a conversation you're participating in, why should I be bothered to keep repeating myself?
1.) Your inability to reproduce any unanswered challenges proves that they do not exist. If they do exist, reproduce them as proof. If not, stop using diversions and telling me to read through 30 pages of posts to find unanswered challenges that do not exist. Much appreciated.
2.) I am not unable to keep track of the discussion, rather am unable to read your mind as to what nonexistent unanswered challenges they are referring to. If they do exist, reproduce them in your response and they will be answered. If you continue to refuse to reproduce them and evade the request with your petty “find them yourself” response it will be taken as proof that these unanswered challenges are nonexistent.
3.) You are still trying to evade the request of reproducing the challenge. Therefore, I see that we both agree that these challenges do not exist which is why they are impossible for you to reproduce. Any response otherwise will prove false since your actions show they are nonexistent. If not, prove it by showing them now.
4.) Your claim of an endless loop of circular non-reasoning has been dismissed as the attempt to evade reproducing nonexistent unanswered challenges that it is.
5.) Your petty attempt at a play on words (instruction vs. suggestion) has been dismissed. This effort to throw me off point is a simple waste of time. Back to the issue at hand, you claim I have left challenges unanswered- if this is true, reproduce them in your response. I have requested this upward of 4 times, soon the conversation will end as your inability to produce them shows that this is a waste of my time. If you continue to deny the request to prove that unanswered challenges exist this debate will end as it is not wise to waste valuable time on fabrications.
6.) Your claim that you remember every single aspect of this conversation is likely false as it has been going on for days. However, if you are than engrossed in it I pity your lack of interests outside fusioncash. I am not claiming not to know what we are discussing, merely that I have not memorized 30 pages of thread as this is not THAT important to my life. Also, since you remember so clearly what the unanswered challenges are you will have no problem repeating them in the answer to this post.
To summarize-
Since you claim to “recall each and every facet of this conversation” it will take you no time to reproduce any unanswered challenges. I am politely asking that you list these challenges in a numbered list. If you do so then I will answer these challenges. If you continue to deny this request it will show that these challenges do not exist. Also, there will be no further need of discussion between the two of us as there will be nothing to debate.
-
1.) Your inability to reproduce any unanswered challenges proves that they do not exist.
It isn't an "inability", it's a lack of desire to comply with your inane 'request'. Further, that information remains available in previous and documented post threads therefore, it does exist. Conclusively, you've lied about this, (regardless of your bland denials which contradict fact).
If they do exist, reproduce them as proof. If not, stop using diversions and telling me to read through 30 pages of posts to find unanswered challenges that do not exist. Much appreciated.
There is no need to reproduce what exists as documented records of this thread. Again, if you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, this indicates that you are either unable to keep track of the conversation, (despite a readily available record of it in print), or that you are attempting to initiate another repetitious loop wherein you blithely make unsupported assertions, (and when challenged to substantiate them, keep asking me to repeat those challenges). While I've no way of knowing if this has ever worked for you before, it isn't going to work for you now.
2.) I am not unable to keep track of the discussion, rather am unable to read your mind as to what nonexistent unanswered challenges they are referring to.
There is no mind-reading requirement in relation to keeping track of a discussion which you are participating in. Since the contents of this discussion are available as a textual record of this thread, it can only be concluded that you are indeed unable to keep track of this discussion, (despite your repetitiously baseless denials to the contrary).
If you continue to refuse to reproduce them and evade the request with your petty “find them yourself” response it will be taken as proof that these unanswered challenges are nonexistent.
Your concluded "proof" is an invalid and unsupported opinion, (i.e., it lacks substantive evidence ... actually, no evidence at all). The conclusion is inaccurate since the information which you keep insisting you cannot find is available to anyone reading the previous posts in this thread. Again, you inability to locate or, recall what _you_ wrote is hardly a major concern of mine.
3.) You are still trying to evade the request of reproducing the challenge.
Incorrect; the request hasn't been evaded since I've repeatedly refused to grant it, (thus rebuking it head-on).
Therefore, I see that we both agree that these challenges do not exist which is why they are impossible for you to reproduce. Any response otherwise will prove false since your actions show they are nonexistent. If not, prove it by showing them now.
Your display of sophistry in lieu of logical reasoning is unimpressive. Previous posts in this thread are not "impossible ... to reproduce" since they are available to anyone who isn't too lazy to find them herself. Your premise is therefore invalid and conclusions drawn from that invalid premise are invalid.
4.) Your claim of an endless loop of circular non-reasoning has been dismissed as the attempt to evade reproducing nonexistent unanswered challenges that it is.
You can try dismissing anything you wish however, the evidence of your endless loop exists in the form of the 3-4 most recently posted endless loops of yours repetitiously 'requesting' information which has already been posted and is still available to you. Unless you're denying your repetitious insistance that someone else do your research for you, (which wouldn't surprise anyone, given your documented record of blandly denying your own posted words).
5.) Your petty attempt at a play on words (instruction vs. suggestion) has been dismissed.
That isn't any sort of "play on words"; it illuminated the difference in meanings between what I actually wrote and what you tried to interpret. As stated, these words are in English and your dubious 'interpreter skills' are not required.
6.) Your claim that you remember every single aspect of this conversation is likely false as it has been going on for days.
No, it's been going on for weeks however, what you believe to be "likely false" is merely your opinion without evidence. As it happens, there aren't that many separate aspects of this discussion to recall since most of them consist of your repetitions, (I remember what I wrote and it isn't clear why you don't remember what you wrote).
I am not claiming not to know what we are discussing, merely that I have not memorized 30 pages of thread as this is not THAT important to my life.
There's no need to "memorize" when a written record documenting what was posted is readily available to anyone reading this thread.
To summarize-
I am politely asking that you list these challenges in a numbered list. If you do so then I will answer these challenges.
In turn, I am refusing your request, (not for the 'reasons' you've falsely stipulated), because the information you are repeatedly 'requesting' is already available to you.
Also, there will be no further need of discussion between the two of us as there will be nothing to debate.
Only one of us has been debating; the other has been dodging challenges to substantiate their unsupported claims and repeating 'demands' that those challenges be reposted because she can't remember the context and contents of a discussion she's been in for weeks.
-
afterlife? you mean next life? well then of course... have you visited pastlives before? :angel11:
-
1.) Your inability to reproduce any unanswered challenges proves that they do not exist.
It isn't an "inability", it's a lack of desire to comply with your inane 'request'. Further, that information remains available in previous and documented post threads therefore, it does exist. Conclusively, you've lied about this, (regardless of your bland denials which contradict fact).
If they do exist, reproduce them as proof. If not, stop using diversions and telling me to read through 30 pages of posts to find unanswered challenges that do not exist. Much appreciated.
There is no need to reproduce what exists as documented records of this thread. Again, if you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, this indicates that you are either unable to keep track of the conversation, (despite a readily available record of it in print), or that you are attempting to initiate another repetitious loop wherein you blithely make unsupported assertions, (and when challenged to substantiate them, keep asking me to repeat those challenges). While I've no way of knowing if this has ever worked for you before, it isn't going to work for you now.
2.) I am not unable to keep track of the discussion, rather am unable to read your mind as to what nonexistent unanswered challenges they are referring to.
There is no mind-reading requirement in relation to keeping track of a discussion which you are participating in. Since the contents of this discussion are available as a textual record of this thread, it can only be concluded that you are indeed unable to keep track of this discussion, (despite your repetitiously baseless denials to the contrary).
If you continue to refuse to reproduce them and evade the request with your petty “find them yourself” response it will be taken as proof that these unanswered challenges are nonexistent.
Your concluded "proof" is an invalid and unsupported opinion, (i.e., it lacks substantive evidence ... actually, no evidence at all). The conclusion is inaccurate since the information which you keep insisting you cannot find is available to anyone reading the previous posts in this thread. Again, you inability to locate or, recall what _you_ wrote is hardly a major concern of mine.
3.) You are still trying to evade the request of reproducing the challenge.
Incorrect; the request hasn't been evaded since I've repeatedly refused to grant it, (thus rebuking it head-on).
Therefore, I see that we both agree that these challenges do not exist which is why they are impossible for you to reproduce. Any response otherwise will prove false since your actions show they are nonexistent. If not, prove it by showing them now.
Your display of sophistry in lieu of logical reasoning is unimpressive. Previous posts in this thread are not "impossible ... to reproduce" since they are available to anyone who isn't too lazy to find them herself. Your premise is therefore invalid and conclusions drawn from that invalid premise are invalid.
4.) Your claim of an endless loop of circular non-reasoning has been dismissed as the attempt to evade reproducing nonexistent unanswered challenges that it is.
You can try dismissing anything you wish however, the evidence of your endless loop exists in the form of the 3-4 most recently posted endless loops of yours repetitiously 'requesting' information which has already been posted and is still available to you. Unless you're denying your repetitious insistance that someone else do your research for you, (which wouldn't surprise anyone, given your documented record of blandly denying your own posted words).
5.) Your petty attempt at a play on words (instruction vs. suggestion) has been dismissed.
That isn't any sort of "play on words"; it illuminated the difference in meanings between what I actually wrote and what you tried to interpret. As stated, these words are in English and your dubious 'interpreter skills' are not required.
6.) Your claim that you remember every single aspect of this conversation is likely false as it has been going on for days.
No, it's been going on for weeks however, what you believe to be "likely false" is merely your opinion without evidence. As it happens, there aren't that many separate aspects of this discussion to recall since most of them consist of your repetitions, (I remember what I wrote and it isn't clear why you don't remember what you wrote).
I am not claiming not to know what we are discussing, merely that I have not memorized 30 pages of thread as this is not THAT important to my life.
There's no need to "memorize" when a written record documenting what was posted is readily available to anyone reading this thread.
To summarize-
I am politely asking that you list these challenges in a numbered list. If you do so then I will answer these challenges.
In turn, I am refusing your request, (not for the 'reasons' you've falsely stipulated), because the information you are repeatedly 'requesting' is already available to you.
Also, there will be no further need of discussion between the two of us as there will be nothing to debate.
Only one of us has been debating; the other has been dodging challenges to substantiate their unsupported claims and repeating 'demands' that those challenges be reposted because she can't remember the context and contents of a discussion she's been in for weeks.
Your statement that I am lying about the information being present or not present in the post is false. My point is that it is absolutely impossible for me to read your mind and know what “challenges” you are referring to. The assumption that they are nonexistent is made by your obvious inability to reproduce these challenges. Your continuing evasion of this request shows lack of evidence and is further proving that the challenges HAVE in fact been answered, or simply that you do not WANT them to be answered. Please stop wasting my time and dwelling on this subject.
If you want them answered- POST THEM
If you do not want them answered- STOP BRINGIN G THEM UP
These two logical options will likely be ignored by you, and will only further prove that your claims are false.
Your attempt at sounding superior by defining an “unsupported opinion” has been duly noted. It actually shows that you are NOT superior and that you are trying desperately to appear as though to are to make up for it. This is not helping your argument.
Your petty word play (evade vs. refused) has been disregarded. Upon the use of either word the result is still the same, you refuse to reproduce the supposed “challenges”. This refusal shows lack of existence or a lack of wanting them answered. Either way, your dwelling on the subject is an annoying waste of time as it could easily be solved by your reproduction of such challenges. If they are actually in this thread- reproduce them. Since you claimed to know every ‘facet” of this whole conversation, you can likely do so from memory.
I did not claim that previous posts were impossible to reproduce, rather that UNANSWERED CHALLENGES were impossible to reproduce. Your attempt at twisting my words has been denied. If these unanswered challenges do exist you will reproduce in your response (since you will not it is proven that they do not exist or that you do not want them answered).
It is true that I have repeated myself in this debate. That is not anything I am denying. The reasoning for the repetition is your lack of acknowledging what I say, leading me to belief you did not read it or did not comprehend it and that I needed to be restated. Sorry for that confusion.
I am not “trying” to dismiss, instead I AM dismissing- however your attempt at changing the actual dismissal to a mere attempt is amusing. You are the actual one who is operating in an endless loop. I will explain why so you can understand. You continuously bring up “unanswered challenges.” Since you are the one claiming their existence, you should provide evidence by quoting them directly. Your indirect references to them are useless as this is a 30 page thread and you made no specific examples as to where they can be found and instead have just repeatedly said “in above posts” and similar phrases.
Be mature, show the proof or drop the subject. It isn’t hard. If it exists, show it.
Your accusation of me denying my own words is absolutely false. Please provide evidence for this empty accusation.
Your insult to my intelligence has been ignored as an immature insult that does not deserve a response.
Weeks are made up of days, so if a conversation has been going on for weeks it has also been going on for days. This attempt to sound superior by correcting me is ignorant.
You claim that “likely false” is an opinion is absolutely true. I never claimed it as fact so I am not sure why you felt the need to state it was an opinion, but good job observing the difference between opinion and fact.
Your claim that I do not remember what I wrote is false. I DO remember what I wrote, I simply cannot read your mind as to which part of it you are claiming is an “unanswered challenge.” Hope that clears up your confusion.
It is obvious that the 30 pages are available- however your only reference to the part which you are talking about is that they are “unanswered challenges.” It is impossible for me to know which part you are referring to as you refuse to point out such nonexistent challenges.
It is true that only one of us is debating, and that the other (you) is dodging challenges to prove what you are saying.
You REPEATEDLY claim that the challenges exist on this thread, yet cannot pinpoint when or where they were posted. Tsk tsk tsk…show the evidence you claim exists or lose all credibility.
Since it is clear you will not reproduce any challenges I would like to say that I do not wish to discuss further any of the petty insults and superior accusations you continuously have been making. From now on please do not bring up these insults or word plays. This is not a “terroristic demand”, merely a request. It is likely that I will not respond to much more of the content you post until you reproduce the challenges you claim. This is not an “or else” challenge, merely a decision not to waste my time answering empty accusations that will not be supported by the quotes that supposedly exist. If you do post content that I do not reply to- I would like to let you know beforehand that this is not a dodge, an evasion, or any other defense tactic. It is simply a decision not to waste my time whenever you have chosen to leave out a significant portion of the debate due to lack of evidence that you claim is so readily available but will not reproduce.
-
Your statement that I am lying about the information being present or not present in the post is false.
Your "lie" was in stating that, if I did not reproduce the challenges, they didn't exist.
My point is that it is absolutely impossible for me to read your mind and know what “challenges” you are referring to.
There is no need for any mind-reading since the challenges made to your unsubstantiated claims were explicit, not implicit. I even used the words like 'unsubstantiated' to indicate which unsupported claims of yours were being challenged.
The assumption that they are nonexistent is made by your obvious inability to reproduce these challenges.
On the contrary, I do have the ability to do so however, not the inclination to do your reseaarch for you. Your assumption that these challenges are "nonexistent" because you won't go look for them is illogical.
Your continuing evasion of this request shows lack of evidence ...
No, it shows that I won't do your research for you - not that the evidence is lacking. The docomented evidence exists in the two threads we've been participating in recently. Your repeated evasions in answering challenges to your unsupported claims strongly suggest that reproducing those evasions would be unproductive, (not that the evidence is lacking; merely that you have shown a propensity for denying such evidence, even in the form of your own quoted words).
Your attempt at sounding superior by defining an “unsupported opinion” has been duly noted. It actually shows that you are NOT superior ...
You've brought this notion of 'superiority' up several times now and it must be pointed out that your faulty perceptions, (or, incipient sense of 'inferiorty'), constitute more unsupported opinion. Defining an unsupported opinion does not confer superiority.
I did not claim that previous posts were impossible to reproduce, rather that UNANSWERED CHALLENGES were impossible to reproduce. ]/quote]
No, they are not. If evasions immediately followed the challenges, then that can be shown in an unaltered post.
If these unanswered challenges do exist you will reproduce in your response
I refuse to procreate during an oline discussion. That would be rude and disrespectful of my partner, (not you). Thanks for reposting your 'demand' in a demanding manner as this supports my previous contention.
It is true that I have repeated myself in this debate. That is not anything I am denying.
That's the endless loop mentioned previously and you did deny engaging in endless loops.
You are the actual one who is operating in an endless loop.
The irony and your hypocrisy there are sublime.
Your accusation of me denying my own words is absolutely false. Please provide evidence for this empty accusation.
Your denials are in your own words, not mine. If you cannot recall what you wrote, go find it yourself and stop trying to get me to be your unpaid secretary.
Your insult to my intelligence has been ignored as an immature insult that does not deserve a response.
No conclusive evidence of your intellience has yet been presented. If you have some to present now, please do so.
Weeks are made up of days, so if a conversation has been going on for weeks it has also been going on for days.
Yes, and years are made up of days too however, it isn't common usage to refer to 3 years as 1095 days instead.
You claim that “likely false” is an opinion is absolutely true. I never claimed it as fact so I am not sure why you felt the need to state it was an opinion, but good job observing the difference between opinion and fact.
You stated your opinion as if to imply it's truthful accuracy, (unless you were instead intentionally stating a false opinion in order to deceive). My observations of the difference between an unsupported opinion and "fact" contrast with your general lack of being able to discern such differences.
Your claim that I do not remember what I wrote is false. I DO remember what I wrote ...
If you remember what you wrote then you are implicitly claiming that your replies answered the challenges made to your previous unsupported claims or, that you do remember not answering those challenges and are now engaged in this endless request loop of yours.
This is not a “terroristic demand”, merely a request.
It is likely that I will not respond to much more of the content you post until you reproduce the challenges you claim.
Now, that emphasizes the difference, (even in analogy), between making a terrorist demand and making a 'threat'. Mackenzie does make the demand, (it's right there, above my reply, in her own words), but doesn't view it as a demand. The 'threat', (which isn't much of one), is that she'll "not respond to much" unless her demands, ("until you reproduce the challenges"), are met. This does not form a very enticing incentive.
-
if you go to heaven it will be a garden of paradise where everybody is young and is the same age and there will be beautiful valleys and streams and everything will be like an eternal dream
-
Your statement that I am lying about the information being present or not present in the post is false.
Your "lie" was in stating that, if I did not reproduce the challenges, they didn't exist.
My point is that it is absolutely impossible for me to read your mind and know what “challenges” you are referring to.
There is no need for any mind-reading since the challenges made to your unsubstantiated claims were explicit, not implicit. I even used the words like 'unsubstantiated' to indicate which unsupported claims of yours were being challenged.
The assumption that they are nonexistent is made by your obvious inability to reproduce these challenges.
On the contrary, I do have the ability to do so however, not the inclination to do your reseaarch for you. Your assumption that these challenges are "nonexistent" because you won't go look for them is illogical.
Your continuing evasion of this request shows lack of evidence ...
No, it shows that I won't do your research for you - not that the evidence is lacking. The docomented evidence exists in the two threads we've been participating in recently. Your repeated evasions in answering challenges to your unsupported claims strongly suggest that reproducing those evasions would be unproductive, (not that the evidence is lacking; merely that you have shown a propensity for denying such evidence, even in the form of your own quoted words).
Your attempt at sounding superior by defining an “unsupported opinion” has been duly noted. It actually shows that you are NOT superior ...
You've brought this notion of 'superiority' up several times now and it must be pointed out that your faulty perceptions, (or, incipient sense of 'inferiorty'), constitute more unsupported opinion. Defining an unsupported opinion does not confer superiority.
I did not claim that previous posts were impossible to reproduce, rather that UNANSWERED CHALLENGES were impossible to reproduce. ]/quote]
No, they are not. If evasions immediately followed the challenges, then that can be shown in an unaltered post.
If these unanswered challenges do exist you will reproduce in your response
I refuse to procreate during an oline discussion. That would be rude and disrespectful of my partner, (not you). Thanks for reposting your 'demand' in a demanding manner as this supports my previous contention.
It is true that I have repeated myself in this debate. That is not anything I am denying.
That's the endless loop mentioned previously and you did deny engaging in endless loops.
You are the actual one who is operating in an endless loop.
The irony and your hypocrisy there are sublime.
Your accusation of me denying my own words is absolutely false. Please provide evidence for this empty accusation.
Your denials are in your own words, not mine. If you cannot recall what you wrote, go find it yourself and stop trying to get me to be your unpaid secretary.
Your insult to my intelligence has been ignored as an immature insult that does not deserve a response.
No conclusive evidence of your intellience has yet been presented. If you have some to present now, please do so.
Weeks are made up of days, so if a conversation has been going on for weeks it has also been going on for days.
Yes, and years are made up of days too however, it isn't common usage to refer to 3 years as 1095 days instead.
You claim that “likely false” is an opinion is absolutely true. I never claimed it as fact so I am not sure why you felt the need to state it was an opinion, but good job observing the difference between opinion and fact.
You stated your opinion as if to imply it's truthful accuracy, (unless you were instead intentionally stating a false opinion in order to deceive). My observations of the difference between an unsupported opinion and "fact" contrast with your general lack of being able to discern such differences.
Your claim that I do not remember what I wrote is false. I DO remember what I wrote ...
If you remember what you wrote then you are implicitly claiming that your replies answered the challenges made to your previous unsupported claims or, that you do remember not answering those challenges and are now engaged in this endless request loop of yours.
This is not a “terroristic demand”, merely a request.
It is likely that I will not respond to much more of the content you post until you reproduce the challenges you claim.
Now, that emphasizes the difference, (even in analogy), between making a terrorist demand and making a 'threat'. Mackenzie does make the demand, (it's right there, above my reply, in her own words), but doesn't view it as a demand. The 'threat', (which isn't much of one), is that she'll "not respond to much" unless her demands, ("until you reproduce the challenges"), are met. This does not form a very enticing incentive.
-Reproducing these challenges would not be “doing my research for me” as you are the one who claimed that they exist but cannot show any proof.
-Your insinuation that I feel inferior to you is false as I do not. Just because I do not talk down to you does not mean I feel inferior, merely that I am respectful. Glad we could clear up that confusion.
-You are the one making a claim, I am not required to prove it for you and will not do so. Your claim is unsubstantiated and will continue to be until you show proof.
-I am sorry you feel the need to be petty, but the point of me stating that we had been talking for days was merely that enough time had passed that I do not remember word for word every post that has been made. Also, it has only been in the last few days that we have been responding so frequently as in the beginning I would only respond every few days. I am sorry you feel the need to dwell on this subject as it really has no bearing on any aspect of the debate we are having.
-An opinion is simply that, an opinion. I am entitled to any opinion I want. Despite your longing to be able to decide what people can or cannot hold as their own opinions, you do not have that power.
-Actually, it was not a threat or a demand. It was simply one person informing another that they will not longer waste their time as the other person will not reproduce the needed information to continue the debate.
-
-Reproducing these challenges would not be “doing my research for me” as you are the one who claimed that they exist but cannot show any proof.
False. You made the initial claim in that regard that you had answered all challenges made. No evidence of this was provided. My _secondary_ claim derived from yours in asserting that you had evaded answering, (and let's be clear at this point; answering isn't merely posting more unsupported crap, it means directly responding to the content of the challenges. Not weaseling around them, evading them, or coming up with defensive counter-challenges on your part). Since you did evade, weasel and come up with diversionary tangents before there is a strong likelihood of you doing so again if I took the trouble, You Won't Take, to repost each of those challenges which you initially claimed to have
"answered". In fact, this whole 'reproduce the challenges' loop of yours is, itself, an evasion on your part of the challenge to support your initial claim of answering previous challenges.
-Your insinuation that I feel inferior to you is false as I do not. Just because I do not talk down to you does not mean I feel inferior, merely that I am respectful.
That's merely another of your lies since your comments have not been "respectful" to any degree, (these disrespectful comments of yours, in your
own words, are also available in these threads). It wouldn't be going out on a limb to estimate that you'd likely deny that your disrespectful comments were disrespectful, (seeing how you have a vested interest in such a biased 'opinion' of your own comments). As far as the possibility that you feel inferior goes; nominally, those who whine about others being "superior" in their empty opinions usually use that word because they do feel inferior, (which is entirely the problem of the one who feels that way, no matter if they deny it or not).
-You are the one making a claim, I am not required to prove it for you and will not do so. Your claim is unsubstantiated and will continue to be until you show proof.
No, I made a counter-claim _after_ you made the initial claim in that regard that you had answered all challenges made. No evidence of this was provided. My _secondary_ claim derived from yours in asserting that you had evaded answering, (and let's be clear at this point; answering isn't merely posting more unsupported crap, it means directly responding to the content of the challenges. Not weaseling around them, evading them, or coming up with defensive counter-challenges on your part).
-An opinion is simply that, an opinion. I am entitled to any opinion I want.
Indeed, you are "entitled" to hold empty/baseless/unsupported opinions or, opinions that have some veracity or rational basis for that matter. There is a difference between a baseless/unsupported opinion and an opinion which has a legitimate basis/evidentiary support. Yours was an unsupported opinion, (which seems to be your preference), and I indicated that to distinguish it from an opinion with a foundational basis.
-Actually, it was not a threat or a demand. It was simply one person informing another that they will not longer waste their time as the other person will not reproduce the needed information to continue the debate.
The burden of proof rests with the one who made the initial claim to have answered all previous challenges, (that's Mackenzie). It does not rest with an opponent who challenges the initial claimant's initial claim by requesting evidence to support that claim, (the challenger isn't required to produce evidence to support the claimant's claim; the claimant - Mackenzie - has that burden of proof). Characterizing my challenges as making a claim is an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto a secondary claim when you made the initial claim, (and thus, have the initial burden of proof). This sort of dishonest tactic is the same as someone demanding that their opponent "prove Santa doesn't exist" instead of supporting their initial claim that Santa exists _first_.
As an aside, I do concur that it is a waste of time 'arguing' with someone like you who blithely makes unsupported claims, attempts to shift the burden of proof when those claims are challenged, lies about this, lies about lying about this, submits diversionary tangents in lieu of responding to context and dissembles with such a degree of hypocrisy so as to make a Republican blush - that would be you, Mackenzie. The evidence of each of those 'claims' awaits your discovery in these threads. Naturally, you have no incentive to find this evidence, (or evidence of those unanswered challenges), because this would sink your argument. I understand that however, the actual and documented sequence of events was; you initially claimed to have answered all previous challenges, (allegedly, by answering the context of them), I then challenged your claim to have answered those previous challenges and requested that you support your initial claim, you then tried to get me to prove that you didn't answer prior challenges, (thus attempting to shift the burden of proof onto me), when I refused, you made additional claims that such evidence doesn't exist just because I would'nt go find it for you, (i.e., because I rejected your attempts to shift the burden of proof to me).
-
my perfect after life is my kids and animals all living with me in a huge house but the animals never go to the bathroom.litter boxes isnt part of my happy after life
-
-Reproducing these challenges would not be “doing my research for me” as you are the one who claimed that they exist but cannot show any proof.
False. You made the initial claim in that regard that you had answered all challenges made. No evidence of this was provided. My _secondary_ claim derived from yours in asserting that you had evaded answering, (and let's be clear at this point; answering isn't merely posting more unsupported crap, it means directly responding to the content of the challenges. Not weaseling around them, evading them, or coming up with defensive counter-challenges on your part). Since you did evade, weasel and come up with diversionary tangents before there is a strong likelihood of you doing so again if I took the trouble, You Won't Take, to repost each of those challenges which you initially claimed to have
"answered". In fact, this whole 'reproduce the challenges' loop of yours is, itself, an evasion on your part of the challenge to support your initial claim of answering previous challenges.
-Your insinuation that I feel inferior to you is false as I do not. Just because I do not talk down to you does not mean I feel inferior, merely that I am respectful.
That's merely another of your lies since your comments have not been "respectful" to any degree, (these disrespectful comments of yours, in your
own words, are also available in these threads). It wouldn't be going out on a limb to estimate that you'd likely deny that your disrespectful comments were disrespectful, (seeing how you have a vested interest in such a biased 'opinion' of your own comments). As far as the possibility that you feel inferior goes; nominally, those who whine about others being "superior" in their empty opinions usually use that word because they do feel inferior, (which is entirely the problem of the one who feels that way, no matter if they deny it or not).
-You are the one making a claim, I am not required to prove it for you and will not do so. Your claim is unsubstantiated and will continue to be until you show proof.
No, I made a counter-claim _after_ you made the initial claim in that regard that you had answered all challenges made. No evidence of this was provided. My _secondary_ claim derived from yours in asserting that you had evaded answering, (and let's be clear at this point; answering isn't merely posting more unsupported crap, it means directly responding to the content of the challenges. Not weaseling around them, evading them, or coming up with defensive counter-challenges on your part).
-An opinion is simply that, an opinion. I am entitled to any opinion I want.
Indeed, you are "entitled" to hold empty/baseless/unsupported opinions or, opinions that have some veracity or rational basis for that matter. There is a difference between a baseless/unsupported opinion and an opinion which has a legitimate basis/evidentiary support. Yours was an unsupported opinion, (which seems to be your preference), and I indicated that to distinguish it from an opinion with a foundational basis.
-Actually, it was not a threat or a demand. It was simply one person informing another that they will not longer waste their time as the other person will not reproduce the needed information to continue the debate.
The burden of proof rests with the one who made the initial claim to have answered all previous challenges, (that's Mackenzie). It does not rest with an opponent who challenges the initial claimant's initial claim by requesting evidence to support that claim, (the challenger isn't required to produce evidence to support the claimant's claim; the claimant - Mackenzie - has that burden of proof). Characterizing my challenges as making a claim is an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto a secondary claim when you made the initial claim, (and thus, have the initial burden of proof). This sort of dishonest tactic is the same as someone demanding that their opponent "prove Santa doesn't exist" instead of supporting their initial claim that Santa exists _first_.
As an aside, I do concur that it is a waste of time 'arguing' with someone like you who blithely makes unsupported claims, attempts to shift the burden of proof when those claims are challenged, lies about this, lies about lying about this, submits diversionary tangents in lieu of responding to context and dissembles with such a degree of hypocrisy so as to make a Republican blush - that would be you, Mackenzie. The evidence of each of those 'claims' awaits your discovery in these threads. Naturally, you have no incentive to find this evidence, (or evidence of those unanswered challenges), because this would sink your argument. I understand that however, the actual and documented sequence of events was; you initially claimed to have answered all previous challenges, (allegedly, by answering the context of them), I then challenged your claim to have answered those previous challenges and requested that you support your initial claim, you then tried to get me to prove that you didn't answer prior challenges, (thus attempting to shift the burden of proof onto me), when I refused, you made additional claims that such evidence doesn't exist just because I would'nt go find it for you, (i.e., because I rejected your attempts to shift the burden of proof to me).
False, the claim made was that I have left challenges unanswered (you made this claim). You refuse to prove this claim. Also, if I DID answer a challenge and you simply do not accept the proof because you disagree, this does not constitute an unanswered challenge.
I never said that I have not been disrespectful at all on this thread, merely that I have not purposely talked down to you disrespectfully in order to blow up my own ego.
Believing in God is not a baseless opinion, but I am not going to debate this with you as I am mature enough to agree to disagree. You do not believe in God so we will not ever come to common ground on this matter. There is no need to even respond to this section of my response for that reason.
Since you made a claim that I left challenges unanswered, it is your responsibility to prove these claims. Aside from that, if you just restate the challenge I will be glad to answer it now.
-
Also, if I DID answer a challenge and you simply do not accept the proof because you disagree, this does not constitute an unanswered challenge.
Your "proof" did not constitute conclusive evidence and was therefore not considered to be a valid proof, (unsupported opinion does not constitute "proof"). I didn't agree that your unsupported opinion constitutes proof, that's correct. That's why it would be unproductive to repost challenges you failed to answer with substantiated evidence, (in lieu of the unsupported opinions you used instead).
Believing in God is not a baseless opinion ...
Your unsupported opinion, (baseless claim), is without merit. Such a 'belief' relies upon 'faith' alone, (which is defined as an opinion or belief for which there is no substantive evidence - i.e., a baseless opinion). Your "opinion" to the contrary is empty given that this is the main challenge you have failed to answer by substantiating your claim, (which, btw, it NOT that you hold such a "belief" but, that such a belief has some evidential basis).
Since you made a claim that I left challenges unanswered, it is your responsibility to prove these claims. Aside from that, if you just restate the challenge I will be glad to answer it now.
I just did. You just claimed that "Believing in God is not a baseless opinion" and provided no support for such a claim. Let's not go around and around on the same diversion where you focus on 'proof' that you hold such a belief and remain on your actual stated claim that it's "not a baseless belief", (which means that you have an unstated basis for making that claim). The unanswered challenge is and has been, for you to state that unstated basis, (rather than go off in tangential misdirections this time).
-
Also, if I DID answer a challenge and you simply do not accept the proof because you disagree, this does not constitute an unanswered challenge.
Your "proof" did not constitute conclusive evidence and was therefore not considered to be a valid proof, (unsupported opinion does not constitute "proof"). I didn't agree that your unsupported opinion constitutes proof, that's correct. That's why it would be unproductive to repost challenges you failed to answer with substantiated evidence, (in lieu of the unsupported opinions you used instead).
Believing in God is not a baseless opinion ...
Your unsupported opinion, (baseless claim), is without merit. Such a 'belief' relies upon 'faith' alone, (which is defined as an opinion or belief for which there is no substantive evidence - i.e., a baseless opinion). Your "opinion" to the contrary is empty given that this is the main challenge you have failed to answer by substantiating your claim, (which, btw, it NOT that you hold such a "belief" but, that such a belief has some evidential basis).
Since you made a claim that I left challenges unanswered, it is your responsibility to prove these claims. Aside from that, if you just restate the challenge I will be glad to answer it now.
I just did. You just claimed that "Believing in God is not a baseless opinion" and provided no support for such a claim. Let's not go around and around on the same diversion where you focus on 'proof' that you hold such a belief and remain on your actual stated claim that it's "not a baseless belief", (which means that you have an unstated basis for making that claim). The unanswered challenge is and has been, for you to state that unstated basis, (rather than go off in tangential misdirections this time).
Well actually the Bible is the basis for a belief in God, but that proof is not accepted by you and that is perfectly fine as that is your opinon and your choice. I am not trying to convince you of God's existence nor am I claiming such existence as fact. I am merely stating that a belief in God is not just randomly thought of by people, those ideas come from the Bible. Whether or not you accept the Bible as historical evidence, you cannot argue that it is not where the regimen for Christianity comes from.
If you respond to this and attempt to debate the validity of the Bible that will be ignored as I have shown many times in this post that I am not at all trying to debate that point and that it is not the issue as I know we will never agree on that, and that we do not have to agree on that.
-
Well actually the Bible is the basis for a belief in God, but that proof is not accepted by you and that is perfectly fine as that is your opinon and your choice.
Oh no you don't; the proof is rejected not because it's my "opinion" but, because the jumbled parables which form whichever version of the "bible" you are using as an appeal to authority, ("basis for a belief in god"), do not constitute conclusive evidence. What you are implicitly proposing then is that whichever "bible" you are vaguely referencing is, _itself_, as inconclusive and dubious source, an irrational basis for an irrational belief. According to inferential logic; the belief is irrational if the basis, (premise), is irrational. Therefore, it is logic, rather than merely my opinion without basis, (in contrast with your opinion that "the bible the basis for a belief in god"), that invalidates your appeal to pseudo-authority.
I am not trying to convince you of God's existence nor am I claiming such existence as fact. I am merely stating that a belief in God is not just randomly thought of by people, those ideas come from the Bible. Whether or not you accept the Bible as historical evidence, you cannot argue that it is not where the regimen for Christianity comes from.
Given that the various contributing writers of early versions of the "bible", (segue: got your Aramic copy handy?), lifted/plagiarized and altered several pagan concepts from even earlier cultures, I'd have to extrapolate that those concepts didn't originate with the "bible". Ref.: Aegyptian myth of Osiris risen as a precurser of the latter 'jesus' myth, (which predated the Judeo-xtian altered version by several thousand years). There are more cites available, (complete with sources, as if this were a pHd thesis, instead of a debate forum), to support the contention made. These extend from a time pre-dating xtianity and up through several 'abridged' versions of various "bibles" which co-opted pre-existant pagan belief systems in order to co-opt pagans into conversion. This despicable behaviour by the "church" proceded to effect the Dark Ages; a time where reason was shunned due to the extant power of the "HolyC" to extort belief at the point of torture and the sword.
So, got anything else to support your claim besides that?
-
Given that the various contributing writers of early versions of the "bible", (segue: got your Aramic copy handy?), lifted/plagiarized and altered several pagan concepts from even earlier cultures, I'd have to extrapolate that those concepts didn't originate with the "bible". Ref.: Aegyptian myth of Osiris risen as a precurser of the latter 'jesus' myth, (which predated the Judeo-xtian altered version by several thousand years). There are more cites available, (complete with sources, as if this were a pHd thesis, instead of a debate forum), to support the contention made.
Let me amplify that claim for you-
http://department.monm.edu/classics/courses/clas230/mythdocuments/heropattern/default.htm
-
Given that the various contributing writers of early versions of the "bible", (segue: got your Aramic copy handy?), lifted/plagiarized and altered several pagan concepts from even earlier cultures, I'd have to extrapolate that those concepts didn't originate with the "bible". Ref.: Aegyptian myth of Osiris risen as a precurser of the latter 'jesus' myth, (which predated the Judeo-xtian altered version by several thousand years). There are more cites available, (complete with sources, as if this were a pHd thesis, instead of a debate forum), to support the contention made.
Let me amplify that claim for you-
http://department.monm.edu/classics/courses/clas230/mythdocuments/heropattern/default.htm
Thanks, I also came across this supporting reference:
"Pagan spirituality in ancient times from the Mediterranean region was composed of two components:
-The Outer Mysteries consisted of Pagan beliefs and practices which were widely disseminated and taught to the general public. Knowledge of these has been largely preserved in historical records.
-The Inner Mysteries were revealed only to those who had been initiated into the Pagan religions. The initiates learned that Osiris-Dionysus was not a historical person. His legends were simple "spiritual allegories encoding spiritual teachings." Late in the 4th century CE, Christianity was established as the state religion. Pagans were given the choice of converting to Christianity, being exterminated, or being exiled. Their temples were either stolen for use as Christian churches, or destroyed. Eventually, detailed knowledge of the inner mysteries was lost.
The core of the Outer and Inner mysteries was a mythical, male entity who was part god and part human -- often referred to as a "god-man." The biographies of these god-men were consistent from religion to religion. The main difference among the faiths was his name:
Alexandria: Aion
Asia Minor: Attis
Babylonia: Antiochus
Egypt: Osiris and Horus
Greece: Dionysus and Asclepius
Syria: Adonis
Italy: Bacchus
Persia: Mithras"
-- excerpt from http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa0.htm
-
energy is neither created nor destroyed. we are *bleep* of energy, so to speak. something has to happen. we will all find out at some point.
-
i only belive that if you accept Jesus Christ as your savoiut do you have eternal life or have a new life to spend with him in Heaven.
-
The cool thing is that being individuals we all get to have our own opinions and beliefs.
-
Well actually the Bible is the basis for a belief in God, but that proof is not accepted by you and that is perfectly fine as that is your opinon and your choice.
Oh no you don't; the proof is rejected not because it's my "opinion" but, because the jumbled parables which form whichever version of the "bible" you are using as an appeal to authority, ("basis for a belief in god"), do not constitute conclusive evidence. What you are implicitly proposing then is that whichever "bible" you are vaguely referencing is, _itself_, as inconclusive and dubious source, an irrational basis for an irrational belief. According to inferential logic; the belief is irrational if the basis, (premise), is irrational. Therefore, it is logic, rather than merely my opinion without basis, (in contrast with your opinion that "the bible the basis for a belief in god"), that invalidates your appeal to pseudo-authority.
I am not trying to convince you of God's existence nor am I claiming such existence as fact. I am merely stating that a belief in God is not just randomly thought of by people, those ideas come from the Bible. Whether or not you accept the Bible as historical evidence, you cannot argue that it is not where the regimen for Christianity comes from.
Given that the various contributing writers of early versions of the "bible", (segue: got your Aramic copy handy?), lifted/plagiarized and altered several pagan concepts from even earlier cultures, I'd have to extrapolate that those concepts didn't originate with the "bible". Ref.: Aegyptian myth of Osiris risen as a precurser of the latter 'jesus' myth, (which predated the Judeo-xtian altered version by several thousand years). There are more cites available, (complete with sources, as if this were a pHd thesis, instead of a debate forum), to support the contention made. These extend from a time pre-dating xtianity and up through several 'abridged' versions of various "bibles" which co-opted pre-existant pagan belief systems in order to co-opt pagans into conversion. This despicable behaviour by the "church" proceded to effect the Dark Ages; a time where reason was shunned due to the extant power of the "HolyC" to extort belief at the point of torture and the sword.
So, got anything else to support your claim besides that?
Welp I did not claim that the Bible was factual, simply that it is the basis for the Christian belief. Are you really arguing that the Bible is not the basis for Christianity?
-
Yes I do
-
Welp I did not claim that the Bible was factual, simply that it is the basis for the Christian belief. Are you really arguing that the Bible is not the basis for Christianity?
No doubt you'll consider 'logic' to be a "twisting" of your words however, here's how what you stated above plays out: Your premise=bible as basis for xtian belief; that basis is either factual or, nonfactual. If factual, evident converse facts wouldn't contradict it, (but they do). If the basis is nonfactual hearsay, (and it is), then the conclusion is that the "bible" is the nonfactual basis for the xtian belief systems. Further extrapolation yields: such a belief itself as irrational, (lacking substative support and instead relying upon empty 'faith'), therefore the underlying basis for the belief systems of xtianity is 'blind faith', (bereft of substantive evidence to justify such a belief and, actually manifests as personal preference of opinion).
To answer your largely rhetorical question anyway; if several central themes of biblical parables and beliefs were hyjacked and altered by early authors of the "books of the bible", (and they were), then the basis for many of those central beliefs stems from pre-existant paganism, not xtianity. If that sort of 'copyright ingringement' occurred today, certain parties could litigate the Hel out of every purveyor of infringed material for significant damages. As the situation stands today however, the cultural thieves have a centuries-old fait accompli in that regard.
-
Welp I did not claim that the Bible was factual, simply that it is the basis for the Christian belief. Are you really arguing that the Bible is not the basis for Christianity?
No doubt you'll consider 'logic' to be a "twisting" of your words however, here's how what you stated above plays out: Your premise=bible as basis for xtian belief; that basis is either factual or, nonfactual. If factual, evident converse facts wouldn't contradict it, (but they do). If the basis is nonfactual hearsay, (and it is), then the conclusion is that the "bible" is the nonfactual basis for the xtian belief systems. Further extrapolation yields: such a belief itself as irrational, (lacking substative support and instead relying upon empty 'faith'), therefore the underlying basis for the belief systems of xtianity is 'blind faith', (bereft of substantive evidence to justify such a belief and, actually manifests as personal preference of opinion).
To answer your largely rhetorical question anyway; if several central themes of biblical parables and beliefs were hyjacked and altered by early authors of the "books of the bible", (and they were), then the basis for many of those central beliefs stems from pre-existant paganism, not xtianity. If that sort of 'copyright ingringement' occurred today, certain parties could litigate the Hel out of every purveyor of infringed material for significant damages. As the situation stands today however, the cultural thieves have a centuries-old fait accompli in that regard.
I wasn't claiming anything about Christianity or the Bible being irrational or rational or anything like that.
All I said was that the Bible is the basis for Christian beliefs.
Are you really claiming it isn't?
-
I'm not to sure on this one. Hummmm...I do believe we go somewhere...However, I'm not sure about "heaven/Hell". To bad no one has ever come back and told me what happens after we pass. :D
-
I believe that Jesus died for my sins and that I have been forgiven of them so yes, I plan to go to heaven when I die. :angel11:
-
Everyone dies. I think it's ironic that cemeteries used to be in front of churches, but no longer. Perhaps the parishioners were beginning to get suspicious. Dead is dead. There is absolutely nothing to prove otherwise. You can site the Bible, a book actually written by men who could have written anything. Just because something is written down it does not mean it is true.