Religion In what do you believe OFFTOPIC about SVF and sabro

[Mycernius]

Jarvis was banned because he was a real intolerant idiot and what he said against Islam (Some posts of his were edited out) were almost an incitment to hatred. Whilst SVF has been attacking the Christian mindset, he has not called you a bunch of war mongers, Jesus as a mass murderer or paedophile and you are going to behead us all. Jarvis did all three and it was amazing he lasted on the forum as long as he did.

Sabro, do you have ducks on you or swans, and can I feed them?

 

[No-name]

All that is left is one blue heron. The ducks have moved on for Winter. Snow tonight or tomorrow.

 

[No-name]

My admission is one of not understanding you were being sarcastic or just illustrating something. I would probably have caught it if you had put a "smiley" or something there or even a few more comments tagged on. However, I don`t want to defend excuses. The error was just one of misunderstanding and not one of deception or trying to be dishonest to serve my arguement. I feel I have enough to cite from the BWOG against the BWOG without relying on deception.
Anyway, perhaps that post was due to me being tired at the moment or just into a mode of "chasing the quary" and not noticing that I had gone off on a shadow.
Humbly sorry about going in that direction with the discussion on this point.
Fair enough?

Oh great chess master- I find it difficult to believe that simple verbal irony escaped you. You had the entire context in front of you and to say you didn't understand that is totally unbelievable. I suppose I am bound by that same "Xtian mindset" you ridiculed at that very spot in the discussion to automatically forgive you, but I wasn't certain if I was forgiving your dishonesty or your bigotry. These are intentional actions. It turns out instead I am forgiving your lack of critical reading skills. That would be unintentional. That is perfectly understandable and no forgiveness is needed. I appologize for criticizing an unintentional error and shall avoid any type of verbal irony without the appropriate smiley... I also noticed that my past dozen or so posts that were on topic remain unaddressed by you.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I also noticed that my past dozen or so posts that were on topic remain unaddressed by you.

Sabro, you have left many of my posts and questions unanswered. Please catch up, and then I will be more concerned with being careful not to miss something you post wanting a response.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

In many Christains (I among them), every awesome sunset confirms the existence of God. Every unexplained healing, joyous moment, act of good fortune, each bit of good co-incidence or beneficial consequence is seen as the benificence of God.

Does every murder, rape and other depraved action also confirm the existence of BGod?

BGod did create everything, didn`t he? He did create Lucipher and knew what would happen, didn`t he?

 

[No-name]

We are talking about confirmation bias,still? So Yes, and that would confirm the existence of sin and evil. Just as your bias would dictate that every thing you see denies the existence of God, mine would serve to confirm. It is the nature of the beast.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Big sigh...

Yes, Big sigh, indeed. That was exactly my thoughts by your first three posts in the WOG thread (only after which I finally decided to engage you), and after your first post in the SOG thread.

Post #208 is on point and at the heart of our discussion: We read the same book, you find falsehood, I find truth. You find a horrible fairy god king and I find a loving redeemer. You find fraud and I find hope and faith and strength. The question for any sane person is: why you would keep reading the book?

Good question, Sabro. However, it is quite an easy answer.

By now you have probably already read a post or two where I look at belief of superstition (which you refer to as religion -- more specifically yours of Neo-Xtianity) and those who do not believe in it as opposing positions on a spectrum. Superstition has caused great harm in the past. In our hemisphere it seems to have finally been reigned in and therefore clergy hold no power over us to issue laws or punishments for infractions. As you also know, that is not the case all over the world. There is no guarantee that the pendulum in our society could never swing back. It most definitely could.

I see the two on the spectrum as adversarries, much like the U.S. and the USSR of 20 years ago. Then we both loathed and distrusted our opponents and wrote each others' systems off as not correct (i.e. being wrong). However, just because we dismissed the other system worthy of emulation did not mean we didn`t study each other. On the contrary! We spent billions of dollars studying the other and invested probably billions of hours in learning each others literature so that we could discredit it and defeat it.

Doing so did not mean one was insane. In fact, doing so was the prudent course to follow -- the act of quite a sane person wishing to see "bad/evil" vanquished.

While you may not like the depiction, is that a fair enough answer to your "Why" question?

I am not the issue here. I believe you can respond to Mars Man without bringing me into your discussion. (He actually agrees with a good deal of what you have to say. He can say it better, without offending the religious observer, and in a more convincing way.... Read and learn.)

Yes, Sabro! Read and by all means DO learn!

I agree, you are not the issue. However, I wonder why you were so quick in your post #2 of the SOG to go with the "strike 3" comment aimed at me and not just be satisfied with addressing the point of the post.

Furthermore, your first 3 posts in the WOG seemed to be taking aim at me rather than just sticking to the message.

I think even Maciamo "rebuked" <snicker snicker -- funny word> you several times for all your harping about me being intolerant and a bigot rather than addressing the points.

Your offense is tied to your overly sensitive feeling to the subject matter. It warrants no special consideration over someone who would want to defend Hitler and Nazism. Mars Man is Mars Man and he has his style. If you prefer reading his posts only, I invite you to use the "ignore" button like I had in the past. Moderators had even made a special thread to encourage people to do so. Why ignore the moderators' advice?

By the way, if you are not going to put me on your ignore list, just what has Mars Man convinced you of?

Personally, I like Mars Man. He seems to be a very endearing person and for those people who naturally tend towards that style I commend it. However, to me, I find his style just a little too diplomatic for me. Though his knowledge seems to have foresight and his remarks are well thought out, eventhough I may disagree with him.

----------------
* No insult to you, Mars Man. It in fact is a compliment -- and just an observation on differences in style. I think you would agree, it would be a boring world if we were all the same.

 

[No-name]

Strongvoicesforward- I generally will respond when asked specific questions. I believe at this point however that this is detracting from the discussion at hand and inspite of repeated attempts on my part to extend an olive branch, you seem to wish hostilities to continue. I will again extend an offer of cease fire with the hopes that you will behave in a civil and respectful manner in the future.

I do come here to learn, and I have leaned a great deal. I don't really believe that you have ever shown us either the capacity or the desire to learn from anyone on these forums. Indeed, you have said that you are the instructor and we are your pupils.

I believe Maciamo is wrong at not taking you to task over many of your posts. But life will go on anyway. Anti-semites believe their offensive comments about Jews are justified and racists probably feel that people of color are overly sensitive. It is never minorities who think racism is not a problem and I guess sexists will always think women are also just being too sensitive. It is clear to me that you don't have to be a Christian to recognize the type of attacks you have employed and I am certain that it would be unacceptable if your target were not Christians. I am not wrong at having pointed that out, but perhaps it belongs in a differnt thread or needs to be vented in a different way. I have taken care not to ridicule the beliefs of others be it another religion, atheism or vegetarianism to any degree. And it would be rather irrelevant.

No one has convinced me or even suggested that I put you on an ignore list. Mars Man asked me to tone it down so that we could get back to topic, and I believe I have gone the extra mile.

I believe you actually promised to ignore me quite some time ago, but never actually followed through. I believe it is my right to not ignore your posts and to defend against ignorance and intolerance wherever it rears its ugly head. If I find your future comments offensive or intollerant I will point it out to you as gently as I can.

I hope this allows you to get back on topic. If you would like to discuss this more, I would suggest that you either open another thread specifically for that purpose or pm me.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

...you seem to wish hostilities to continue.

You view witticism, satire, and parody as hostility because you are too sensitive.

I will again extend an offer of cease fire with the hopes that you will behave in a civil and respectful manner in the future.

This just what I mean that your "apologies" or "offers" are couched in back handed remarks. In your "offer" and your "apologies" you continue to put the onus of responsibility on myself without offering a blanket apology for whatever you are apoligising for or a general offer from your side regardless from mine. Why not just put a period (.) after the word "fire" above or end it from there as "in the hopes that we can move forward and have civil discussion." Note how my example does not throw some insinuation out and uses the pronoun "we" to be fair in taking responsibility. Besides your ???Ă܂? offers for "olive branches" your "apologies" are likewise constructed in the same way.

I do come here to learn, and I have leaned a great deal.

Yes, you do need to learn about the proper way to "apologise" or "offer an olive branch," if you are going to.

I don't really believe that you have ever shown us either the capacity or the desire to learn from anyone on these forums.

You mean because I haven`t agreed with you or have been convinced yet by someone`s argument for "hunting," or "believing the Bible is the WOG"?

I`ve lurked a lot through a lot of the threads and I have learned some things. Merely not posting, "Hey guys, you taught me something to day," when I`ve come across some new information I didn`t know before, in no way means I haven`t learned anything. Why can`t you see that?

Indeed, you have said that you are the instructor and we are your pupils.

Where did I say that?

I guess sexists will always think women are also just being too sensitive.

Paul told people that women should not speak in church and to be obedient to her husband.

I have taken care not to ridicule the beliefs of others be it another religion, atheism or vegetarianism to any degree. And it would be rather irrelevant.

Hmmm...you take a part out of a post, cutting it out of context from the rest, and congratulate it -- knowing very well that which it was cut from was very offensive. You still refuse to acknowledge that this is wrong and I guess you are therefore the kind of person that could read Hitler`s Mein Kompf or his Master Plan to exterminate Jews and feel an urge to send Hitler a praiseworthy comment just because there could be on the off possibility something he said was good in there couched between all the horrors.

No one has convinced me or even suggested that I put you on an ignore list. Mars Man asked me to tone it down so that we could get back to topic, and I believe I have gone the extra mile.

If you feel superficial offers and apologies are appropriate and qualify.

I believe you actually promised to ignore me quite some time ago, but never actually followed through.

Actually, I offered it to you as something you should do and if you had wished, I suggested would honor it "mutually," which you didn`t take me up on.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Revenant, if I am arguing that the Bible is not the Word of God, and contradictions are one of the reasons I use to say that is so, then it is only prudent for my argument, if not logical, for me to seek out contradictions that support my premise. Why would I look for something that doesn't, or champions the opposite of what I believe and have come to a decision on?

This is an example of confirmation bias. IMO, if your goal is to prove the Bible wrong, then you are just at the opposite end of the same scale as a fundamentalist, whose goal is to prove the Bible right. A logical approach is like Mycernius suggests. You put aside your beliefs for the time being, and see what's really there, and take it all on board. Some of it will be contradictions, some will be wisdom, some won't make sense. You then re-examine your conclusion to see if it best fits the evidence you have found. Back when Copernicus discovered that the Earth orbited the sun, there were people who chose to see only the evidence that fitted their own conclusions. Those with intellectual honesty set aside their beliefs and examined the evidence, before re-examining their beliefs to see what best fit. SVF, it seems to me that your approach is not intellectually honest. You have an agenda, and that is only ever going to get in the way of logic, IMO.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

This is an example of confirmation bias.

No. It is an example of having considered the other side in past years and have finally come to a decision after examining it. Haven`t you read my posts where I explained about "not sitting on the fence" forever?

IMO, if your goal is to prove the Bible wrong, then you are just at the opposite end of the same scale as a fundamentalist, whose goal is to prove the Bible right.

I am on the opposite end in terms of disbelief/belief. However, my end has no dogmatic beliefs and doctrines that say someone will be denied eternal life if one exists merely for not believing in superstition. Furthermore, since I am not the one who is asserting a positive, I have no burden to prove anything. It goes back to the Santa Clause story.

A logical approach is like Mycernius suggests. You put aside your beliefs for the time being, and see what's really there, and take it all on board. Some of it will be contradictions, some will be wisdom, some won't make sense. You then re-examine your conclusion to see if it best fits the evidence you have found.

Yes, agreed. Been there done that. I have made my decision. I have examined my conclusion on several occassions. It still holds up. I am off the fence. Do you think not coming to a final decision is a state of ad infinitum?

Back when Copernicus discovered that the Earth orbited the sun, there were people who chose to see only the evidence that fitted their own conclusions. Those with intellectual honesty set aside their beliefs and examined the evidence, before re-examining their beliefs to see what best fit. SVF, it seems to me that your approach is not intellectually honest. You have an agenda, and that is only ever going to get in the way of logic, IMO.

Tsuyoiko, I was raised Xtian. I did put those beliefs to the side for the sake of intellectual honesty. It had set me on the path to discovering that the Bible was false. After re-examining that conclusion several times, it still holds up.

I`ve already explained why I do it. Perhaps that is what you mean by agenda. Have you read that post where I explain why I do it?

My logic tells me one cannot be three at the same time equally in the same place and that three cannot be one at the same time equally in the same place. My logic does not get in the way. It serves me quite well for I no longer believe in Santa Clause or a Superstition.

 

[No-name]

Mars Man- I again apologize- I have lost the direction where this thread was going. You had posted some verses and seemed to be going in a certain direction. Could you please redirect us.

SVF- We need not pursue this any further. I have apologized. Your understanding of what constitutes wit, sarcasm and parody do not match what all others in the English speaking world understand them to be. Your recolections are interesting at best. Would you like the exact quotes and the exact posts where you say:

"...But, because of that, you probably won`t see me engaging you....

So, I will just post and if you want you can just react to my posts with no feedback feedback from me. I guess we will just be posting around each other.

SVF."

It sounds like a broken promise by you to ignore me. Not a suggestion that I ignore you. Que sera sera.

 

[No-name]

It sounds to me like your upbringing was rather traumatic. For one to be brought up in what is supposed to be an environment of love and care and respect to end up so bitterly opposed to everything Christianity stands for is indeed a bitter tragedy, and I am truly sorry for it. For one to view their own upbringing as one of fraud and brainwashing in a religion they find hypocritical and intolerant must have been absolutely painful. I had no idea you survived such rough beginnings. Now that I understand where you are comming from, I am truly, truly sorry.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

That PM, which I am pretty sure it is, was mostly in reference to the hunting thread. But do remember, I had offered you a public choice in the WOG thread (or perhaps it was the SOG).

However, I see how you could "interpret" it as an absolute -- kind of like how you think I interpret the Bible in absolutes of black and white. <snicker snicker> Trap door trap door.

*by the way... I see you have started to make PMs public -- well, not quite the same as forwarding them, but hey...you do like those trap doors so you can wiggle out, huh?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

SVF- We need not pursue this any further.

Then why do you always try to get the last word in with a parting shot?

 

[No-name]

SVF Are you embarassed by your own words? I hope I did not duly offend you. I read the rebukes you offered to Nurizeko and was quaking under the obvious weight of your wit and intellect. The message and quote were your own, but you did not acknowlege them. Actually, I sent it to you... I was trying to ascertain if you simply forgot or if you were again being deceptive. I would hate to think of you as either someone with a failing memory or a problem telling the truth.

As for having the last word- you asked a direct question. If you don't want me to comment, don't ask. This post also is in direct response to a comment/question in your last post. Again, I only spoke up because you asked. I have made attempts to be sincere and honest and you answer me in this fasion? Perhaps if you ask only questions that you want responses to, you will be more satisfied with the answers.

I'm glad to see you snickering again. It seems like you are in a better mood.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

SVF Are you embarassed by your own words? I hope I did not duly offend you. I read the rebukes you offered to Nurizeko and was quaking under the obvious weight of your wit and intellect.

You need not "quake." It is only "wit" and "humor." Now, if you were a dog in a laboratory where a man came every morning at 10 a.m. to violate the autonomy of your body by causing you pain, then yes, "quaking" would be most appropriate.

Not embarrassed at all by my words. I just respect PMs for what they are. That seems to escape you.

I would hate to think of you as either someone with a failing memory or a problem telling the truth.

You mean like Jesus not remembering what is a Law and what is a Commandment? You mean like Paul being a deceptive person catching people by "trickery"?

I can be forgiven of my shortfallings merely for the fact that I am human. But, BGOD and the people he has chosen as his spokesmen and his book should be much more consistant to take care of their memory and reign in deception of their own.

I have made attempts to be sincere and honest...

All failed on your part because they are couched in superficial backhanded comments affixed to your messages.

...and you answer me in this fasion?

Thou doth protest too much.

I'm glad to see you snickering again. It seems like you are in a better mood.

I am always in a good mood. I do not change from a hateful person demanding people put their sons to death to show respect for me, cause them to do terrible things, rub excrement on their face, destroying the world at one point in my life to then all of a sudden preaching forgiveness -- something I could not practice myself, and then changing again to using violence to force people out of a temple because I didn`t like what they were doing in there, and then back to "turning the other cheek," again. That would be kind of like a person with a multiple personality disorder. Perhaps schizophrenic <snicker snicker> -- wouldn`t you agree?

 

[Mars Man]

Now please don't get me wrong guys, I mean NO insult whatsoever, I only found it actually humorus; I got a big laugh out of the volley carried out above. I'm still kind of laughing as I write this...sorry, somehow it just pinched my funny bone..... :lol:

I know this is serious for you both.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Now please don't get me wrong guys, I mean NO insult whatsoever, I only found it actually humorus; I got a big laugh out of the volley carried out above. I'm still kind of laughing as I write this...sorry, somehow it just pinched my funny bone..... :lol:
I know this is serious for you both.

Glad you enjoyed it, Mars Man. I do try to employ "wit" and "humor" for the benefit of those reading. You obviously do catch it. Not everyone can.

I kind of think that when Jesus allegedly resurrected, he took all the humor of the Christians up in the clouds with him.

Blue Laws Blue Laws
Blue balls Blue Balls

 

[No-name]

S'ok Mars Man. You are right. No offense taken. Although I do have to admit that it was a bit less funny and more tedious. I am really, really trying my best to hold up my end-- but it doesn't seem like it is working. I thought of responding in kind, but your post diffused that effort. SVF actually just recycled a bunch of previously used ridicule and insults, and they are quite blunted by now. I don't think he has anything new to add- either to his bank of insults or to this discussion-- should it ever get back on track.

Shall I continue my efforts at peace? Or is this a person who does not understand apology? Shall I again attemp to explain the concept of verbal irony and what Paul was actually and obviously saying? Or shall I resort to ridicule also since making him look ignorant in this point would be rather easy. Shall I treat it with respect as if there was a salient point and ask for spefics to bolster his laughable claims, or shall I respond with a witty retort designed to make him look even more laughable? Or shall I just ignore him as a few others have decided to do? Mars Man, have my efforts utterly failed?

Is there a way of saving this thread? Could we ever hope to actually and seriously discuss bible topics again?