Religion In what do you believe OFFTOPIC about SVF and sabro

[Revenant]

I won't go through all the arguments, and I'm sure Sabro could provide you with a few examples of his own. Here is but one that I remembered off the top of my head.

Show me in the Bible that indicates slavery was a part of their culture and all around them before BGOD sent them off into slavery? You are going into presumptionism and I will rescind that charge if you show me the verses that make slavery to be a part of the social network before BGod sends them into it.

Was slavery around before God sent the israelites into slavery according to the Bible? What of the story of Joseph being sold into slavery?

As of yet, no further comment from SVF on it.

 

[No-name]

Hey revenant, insert: (The sound of crickets chirping)

Maciamo- that damn bunny and his cud! Kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit!

 

[Tsuyoiko]

given your Interrogation techniques, and your subtle smugness and derision, I would say he is perfectly within his rights to say you are lacking tolerance.

An example: I agree with SVF that his using initialisms such as BWOG is no different from us using SVF. BUT if SVF had asked me to stop calling him that as it upsets him, out of respect I would, even though typing Strongvoicesforward everytime would be a pain in the arse (I think I'd ctrl+v it). Sabro has said that the initialisms upset him, but SVF refuses to show him that respect.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Is it permitted in your church for outsiders to come and pose questions questioning the truthfulness, or are the conversations expected to be with people coming to the church with the purpose to discuss only after they have accepted it as faith?
If the latter, then why would you say, "you guys should come to my church..." -- you mean just to be preached to? We don`t care about how organized or unorganized it is so would never go to see that. But, we are very interested to go to get questions answered. In my experience, though, skeptics are not welcomed.

I think if you want to turn up on a Sunday at a service and start questioning things, that is inappropriate. The point of the service is for believers to conduct their worship. Any non-believers who happen to be there (e.g. for a Christening) should repect that, IMO. I don't like boy bands. I would avoid their gigs, but if I ended up at one (god forbid ), I would just sit quietly and endure it. I wouldn't heckle (sp?) them, as they have a right to do their thing without being abused. If I wanted to tell them why I don't like them, I would find a more appropriate way to do it. Likewise, if you want to go to a church and debate with them, I think it would be more respectful to phone or write to them and express your interest. If they decline, you can feel justifiably smug about it, without being responsible for unnecessarily upsetting people.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

You may never have been discriminated against by Christians (e.g. school, job, government...), or being bullied by Christians for not believing like them. But I have, SVF probably has, and I know hundreds of people, from relatives to friends, who have. ...Therefore, non Christians have complete right of auto-defense in this regard, against anyone supporting the anti-non-Christian or atni-Atheist religious and political leaders.

I haven't been bullied for being an atheist, but at school one of the things I was bullied for was for being a Christian. If I had gone on the defensive against the atheists who bullied me, I might not have been open-minded enough to reach the conclusions I have now.

 

[Maciamo]

I haven't been bullied for being an atheist, but at school one of the things I was bullied for was for being a Christian. If I had gone on the defensive against the atheists who bullied me, I might not have been open-minded enough to reach the conclusions I have now.

In that case, you were bullied by classmates, not by people in a position of authority, who could threaten to make you repeat your year, keep you in retention, or dismiss you from school for your opinions. That's a big difference.

N.B. : about 80% of the secondary schools in Belgium are Catholic owned and managed.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Indeed, I could also say that I am deeply shocked by sabro's obstination to treat us as "lost souls" and his way of looking down on us as worthless Christians that will end up in hell as they deserve.

I really don't think Sabro does that. There is a member here who does: Pararousia, although she hasn't been around for a while. I found it very difficult to argue with her, as she absolutely refuses to see reason, but I think I was able to disagree with her without calling her names (even if I thought them to myself) and without ridiculing her beliefs (even if I believed them to be ridiculous).

I know that Christians would like us to see their truth, but wouldn't we like them to see ours?

 

[Maciamo]

An example: I agree with SVF that his using initialisms such as BWOG is no different from us using SVF. BUT if SVF had asked me to stop calling him that as it upsets him, out of respect I would, even though typing Strongvoicesforward everytime would be a pain in the arse (I think I'd ctrl+v it). Sabro has said that the initialisms upset him, but SVF refuses to show him that respect.

But what right has sabro to impose on others what they can write or cannot write, which does not directly concern him. "Bible God" is a general term, not one that refers to sabro. If somebody got annoyed for using the words USA instead of United States of America, because they are purists and don't like shortenings, would you respect their caprice ?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Revenant, I am here for strong debate with strong arguments -- not here to give warm fuzzies and hummers.

Why can't we do both? Debating is one of the things I love more than anything, and always have, which is one reason why I studied Philosophy. But equally important to me is kindness. That doesn't mean I will pussy-foot around at the expense of the argument. But it does mean I will avoid hurting anyone unnecessarily. I think my arguments are stronger because of it.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

So I guess that your criticism means that some people may choose "irrationality and friendliness" to "rationality and unfriendliness".

My policy is "rationality and friendliness". It harder to achieve than "rationality and unfriendliness", but all the more satisfying because of that.

 

[Maciamo]

I really don't think Sabro does that. There is a member here who does: Pararousia, although she hasn't been around for a while. I found it very difficult to argue with her, as she absolutely refuses to see reason, but I think I was able to disagree with her without calling her names (even if I thought them to myself) and without ridiculing her beliefs (even if I believed them to be ridiculous).
I know that Christians would like us to see their truth, but wouldn't we like them to see ours?

Mind the "I could say that..." part (if I really felt it justified, or wanted to use the weapon of "indignation").

 

[Tsuyoiko]

you used the evil Brit 's' in proselytize BTW

Hey! Stop being intolerant to our superior spelling!

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I also don't see any problem with the way of SVF to discuss. He is straight to the point, which is a good thing otherwise we would be wasting too much time given the length of the debate. I always value conciseness and straightforwardness on too much elaboration and fuss about the way to express things. Let's be efficient !

I think 'efficiency' is the last thing we can accuse SVF of. I spend a lot of time here (several hours a day - I have no life! ), but I have found it difficult to sift through the sheer quantity of his posts, many of which I find rambling, repetitive and unpleasant. When a concise, straightforward and elegant analysis is presented, SFV responds with obfuscation, over-complication and obstinance, IMO.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

But what right has sabro to impose on others what they can write or cannot write, which does not directly concern him. "Bible God" is a general term, not one that refers to sabro. If somebody got annoyed for using the words USA instead of United States of America, because they are purists and don't like shortenings, would you respect their caprice ?

What right does SVF have to continue to upset someone who has said he is upset? In your example, if they were clearly upset by the abbreviation, and it was affecting their ability to effectively contribute to the debate, I would use the full term.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Mind the "I could say that..." part (if I really felt it justified, or wanted to use the weapon of "indignation").

Perhaps I have done that once or twice - like when I accused Pararousia of spiritual rape. But I feel that it is, as you imply, a last resort when I feel myself under attack. I think SVF uses the 'weapon' prematurely, and unnecessarily.

 

[Maciamo]

Perhaps I have done that once or twice - like when I accused Pararousia of spiritual rape. But I feel that it is, as you imply, a last resort when I feel myself under attack. I think SVF uses the 'weapon' prematurely, and unnecessarily.

Did SVF uses "indignation" ? I thought it was always sabro in this discussion who was "feeling upset, ridiculed, disrespected or offended". :relief:

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Wow! So much has been written today while I`ve been away. Just read everything and don`t know where to begin with responding.

During the day I had been preparing some comments on the BWOG and now after reading all these new posts, well, to use Sabro`s state of being, "lost my train of thought."

 

[strongvoicesforward]

What do you think I am doing that is hypocritical?

That has already been pointed out several times by Maciamo.

You used the acronym BWOG with no qualms when you welcomed Saigosan to the forum. Why? It seemed that only when you began to get frustrated did you latch on this to complain about.

You take offense at the acronyms but you continue to refer me to SVF.

The acronym does not create an expletive. Acronyms are commonly used. Even if you were to promise to call me in full "Strongvoicesforward," I still would continue with my acronyms because I don`t view acronyms as objectionable. You, however, since you do view them as objectionable, are required by your OWN sense of what is right or wrong to do and then follow through on that.

So, stop being a hypocrite and spell my name out proper. But, I don`t really care if you use SVF as an acronym. You however must follow your own view of what you are saying is right -- that acronyms are disrespectful.

You are acting ridiculous on this point, so why not let it drop? -- because I have already said I will not stop using acronyms that fit and that do not spell expletives. Your only choice is to keep complaining about how it is disrespectful and therefore we could be talking about if for years -- depending on how long you want to keep it as a topic.

Drop your hypocracy by always refering to it.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I read this fantasy and had to wonder if the author was either deluded or... perhaps confused.

Yes, exactly my thoughts on the BWOG.

SVF- Are you smoking crack? This is highly inaccurate

I may admit to that if you do so for the writers of the adventures of "The Fairy God King" as well? But, it is highly unlikely my "crack" intake exceeded that of theirs, for I have never smoked enough crack as of yet to make me believe a man could survive 3 days in a fish or that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds.
Psychodellic drugs as well could lead some to think a bat was bird.
That book of Ezekial, with him flying all over the place and Revolations with the Fairy God King hovering over the world is just all "cracked" up.

[up]Don`t do drugs.[/up]
They are bad for you.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses," and the mass of Xtianity has one hell of an addiction problem to kick. Why do you think they don`t?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Did SVF uses "indignation" ? I thought it was always sabro in this discussion who was "feeling upset, ridiculed, disrespected or offended". :relief:

I want to be clear that my objections are both emotional (or you might even say 'social') and logical, and they apply from the first post in his Bible thread (henceforth known as BT, in commemoration of SVF's love of initialism ).

From the outset, SVF makes it clear that he has made his mind up - fine. I welcome people being clear about their opinions. But my first misgiving is in his choice of title: The Bible is not the WOG (Word of God). Here is an emotional objection; while I respect his right to call his thread whatever he wants, this title gives me the impression that the subject is already closed and doesn't need debating. It is analogous to Maciamo calling his latest thread "All rapists should be castrated", IMO.

My second objection is that SVF doesn't use disclaimers, such as IMO or 'I think'. Again, he has no obligation to do so, but if his statements are opinions rather than facts, these disclaimers make that explicit for people like me, who don't like to have to read between the lines. This is obviously another emotional objection. But here's a logical objection: If SVF is claiming his statements as facts, then he has to back these facts up with evidence from the outset, IMO. In BT he doesn't do this:

I will start this thread by saying the Bible is full of contradictions, falsehoods, superstitions and outright lies.

This statement is not backed up by any evidence at this point - and he's already repeating himself (don't 'falsehood' and 'lie' mean the same thing?). It is my personal policy to provide evidence for everything I claim as fact by including quotes, links etc. Otherwise I use disclaimers. Any failure to do so is an oversight, which I will apologise for and correct. But I would certainly not start a thread without backing up any facts from the outset.

Angry Bible God and "His" document has caused untold suffering on the world.

Another unsubstantiated statement, and one that is probably impossible to prove, IMO.

a book of dogmatic beliefs that could be fabricated by anyone with the time, recourses, motive, or conspirators to do so.

As far as I'm aware SVF has never proved this. I would like to see him do so.

Just as an example of one of the silly things in the Bible is where the Bible says a bat is a bird.

The use of the word 'silly' is unnecessary here, IMO - it shows his disrepect for the Bible. That's an emotional objection, but I think it has important implications for the debate. Calling the Bible 'silly' is likely to antagonise those who believe in it. Now if all you want is to win the argument, then weakening someone's reason by upsetting them will help you do that. But does winning an argument make you a good debater? Aren't you a more skillful debater if you engage someone who has his reason intact and get him to cede a point, than if you weaken him first? Would we consider a warrior stronger, braver and more honourable if he first drugged his opponent, or if he preferred his opponents as strong as possible? Incidentally, I think Sabro has answered that point by going back to the original Hebrew, which meant 'flyers' and not 'birds' - SVF hasn't addressed that point, as far as I can see.

On a personal note, I object to being accused of favouritism, when anyone objective can see that my only bias is toward good, logical, respectful arguments.