Religion In what do you believe OFFTOPIC about SVF and sabro

[strongvoicesforward]

Point #2: ...I also congratulated someone who probably called you other names because at the time I found it funny and it seemed appropriate. That was quite wrong and I appologize.

Apology accepted on this point. Thank you.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Point #3 I used the baseball metaphor to show that (1)you weren't actually supporting your assumption and that each of your statements had a rather obvious and pedestrian explanation. (2) I was trying to highlight the weakness of your argument and it was not meant as a personal attack. I will not accuse you of being oversensitive or claim that it was wit or humor. (3) It was inappropriate and I appologize.

1) That is an opinion. Tsuyoiko in particular likes those kinds of statements to be either prefaced or end in "IMO" or "I think". Of course, I don`t agree with her point on that, but since you two seem to be backing each other so much on these religios posts of mine, I thought you would see eye to eye on qualifying remarks such as this.

2) Yes, you were highlighting with sarcasm or witticism (even though you have denied that above) which you seem to be averse to. Just wondering why it is ok for you but not others.

3) Apology accepted on this point. Thank you.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Again if you pick up insinuation from my comments, it is inadvertant. I do find your manner rude, insulting and full of ridicule. It is not due to some oversensitivity, ignorance on my part, nor is this "couching". I cannot appologize for telling you the cold hard truth about your manner and mannerisms. I do no believe I should apologize for pointing this out to you.

And I find your manner rude to the point of condecending, superficial and deceptive as it regards the Bible. Your offense at my posting criticisms of the Bible is due to oversensitivity and wanting special treatment for a topic that is dear to you. I, too, cannot apologize for telling you the cold hard truth about the fraud, falsehoods, lies, lack of reason of the belief in which fraudsters peddle to the masses and have been exploiting them with fear for centuries.

I do not believe I should apologize for calling, lies, deception, superstition, and suspected fraud for what it appears to be.

In all probability, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

By the way, I am a Christian and I bear no hatred for the Jews. This would be another blanket statement: "Christians are worse than Nazi's" and accusing them of anti-semitism. Again it does not take a sensitive person to recognize such bigotry for what it is.

[/QUOTE]

The Bible has lead many of influential people in organized religion and politics to believe that the Jews are condemned -- anyone for that matter that denies Jesus as their Messiah/Saviour. Why does the BWOG lead people in a way so that its words can be misinterpreted if in fact the meanings these people take away from it are in fact wrong. Many of these people have studied the Bible for years and have come away with the message that Jews are condemned.

It isn`t about you, Sabro. It is about the Book that can easily be interpreted by anyone. Why wouldn`t Angry Bible God create something that could stand up against such corruption that could lead to horrendous suffering?

Now, is the ideology of the Bible worse than the practices of Nazism in its attempt to exterminate Jews from this world? The Nazis had but one chance to kill Jews with a few years of inhumane treatment and torture. Bible God reserves an eternity in Hell for those who do not accept Jesus as the Messiah and the SOG. Since Jews by virtue of their belief do not accept Jesus, then according to the Bible or at least those of repute in the Christian world who champion think so. Here what just two (there are more as I am sure you know) had to say about damnation/condemnation of the Jews:

Saint John Chrysostom (ca 344 - 407 CE)"Are you Jews still disputing the question? Do you not see that you are condemned by the testimony of what Christ and the prophets predicted and which the facts have proved? But why should this surprise me? That is the kind of people you are. From the beginning you have been shameless and obstinate, ready to fight at all times against obvious facts." (HOMILY V, XII, 1)

Martin Luther, On the Jews and their Lies: "venomous beasts, vipers, disgusting scum, canders, devils incarnate. Their private houses must be destroyed and devastated, they could be lodged in stables. Let the magistrates burn their synagogues and let whatever escapes be covered with sand and mud. Let them force to work, and if this avails nothing, we will be compelled to expel them like dogs in order not to expose ourselves to incurring divine wrath and eternal damnation from the Jews and their lies."

Yes, Sabro, you are right; it does not take a sensitive person to identify bigotry within the Christian world and amongst their leading figures through history. The question remains though, is a god reserving a very long time (perhaps eternity) and a stay in some kind of hell, worse than a few years of unpleasant treatment and murder here on this earth?

I would imagine that if the devil exists, his methods of inflicting pain are much more creative than what Hitler's was.

If I were in a situation to prevent someone from going to a place like that, I wouldn`t first say to them, "Who's your Daddy?" before I took action to save them. I would be selfless and just sweep them up without any questions asked and let the most powerful force of love from the most powerful being in the universe work its wonders at changing a person. I would guess that if I were God, such an overpowering strength, doing such a thing with a Hitler and at least anyone who just doesn`t say, "You`re my Daddy," is quite possible -- if not a certainty.

Then again, I am not Bible God and I am just using reason. Bible God is quite unreasonable as seen in the pages of his Book.

 

[No-name]

Nurizeko, I believe you have nailed it. Thank you for the insight.

Thank you SVF for keeping this on this thread.

The Matthew verse is perfectly acceptable. Again thank you. The second part has to do with holding yourself to the same standards as you hold others. Please do not ever allow me to say anything as bigoted as comparing Christians with Nazis and get away without comment. If I have a plank in my eye, I do definitely endeavor to remove it.

I don't see how you can take offense at being called a "Hitler wannabe", but find no offensiveness at comparing all Christians to Nazis. You know it is not wrong to be intolerant over many things: do not tolerate racism, bigotry, or excessively rude and insensitive people. If you honestly do believe that Christianity belongs in such a category, then by all means do not apologize.

 

[No-name]

Christianity is not anti-Semitic. There have been Christian anti-semites, but you won't find basis for their beliefs in the bible. Stalin was not a Christian and he was an anti-semite. This doesn't mean that all communists or all athiests were anti-semites.

"A vegetarian diet should be considered...a healthful choice for all peoples of the nation." Adolph Hitler (1941)

Hitler was no more a Christian than he was a vegetarian.

 

[kumo]

1. Sorry, Kumo has already convinced me Christians are much worse than Nazis in their hatred of Jews. See? I am not impervious to others' points of views. Kumo has changed mine.

That's not really what I said, SVF. My "attack" was on Christianity, not on christians as a whole. Most christians don't really believe everything the bible says, I was referring more to the fundamentalist type.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Nurizeko, I believe you have nailed it. Thank you for the insight.

Nurizeko has little insight. Though, I knew you and a those who have closed rank with you were sure to pat him on the back. I should have prophesied it. Shucks!

But, since he "hit it on the nail" and has "insight," I wonder why you don`t take him up on this?

My advice to us members of the forum is to ignore SVF from now on.

Thank you SVF for keeping this on this thread.

You`re welcome.

The Matthew verse is perfectly acceptable. Again thank you. The second part has to do with holding yourself to the same standards as you hold others.

Yes, it does. And it tells you to NOT judge.

Please do not ever allow me to say anything as bigoted as comparing Christians with Nazis and get away without comment.

It isn`t limited to that only. You calling someone intolerant and a bigot is judging, and when it is not warranted, since I have been telling you you are more than welcome to post on your religion you are using it incorrectly. You may want to word it as, "stop saying things against my religion or what I believe to not be true," and then you would be free from false accusation, judging and hypocracy.

If I have a plank in my eye, I do definitely endeavor to remove it.

?????Ɓ@???????傯??߂??@????΂??ā@?????????B

I don't see how you can take offense at being called a "Hitler wannabe", but find no offensiveness at comparing all Christians to Nazis.

I thought I had premised my more indepth thought on the point with how the Bible lends itself to being interpreted by anyone -- more specifically important Christian figures and the beliefs they got from their many years of study and that they were/are respected in Christianity. Hitler was in the business of torturing and sending people to lives of hell on earth and ultimately death. The Bible tells us that those who do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah are not going to be saved and will go to a spiritual hell or possible spiritual death. They are comparable in different realms.

Where did I in the hunting thread ever espouse caging humans to torture them, oppress them, reign over them with tyranny, and then kill them? The "Hitler" epiteth involves those characteristics of torture and murder. Did I ever muse on gathering all animal exploiters in camps to perform such things on them?

You know it is not wrong to be intolerant over many things: do not tolerate racism, bigotry, or excessively rude and insensitive people.

I agree! But your book has all that in it and those are points I am arguing on and pointing out. You are saying that my pointing that out is in some way making me guilty of those things you are judging me on. Remember, I am tolerant because I welcome your comments. If I weren`t tolerant I would seek to have you silenced by telling you to "shut up" and "go away," similar to what Nurizeko does to me. Now that is intolerance -- and again, I wonder why you don`t come down on that in an egalitarian way. You seemt to be just concerned with yourself. (No, I don`t want you to fight my battles, so don`t make that claim. Just wondering why you are not egalitarian with your outrage against intolerance.)

If you honestly do believe that Christianity belongs in such a category, then by all means do not apologize.

The Bible paints itself. Many in history have perceived the painting as I have seen it and have used it to cause millions of death and misery. The responsibility lies with whoever "God breathed it," or "inspired" it in a way that makes it so easily the tool of anyone who would have it as the servant of their nefarious motives.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

That's not really what I said, SVF. My "attack" was on Christianity, not on christians as a whole. Most christians don't really believe everything the bible says, I was referring more to the fundamentalist type.

Yes, I agree, Kumo. And I think I elaborated on that later. When I say Christians, I generally mean the fundemental type and feel more and more that the term "Neo-Christian" is best for describing what the majority are today.

I also in a recent post pointed out that the point of being worse than Nazis is due to the eternal damnation/condemnation that the figures in Christianity has come up based on their beliefs and interpretations of the Bible.

For the record, I do not think Neo-Christians are worse than Nazis for I know many of them have jettisoned parts of the bible or choose to ignore others.

Sorry for misinterpreting you, Kumo. Though, I did try to explain it later in more precise language.

 

[No-name]

I strongly disagree with your narrow and twisted view of the Bible, and I don't believe you will find a single scholar that supports your view of the collection. If you can find such a source that has painted in such a manner, please reference it, (and definitely hold onto it because it is definitely a minority point of view.) I know no Christians, nor anyone else who has read the books, who seem to believe the books say what you continue to assert it says.
You also made excessive and blanket staments about Christians including comparing Christianity to Naziism. That seems rather bigoted and intollerant.

You also seem to be dodging the entire issue of your own rude and offensive conduct. The fact that you don't see it and won't admit to it, I find disturbing. It is great to go around and judge others from your rightous seat, especially when they actually take the time to read what may in the end amount to trolling. Your Matthew quote is again OUT OF CONTEXT. Read the second part of the sentence. I welcome the entire thing-- not simply the first half. (For a deeper study of non-Judgement, you can google it and find a dozen simple sources.)

The Japanese you wrote, I cannot read. Could you provide either the romanji or a translation?

 

[kumo]

SVF, I do agree that the term "christian" has become exceedingly vague these days, but still, if someone decides to ignore half of the bible and still call himself a christian, I think we should criticize only what he/she really believes, not just choose what we think is easier to debunk or any other kind of strawman attack.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I've read this entire thread and i now feel i am able to make a legitimate comment on SVF.

Your view is askewed, Zeko.

A refined troll who is skilled in his art, but still nothing more then a troll.

Oh...yes. The ol' "troll" charge.

Why do you come to these forums SVF?

To put forth my arguments and see other arguments and how they fare against mine. I may alter my argument or strategy based on the strength or style of another. It helps me improve arguing. I have changed my opinion in the past. I could do so from arguing here. However, it may not be eureka moment where I proclaim, "By God! You are right!" It could very well be a slow unfolding or realization of something that someone said that just took time to germinate and ripen. I am sure that is so with many people.

....do you considor your name literally?, do you honestly feel you are a strong voice forward?

lol. More name psychoanalysing? Sabro already went down that route, Zeko. It is and my name is of no matter. Ignore it, if you like.

You have shown yourself on countless occassions to lack any interest in genuine discussion, you have your opinions, and contempt against certain groups of people, and you have no interest in genuine discussion, winning people over, or spreading a message,...

Oh, you mean because I haven`t been convinced yet? Of course I have my opinions. I have no contempt for Xtians. I don`t like lies and deception. Not liking the system of fraud is different from not liking those duped by fraud. I feel sorry for Xtians. I don`t feel contempt for them. They are trapped in their minds by superstition and I am just trying to help them get out or prevent others from falling in the same hole. Btw, my whole family is Xtian and I have no contempt for them whatsoever.

...your "style of debate" is to harrass and poke at people until you get a desired response of insult,...

Zeko, I have started threads with paragraphs in statements focusing on the Bible and not on anyone in particular. They have entered into the threads I started. I did not stalk them and harrass them. I engage them. That is different. My desired response is for the to say, "Eureka! The Bible is not the Word of God," but however, I have not achieved that success. I have no desire for anyone to insult me and do not try to make them do so. Can you show me where I show a desire for someone to insult me?

...then proceed to masturbate your ego in your responses to them,...

Zeko, your verbage is getting away from you. 20 year olds do masturbate a lot -- don`t they?

...self-congratulating yourself on being so great (at living in your own world where only you matter).

No, many people matter. I feel sorry for those who are brainwashed and spend time trying to penetrate the hard casing keeping them in bondage to superstition. I am not great. I have not congratulated myself. More than I matter -- the poor, children in burn hospitals, the homeless, hunted animals, factory farmed animals, stray animals in risk of being hit by cars. I have a very large view of things and make room to "tolerate" many different from myself and lend a helping hand to my own species and across the species barrier. Though, I am not perfect and yes, a reductionist argument would point that out -- just in case you were tempted and wondering.

Very little of your contributions to this forum are actually in the form of legitimate debate backed up by evidence,...

Then you should have no reason to engage me. Others have been compelled to do so on the points I bring up.

...it is also quite obvious that right or wrong, you carry an irrattional and unfair contempt for all christians, conveniently ignoring their humanity and individuality (most likely somewhere in a response of yours will be claiming christians arent human or individuals).

Zeko, you read this whole thread, you said. In case you haven`t read my others, Sabro should be able to vouch for me that I have never said "Christians" are not human or individuals. But, I know he thinks that is me asking him to fight my battles for me, so I wouldn`t expect him to point that out to you after he has already patted this post of yours.

Again, I feel sorry for Christians. I pity them. Many Neo-Christians are wonderful people. I am against Christianity because I see it as a pendulum that can swing dangerously in the other direction, back to where it caused a lot of oppression and harm. Neo-Christians (how many, I don`t know) seem quite moral in how they conduct themselves on many things. I have never said they were a blanket group of immoral people in toto. But, I don`t need to declare that because that is not what I am asserting.

...Whatever your reasons, in proper debate, you leave your contempt and hatreds and bigotry at the door, if you want to disprove the bible and christianity, you CAN do it in a way that doesnt require you to insult christians.

Most are very sensitive. My mother isn`t. My friends aren`t. We all have a good laugh and none of them have been insulted. They would have told me after all these years. Even some strangers I`ve discussed with are not. Some catholic priests have laughed their heads off and have some of the most off color jokes about the Pope I have ever heard. My uncle is a Jesuit Priest. But, then again, I have met many who just can`t handle wit and humor.

My style is my own. Wit and humor come with it. Arguments can stand alone, but, some controversy because of oversensitive people adds some unintended but pleasant spice to the discussions.

That isnt debate, that is argument.

You are looking at the word "argument" as a fight of words in anger. You can "argue" your point, and most will take that verb as in the academic sense if not the same as "debate."

At times you can almost appear reasonable, but always the prevailing theme of your replies are those of omni-slashing insults and harrasment poorly attempted to be passed as logical legitimate counters to anothers opinions and responses.

Well, Zeko, just don`t declare in general terms. Put forth my posts in context in relation to their replies and what preceded them.

The only time ive witnessed you so much as try to be reasonable, was in response to macimo, most likely in the hope of continuing to carry his favour.

Of the near 600 posts I have now made, I think Maciamo and I referred to each other directly perhaps 3 or 4 times. We share a similar view on the Bible. He hasn`t said or claimed anything the puts supestition on a pedistol to make me take issue strongly against his belief. If he did, I would address his argument for those beliefs and not call him intolerant, a bigot or filled with hate and bitterness.

In any other debate forum, you would have been banned, or warned for your behaviour.

Not so.

My advice to us members of the forum is to ignore SVF from now on.

Will you take your own advice. Are you on a diet from SVF? Have you been eating too much?

He will try all the harder to harrass you into an argument,...

lol. My "harder" attempts will just be postings against the Bible and engagement where others support it. I do not get personal with name calling if names are not thrown my way. People are free to engage with me of their own volition. Ignore anything you think is harrassment from me.

...because thats the only reason he attends the forum, for conflict and to stroke his ego and sense of rightiousness,...

Yes, we know. You`ve already made this charge.

...but eventually, without people playing his little game, he will move on somewhere else to get his kicks.

Well, I am sure my life will eventually move on. Could be one month, year, 10 years. Who knows?

There are no "kicks" involved. Those are saved for Karate and my work as a secret agent ninja as I make may way in and out of North Korea on numerous occassions. Yes, someone has to save the world, because Bible God isn`t.

Who knows, maybe it will give SVF a chance to prove the worth of his contributions to the forum are more then stubborn as rock statements and irrational contempt veiled as a sincere pass at debate.

Funny. Ok, you really told me.

Other people have commented on your behaviour SFV here, which seems to be legitimate observation, so comes to an end my addition to this thread.

Well we disagree on the former, and any cult member of Jesus will tell you that the majority is not always right by virtue of their numbers. Jesus and his merry men were a small bunch, too, in the face of the Jews and the Romans, but the Neo-Christians view him as right despite many others' legitimate (subjective based) observing that his behaviour was wrong and blasphemous.

And now the latter -- yes, "It is done." Why are you stating the obvious of which you are the author of and we can all see clearly? Dramatic affect?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I think we should criticize only what he/she really believes, not just choose what we think is easier to debunk or any other kind of strawman attack.

I understand that point, Kumo, and would not say your approach is wrong. It is merely a different approach from mine. When I debate someone, I am not just concerned with my opponent. I am also concerned with the one looking in on the debate. What the opponent might not find interesting, the one looking in on may.

I do not think any of my arguments are strawmen arguments. Of course Christians will say they are, but they will try to lodge that at all arguments that come head on that don`t seek to give them wiggle room.

Watch now, probably one of them is going to quote you now and implore your name saying that, "Even Kumo thinks you are employing strawmen arguments." For the most part, they are very predictable and they try to pile on by imploring the names of others to pile on to give their view weight rather than just standing on the merit of their argument.

 

[No-name]

Wow, Even Kumo thinks you are employing strawman arguments.

Your prescience is awe inspiring.

 

[kumo]

I understand that point, Kumo, and would not say your approach is wrong. It is merely a different approach from mine. When I debate someone, I am not just concerned with my opponent. I am also concerned with the one looking in on the debate. What the opponent might not find interesting, the one looking in on may.

That kind of approach is fine, I agree. The problem ,though, is that you are making things personal unnecessarily. When you do that your argument does become a strawmen attack, since you're trying to apply criticism of fundamentalist christianity on people who obviously are not fundamentalists. If you confine your criticism on christianity alone, and don't try to imply most christians are bible-thumping nutcases and agree or should agree with your interpretation of the bible (regardless if it's right or not), I think people here would be more willing to debate with you.
I can't really say whether your criticism of the bible constitutes a strawman argument or not, as I'm not really that knowledgeable about this subject. But some of your interpretations did seem to me a bit far-fetched.

 

[No-name]

Kumo I rarely if ever agree with you, but I do have to commend that last post. I will endeavor to avoid making anything personal or to engage in fallacious assertions like our favored straw man. (or the more favored ad hominum attack). I am not a fundamentalist, nor am I a Baptist for that matter. But I have sincerely tried to debate on the facts given, but it quicky degenerates and seems to become an irrelevant act to avoid what appear to be purposeful offending.


SVF- Wow, even Kumo thinks your interpretations seem a bit far-fetched.

I bet you saw that comming...

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Perhaps you can briefly explain how you arrived at this point in your spiritual journey. You seem pretty balanced as an individual-- and what helped you arrive at your system of beliefs?

I just found this essay. This guy's spiritual journey is similar to mine. It differs on a few points, but some are scarily similar, for example:

Although there were many things that I didn?ft (and don?ft) understand in the world, none of them directly suggested that there was a magical entity controlling them. Also, the notion that a simple, insignificant creature like myself could communicate directly with an almighty creator struck me as terribly arrogant.

Later, I began to envision gods as aspects of myself – the good, the bad, the loving, the warlike, the wise, the impetuous, etc.

In my pagan phase, my personal gods were Thoth, since my love of knowledge and learning is so important, and Hecate, since I felt that her experience and wisdom were something I needed to develop.

I began to try to remove the abstraction that had been introduced through the incorporation of gods into my life. I accomplished this by carefully examining the gods I knew and trying to identify why I needed them...As I got to know myself better, I found that I no longer needed abstract figures to guide me through life

The point that we must decide for ourselves is whether suffering is part of some divine plan put in place to test our resolve, or just a natural side effect of growth.

I read some Buddhism and Nietzsche :blush:

For example, it takes a less well-developed social conscience to tell the truth because God demands it than to tell the truth out of a desire to live in a trusting society.

This was one of the first nails in the coffin lid of my Christianity. At the age of 12 I was told that if I gave my life to Jesus, he would be responsible for me and my sins would be forgiven. I wanted to take that responsibility for myself.

It is those of us that believe that our roles in the world define us and that act out of a desire to see the world improve without any promise of reward or threat of punishment that truly learn to love the world.

Gods are unnecessary

This was the final nail. I came to a point where everything I understood made sense without any need for a superior entity. Since I'm a bit of a minimalist, I thought, why hang onto something I don't need.

A few other points that led to my rejection of Christianity:

I simply can't believe that any design went into Nature. If so, it is shoddy workmanship. Sometimes I feel so sh1tty, and when I ask why, I just can't believe that something made me this way intentionally. But if I think, this feeling sh1tty doesn't interfere with my ability to survive long enough to reproduce, it starts to make sense, and I feel reassured.

The idea that what you believe matters makes no sense to me. Any being capable of creating the universe wouldn't give a damn what I thought.

When I read the whole of Genesis for a badge in Girl Guides I was apalled by it. Genesis 19:32-38, where a couple of girls get their father drunk so they could get pregnant by him, was very disturbing to me at the age of 12.

Hope this answers your question Sabro. I'm sorry it got long-winded :blush:

 

[No-name]

Thanks for sharing. It seems quite a few people never ever think of where they are spiritually and how they got there. Two places in the Bible that I think hold true for everyone are where it says to work out your salvation with fear and trembling and seek and you will find. This seems to indicate to me that even if you are an atheist (Which describes the bulk of my family) a sincere and honest search will find truth in the end.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Thanks for sharing. It seems quite a few people never ever think of where they are spiritually and how they got there. Two places in the Bible that I think hold true for everyone are where it says to work out your salvation with fear and trembling and seek and you will find. This seems to indicate to me that even if you are an atheist (Which describes the bulk of my family) a sincere and honest search will find truth in the end.

My friend Grace is a born-again Christian. When I asked why she doesn't try to convert me, she said that the fact we can stand on the car park together and watch a rainbow is enough for her god. She says that he will recognise that my search for truth was honest, that I can appreciate (what she considers) his creation, and that I try to be a good person - that's enough for him (and for her), she says.

 

[No-name]

If it fair enough for Grace, it is fair enough for me.
A long time ago I though it was my job to go out and save people, that there would be an eternal price paid for each soul I failed to reach. Then at some point I realized that that was God's job. He is the author and finisher of faith. If he wants to reach you, he knows where to find you.