100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: amusing positions | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
TheLonelyWalker
on
Wed 08/27/08 06:19 AM
|
|
So it seems to be that God is some sort of slave master. (amusing statement, indeed).
It seems that some say they have freed themselves of some sort of imaginary slavery that has been around since the world is world. (amusing statement, as well). It seems that SOME OF (check the caps) those who have freed themselves are in some sort of mission to free the rest of us. (even more amusing). It seems that there is some kind of authority which is quite hard to understand. well what is a world without some sort of authority to give order to things. Let's say for instance: there is a sign in the road which says that the speed limit is 45 mph, but i decide to be rebellious [disregard to authority under normal conditions (not extremes as some like to use as examples)], and drive at speed of 60 mph. A cop is around and I get a ticket for speeding. There is an authority which is sign that says that I HAVE TO DRIVE AT 45 MPH, and I just don't do it, I feel like a free rebel. A free rebel who has to pay a ticket, and get points in the driver's license, and pay more in car insurance. As far as I'm concern there is not much of a difference between a rebel and a fool which is the most amusing thing ever. TLW |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
smiless
on
Wed 08/27/08 07:01 AM
|
|
yet you get a ticket for speeding and not your head chopped off for disobedience. That is good to know. lol
Maybe the question is what extent should punishment go for those who don't agree on the same idealogy? Slavery is bad indeed, yet some believe we are a slave to society because of the many hours we must work to enjoy a little bit of freetime. Some countries don't even have that little bit of freetime I mention. and you must agree there are rebels who have really done a big difference in society enforcing humantarian needs. For example Ghandi, Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr. If it concerns the bible then some have a hard time digesting the fact of how it is written. One example is why do children get stoned if they are disobedient? Why would that be allowed and why is it mentioned in the book in this way. I can think of many other ways to disciplne a child without the use of violence. Why did a God allow such a flooding to occur to end everyones and everythings life except two of each on Noah's Ark? Here again I can think of a different way to resolve the problem without ending life. If these questions can be answered logically, I am sure such issues would help many understand the bible and accept it more openly. In the long run sometimes disobedience and being a rebel for a good cause is a great way to ensure some of our freedoms. Our forefathers were no different in times of the Revolutionary War or the War of Independence. I would never call these fine men fools for being a rebel for a good cause. I am thankful that they existed to help those understand the value of human life. I am compelled to see how some of these questions I have can be answered to further my understanding on the subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amusing positions: We believe in an ancient myth. We should teach it to your children in our schools. We believe in an ancient myth. We should denounce science and believe in the myth instead. We believe in an ancient myth. We should reject all those who don't believe it and call them rebels. We believe in an ancient myth. We should put it into law and not let people love each other based on gender. We believe in an ancient myth. We should label anyone who gives a reason for not believing it to be a negative person. We believe in an ancient myth. We should denounce everyone who doesn't believe it and call them 'non-believes' and treat them as though there is something wrong with them and give them no respect. We believe in an ancient myth. We own it. You have no right to speak about it in a negative way. It has nothing to do with you except that if you don't believe it you will be labeled as rejecting God and being a bad person. We believe in an ancient myth. It has nothing to do with you. You should step aside and let us put it into law. We can proselytize our ancient myth and we will call that 'positive'. If you counter the proselytizing efforts by giving legitimate reasons why you don't believe it, we will call that 'negativity' There will be no more freedom of speech. There will be no more honest opinions. Either agree with us, or shut up. Don't say why you don't believe it. It's not permitted to say why you don't believe it. That's considered negativity. Just sit back and allow us to assimilate others without any resistance from reason. The Dark Ages shall prevail over freedom of speech and honest opinions. We will tolerate no more observations from people who don't believe in our myth. We sell it, if you aren't buying just move along so we can sell it to the next person in line. Don't say why you aren't buying. That's not permitted. That's considered to be negative. We can and will control freedom of speech by claiming that your opinions are negative if they don't agree with ours! You are not permitted to say why you don't believe "our" myth. The myth doesn't belong to you and it has nothing to do with you. You have no right to give your opinions of why you don't believe "our" myth! You're a bad, bad, negative person. No go away! TLW wrote: As far as I'm concern there is not much of a difference between a rebel and a fool which is the most amusing thing ever. So if someone doesn't believe in a myth they are a rebel and a fool? Smiless wrote: In the long run sometimes disobedience and being a rebel for a good cause is a great way to ensure some of our freedoms. Our forefathers were no different in times of the Revolutionary War or the War of Independence. I would never call these fine men fools for being a rebel for a good cause. I am thankful that they existed to help those understand the value of human life. The United States of America was founded by rebels. Were they fools? There has to be a way to speak out against anything that a person believes to be determental to humanity, even if the object of negativity happens to be a very popular religion. Many people romanticize the religion, and they don't like to see it questioned. However, there are many things about the religion that are not very romantic at all. Especially when taken in it's full context of being a Mediterranean religion. Just look at the hostilities that are being caused by the clash between Christianity, Judaism and Islam. That is a very negative affect on humanity. People are being killed. Innocent women and children are being hurt and killed in the crossfire. Speaking to the issue of whether or not the religion has merit, and asking people to consider why they continue to support it is a very postive issue. Sure, it's being "rebellious" against the religion. But is it being rebellious against humanity? Where do we lay down the standards of 'rebellion'? Anytime anyone is reblling there must be something they are rebelling against. There are always two sides to the coin. I stand for truth, and humanity. I see these ancient religions as being deterimental to both truth, and humanity. I stand up for what I believe to be the greater cause. I try to show people why these religions cannot possibly be true. And I do hold that position. It's not meant to be disrepectful. Just as the religous people see no 'disrespect' toward others when they want to teach creationism in public schools who tell people who they should or should not love. It's a two-way street Miguel. The religion is trying to tell people who they must live their lives. For people to tell there religion why they don't believe it has merit is fare game in any open society that has free speech. To repress that free speech in the claim that it is 'negative' is to return to the Dark Ages where unwelcome views are silenced in favor of proselytizing beliefs that must not be questioned! To me, that does not respresent anything but religious oppression. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So it seems to be that God is some sort of slave master. (amusing statement, indeed). It seems that some say they have freed themselves of some sort of imaginary slavery that has been around since the world is world. (amusing statement, as well). It seems that SOME OF (check the caps) those who have freed themselves are in some sort of mission to free the rest of us. (even more amusing). It seems that there is some kind of authority which is quite hard to understand. well what is a world without some sort of authority to give order to things. Let's say for instance: there is a sign in the road which says that the speed limit is 45 mph, but i decide to be rebellious [disregard to authority under normal conditions (not extremes as some like to use as examples)], and drive at speed of 60 mph. A cop is around and I get a ticket for speeding. There is an authority which is sign that says that I HAVE TO DRIVE AT 45 MPH, and I just don't do it, I feel like a free rebel. A free rebel who has to pay a ticket, and get points in the driver's license, and pay more in car insurance. As far as I'm concern there is not much of a difference between a rebel and a fool which is the most amusing thing ever. TLW God is not a slave master. I feel that longing deep inside to be free. That is God. That is my connection to God. We enslave ourselves and each other in this world. This world is a slave and master kind of world. The entire third density universe is an eat or be eaten kind of world. Perhaps that is the way it was intended, I don't know. You will know if you are a slave, and you will know if you are trying to control others. Neither the slave or the master know freedom. You will know when you are oppressed. You will know when you do not feel free. Freedom is a choice. You have to be willing to pay the price for it. The price is responsibility. A freed slave now has to take care of himself. You cannot ever free a slave, they must seek freedom and responsibility for themselves. To free a slave is like setting a small kitten free in the jungle. He is free... but he cannot take care of himself. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amusing positions: We believe in an ancient myth. We should teach it to your children in our schools. We believe in an ancient myth. We should denounce science and believe in the myth instead. We believe in an ancient myth. We should reject all those who don't believe it and call them rebels. We believe in an ancient myth. We should put it into law and not let people love each other based on gender. We believe in an ancient myth. We should label anyone who gives a reason for not believing it to be a negative person. We believe in an ancient myth. We should denounce everyone who doesn't believe it and call them 'non-believes' and treat them as though there is something wrong with them and give them no respect. We believe in an ancient myth. We own it. You have no right to speak about it in a negative way. It has nothing to do with you except that if you don't believe it you will be labeled as rejecting God and being a bad person. We believe in an ancient myth. It has nothing to do with you. You should step aside and let us put it into law. We can proselytize our ancient myth and we will call that 'positive'. If you counter the proselytizing efforts by giving legitimate reasons why you don't believe it, we will call that 'negativity' There will be no more freedom of speech. There will be no more honest opinions. Either agree with us, or shut up. Don't say why you don't believe it. It's not permitted to say why you don't believe it. That's considered negativity. Just sit back and allow us to assimilate others without any resistance from reason. The Dark Ages shall prevail over freedom of speech and honest opinions. We will tolerate no more observations from people who don't believe in our myth. We sell it, if you aren't buying just move along so we can sell it to the next person in line. Don't say why you aren't buying. That's not permitted. That's considered to be negative. We can and will control freedom of speech by claiming that your opinions are negative if they don't agree with ours! You are not permitted to say why you don't believe "our" myth. The myth doesn't belong to you and it has nothing to do with you. You have no right to give your opinions of why you don't believe "our" myth! You're a bad, bad, negative person. No go away! TLW wrote: As far as I'm concern there is not much of a difference between a rebel and a fool which is the most amusing thing ever. So if someone doesn't believe in a myth they are a rebel and a fool? Smiless wrote: In the long run sometimes disobedience and being a rebel for a good cause is a great way to ensure some of our freedoms. Our forefathers were no different in times of the Revolutionary War or the War of Independence. I would never call these fine men fools for being a rebel for a good cause. I am thankful that they existed to help those understand the value of human life. The United States of America was founded by rebels. Were they fools? There has to be a way to speak out against anything that a person believes to be determental to humanity, even if the object of negativity happens to be a very popular religion. Many people romanticize the religion, and they don't like to see it questioned. However, there are many things about the religion that are not very romantic at all. Especially when taken in it's full context of being a Mediterranean religion. Just look at the hostilities that are being caused by the clash between Christianity, Judaism and Islam. That is a very negative affect on humanity. People are being killed. Innocent women and children are being hurt and killed in the crossfire. Speaking to the issue of whether or not the religion has merit, and asking people to consider why they continue to support it is a very postive issue. Sure, it's being "rebellious" against the religion. But is it being rebellious against humanity? Where do we lay down the standards of 'rebellion'? Anytime anyone is reblling there must be something they are rebelling against. There are always two sides to the coin. I stand for truth, and humanity. I see these ancient religions as being deterimental to both truth, and humanity. I stand up for what I believe to be the greater cause. I try to show people why these religions cannot possibly be true. And I do hold that position. It's not meant to be disrepectful. Just as the religous people see no 'disrespect' toward others when they want to teach creationism in public schools who tell people who they should or should not love. It's a two-way street Miguel. The religion is trying to tell people who they must live their lives. For people to tell there religion why they don't believe it has merit is fare game in any open society that has free speech. To repress that free speech in the claim that it is 'negative' is to return to the Dark Ages where unwelcome views are silenced in favor of proselytizing beliefs that must not be questioned! To me, that does not respresent anything but religious oppression. you are so circular. when I think there is no other way to put the same old argument in different ways you just amaze me when you use different words to say exactly the same thing over and over again. You should have been a lawyer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LW,
 Abra is not circular, he in my opinion, is very direct and focused. It is you who are circular. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LW, Abra is not circular, he in my opinion, is very direct and focused. It is you who are circular. JB If spidey were saying something and quickstepper would come to defend his position. would be exactly the same as when you defend abra position all of you are so cute when you back up each other. however, then again is your opinion. my opinion it's argument circular which loses validity because is based upon generalizations which don't make an analysis in a larger strata. The same as the examples in your thread about authority. They lose any validity because they are picked example to prove a point in a agenda. If you were have give a wider spectrum of data in different positions within different belief systems in which there is a center deity who designs and controls everything. If you would have made an analysis of different points of view with regard the same topic, and at the end you would have stated your own opinion then your thread would be valid. It loses validity because you just pick one side of the subject, and you start arguing thereon. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you are so circular. when I think there is no other way to put the same old argument in different ways you just amaze me when you use different words to say exactly the same thing over and over again. That's not being circular. That's being repetitive. To say that something is circular implies that it has no sound basis. For example the following is a circular argument: Person A: "The Bible is the word of God" Person B: "How do you know?" Person A: "Because the Bible tells me so". That's circular.  You should have been a lawyer. Many people have told me that over the years. But I'm truly glad that I did not become one. I am a great presenter. I can argue either side of every issue (including Christianity, if I wanted to). Although in truth, I'd have to be untrue to myself to argue for Christianity. I would know that my arguments don't hold water. I just wouldn't point out where the holes are. However, if I did become a lawyer what should I be? A defense lawyer so I can help bad people get back out onto the street? Or should I become a prosecutor so I can make sure that innocent people are incarcerated? I wouldn't want the responsibility of being part of any judgmental system actually. But if I had to do it, I would try to do my best, and if I truly did not feel good about defending or prosecuting someone I would ask to be taken off the case. The problem is that I would pretty much need to be convinced of their guilt or innocent before the trial began. I am so open to the benefit of the doubt that on that point alone I would be a terrible lawyer even though I could present great arguments. Being a lawyer is more than just arguing the cases, you truly need to believe in the case to be a peace with yourself. At least I do. Clearly I believe in my case that religions based on the Bible (or the Quran, or Torah) are not sound, and that they are ultimately detrimental to society. If they can help individuals find peace, more power to them. But when they are used to support political agendas and wars, they've crossed over the line from being passive personal beliefs, to become a serious threat to humanity. It is that serious threat to humanity that I speak to. Any damage to personal faiths is unintended collateral damage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LW, Abra is not circular, he in my opinion, is very direct and focused. It is you who are circular. JB If spidey were saying something and quickstepper would come to defend his position. would be exactly the same as when you defend abra position all of you are so cute when you back up each other. however, then again is your opinion. my opinion it's argument circular which loses validity because is based upon generalizations which don't make an analysis in a larger strata. The same as the examples in your thread about authority. They lose any validity because they are picked example to prove a point in a agenda. If you were have give a wider spectrum of data in different positions within different belief systems in which there is a center deity who designs and controls everything. If you would have made an analysis of different points of view with regard the same topic, and at the end you would have stated your own opinion then your thread would be valid. It loses validity because you just pick one side of the subject, and you start arguing thereon. Oh so now you are making rules about what validates a thread? Everyone, including you, push an agenda. You are no different. The purpose of argument is to discuss both sides to an issue. I am not responsible, or I may not even be aware of all sides. I did not "defend" Abra's position. My judgment was unbiased and valid. I stand by what I said with no bias what ever. I think he is the most direct and focused poster on this entire club. He does not dance around his point looking for back doors to slip it in. It may seem harsh at times, but everyone knows where he is coming from. There is no trying to guess what he means to say. Many posters here hint at things, suggest things, and never get to the point of their agenda. I have stated my agenda and what I believe so everyone knows where I stand. Now I seek a common ground of mutual respect and understanding. There is truth in all things, all doctrines. Words and semantics are all that stand in our way of perfect agreement. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I offer a peace pipe to Miguel, Abra, and Jeanniebean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think he is the most direct and focused poster on this entire club. He does not dance around his point looking for back doors to slip it in. It may seem harsh at times, but everyone knows where he is coming from. There is no trying to guess what he means to say. hey, I have some coupons of Olive Garden may you and Abra can use it for a date in which both of you can talk face to face on how nonsensical christians are. with some candlelight and some wine,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I offer a peace pipe to Miguel, Abra, and Jeanniebean. Wow! What are we smoking here? Is this peyote?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone, including you, push an agenda. You are no different. really, now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hey, I have some coupons of Olive Garden may you and Abra can use it for a date in which both of you can talk face to face on how nonsensical christians are. with some candlelight and some wine, I've never said that Christians are nonsensical. It's always been my position that the Bible is nonsensicial. Unless you're saying that Christians wrote the bible? In that case you might have a point. Here, have a hit on this peace pipe it's good stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
waiting patiently for the peace pipe. lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 08/27/08 10:18 AM
|
|
I offer a peace pipe to Miguel, Abra, and Jeanniebean. It better have something besides tobacco in it. LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sweet, dude
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It won't have anything in it if Abra sucks it all out. lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It won't have anything in it if Abra sucks it all out. lol I passed it to Miquel. He's Bogarting it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For example the following is a circular argument: Person A: "The Bible is the word of God" Person B: "How do you know?" Person A: "Because the Bible tells me so". That's circular. just for the record that has never been my argument. that is the fundie record. |
|
|
|
|
