100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Finally | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sat 09/20/08 06:56 AM
|
|
since I don't accept it, maybe it does mean i'm saying they are wrong, but then again, thats just me, people that believe in it, i'm not trying to say they are wrong and this is just getting even more confusing trying to explain myself  but it's an attempt. lets just say we agree that we disagree and on that we can hopefully leave it, I'm tired anyway, really need to get some sleep, hate daylight, i'm kind of a night person I understand you are attempting to not appear as confrontational. I can respect that. This is a topic that is very open to debate. My point was that this is not the thread for that to occur as there are many other threads that have addressed the subject matter. You always have the option of beginning a new thread if you want. You ALWAYS have the right to proclaim the Theory of Evolution as erroneous in some capacity. You would then be confronted by members who accept the theory and you would be asked to support your view and explain to us why you feel as you do. That is the nature of open communication. We are no longer living in the Middle Ages when people were murdered and thrown in dungeons for simply disagreeing with the church. A thread about Creationism vs. The Theory of Evolution?? Are you kidding me? There are probably a few. Very often what takes place is what you are seeing on this thread. The OP will start off having some other reason to post a thread an inevitably, about half way through or sooner, someone mentions the Theory of Evolution and starts a big debate/argument. It happens quite often.  Im am not, nor have I ever been angry and especially not on this thread.I do apologize if you felt that to be the case in some respect. If anything I have found it to be quite amusing. You were the one who seemed to feel that your beliefs (whatever those entail exactly) were being attacked simply because another member posted some information that YOU HAD REQUESTED. Peace  Now we can try to put it to rest, how's that If you misunderstood me, then I would apologize. However that is not the case. You knew exactly what I was saying this entire time. Look, you dont entertain the theory of evolution nor are you interested in having a better understanding of it. That is absolutely your right. Never once were you attacked or was anyone angry at you. You have every right to either accept or not accept the Theory of Evolution. If you are already pre-disposed to not want to understand it nor investigate it further than perhaps you should not ask that others on forum assist you with comprehending the relevance of transitional fossils. Aside from that I dont care if you want to run around naked worshiping ice cream cones. That is none of my business. If you want to continue to argue this point with me, feel free to do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
splendidlife
on
Sat 09/20/08 07:00 AM
|
|
now don't get bent.....jmo opinion here....when you say critism is the food of wisdom.....I not only disagree but think that is negative. Maybe it's just the way in which you write it...I don't know....I read and got negative. I wrote that I don't do negative or critism It's just not what life is about for me. Love, understanding, compassion, giving, that is what I am about. Now if you were to write Positive begots postitive then I would say yea yea....but negative anything is just that. I would be that person who would walk into a room and I say I will not stand for negative anything....I would walk away first because I find it an utter waste of time. Again think positive and positive things happen...think from a place of nothing but love and that is all that happens...... And see here we go again.......no matter the context of how you mean it...Hitler...does that name bring positive or negative.... I like this: I shall build a house of love, and care, and concern, and understanding, and compassion, and wisdom, but does not allow any response from others except who agrees with them, and base all hearing on this premise, it seems there is no true indication of anything, but rather soon hearing of only patial words, which would create "illusions" of whether such things as wished to build were indeed as successful..... Don't agree with me that is fine...... And may if more lived by the above paragragh and love, care and compassion what a beautiful world this could be. It's like watching the news...I can know what's going on without watching it over and over and over..... There is a difference between learning and being taught and being taught in a critical or filled with critism way. That is ugly no matter how you look at it. I also train animals but I don't teach with negative or critisism ..I train them out of love and respect and they want to please me and be part of my world...But trust me take that same animal and do it in a negative nasty way and that is exactly what kind of animal you will have. Also with my children never is negative or can't part of this household. Definition of negative: expressing or containing negation or denial: a negative reply to my request. lacking positive attributes (opposed to positive): a dull, lifeless, negative character. lacking in constructiveness, helpfulness, optimism, cooperativeness, or the like: a man of negative viewpoint. I am sorry but this is no way to live or regard anything in life. Constant unconditional praise, adulation, agreement and support can, in many cases, weaken one's defenses to the "real" world when not balanced with what all people contain (part negative & part positive). So much so that one slip into a life of complete denial, expecting all to agree and co-sign... OR ELSE. Then one begins to equate love with agreement... "If you loved me, you'd agree (no matter what)... and since you disagree, you don't". This is how a child thinks... I know - I've been there. It's a painful, but necessary shift when someone finally comes along and loves enough to speak their own truth... no matter how it will be received. Are you new.....why the heck would anyone want to live in a negative...there is enough of that all around us. Again please try and understand this. I am a positive person this doesn't mean that negative or "bad" things don't happen..They do on a daily basis...you deal and they then become part of your past. But the constant negative that are in this threads is so mudane that it really makes me almost want to hurl. No one has to agree with anything but it also imo to come in and take something and make it now so dreary is just patetic. When I wrote this thread the first sentence was how others perceive Christians.......The second sentence was how we perceive ourselves and since that is the case to enjoy the dance. Now it turned all negative and once again the whole fun of the thread is lost on all the negative nelly's..... Speak your own truths as I do..then let people take away from it as they wish....I am all for that..... No one said anything about "constant" negative. This was your interpretation, Feral. I would venture to say that the "constant" focusing on only positive may indicate a fear of one's own denied negative. This poster has no wish to live in "mundane" negativity. It has simply been experienced that running from one's own negative creates FAR more negativity and a life way out of balance. We ALL contain both sides of the coin... Until one stops running, admits the negative and takes full responsibility, one can not truly be free (kind of like how confession works). Until this moment is passed thru, more negativity builds like a clogged artery. Does prefacing your post with, this poster being "new" suggest that what has been shared is any less valid? lol lol lol I am sorry and get to know me more and you will see how soooooo unture that is. How can someone fear ones owned negative. I am a POSITIVE PERSON PERIOD. I don't deny the negative I just don't let it in. So hmmmm you think to yourself what does that do? It makes all those around me more positive........and this is solid because I hear it all the time. OMG you hysterical I can't even believe your ramblings that for some warped reason you could ever think negative is ever a good or positive thing....it is sooooooo not. If you don't let negative in.....then it can't do jack diddly now can it. It's not that what you say is any less valid it's just imo of course......giggle....stupid. your post just declared you don't let negative in, then turn and call anothers perception as stupid......do you not hear your own words teach animals and kids having no negatives in anything, then call others stupid, lol...... are you a patholgical liar dear feral? my daughters are 6 and 11, and have more wisdom than to think any other human percpetion is as stupid........ please dear one...... it is most obvious that the negatives you so wish to keep out, are others that have more wisdom than yourself, and believe and have knowing of things that such limtied perceptions can never see, and indeed the negaitves are coming from within, not from the outside, from thoughts of yourself as most wise, as indicated by all your own words, and you just have no sight, that seeing and believing another is as stupid, is as NEGATIVE, and to perpetuate NEGATIVE, such NEGATIVE as extended to all those whom post any other perception different than yourself, putting them down as if they are stupide or less equal, but then indeed, it is not missed, they are believed to be of less value than yourself in all ways....... stupidity cannot be seen unless anything peer stupidly thru eyes that see oneself as having greater wisdom than all others..... You are so wrong.......and hey if you want or anyone wants negative in their lives...then I say have fun with it...But to assume that I can't live my life just fine and dandy without adding the negatives is just to me stupid.....I was not referring to her being stupid just imo to let negative in is stupid...and again if you don't like it...oh well to bad it's how I feel...... Never did this poster mention anything about "letting negative in". What was shared was taken completely out of context and clumsily inverted to make it appear as though this poster was completely off the mark and "stupid"... Perhaps another attempt to spell out the post's actual meaning. Here goes... Think of it a personal experience... Something is pointed out to you about yourself to which you object VERY strongly (something really hard to hear about yourself). A strong objection is usually a fairly decent indication that there must be some truth to what the person has stated about you... Or else you wouldn't be so moved... If there was no truth to it, you'd probably not react and just shrug it off. So, when this other person points something out to you that is hard to hear and you notice your own strong reaction, you pause... You think to yourself: (Hmmmm... I'm certainly getting fired up about what this guy is saying. Let me step back and look at this. There just may be some truth in what he's saying... Damn!!! There could be... Yes... I DO do this and have been doing this and, although I feel like a piece of poop for doing it, at least I can finally admit it. Now what? I feel stupid, yet relieved. Now I can turn the page.) No longer denying your own "wrong", you can now own what you've been doing, see it's full impact, take total responsibility for your part, correct it and MOVE ON. No more walking around trying to pretend you're perfect, yet feeling deep down like crap because, in your heart you know you've not been. No more lying to yourself... How liberating! Now, how does this have anything to do with letting negative in? If I ever post something and then can go back and reflect on what the poster said....and think....hmmmmmmm ok I would be the first one to admit and either apologize or point out where I was wrong or that I like what they said. But not in this case....sorry and if you don't like that...oh well...thats your gig. I am far from perfect and never claimed to me. And I always always will look at a glass half full instead of half empty. Go and take a look at the the post where the negative was first brought in and then get a clue. This OP was to show how others perceive Christians and how we perceive ourselves. It had nothing to do with anything negative...because again people are entitled to think we are one way......and then get to know us and see it in a whole new light... Example...people perceptions of me were this staunch unbending, unyeilding Christian. I was called out for making a comment on a sex thread...I was like OMG you can't be for real. There are many layers to me other then just being "a christian." Well my friend....yep not even close to same beleifs but a friend whom I respect greatly also called me out on it. I said yea people I also have a stipper pole in my living but does that make me a bad Christian. Heck no it makes me human and as such....I would never claim to be perfect far from it. And I am willing to learn when it's not something as david put out there that made no sense either to the thread or to the original OP. See... Because this poster doesn't see a great divide between Christians and non-Christians, an (apparently) important piece of the OP's meaning was lost in translation. Never was it intended to get you or anyone to admit YOU were wrong about ANYTHING. The intent of the example was to illustrate how the willingness to acknowledge one's own negatives (not yours... one's) can actually be quite positive in the long run. Like the way it works in confession. It can be very freeing. None of this poster's meaning had anything to do with "letting negativity in" and much more to do with being free of unrecognized self-condemnation... Again... never was it implied that you personally have self-condemnation. It's a human condition. Now, its understood that Christianity provides a Christian solution for self-condemnation. Since not all in this discussion are Christian, it was thought that perhaps a somewhat PARALLEL (not opposing) perspective would be acceptable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
since I don't accept it, maybe it does mean i'm saying they are wrong, but then again, thats just me, people that believe in it, i'm not trying to say they are wrong and this is just getting even more confusing trying to explain myself but it's an attempt. lets just say we agree that we disagree and on that we can hopefully leave it, I'm tired anyway, really need to get some sleep, hate daylight, i'm kind of a night person I understand you are attempting to not appear as confrontational. I can respect that. This is a topic that is very open to debate. My point was that this is not the thread for that to occur as there are many other threads that have addressed the subject matter. You always have the option of beginning a new thread if you want. You ALWAYS have the right to proclaim the Theory of Evolution as erroneous in some capacity. You would then be confronted by members who accept the theory and you would be asked to support your view and explain to us why you feel as you do. That is the nature of open communication. We are no longer living in the Middle Ages when people were murdered and thrown in dungeons for simply disagreeing with the church. A thread about Creationism vs. The Theory of Evolution?? Are you kidding me? There are probably a few. Very often what takes place is what you are seeing on this thread. The OP will start off having some other reason to post a thread an inevitably, about half way through or sooner, someone mentions the Theory of Evolution and starts a big debate/argument. It happens quite often. Im am not, nor have I ever been angry and especially not on this thread.I do apologize if you felt that to be the case in some respect. If anything I have found it to be quite amusing. You were the one who seemed to feel that your beliefs (whatever those entail exactly) were being attacked simply because another member posted some information that YOU HAD REQUESTED. Peace Now we can try to put it to rest, how's that If you misunderstood me, then I would apologize. However that is not the case. You knew exactly what I was saying this entire time. Look, you dont entertain the theory of evolution nor are you interested in having a better understanding of it. That is absolutely your right. Never once were you attacked or was anyone angry at you. the less confrontational I try to be the more it seems that it is getting that way, would it be better if I just cut loose and argued, don't think we would get anywhere that way either. and honestly, things you say as it seems I do as well are evidently confusing What? That has been your most confusing assertion yet I do believe. If you would prefer to "confront" me about some issue(s), whatever those may be, please do not hesitate to do so. Other than that my perception of events was that you made an overgeneralized statement as it related to transitional fossils and Billy replied back with a very polite post that offered you some additional materials to investigate if you were so inclined. The next response out of you seemed to indicate that the folks participating in this thread that choose to accept the theory of evolution are in some way angry with you. You then insisted on defending this position repeatedly. Feel free to correct me any time you want. what good would it do, you, would get offended and want to argue, you act like you don't but you are as well. we have both been carrying on and seeming to argue over the same old stuff. lets let it go, I started the topic elsewhere and its not really for non believers but I just know they will comment and thats fine |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
since I don't accept it, maybe it does mean i'm saying they are wrong, but then again, thats just me, people that believe in it, i'm not trying to say they are wrong and this is just getting even more confusing trying to explain myself but it's an attempt. lets just say we agree that we disagree and on that we can hopefully leave it, I'm tired anyway, really need to get some sleep, hate daylight, i'm kind of a night person I understand you are attempting to not appear as confrontational. I can respect that. This is a topic that is very open to debate. My point was that this is not the thread for that to occur as there are many other threads that have addressed the subject matter. You always have the option of beginning a new thread if you want. You ALWAYS have the right to proclaim the Theory of Evolution as erroneous in some capacity. You would then be confronted by members who accept the theory and you would be asked to support your view and explain to us why you feel as you do. That is the nature of open communication. We are no longer living in the Middle Ages when people were murdered and thrown in dungeons for simply disagreeing with the church. A thread about Creationism vs. The Theory of Evolution?? Are you kidding me? There are probably a few. Very often what takes place is what you are seeing on this thread. The OP will start off having some other reason to post a thread an inevitably, about half way through or sooner, someone mentions the Theory of Evolution and starts a big debate/argument. It happens quite often. Im am not, nor have I ever been angry and especially not on this thread.I do apologize if you felt that to be the case in some respect. If anything I have found it to be quite amusing. You were the one who seemed to feel that your beliefs (whatever those entail exactly) were being attacked simply because another member posted some information that YOU HAD REQUESTED. Peace Now we can try to put it to rest, how's that If you misunderstood me, then I would apologize. However that is not the case. You knew exactly what I was saying this entire time. Look, you dont entertain the theory of evolution nor are you interested in having a better understanding of it. That is absolutely your right. Never once were you attacked or was anyone angry at you. You have every right to either accept or not accept the Theory of Evolution. If you are already pre-disposed to not want to understand it nor investigate it further than perhaps you should not ask that others on forum assist you with comprehending the relevance of transitional fossils. Aside from that I dont care if you want to run around naked worshiping ice cream cones. That is none of my business. If you want to continue to argue this point with me, feel free to do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sat 09/20/08 07:07 AM
|
|
since I don't accept it, maybe it does mean i'm saying they are wrong, but then again, thats just me, people that believe in it, i'm not trying to say they are wrong and this is just getting even more confusing trying to explain myself but it's an attempt. lets just say we agree that we disagree and on that we can hopefully leave it, I'm tired anyway, really need to get some sleep, hate daylight, i'm kind of a night person I understand you are attempting to not appear as confrontational. I can respect that. This is a topic that is very open to debate. My point was that this is not the thread for that to occur as there are many other threads that have addressed the subject matter. You always have the option of beginning a new thread if you want. You ALWAYS have the right to proclaim the Theory of Evolution as erroneous in some capacity. You would then be confronted by members who accept the theory and you would be asked to support your view and explain to us why you feel as you do. That is the nature of open communication. We are no longer living in the Middle Ages when people were murdered and thrown in dungeons for simply disagreeing with the church. A thread about Creationism vs. The Theory of Evolution?? Are you kidding me? There are probably a few. Very often what takes place is what you are seeing on this thread. The OP will start off having some other reason to post a thread an inevitably, about half way through or sooner, someone mentions the Theory of Evolution and starts a big debate/argument. It happens quite often. Im am not, nor have I ever been angry and especially not on this thread.I do apologize if you felt that to be the case in some respect. If anything I have found it to be quite amusing. You were the one who seemed to feel that your beliefs (whatever those entail exactly) were being attacked simply because another member posted some information that YOU HAD REQUESTED. Peace Now we can try to put it to rest, how's that If you misunderstood me, then I would apologize. However that is not the case. You knew exactly what I was saying this entire time. Look, you dont entertain the theory of evolution nor are you interested in having a better understanding of it. That is absolutely your right. Never once were you attacked or was anyone angry at you. the less confrontational I try to be the more it seems that it is getting that way, would it be better if I just cut loose and argued, don't think we would get anywhere that way either. and honestly, things you say as it seems I do as well are evidently confusing What? That has been your most confusing assertion yet I do believe. If you would prefer to "confront" me about some issue(s), whatever those may be, please do not hesitate to do so. Other than that my perception of events was that you made an overgeneralized statement as it related to transitional fossils and Billy replied back with a very polite post that offered you some additional materials to investigate if you were so inclined. The next response out of you seemed to indicate that the folks participating in this thread that choose to accept the theory of evolution are in some way angry with you. You then insisted on defending this position repeatedly. Feel free to correct me any time you want. what good would it do, you, would get offended and want to argue, you act like you don't but you are as well. we have both been carrying on and seeming to argue over the same old stuff. lets let it go, I started the topic elsewhere and its not really for non believers but I just know they will comment and thats fine I have no interest in arguing. You know where I stand on this issue and you have this entire time. If you would like to continue to dissect and appear "justified" in some respect than go ahead but I also will retain the right to call you on your assertions that you were "attacked" or "not allowed to hold your own beliefs" This is an incorrect assumption and I do take issue with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 09/20/08 08:12 AM
|
|
Sharpshooter wrote: starting to look like it will never end, we both seem to have to get our little jabs in, why is that,  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes and no one could ever accuse any particular member here of starting or continuing senseless arguments unnecessarily and asserting that they must accept one position or another or compartmentalize themselves into a belief system.
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No problem Krisma, I already know what your believe system is, but in order to debate anything specific you must at least take a stand. Otherwise you are just chewing gum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No problem Krisma, I already know what your believe system is, but in order to debate anything specific you must at least take a stand. Otherwise you are just chewing gum. Im not sure that you do as I have never felt comfortable enough with you to reveal much of anything. You can go on assuming that you do. Makes no difference to me. If you dont understand what my position is on any given topic then I must assume that your reading comprehension skills just aren't up to snuff. Either way, its neither here nor there. I could not care less about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was wondering when you would mozzy on over here....gigglesnort. Oh cmon james you know I am right....I can prove it if necessary.....There is more Christian bashing on the religion threads then any other denomination. We are the only one who's beliefs can't be believed......Our Bible a myth....cmon James I will be more then happy to go through just one thread and prove it. Since I don't care about the religion aspect of what I believe I would say not in my head dear man. And what I wrote in the original OP was what I am hearing from all non believers. And if Chrsitians are spreading hate of any kind of bigotry they "ARE NOT" Christians. Belief in God and Science can go hand in hand....I don't think I have ever stated different.....my only beef their is science is theory and GOd is not. I am say to take religion out of it...I have been saying that all along...Religion is man made....God is not. Wow! How to put this so you feel not an attack but a question. Some of science is theory... some has been backed by many, many facts that can be seen, tasted, felt and touched. yet you bash science and raise up a notion that something based ONLY UPON WORDS (without faith) is more. God is.. (My faith in this is strong). But science is also (we know this to be true as we can actually use it in the world as it is). to me then if science and religion do not agree then one or both of them are wrong. As far as your original post... Christians WANT to be bashed so they may then counter with their eyes held to the sky and their hearts feeling their own inflated ego-of-self... I-am-holy-cause-you-persecute-me-as-christ-said-you-would. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No problem Krisma, I already know what your believe system is, but in order to debate anything specific you must at least take a stand. Otherwise you are just chewing gum. Im not sure that you do as I have never felt comfortable enough with you to reveal much of anything. You can go on assuming that you do. Makes no difference to me. If you dont understand what my position is on any given topic then I must assume that your reading comprehension skills just aren't up to snuff. Either way, its neither here nor there. I could not care less about it. In the case in question you posted a quote from an unknown person and you refused to commit to a position on the subject one way or another. That is why the discussion could not continue. In truth, It does not matter to me what you believe but I do like to attempt to discover what a person's point or agenda is, or at least what their specific opinion is on the subject we are discussing, otherwise it is no more productive than chewing gum. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sat 09/20/08 09:07 AM
|
|
No problem Krisma, I already know what your believe system is, but in order to debate anything specific you must at least take a stand. Otherwise you are just chewing gum. Im not sure that you do as I have never felt comfortable enough with you to reveal much of anything. You can go on assuming that you do. Makes no difference to me. If you dont understand what my position is on any given topic then I must assume that your reading comprehension skills just aren't up to snuff. Either way, its neither here nor there. I could not care less about it. In the case in question you posted a quote from an unknown person and you refused to commit to a position on the subject one way or another. That is why the discussion could not continue. In truth, It does not matter to me what you believe but I do like to attempt to discover what a person's point or agenda is, or at least what their specific opinion is on the subject we are discussing, otherwise it is no more productive than chewing gum. We were discussing NDE (near death experience) and I posted a few quotes from various sources and in fact the only that essentially got under your skin was one made by a gentleman who was attempting to explain what might cause the effects that we very often hear referred to. Those of bright lights, and tunnels and feelings of weightlessness or floating. I told you 8-10 times that my position on the topic was that I am not comfortable simply accepting your assertion that there is irrefutable proof of an afterlife. I felt that for myself (not speaking for anyone other than that) I would need to also investigate other alternatives and that modern science could offer that to us. Your rebuttal to this idea was that "modern science nor medicine has nothing new to offer and you have read it all". I disagree with that assertion as is my right. So in fact I dont like the same bubble gum nor its flavor. I think that is a more accurate analogy my dear lady.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB:
Christians WANT to be bashed so they may then counter with their eyes held to the sky and their hearts feeling their own inflated ego-of-self... I-am-holy-cause-you-persecute-me-as-christ-said-you-would. I would agree, but add to the beginning of the statement the word "Some"... Some Christians... See how one single word can alter perception of intent? Words alone can be very tricky. Too bad the hearing aren't required to fully understand how sign language works. If having a command of that form of communication was mandatory, I think meaning would be more easily conveyed. We'd concentrate more on meaning.. less on words. Words would more fully be comprehended when thoughtfully positioned within any sentence. Perhaps if there was a way for the speaker to first get clear on the intent, then the meaning could be more easily conveyed. Wow! How to put this so you feel not an attack but a question". AB seemed to start out w/ the specific intent to not be perceived as attacking. Communication is a complex beast, but SO worth it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB: Christians WANT to be bashed so they may then counter with their eyes held to the sky and their hearts feeling their own inflated ego-of-self... I-am-holy-cause-you-persecute-me-as-christ-said-you-would. I would agree, but add to the beginning of the statement the word "Some"... Some Christians... See how one single word can alter perception of intent? Words alone can be very tricky. Too bad the hearing aren't required to fully understand how sign language works. If having a command of that form of communication was mandatory, I think meaning would be more easily conveyed. We'd concentrate more on meaning.. less on words. Words would more fully be comprehended when thoughtfully positioned within any sentence. Perhaps if there was a way for the speaker to first get clear on the intent, then the meaning could be more easily conveyed. Wow! How to put this so you feel not an attack but a question". AB seemed to start out w/ the specific intent to not be perceived as attacking. Communication is a complex beast, but SO worth it. I am quite sure my meaning has not been misread. If I had meant 'some' I would have said so. If faith is based upon a book it is man based faith. I place not my faith in the works of men for their hearts can be swayed by the slightest whim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB: Christians WANT to be bashed so they may then counter with their eyes held to the sky and their hearts feeling their own inflated ego-of-self... I-am-holy-cause-you-persecute-me-as-christ-said-you-would. I would agree, but add to the beginning of the statement the word "Some"... Some Christians... See how one single word can alter perception of intent? Words alone can be very tricky. Too bad the hearing aren't required to fully understand how sign language works. If having a command of that form of communication was mandatory, I think meaning would be more easily conveyed. We'd concentrate more on meaning.. less on words. Words would more fully be comprehended when thoughtfully positioned within any sentence. Perhaps if there was a way for the speaker to first get clear on the intent, then the meaning could be more easily conveyed. Wow! How to put this so you feel not an attack but a question". AB seemed to start out w/ the specific intent to not be perceived as attacking. Communication is a complex beast, but SO worth it. I am quite sure my meaning has not been misread. If I had meant 'some' I would have said so. If faith is based upon a book it is man based faith. I place not my faith in the works of men for their hearts can be swayed by the slightest whim. There I go, interjecting/forcing my desire (agenda) for understanding amongst people with differing perspectives. I can imagine that this would seem quite intrusive (even annoying). For that, I am sorry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 09/20/08 10:27 AM
|
|
No problem Krisma, I already know what your believe system is, but in order to debate anything specific you must at least take a stand. Otherwise you are just chewing gum. Im not sure that you do as I have never felt comfortable enough with you to reveal much of anything. You can go on assuming that you do. Makes no difference to me. If you dont understand what my position is on any given topic then I must assume that your reading comprehension skills just aren't up to snuff. Either way, its neither here nor there. I could not care less about it. In the case in question you posted a quote from an unknown person and you refused to commit to a position on the subject one way or another. That is why the discussion could not continue. In truth, It does not matter to me what you believe but I do like to attempt to discover what a person's point or agenda is, or at least what their specific opinion is on the subject we are discussing, otherwise it is no more productive than chewing gum. We were discussing NDE (near death experience) and I posted a few quotes from various sources and in fact the only that essentially got under your skin was one made by a gentleman who was attempting to explain what might cause the effects that we very often hear referred to. Those of bright lights, and tunnels and feelings of weightlessness or floating. I told you 8-10 times that my position on the topic was that I am not comfortable simply accepting your assertion that there is irrefutable proof of an afterlife. I felt that for myself (not speaking for anyone other than that) I would need to also investigate other alternatives and that modern science could offer that to us. Your rebuttal to this idea was that "modern science nor medicine has nothing new to offer and you have read it all". I disagree with that assertion as is my right. So in fact I dont like the same bubble gum nor its flavor. I think that is a more accurate analogy my dear lady. Krisma's statement: "I told you 8-10 times that my position on the topic was that I am not comfortable simply accepting your assertion that there is irrefutable proof of an afterlife. Now this is where I have an issue with you in general. I NEVER have implied or asserted that there is "irrefutable proof" of an after life. You make these kinds of statements all the time. I did not assert any such thing. I never got a chance to even offer my "side of the coin" on the entire subject because you refused to show your side of the coin. Also your statement: "Your rebuttal to this idea was that "modern science nor medicine has nothing new to offer and you have read it all". This is also a lie. I did not say this either. Anyone who reads our posts on this subject can see this as clear as day. I did not say "I read it all.." It is my opinion that even if I had, they would have nothing substantial to offer that can prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife or NDE's or OBE's, therefore the cut and past quote you posted was irrelevant and simply some unknown person's opinions. If you want to know why I have issue with your posts it is because you read things into my statements and rewrite them incorrectly. I write what I mean and I mean what I write. You interpret your own meanings and rewrite them and you tell me I said them. There is no way I will engage in that kind of bull conversation because I recognize the method as being argumentative and scrappy. It is not a serious dialog when you accuse people of saying things they absolutely did not say. That's what I have a problem with. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB: Christians WANT to be bashed so they may then counter with their eyes held to the sky and their hearts feeling their own inflated ego-of-self... I-am-holy-cause-you-persecute-me-as-christ-said-you-would. I would agree, but add to the beginning of the statement the word "Some"... Some Christians... See how one single word can alter perception of intent? Words alone can be very tricky. Too bad the hearing aren't required to fully understand how sign language works. If having a command of that form of communication was mandatory, I think meaning would be more easily conveyed. We'd concentrate more on meaning.. less on words. Words would more fully be comprehended when thoughtfully positioned within any sentence. Perhaps if there was a way for the speaker to first get clear on the intent, then the meaning could be more easily conveyed. Wow! How to put this so you feel not an attack but a question". AB seemed to start out w/ the specific intent to not be perceived as attacking. Communication is a complex beast, but SO worth it. I am quite sure my meaning has not been misread. If I had meant 'some' I would have said so. If faith is based upon a book it is man based faith. I place not my faith in the works of men for their hearts can be swayed by the slightest whim. There I go, interjecting/forcing my desire (agenda) for understanding amongst people with differing perspectives. I can imagine that this would seem quite intrusive (even annoying). For that, I am sorry. My bad... I was being sarcastic. One cannont attack from an entrenched position. One can however, invite attack by diggin a trench and drawing a line. Attack is sure to follow, allowing immediately the upturned eyes and sudden glow of the halo-of-persecution to light ones angelic self. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sat 09/20/08 11:16 AM
|
|
No problem Krisma, I already know what your believe system is, but in order to debate anything specific you must at least take a stand. Otherwise you are just chewing gum. Im not sure that you do as I have never felt comfortable enough with you to reveal much of anything. You can go on assuming that you do. Makes no difference to me. If you dont understand what my position is on any given topic then I must assume that your reading comprehension skills just aren't up to snuff. Either way, its neither here nor there. I could not care less about it. In the case in question you posted a quote from an unknown person and you refused to commit to a position on the subject one way or another. That is why the discussion could not continue. In truth, It does not matter to me what you believe but I do like to attempt to discover what a person's point or agenda is, or at least what their specific opinion is on the subject we are discussing, otherwise it is no more productive than chewing gum. We were discussing NDE (near death experience) and I posted a few quotes from various sources and in fact the only that essentially got under your skin was one made by a gentleman who was attempting to explain what might cause the effects that we very often hear referred to. Those of bright lights, and tunnels and feelings of weightlessness or floating. I told you 8-10 times that my position on the topic was that I am not comfortable simply accepting your assertion that there is irrefutable proof of an afterlife. I felt that for myself (not speaking for anyone other than that) I would need to also investigate other alternatives and that modern science could offer that to us. Your rebuttal to this idea was that "modern science nor medicine has nothing new to offer and you have read it all". I disagree with that assertion as is my right. So in fact I dont like the same bubble gum nor its flavor. I think that is a more accurate analogy my dear lady. "I told you 8-10 times that my position on the topic was that I am not comfortable simply accepting your assertion that there is irrefutable proof of an afterlife. Now this is where I have an issue with you in general. I NEVER have implied or asserted that there irrefutable proof of an after life. You make these kinds of statements all the time. I did not assert any such thing. I never got a chance to even offer my "side of the coin" on the entire subject because you refused to show your side of the coin. Also your statement: "Your rebuttal to this idea was that "modern science nor medicine has nothing new to offer and you have read it all". This is also a lie. I did not say this either. Anyone who reads our posts on this subject can see this as clear as day. I did not say "I read it all.." It is my opinion that even if I had, they would have nothing substantial to offer that can prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife or NDE's or OBE's, therefore the cut and past quote you posted was irrelevant and simply some unknown person's opinions. If you want to know why I have issue with your posts it is because you read things into my statements and rewrite them incorrectly. I write what I mean and I mean what I write. You interpret your own meanings and rewrite them and you tell me I said them. There is no way I will engage in that kind of bull conversation because I recognize the method as being argumentative and scrappy. It is not a serious dialog when you accuse people of saying things they absolutely did not say. That's what I have a problem with. JB My impression of what you were attempting to assert was that "you have read EVERY bit of information that modern science and medicine has to offer on the subject of NDE and there is nothing new" If you would like to withdraw this now, I dont blame you. It is ridiculous in my opinion. My side of the coin is that modern medicine can in fact offer us their own theories as it relates directly to the sensations that humans repeatedly record feeling during the course of these episodes. One of which (only one) is that a lack of oxygen reaching the brain can begin to slowly cause perceptual changes. It is not a matter of the brain "shutting down" like a switch or a gearshift. You are free to offer your side of the coin whenever you wish, however since you have already asserted repeatedly that you are "unable to continue this debate with me because I will not allow you to compartmentalize me into this or that belief structure" then whats the point? JB has spoken. According to JB, modern science and medicine clearly can offer us nothing new or of substantive relevance. Whether it be my individual quotes or anything else. We simply differ on our methodology of discovery. When I am approaching a difficult topic or premise, I tend to like to investigate EVERY possible avenue and conclusion that has previously been reached to fully analyze the subject matter. I wont nullify something as "being inconsequential" simply because it does nothing to further my own objective which in your case, is proof of life after death. My point this entire time has been that it would behoove you to expand your understanding of this phenomena even if that means investigating theories that make you feel uncomfortable. How else can you effectively debate? JB, I am not interested in most all topics that appeal to you so I have no vested interest in "misquoting you". I am simply informing you this is how I interpreted your statements. if you want to now tell me that is not what you meant, have at it. I dont care. In my opinion you have zero credibility so I will seek out other members with which I feel are somewhat more open minded. I have also asked that you leave it alone and let this go. I feel an impeding suspension and I do not wish that to occur for either one of us but you are continually pushing it and it is not fair to other members. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
splendidlife
on
Sat 09/20/08 11:04 AM
|
|
AB:
My bad... I was being sarcastic. One cannont attack from an entrenched position. One can however, invite attack by diggin a trench and drawing a line. Attack is sure to follow, allowing immediately the upturned eyes and sudden glow of the halo-of-persecution to light ones angelic self. lol... So, we ALL serve a purpose, then. To insight that state and "sudden glow". No matter what is said... No matter what the intent... No matter what is provided... Its all just grist for the mill. Mere Pabulum  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christians WANT to be bashed so they may then counter with their eyes held to the sky and their hearts feeling their own inflated ego-of-self... I-am-holy-cause-you-persecute-me-as-christ-said-you-would. Truly, Chrisitianity is all about using Jesus to inflate the ego. They go aroud persecuting eveyone who doesn't believe like them and then claim that they are the ones being persecuted. What a joke they are! Besides, it clearly states in the Bible that women are not to speak out publically on these issues. Clearly these voiciferious women don't agree with their very own God! They totally denounce his will the whole time they claim to be preaching his word. They aren't about to accept God's male chauvanistic attitude. They tell God what he must be like! Obviously they don't like his rules and they refuse to obey them! What a bunch of blatant disobedient sinners! |
|
|
|
|
