The Truth About Christianity - Give your views

by Sirona 60 Replies latest watchtower bible

Abaddon

LT
Far be it from me to refuse you the opportunity to respond! I am feeling an entire dessert trolley under the weather and have 2 1/2 hours of Dutch lesson to endure after work, so I can't promise much...
FirstInLine

Abaddon,
Firsty
yes baiter?
I really don't think this is a competition...
Its not a competition but you are acting like it is one.
I fully admit I think this is (given a good person to debate with) fun.
You are certainly not a good person to debate with or someone to engage in the free exchange of ideas as you have so effectively proven.
You consistantly make an assertion, say it is logical, and then refuse to defend it.
No I dont. But this attitude shows you are only interested in competition.
You make sweeping statements about the level of verifiability of something but never back it up with facts.
I cant count how many times you have baited me now. We are not debating Abaddon. You arent going to trick me into a debate. If you do want to have a discussion then you are free to try again anytime but you keep trying to prove that I am "not worthy" or something.
When you do argue something in detail, it is frequently contradictory. In your attempt to defend your point about the Higgs Field you manage to simultaneously manintain two points of view - a charming display of cognitive dissonance that you're utterly unaware of.
Here you accuse me of arguing in contradiction and frequently at that but you dont give even one example. Had you given me an example that would be one way of tricking me into a debate but here you just settle for accusing me. Thats ok. Dont let me stand in the way of you impressing yourself.
You might think I want to shut-down conflicting viewpoints; wrong.
Um. You do. If someone has a view different then yours you insist on "fact" bombing and deriding them until they back away from defending themself. You probably believe that a few facts accompanied by spin makes their reasoning irrelevant. I am not even going to bother with you until you can demonstrate you care about more than winning a debate. If it is your sole goal to win a debate you have a closed mind and as I said before, good for you knowing you are right. I hope you have found comfort in your little box of rightness.
Life would be very boring without differing viewpoints.
Here I believe you are being honest. You seem to be the happiest when deriding someone that disagrees with you so I can genuinely understand your disappointment if everyone agreed with you already.
What you seem to have a problem with is having your reasoning questioned,
You can question my reasoning all you want but if you prove to be the person that you have so far proven to be I am not going to start with you. You KNOW you are right and dont care what I have to say. I am sure you are prepared to start dropping bombs and laughing and then making false accusations when I prove that your attempts are misguided.
or having your reasoning asked for when you assure everyone that it's logical.
You assume it isnt logical? If you do assume it isnt logical then IMO opinion you need to learn about the universe and logic a little more first. You seem to know or least know where to find info on the universe to some degree so perhaps its logic you need a better understanding of. Its kind of like why freshman dont usually get admitted to upper division classes in college.
In that you are unfortunately quite representative of your paradigm of choice.
So irrelevant and also wrong. This would be perfectly applied to you though.
controls your actions and inactions;
If you say so.
your description "hypocritical attacks against God" shows that despite your big words, it is you who "obviously dont want to have a real discussion and consider possibilities", as you've already determined the 'facts'.
It does nothing of the sort. You determined that if there is a God he is verifiably a "Monster" because he doesnt do what you dont do either.
You can't even explain why you started insulting me on another thread, you just re-state the insult;
I fail to recall you asking for an explaination. In the interest of saving time I submitted a conditional apology which you have not taken. All you had to do was say, "I wasnt being a jerk" and you have an apology, but the games continue. Telling someone that they were being a jerk does not constitute an insult in my book it. Its telling them they were being insulting. If you genuinely want an explaination then fine I retract it rather than spend 45 minutes looking for where you were being a jerk. I can hardly imagine you seriously thinking you have never been a jerk on this forum but actually -- come to think, I can imagine it. Look at the congnitive dissonance is so recklessly display.
Which exemplifies your entire approach Firsty...
Calling me Firsty along with:
Hahaha. Yeah... make out it's MY fault, of course... how weak...
Are reasons you prove you are mainly interested in baiting and deriding someone with opposing viewpoints. You baited me the whole way through this thread. Then when I didnt take the bait you insisted I or my position were weak, "hahaha", which is just more bait. All you do is bait and then complain when I dont take the bait and further back it up with more bait. Poor Abaddon. Bait is a red flag for me. Sorry Abaddon but when I see bait it tells me you arent interested in a real discussion. Look at the lengths you have taken here to bait me into an arguement. And you cant understand why I am not biting?!??!?!? Why dont you change your attitude and try again. You havent even changed tactics. Its just bait, no bite, new bait, no bite, disguised bait, nibble, YANK, oh that was bait, spit, curses, bait, bait, bait, wow thats alot of bait -- no thanks, curses, accusation bait, derision bait, supremacy bait, victory bait, bait, bait, bait, no bite. You havent hooked me and you are mad because I wont let you hook me.
You have proven to me that I was right for not taking your bait. Baiting is not academic.
Abaddon

If you're not responding to 'baiting', why do you keep replying? Of course asking you to back up what you say is NOT baiting, but I thought the key to not being baited was not responding...
Obviously the fact that we're not having a debate is a given; you refuse to provide any substance to your assertions and claims of logical thinking which we could debate, and the reasons for that are very clear, although that we won't agree on.
You throw insults without cause and then expect people to believe if I'd said 'I'm not a jerk' you would have apologised - when in fact, I asked why I was a jerk and you didn't see fit to apologise then. But given your behaviour, it's not surprising you expect others to gulp down your absurdities. I could go on through your distortions and 'terminological inexactitudes', but I just can't be arsed with it - and following your shining example, I'm not going to back up my assertions.
But I've enjoyed 'getting to know you'... it's been revealing...
And I'd like to apologise to another poster; you were right, I should have known better!
FirstInLine

Abaddon,
You are finally giving up on your inflammatory and baiting strategy I take, albeit with a few parting shots. Thats great. Now you can attempt a legitimate academic inquiry.
FirstInLine

BTW Abaddon,
you still didnt ask for an apology but instead accuse me of deception towards an audience that I would not give one if you asked.
LittleToe

Gyles:
Sounds like you had a heavy day, yesterday
I hope today's going better for you.
Most Buhddists would agree with you on that, so, that doesn't mean you're not a Buhddist. You're just not enlightend to the fact...
Hell, apparently in the traditonal range of Hindu beliefs I can be described as a Hindu so you certainly can; they really don't mind you not agreeing (how's that for inclusive?).
Sounds pretty inclusive, alright - LOL.
Some Universalist Christians are like that, too.
Ah, but what if taking up a name which is essentially random is a CAUSE of divisions?... Not through ill intent on your part but because the act of attempting to divide or compartmentalise the divine is in itself a harmful action?
I don't think I'm totally on your wavelength, with the question, but I'll give it a shot anyhow.
I believe that ultimately a name is just a semi-descriptive placeholder, anyhow.
With regards to the damage it can cause, in stating that the name you use is the only right one, I think the millenia of evidence speaks for itself.
So, if he is grieved, wither the action to resove the situation? Do you REALLY believe the spreading of god's spirit and truth was better achieved through in the 1st C than it could be achieved today?
"The plan is, we have no plan..."
Who says "He" isn't acting, or that it's in any way less effective today?
Alternatively, maybe the onus is on us to "consciously connect", and the means are inherent in each of us (JamesThomas-style statement).
Abaddon
Hi Ross,
Sounds pretty inclusive, alright - LOL
Yup... although it's passive inclusivism... the ~~Morons~~ Mormons go one better and baptise people as Mormons after their death... that's a VERY active form of inclusivism (as well as being rather obviously insane).
Ah, but what if taking up a name which is essentially random is a CAUSE of divisions?... Not through ill intent on your part but because the act of attempting to divide or compartmentalise the divine is in itself a harmful action?
I don't think I'm totally on your wavelength, with the question, but I'll give it a shot anyhow.
I believe that ultimately a name is just a semi-descriptive placeholder, anyhow.
With regards to the damage it can cause, in stating that the name you use is the only right one, I think the millenia of evidence speaks for itself.
Oh, you seem to be receiving the signal just fine... yes, what if 'god' is very inclusive and names are place holders for different cultures/places/times/people, but it's all the same thing and all equally true?
Given the absence of any firm data pointing to ONE religious tradtion as THE one (which I think you and I can agree on although obviously others won't) if there is a god who cares, it seems if any ideas about the qualities of god hold water, then all faiths that respect life would be equally valid.
However, if this is a fundamental truth, then the people on the ground are killing each other 'cause one calls god Bert and the other calls god Fred.
This is patently absurd, so either;
god is absurd
god is unfair by my definitons
there is no god
there is clear proof pointing to one tradition which 'we' are missing
From my POV this isn't a very healthy list for people of faith, as it either means you're worshipping nothing, a mad 'man', or someone with rather different ideas of fairness (i.e. "You were born in Delhi and lived and died a Hindu? Tough luck bubba!).
Of course, there are other possibilities, of which the most interesting (that doesn't mean I think it's right) is this chap;
http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/mar/cunning.html
I'm going home now!!
LittleToe

Gyle:
I'm heading home any minute, too.
I would suggest that the commonality of experience (regardless of religion) might be a starting point.
Of more interest to me, however, is "what triggers such experiences?".
If it truly is a "connection to the divine", what are the common elements?
What will all agree on (above and beyond being some kind of "creator / father-figure")?
If people spent more time looking for similarities rather than differences, there might be less pain and division in the world (and that comment goes far beyond the religious domain).
frankiespeakin

Abb,
I would just like to say thank you for that CP&L in the above post.
We have had our debates to which I have enjoyed from time to time.
Pere Teilhard has some very interesting ideas, which is the way I'm leaning at the moment but claim the priviledge to change directions when more information comes to my attention.
A. Einstein said the the division between past, present, and future was an illussion, a persistant one but an illusion just the same. I tend to agree.
All this "matter" is just a clever manipulation of "nothing" for I think nothing can be quite solid indeed, while they may be very opposite(nothing and space) for when you run out of space and bump against nothing you can go no further since you can't penetrate nothing which gives it the illusion of being solid. It is all illussions.
FirstInLine

frankie,
It has been calculated to some degree that even nothing is something. Completely empty space void of all free particles, gravity and radiation has the equivalent mass of about one proton per cubic foot.

The Truth About Christianity - Give your views

Share this