if a person glorifies someone in a way that they are not, is it not an insult?
Glorifies someone or a post that someone made? There is a key difference. Still, I am at least glad that even you realised the inherent worthlessness of your 'response', if I dare call it that.
For instance if I said "snakelord you truly are a brilliant scientist. The whole world will truly benefit from reading your posts. I think you deserve a round of applause from your wife and children every morning" is that not an insult?
Actually no, that's a compliment - and a highly accurate statement to boot. If on the off chance you were being sarcastic, it's apparent that the difference needs to be highlighted. In your example you started with "Snakelord you.." and then continued purely about me, while also including my family.
Where did any such thing occur in my statement regarding your post, (as opposed to you)?
I see. At least this has brought to light another key issue that needs to be resolved before we can move on.
You stated that in spiritual life ones concerns stretch out to all life. I responded that this couldn't be true unless these people were vegetarians, (yes this in itself is not even perfect but is sufficient to make the point), and must surely all be animal rights activists.
Now.. you then waffle on about an irrelevant matter, (vegetarianism), when that's not what the post or my response to your statement was about. My response was with regards to your claim of 'concern for all life'. Your response to that should therefore be also concerned about that claim and my dispute of it -
not details regarding vegetarianism and that even plants are alive and offering plants to god helps stop colon cancer. Can you understand this? To provide an example, your response could be something along the lines of:
"Well, they are concerned, just not concerned enough to not eat them".
That is a response to the refutation of your claim. Waffling on about colon cancer is not. I hope I have made that clear to you.
I guess not only do you not understand...
Were you actually going to say something of substance, (i.e point out specific errors contained in the post etc), or just keep up with the personal attacks? I notice while you have the ability to constantly tell people they don't understand, you never display the decency to point out where the error is etc.
However, I'm not the fussy type. Next time just say "you don't understand anything" and then leave my thread. I'm good with that.
In the mean time I guess its okay for you to say anything and say that i said it, huh?
Not really, but then I didn't realise I would be engaged in conversation with the specific type of character that you now display. You think that you can just change everything you are from one thread to another, and that speaks volumes. It speaks highly of you as a person and perhaps even shows a serious lack of self esteem that you can't even remain consistent in what you have or have not done/seen etc. You're even up to this very same trick on the god and music thread we're also conversing in and I find it distasteful at best. Make an ultimate decision on these things and then stick by them and we wont run into this problem. To be nice I shall actually spend a great deal of time tomorrow tracking down the statement you made. However, I shall also give you the chance to now state your position. In doing so everyone will be able to see whether you indeed have the courage to speak the truth.
So, are you celibate?
(Btw, in this instance a failure to answer suggest guilt. I would advise you try your hardest to answer. Also note that there is no judgement upon you - frankly I don't care in the slightest what you do or don't do with your pinky).
I guess it must have been your original value judgments
Once again the same problem as mentioned earlier appears. That quote from me wasn't about sex.
That should in fact be entirely evident given the text that surrounded that quote. Namely the: "Although some clearly don’t have the problem that I do, I cannot establish how there is any remote value or worth in worshipping one entity for all eternity." before it and the: "While this is an attempt at a witty look at heaven, I find it quite pertinent to express my distaste at the notion of worshipping one entity" directly after it.
That is exactly the problem we need to rectify. Either you're not paying attention, or - from what it seems like to me - you have an 'apologetics guidebook' that has a list of phrases such as "normative descriptions", "bereft of qualification", "electrons", "pornography" and "it's not quite clear" and yet you're unsure when to use them and so just spurt them out whenever you see certain key words, (sex, boobs, vagina etc).
But let me ask you; if you can't work out the context of a statement completely surrounded by the point in a simple 1,000 word story then why would you be a good person to listen to with regards to interpreting scripture?
To point it out the story was concerned with two men that were trying to find something of interest to tell each other. It's like the man and wife that work at the exact same place doing the exact same thing. When they get home they've got nothing to say. Basically these two men have been doing the exact same thing for 30,000 years, (worshipping god), and thus had to go back to something from a mortal existence to be able to relate to each other something of interest and value. No lg, it wasn't about boobs or sex or pornography. The ultimate question then comes in the form of where is the value in such a thing where everyone is doing the exact same thing for all time? To this one can assert that you'll just be happy - but then the counter is that you're no longer 'you' and thus where is the worth?
No lg, this wasn't about sex, or pornography, or cleopatra, or vegetarianism or norwegian tomato farmers.
as already indicated, persons who have not approached puberty and asexual organisms are probably exempt ....
Certainly, along with celibate people and 40 year old virgins.
all you have to do is retract your statement "you are an unbeholder"
This will come tomorrow after you have answered the earlier question and I have pasted your former comment.
if you only want to discuss topics in the company of people who agree with you, this is not the place ....
A misunderstanding on your part i'm afraid. I didn't agree with rjr6 on page 1, but I didn't ask him to leave the thread. I am asking you to leave the thread because I don't feel there's anything of substance you can actually contribute - which is evidenced by your inability to stay on topic, your inability to recognise the point of a point, and your seeming inability to be honest. Now, please leave my thread. You can do so with any impression in your mind that you like - yes I only want atheists, or those that agree, or those with blonde hair.. I really couldn't give a shit.
