10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieA lot of people talk nonsense on this forum. But I try to work with it. Its when people get personal and obfuscating for the sake of saving their own hides that I have to stand up and say "No".
fear not they virtually know nothing about spirituality, have no recourse to reason, cannot debate, produce ludicrous assertions, all they have is personal attacks and vague references to intellectual dishonesty (like he knows what's inside my person and motivates me, that's the level we are dealing with)
Take Fabian for example, he states that ...[text shortened]... ecretly respects that, whereas if you let him, he shall walk all over you and not even flinch.
For example a lot of you seem to think that just because something comes from scriptures it is authentic and true and scientific, etc. All other literature and holy books are not in the same league as the bible. How short sighted.
True spirituality starts within the heart of a person and slowly changes that persons life. Scriptures are not needed. Jesus is not needed. I mean , sure they can be used but they are not needed. Nothing is, other than your heart possesed by the "holy spirit".
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieForced slavery was abolished largely due to the efforts of religious persons.
Yes you are correct, i was reminded in my own thoughts of the partition of India in 1947 when some one million persons were killed due to religious intolerance, yet even it palls into insignificance when one considers the appalling famine in the same country in the 1870s due to commercial and political considerations of the British Raj, in which some ...[text shortened]... hus fit to die!
Forced slavery was abolished largely due to the efforts of religious persons.
This is very true Rob, but many religious people used the Bibles lenient attitude towards slavery as justification to start the Atlantic slave trade in the first place.
11 Feb 10
1 edit
If you have any evidence to the contrary, or any reason whatsoever for stating s in the pages of Gods word. This is because you are a cherry picker, through and through.My dear Sir, you are confusing what can be substantiated scripturally with what cannot and then deciding that i have chosen what can and cannot. It is nothing short of a scurrilous misrepresentation and a distortion of reality, for either it can be substantiated or it cannot. I did not write the scriptures therefore i did not 'cherry pick', what can or cannot be either substantiated nor what is figurative and what is not. The matter is perfectly clear in my own mind and my conscience shows no pangs of distress in this regard.
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobYes its rather shamefully how atrocities against humanity may be justified, one thinks of the Spanish conquistadors who managed to wipe out an entire culture, the British in Tasmania who also managed to wipe out an entire culture. i dunno its hard to fathom the horror.
[b]Forced slavery was abolished largely due to the efforts of religious persons.
This is very true Rob, but many religious people used the Bibles lenient attitude towards slavery as justification to start the Atlantic slave trade in the first place.[/b]
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelhave followed for quite some time (a year or so)... shall I really do a digest of Fab's personal and unsubstantiated attacks on JW across all the threads (not to mention copying some silly Google links about child molesting... shall we perhaps ask Fab renounce his own country and his nation every time some dubious individuals are caught doing something illegal/obscene/immoral?) being explicitly derogatory and patronising, though calling it a debate. Really, what's the big deal - is Robbie in charge of some UN or EU commission, been caught allocating tax payers money to the companies run by JWs? Looking at these 'debates', it reminds of the vile you can sometimes observe during the Love Parades when the minorities get attacked, verbally and physically. I still don't get what Fab's beef is? Why not 'live and let live' ? Fab believes Earth is zillion years old, Robbie, in turn, that it's around 10'000? Fab believes that all his internal organs, starting with a DNA, were "designed" by Evolution, Robbie believes it's a Creator.. problem's solved. It still puzzles me as to why people frequent this forum with a sole purpose of having a go at someone. I chose not to frequent pop music forums and choose not to start dissing people for their poor taste
I dont know how long you have followed these two , but if you just came in at the end it could seem loke Fabians a bully, but like I said, probably with good reason...
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by RenarsLike I said, if someone comes up to you, (or comes to your home), and tells you how it is, you should have a right of reply. Maybe you should also expect a coherent debate.
have followed for quite some time (a year or so)... shall I really do a digest of Fab's personal and unsubstantiated attacks on JW across all the threads (not to mention copying some silly Google links about child molesting... shall we perhaps ask Fab renounce his own country and his nation every time some dubious individuals are caught doing something illega ...[text shortened]... quent pop music forums and choose not to start dissing people for their poor taste
If you just badger someone who is keeping to themselves then fine, you are going over the top. But when someone gives it then they should also be ready to take it.
And no, I dont really agree with the majority of Fabian or Robbie, but taking sides is just silly. And I still think Fabian is well within his rights to pull up Robbie in his sweeping assertions.
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehe told the pharisees not to divorce and instead of saying " because i say so" he gave them a reason they all understood and accepted.,
where do Christ and Peter ever quote Genesis?
(Matthew 19:3-6) And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?” In reply he said: “Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leav ...[text shortened]... dly people;
Peter alludes to the flood account and particularly Genesis 8:18
need i go on?
"so the presence of the Son of man will be. "
again he makes a comparison between this and a known other concept. like me saying i scored a touchdown and felt just like harry potter when he won his first "flying on brooms" game. it doesn't mean harry potter is necessarily real. it just gives anyone having read harry potter an idea of how i felt.
peter alludes to the morons he is preaching to to be nice and not fuk up else they will be punished. again, the purpose is a sermon, to get a message across, not to give science lessons.
Jesus was preaching love and understanding. he wasn't gonna change all the science established before him when that wasn't important to the task at hand.
he had 3 years of walking around and telling people to be nice, do you think teaching geology to humans was anywhere on his priority list?
that takes care of the fact that jesus mentioned the flood in his words. what non-biblical reference do you have of supporting the flood? or the fact that 1 man and 1 woman can give birth to 6 billions?
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehe called you incoherent. but you see the silver lining of not being a bully.
Thank you my friend, really, my God shall repay this kindness to you a thousand fold!
(Matthew 25:40) Truly I say to you, To the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
🙂
sure you are not a bully. unless you count being a bully as trying to impose your view on the world, refusing arguments, lying about us not presenting arguments, jumping to conclusions based on arguments you never gave, considering yourself the only one who sees reason, refusing to admit you might be wrong, considering you alone(and all that agree with you) can understand the bible, refusing to see the big picture of christianity, clinging to minor details that are unimportant to christians, accusing all that don't agree with you of having a hidden agenda, of makin propaganda and so on.
if you don't count these as being a bully, then indeed you are not.
11 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanziwhat you have presented is more a reflection, not of me, but of you. take for example the above post, you asked, where did Jesus and Peter mention Genesis, i simply provide the links, said nothing more and you launch into some ego fuelled incoherent caustic diatribe about the flood and Adam and eve fathering six million people and this moron and that moron? what is it with you? why could you not simply acknowledge that Christ and Peter mentioned the Genesis account in some capacity without the childish tantrums. You have made a complete fool of yourself Zahlanzi and i do not gloat at your misfortune, you really do know nothing about scripture and even less of common courtesy and manners, nor do i expect my words to make any progress with you,
he called you incoherent. but you see the silver lining of not being a bully.
sure you are not a bully. unless you count being a bully as trying to impose your view on the world, refusing arguments, lying about us not presenting arguments, jumping to conclusions based on arguments you never gave, considering yourself the only one who sees reason, refusin n propaganda and so on.
if you don't count these as being a bully, then indeed you are not.
(Proverbs 27:22) . . .Even if you should pound the foolish one fine with a pestle in a mortar, in among cracked grain, his foolishness will not depart from him. . .
11 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelhes is not talking of pulling me up for sweeping assertions, his is referring to persistent bullying and slander, using emotive subject as some type of emotional blackmail, propaganda and defamation of character. i do not expect you to see or even acknowledge this, for it would take someone with a sense of objectivity and a lack of prejudice to do so. Leave your prejudices at the door Karoly Poly and then, just then, you may have some type of claim on objectivity.
Like I said, if someone comes up to you, (or comes to your home), and tells you how it is, you should have a right of reply. Maybe you should also expect a coherent debate.
If you just badger someone who is keeping to themselves then fine, you are going over the top. But when someone gives it then they should also be ready to take it.
And no, I do ...[text shortened]... nd I still think Fabian is well within his rights to pull up Robbie in his sweeping assertions.
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyou are a sad little man.
what you have presented is more a reflection, not of me, but of you. take for example the above post, you asked, where did Jesus and Peter mention Genesis, i simply provide the links, said nothing more and you launch into some ego fuelled incoherent caustic diatribe about the flood and Adam and eve fathering six million people and this moron and tha ...[text shortened]... with a pestle in a mortar, in among cracked grain, his foolishness will not depart from him. . .
or little boy.
i asked for links so i understand exactly where does jesus preach creationism. and you gave them so i don't have to search the whole bible for something you claimed.
after you did offer the links, i presented my counter arguments. i presented explanations that support both christianity and the scientifically accepted view of evolution, old earth model, etc. in few words, sound science. not ignorant claims warped to support a 5 thousand year old text that isn't that important in itself and for christianity anyway.
and you claim it is a ego fueled incoherent caustic diatribe.
why ego fueled? do i gain anything from you acknowledgin true science while still being a christian?
why incoherent? don't you have to point out where am i being incoherent before calling me names?
why caustic? for calling murderous barbaric ignorant shepherds moronic?
why diatribe?
i don't care of your beliefs you are entitled to them. i had a debate with galveston. like you he will not change. but he is preaching religion. he supports a system of beliefs. you claim to do science as well. science supporting the bible. science that claims to be as respectable of any other but discovered using religious methods of trust and never verify. that is why i don't like you. because you hold yourself to be smarter than anyone. and the only one possesing the truth. and the only way we lesser mortals could ever reach the truth is becoming like you
and very well done. now you take the deffensive and play all hurt and civilized. you even let go of the pathetic attempt at mockery of calling me zapanzy(don't know where that came from in the first place and i don't really care). someone fresh in the spirituality forum might mistake you for a nice but misunderstood and often picked on guy.
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by Zahlanziactually Zippy i am not sad, in fact i am feeling quite chirpy today you shall be relieved to know. So i shall be nice to you despite your deprecations for God knows you could do with some kindness in your life.
you are a sad little man.
or little boy.
i asked for links so i understand exactly where does jesus preach creationism. and you gave them so i don't have to search the whole bible for something you claimed.
after you did offer the links, i presented my counter arguments. i presented explanations that support both christianity and the scientifically ...[text shortened]... pirituality forum might mistake you for a nice but misunderstood and often picked on guy.
Yes you presented links and your point of view but said nothing of why Christ did not preach creationism. if i missed that part then perhaps you would do us the honour of reiterating it. You see, you're views are one thing, Christ's quite another. Therefore, if you please . . . .
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOriginally posted by robbie carrobie
My dear Sir, you are confusing what can be substantiated scripturally with what cannot and then deciding that i have chosen what can and cannot. It is nothing short of a scurrilous misrepresentation and a distortion of reality, for either it can be substantiated or it cannot. I did not write the scriptures therefore i did not 'cherry pick', what ca ...[text shortened]... is perfectly clear in my own mind and my conscience shows no pangs of distress in this regard.
My dear Sir, you are confusing what can be substantiated scripturally with what cannot and then deciding that i have chosen what can and cannot.
No, on the contrary, neither the water cycle nor evolution can be substantiated scripturally, yet you accept the former but not the latter. Since you cannot provide a coherent account for this discrepancy we can clearly see that this constitutes cherry picking.
It is nothing short of a scurrilous misrepresentation and a distortion of reality, for either it can be substantiated or it cannot.
See above.
I did not write the scriptures therefore i did not 'cherry pick', what can or cannot be either substantiated nor what is figurative and what is not.
You have clearly decided that the account of rain is figurative but the creation story elements that you think contradict evolution are not, and you either can't or won't account for this discrepancy.
The matter is perfectly clear in my own mind and my conscience shows no pangs of distress in this regard.
If it is clear in your mind then you ought to be able to give a clear account, yet you have not. So perhaps this feeling of inner clarity is illusory and you should re-examine your conscience.
11 Feb 10
5 edits
Originally posted by Lord Sharkoh but this is where you are wrong my dear illustrious Lord of all the great white and multi coloured sharks, for you see the matter is quite plain and vewy vewy simple, the Bible mentions the water cycle whereas there is not one iota of the mention of evolution. I shall refresh your memory now for a second time shall I? Here are the verses.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]My dear Sir, you are confusing what can be substantiated scripturally with what cannot and then deciding that i have chosen what can and cannot.
No, on the contrary, neither the water cycle nor evolution can be substantiated scripturally, yet you accept the former but not the latter. Since you cannot p perhaps this feeling of inner clarity is illusory and you should re-examine your conscience.[/b]
(Ecclesiastes 1:7) All the winter torrents are going forth to the sea, yet the sea itself is not full. To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth. . .
one can see quite clearly the reference to the cycle, that is why the ancient King states that the torrents return so at to go forth. Perhaps an alternative rendering shall cure you of your, well anyway
“All streams run into the sea, yet the sea never overflows; back to the place from which the streams ran they return to run again.”—Ecclesiastes 1:7, The New English Bible.
description of a literal process or a figurative one? Biblically substantiated or not?
Yes yes, i know i know, your world wont let you go, but take my hand and come on across to me, we shall watch the sun rise, from the bottom of the sea, but first, are you experienced? have you ever been experienced?