26 Jul 12
Originally posted by divegeesterSince you have no interest in God, I suggest you go to the Chess Forum to get pointers on improving your chess play. 😏
I agree - and I like your staph simile.
Most corporately organised religions will do well somewhere in the world. It is my observation that many people seek a 'religion' like they seek somewhere to buy their groceries - functionality, ease of use, security etc. win over because those people want to feel part of something, to belong. Some seek the 'e ...[text shortened]... ions gives members a feeling of unique specialness, security and in some cases superiority.
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by divegeesteryou have given your thoughts, really, what are your thoughts for as far as i can
Why is me who is failing to understand?
Your OP asks what is the meaning of Jesus saying "why do you call me good; no one is good except God?"
I gave you my thoughts on it and you just rudely dismissed them.
Please tell me this whole thread is not mearly one of your jaunts into Greek semantics; this time exploring the true meaning of the word "good"?
discern, all you have done is acknowledge the validity of Jaywills post and rant about
corporate religion asd if it has some relevance to the OP, which it doesn't.
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritIts neither a failure to comprehend nor a pattern, i merely dismissed your words on the
and so you have failed to comprehend. this is no surprise, it's a pattern with you.
let it be known that despite your failure to understand, the reference to biblegod as the highest standard of goodness is demonstrably false. biblegod is bat-guano crazy and this insanity is a function of an awakening civilizations stumbling attempts to make sense of ...[text shortened]... you are not yet ready for that enlightenment and my words are a voice in the wilderness.
basis of lack of evidence for all you could provide was, 'because I say it is'. Christ's
comment was made in response to a particular cultural salutation, it had meaning for
the recipient and it has meaning for us also as has been ably demonstrated by those
who choose to address the actual quotation rather than introduce irrelevancies which
have led to nothing but obfuscation, as is usual with those who seek to establish their
own criteria at the expense of trying to attain understanding.
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by JS357can you point to any single reference in the opening post which has even a remote
I don't know. It would be interesting to know. My gut feeling is that all of the positions taken here (including any I take) are too weakly presented to change anyone's mind. It is like an attack by a weak staph infection, it only serves to strengthen the defenses, which is counterproductive to the stated positions. That has made me question from time to time ...[text shortened]... ard dealing with serious skeptics. But they are doing rather well in some parts of the world.
reference to the organisation of Jehovahs witnesses? no, then why have there been
repeated attempts to introduce it from the very outset? It seems that if Raj , divejester
and so forth have nothing to rant about they will introduce it anyway, despite the fact
that it was a simple Biblical quotation and nothing more. Indeed can you point to a
single reference where I have introduced a teaching from Jehovahs witnesses, no,
neither can I.
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by FMFwhether Christ contradicted you at the time the comment was made still remains to be
Like I said, this urging to display goodness is at the core of Christianity. When I said something similar recently on another thread, you claimed that Jesus' teaching "contradicts" me. I don't think it does. Would you characterize my view as being amongst the "most outlandish of assertions"?
seen as you have as yet provided no substantiating evidence for your claims, that
'being good is at the core of all religions', and when repeatedly asked to do so, you
excused yourself with insipid platitudes, like, 'if you dont agree with me thats ok,
Robbie', 'i am not trying to change your point of view robbie', etc etc etc and you talk
of taking responsibility for your own posts!
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd yet you said that Jesus' teaching contradicted me, anyway. Now you say it "remains to be seen". Which is it to be? Earlier you said you did not disagree with me nor did agree with me, and then you said you disagreed with me. Which is it to be?
whether Christ contradicted you at the time the comment was made still remains to be seen ...
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by FMFIf you think i am trawling all through the threads to find your actual words, then my
This is the second time you have misquoted me. It must be deliberate then.
friend, you are sorely mistaken, this was the import of what you were saying, or words
to that effect, either in this thread or another and whether it was deliberate or not,
again, is irrelevant to the actual content of what you were saying.
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am not "excusing" myself, robbie. I simply made an observation - and an uncontroversial one, I'd say. You are acting as if this observation is rubbing you and your ideology up the wrong way and that you are bursting to make some sort of pronouncement on it. Could that be it? If you have some observation that is different from mine, why not just share it?
...you
excused yourself with insipid platitudes, like, 'if you dont agree with me thats ok,
Robbie', 'i am not trying to change your point of view robbie', etc etc etc and you talk
of taking responsibility for your own posts!
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by FMFthen perhaps you might like to explain this,
This is the second time you have misquoted me. It must be deliberate then.
As avalanchthecat and I pointed out on another thread recently this kind of "goodness" is at the core of pretty much all religions
misquoted you, my posterior!
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by FMFactually i could not care less for unsubstantiated opinions, to be honest.
I am not "excusing" myself, robbie. I simply made an observation - and an uncontroversial one, I'd say. You are acting as if this observation is rubbing you and your ideology up the wrong way and that you are bursting to make some sort of pronouncement on it. Could that be it? If you have some observation that is different from mine, why not just share it?
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by FMFYour problem is that you don't realize you can't pin down the slippery eel. 😏
And yet you said that Jesus' teaching contradicted me, anyway. Now you say it "remains to be seen". Which is it to be? Earlier you said you did not disagree with me nor did agree with me, and then you said you disagreed with me. Which is it to be?