Spirituality
14 May 12
16 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFWhy do you insist on calling people liars by not accepting what the say?
And good for them if they didn't care too much or were even amused. It's not the point beingdebated here, however. The question has been why did robbie feel his gestures of contempt were justified merely because he does not value what they value nor understand why they value it. I think it's an interesting and pertinent question on a spirituality forum.
This is what robbie said, "just for the record, i have demonstrated no contempt for people, but have sought to question the value of a form of worship, a slight underhand there from the buffet king..."
Maybe to them it is like having a "pet rock" and pretending it is something that it is not, as a kind of amusement. Or perhaps they have come to believe it has some kind of magical power or for a reason like the Hindu cow worship.
The last above paragraph was my speculation not robbie's.
16 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI am simply disagreeing with him and questioning him about his actions and words. I am not calling anyone a "liar".
Why do you insist on calling people liars by not accepting what the say?
This is what robbie said, "just for the record, i have demonstrated no contempt for people, but have sought to question the value of a form of worship, a slight underhand there from the buffet king..."
The question is about what he "demonstrated" with his little story on page 1, which other posters have questioned and commented on too, and not the subsequent "question[ing] of the value of a form of worship" which is a separate set of goalposts that robbie has introduced.
16 May 12
Originally posted by FMFI thought you were referring to people worshipping rocks, trees, and such. That seems to be what robbie thought too by how he answered your question.
I am simply disagreeing with him and questioning him about his actions and words. I am not calling anyone a "liar".
[b]This is what robbie said, "just for the record, i have demonstrated no contempt for people, but have sought to question the value of a form of worship, a slight underhand there from the buffet king..."
The question is about what he "de ...[text shortened]... e of a form of worship" which is a separate set of goalposts that robbie has introduced.[/b]
So you are referring to the fact that by placing his Watchtower track in the center of what he believed to be a Satanic symbol for worship he was showing contempt. Maybe, you should make that clear in your next post to him so there is no misunderstanding.
16 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsIt has been perfectly clear. As has robbie's attempt to change the focus to something else.
I thought you were referring to people worshipping rocks, trees, and such. That seems to be what robbie thought too by how he answered your question.
16 May 12
Originally posted by FMFIt was not clear because you made your post when he was talking a bout rocks, trees and such. Here it is again:
It has been perfectly clear. As has robbie's attempt to change the focus to something else.
15 May '12 08:21
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how is worshipping a tree of any value, a river, a stone, do tell. Is the river, tree or
stone going to instruct you? If there is value then please state what that value is, you
have not said. I may genuinely feel or give vent to a lot of things, that makes what I
do, think, worship valuable how, you have not said. More mere opinion.
It's not clear why you feel the need to demonstrate contempt for people who value something you do not value?
16 May 12
Originally posted by FMFI understand once you explained it. But it would have saved a lot of back and forth, if you had referred to the story on page 1 from the beginning.
If you think the expression of my opinion about robbie's story on page 1 refers to something else, then I can live with that.
16 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat back and forth?
I understand once you explained it. But it would have saved a lot of back and forth, if you had referred to the story on page 1 from the beginning.
I personally don't see anything wrong with showing contempt for an evil practice that is against the command of God.
Of course you don't.
16 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsHave you ever done anything to, or interfered with, a Buddhist temple, a Hindu shrine or to an Islamic mosque in any way in order to demonstrate your contempt ?
I personally don't see anything wrong with showing contempt for an evil practice that is against the command of God.
16 May 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeSympathy for the devil? 😛
Indignation?
I am not even surprised.
I was just pointing out your hypocrisy and lack of feeling.
You come across a building partially burned down and instead of sympathising with those who lived
there/worshipped there, you insult their religion (anonymously as well) and desecrate their holy symbols.
When if the same was done to you, you wo ...[text shortened]... our hypocrisy and lack of compassion, empathy or feeling are note worthy, and thus I noted them.
16 May 12
9 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsthankyou for attempting to defend me against FMF's vile accusations, but there is no
Why do you insist on calling people liars by not accepting what the say?
This is what robbie said, "just for the record, i have demonstrated no contempt for people, but have sought to question the value of a form of worship, a slight underhand there from the buffet king..."
Maybe to them it is like having a "pet rock" and pretending it is something tha ...[text shortened]... on like the Hindu cow worship.
The last above paragraph was my speculation not robbie's.
need, he has failed to provide any empirical evidence for any of his claims and
resorts to the time honoured tradition of the abusive fallacy. It was asserted that by
placing a Bible tract in the centre of a pentangle that I desecrated the place,
evidence nil. If I had kicked the stones away which formed the pinnacle of the five
points of the star, rubbed away the stones which formed the outer circle, they may
have a point, but i never and left the entire edifice in tact, but failing to ascertain
these details they enter into the folly of rendering their opinions without having
ascertained any kind of empirical evidence, time and again you will hear statements
like, I dont need any empirical evidence (FMF), now why, is of great interest.
This case is rather telling, FMF has insinuated that I demonstrated contempt for
other people and their values, evidence nil. By placing a Bible tract in the centre of
a pentangle says nothing about how I feel for those persons as individuals, it was
my way of demonstrating that Bible truth is more powerful than occult practice, yet
look at the clamour of abusive terms, lack of compassion/lack of empathy, contempt
for other people and their values. What if those witches had been offering
sacrifices?, sometimes animals, as has been known in a little village near to where i
live, called Twechar? would they clamour about values then? When I asked for
evidence of the validity of satanic worship they provided nothing and to this day
have still provided nothing, which is in itself is an irony, for if there is no validity and
they have provided nothing, how can one demonstrate contempt for something
which has no demonstrable value? To reiterate the point, simply placing a Bible
tract in the centre of a pentangle says nothing about the way i feel for those persons
as individuals, nor of their values, which are unknown, to anyone.
what is noticeable from this little episode may be summed up by the following,
1.FMF has never produced empirical evidence for any of his assertions and deals in
the currency of opinion, usually his own, which he seems to think has more validity
than empirical evidence. 'i dont need empirical evidence. . .' - FMF
2. The hypocrisy of atheists who time and again blaspheme and demonstrate
contempt for religious values and teaching should suddenly have their religious
sensibilities incensed by the placing of a small Bible tract in the middle of an occult
pentangle! (google fudge, twithead)
3. The folly of assuming one knows details of a situation, when one was neither
present nor observed anything in connection with the incident and drawing
conclusions on the basis of not having been present nor of observing any of the
incident, filling in the missing details with opinions and insinuations. (the opinionated
believers of their own propaganda, FMF, googlefudge and twithead)