transfusions

Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
No issue for you, uh-huh, it certainly looks that way Robbie... the way in which you have relentlessly defended your overly flawed stance on this topic is certainly not an inclination of an issue with you at ALL.

Self-determination, yes, basically you are saying you have your own right to have your beliefs, that's fine.
But just so you know, we A ...[text shortened]... ny further, as I grow tired of being subjected to your bloodless claims and downright ignorance.

sorry i rarely read anything over a paragraph, these jaywill style walls of text are both unnecessary and tedious, can you not condense your thoughts into a more concise form? and i need to go to work, happy howling awooooooooooooo!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
On the contrary eff-him, a spiritual buffet king is someone who picks and chooses those elements which appeal on no other basis than personal preference, this is something entirely different from making a study of religious doctrine and trying to ascertain its veracity according to its texts. I have admitted nothing of the sort other than making an informed decision and for this I make no concessions.

Well you told us what you picked and what you didn't pick. You were specific about it. And your "basis" was your "personal preference", clearly ~ regardless of whether you couch it as an "informed decision" or not. On page 9 you said: "the one that appealed to me was Jehovahs Witnesses".

Everything you claim about "study" and the "veracity [of your chosen religious doctrine] according to its texts" does not alter the fact that your "spiritual buffet" catchphrase clearly applies to you for the same reasons you think it only applies to people whose beliefs are different from yours.

Originally posted by FMF
If what you mean by this is that I often confront religionists with evidence of their contradictions and inconsistencies ~ as well as issues of coherence ~ then I agree, although you seem to be trying to make a rather emotional 'point' rather than actually addressing what I have put to you by way of my two observations.

Sorry i did not realize that showing feelings of an almost human nature was to be condemned!

Originally posted by FMF
Well you told us what you picked and what you didn't pick. You were specific about it. And your "basis" was your "personal preference", clearly ~ regardless of whether you couch it as an "informed decision" or not. On page 9 you said: "the one that appealed to me was Jehovahs Witnesses".

Everything you claim about "study" and the "veracity [of your chosen r ...[text shortened]... for the same reasons you think it only applies to people whose beliefs are different from yours.

how is trying to ascertain the veracity of a religious doctrine according to its texts the same as personal preference, please explain eff-him for your position appears to be neither logical nor rational.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Sorry i did not realize that showing feelings of an almost human nature was to be condemned!

In what way are you being condemned? Your inconsistent use of the terms "spiritual buffet" and "self-sanctified" is being pointed out to you, that is all.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how is trying to ascertain the veracity of a religious doctrine according to its texts the same as personal preference, please explain eff-him for your position appears to be neither logical nor rational.

Either being a Jehovah's Witness is your "personal preference" or it isn't. You have said it appealed to you the most out of the religions you "searched".

Originally posted by FMF
In what way are you being condemned? Your inconsistent use of the terms "spiritual buffet" and "self-sanctified" is being pointed out to you, that is all.

Because study and the gleaning of information so as to make an informed decision is not the same as arbitrarily dismissing religious doctrine on the basis of personal preference and its rather ludicrous for you to attempt to construe that it is.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie to 64squaresofpain
sorry i rarely read anything over a paragraph, these jaywill style walls of text are both unnecessary and tedious, can you not condense your thoughts into a more concise form?

This bit is concise. Your take on these telling observations by 64squaresofpain's would be interesting:

"Egotism is a word that best describes your very own motives, not just on this particular thread, but across the entire forum. Everyone is granted an opinion, yes, but when you can't even commit to an intellectual debate but instead insult your opposition by throwing 'buzz' words at them (cheap, transparent, ludicrous, diatribe etc.) then you basically allow yourself to look like a deflated politician fighting an already lost battle."

Originally posted by FMF
Either being a Jehovah's Witness is your "personal preference" or it isn't. You have said it appealed to you the most out of the religions you "searched".

that does not explain anything, it merely details the outcome of making an informed decision, so we shall ask you once again, how is studying and gleaning information with the intent of making an informed decision the same as simply engaging a personal preference which may have no other basis than what is socially acceptable or an emotional basis. are we really to believe that they are one and the same thing eff-him as you are attempting to say?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Because study and the gleaning of information so as to make an informed decision is not the same as arbitrarily dismissing religious doctrine on the basis of personal preference and its rather ludicrous for you to attempt to construe that it is.

But who is it you are saying is "arbitrarily dismissing religious doctrine"? Do you mean... everyone-except-you-and-people-who-agree-with-you? Wouldn't devotees of the religions your "personal preference" did not incline to select be just as justified in saying that you had arbitrarily dismissed their religious doctrines because your "personal preference" had not inclined you to start sharing their beliefs?

Originally posted by FMF
This bit is concise. Your take on these telling observations by 64squaresofpain's would be interesting:

[b]"Egotism is a word that best describes your very own motives, not just on this particular thread, but across the entire forum. Everyone is granted an opinion, yes, but when you can't even commit to an intellectual debate but instead insult your oppositi ...[text shortened]... asically allow yourself to look like a deflated politician fighting an already lost battle."[/b]

Indeed, our friend had and i quote stated that i 'had nothing interesting to say', a put down emphasizing his alleged superiority and that he had not yet 'pulled out his big guns' and so forth all of which appear to me to be rather egotistically based. Pity that, for you, perhaps if he stuck to the script instead he would not have left himself open to the charge.

Originally posted by FMF
But who is it you are saying is "arbitrarily dismissing religious doctrine"? Do you mean... everyone-except-you-and-people-who-agree-with-you? Wouldn't devotees of the religions your "personal preference" did not incline to select be just as justified in saying that you had arbitrarily dismissed their religious doctrines because your "personal preference" had not inclined you to start sharing their beliefs?

I have not said anything about how other people come to make informed decisions so why don't you just answer the question effhim? you like to ask them, lets see you answer them for a change. here it is again,

how is studying and gleaning information with the intent of making an informed decision the same as simply engaging a personal preference which may have no other basis than what is socially acceptable or an emotional basis

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
that does not explain anything, it merely details the outcome of making an informed decision, so we shall ask you once again, how is studying and gleaning information with the intent of making an informed decision the same as simply engaging a personal preference which may have no other basis than what is socially acceptable or an emotional basis. a ...[text shortened]... we really to believe that they are one and the same thing eff-him as you are attempting to say?

Who is "simply engaging a personal preference which may have no other basis than what is socially acceptable or an emotional basis"? Surely we only have only your typed words here to assure us that you were not "simply engaging a personal preference which may have no other basis than what is socially acceptable or an emotional basis"? Once you brandish subjective terms like "spiritual buffet" and "self-sanctified opinion", try to pass them off as 'analysis', use them to condescend others, and refuse to see how they just as easily apply to you ~ on your own terms ~ then you are surely losing your way in debate about spiritual matters with people whose beliefs differ from yours?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have not said anything about how other people come to make informed decisions so why don't you just answer the question effhim? you like to ask them, lets see you answer them for a change.

So why do you continuously characterize others beliefs as coming from some sort of choice that you refer to as a "spiritual buffet" when on page 9 you described just such a choice that you made in your own life?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how is studying and gleaning information with the intent of making an informed decision the same as simply engaging a personal preference which may have no other basis than what is socially acceptable or an emotional basis

What does this have to do with the term "spiritual buffet" that you use? Who is it you believe out of the regular posters here at RHP Spirituality Forum has been "simply engaging a personal preference which may have no other basis than what is socially acceptable or an emotional basis"?