- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by SuzianneA hypocrisy typical of American "Christians".
Christ commanded that we show love for our Christian brothers.
Christ commanded that we show love for our fellow humans, and that regardless of their religion.
Has the story of the Samaritan taught you nothing? Did you completely miss the point of the Samaritan being a Samaritan, not a Jew or Christian?
Originally posted by FMFClearly, you're not getting what I told dive, either.
If you think this, why didn't you say so on the thread about there being "a line in the sand" and people being on one side of the other?
Some "issues" you two have with GB are just so damned inconsequential. But you both ride him like a goat for simply disagreeing with you.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyOh, you'll be back. I predict before the end of February, but even if only before the end of next year, you will not be able to resist your favourite place to pontificate.
To my friends, for personal reasons I've decided not to renew my subscription which expires on January 6, 2016. To my almost friends, this will be my final thread on this forum for the foreseeable future.
- Joined
- 23 Nov 09
- Moves
- 140298
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyFunny thing. I recently cancelled my subscription (ask Russ) because he is not dealing with the likes of you on this forum. Stay away and I will renew my sub, and Russ will make some money again. Deal?
[b]Memo
To my friends, for personal reasons I've decided not to renew my subscription which expires on January 6, 2016. To my almost friends, this will be my final thread on this forum for the foreseeable future. To Russ and his Admin Staff, thank you for an enjoyable experience since July, 2007. Kind Regards, GB[/b]
Originally posted by SuzianneYou introduced the word "slamming" not me.
And this is another point we do not see eye-to-eye on.
You seem to have a highly self-centered opinion of yourself, so therefore you are intolerant of being disagreed with. Maybe you see it as an attack on you, I don't know. This must be why you still denigrate GB's comments as "horrible". Because he disagreed with you.
I said nothing about you sla ...[text shortened]... ove your neighbor". Maybe we should start with "Tolerate your neighbor", and work up to "Love".
I'm calling you out for your double-standards here. You spend probably 80% of your posts attacking other people for allegedly attacking other people who you happen to like.
You ignore and "pass over" vitriolic comments from Grampy Bobby about people who commit suicide because "it's part of his religious beliefs" and yet here you are having a go at me for what? Calling you out over it.
Yes we disagree, I think Grampy Bobby was totally out of order in that thread and neither you, nor any of his other shallow, blinkered cronies called him out over it.
So yes you are someone of double standards displayed by your partisan approach in your posting, you have displayed a frayed moral fibre and you are lacking in appropriate compassion.
I stand by these comments wholeheartedly.
Originally posted by Shallow BlueYou criticize me for nothing. Are you so quick to accuse me of hypocrisy? Simply because I'm American?
A hypocrisy typical of American "Christians".
Christ commanded that we show love for our fellow humans, and that regardless of their religion.
Has the story of the Samaritan taught you nothing? Did you completely miss the point of the Samaritan being a Samaritan, not a Jew or Christian?
Did I say that I ignored the passage you cite? Did you not read my post? I was talking about fighting with fellow Christians, and so I brought up His commandment that we show love for our Christian brothers. This is separate from His commandment to "Love thy neighbor as thyself". I'm talking about John 13:34-35, while you're talking about Luke 10:25-37.
And if you think I do not understand the example of the good Samaritan, you haven't read my profile. MLK understood the story far better yet.
Originally posted by divegeesterAgain, your comments are "more important" than what I said. So sure, ignore what I said. After all, it can't be as important as what you said, can it?
You introduced the word "slamming" not me.
I'm calling you out for your double-standards here. You spend probably 80% of your posts attacking other people for allegedly attacking other people who you happen to like.
You ignore and "pass over" vitriolic comments from Grampy Bobby about people who commit suicide because "it's part of his religious ...[text shortened]... ibre and you are lacking in appropriate compassion.
I stand by these comments wholeheartedly.
"So yes you are someone of double standards displayed by your partisan approach in your posting, you have displayed a frayed moral fibre and you are lacking in appropriate compassion."
Again, you deem me to have "double standards" because I disagree with you. And to you, that is the worst sin imaginable. Pardon me if I don't see it that way.
Originally posted by Suzianne to divegeesterI don't think divegeester is saying you have double standards because you disagree with him. I think the double standard is rooted in you reserving the right to criticize others but not recognizing the right for others to criticize you - or Grampy Bobby for that matter. You just become abusive and refuse to debate the topic.
Again, you deem me to have "double standards" because I disagree with you. And to you, that is the worst sin imaginable. Pardon me if I don't see it that way.
Oughtn't you to be defending divegeester's right to stand up to Grampy Bobby's nastiness about suicide, especially when your 'principles' are hamstrung by your inability to criticize the nastiness yourself - purportedly because he is a Christian.
divegeester is a Christian too; why are you able to criticize him and not Grampy Bobby? Almost every one of your posts in the last few hours has been imbued with these kinds of double standards.
Originally posted by SuzianneNo, you don't have double standard because you disagree with me, you have double standards as revealed by your partisan posting.
Again, your comments are "more important" than what I said. So sure, ignore what I said. After all, it can't be as important as what you said, can it?
[b]"So yes you are someone of double standards displayed by your partisan approach in your posting, you have displayed a frayed moral fibre and you are lacking in appropriate compassion."
Again, y ...[text shortened]... with you. And to you, that is the worst sin imaginable. Pardon me if I don't see it that way.[/b]
Originally posted by Suzianne"Again, your comments are "more important" than what I said"
Again, your comments are "more important" than what I said. So sure, ignore what I said. After all, it can't be as important as what you said, can it?
[b]"So yes you are someone of double standards displayed by your partisan approach in your posting, you have displayed a frayed moral fibre and you are lacking in appropriate compassion."
Again, y ...[text shortened]... with you. And to you, that is the worst sin imaginable. Pardon me if I don't see it that way.[/b]
I'm not attaching importance to your posts, I'm simply reading what you write. You said that you passed over Grampy Bobby horrible comments about people who commit suicide because you considered them to be part of his religious beliefs.
You said that, not me.
I said that what YOU said was a very revealling aspect of your character and explains a lot about the nature of your partisan posting. It also reveals your frayed moral fibre and lack of appropriate compassion.
Would you like me to explain this again to you?
Originally posted by SuzianneAren't divegeester's compassion and understanding for people suffering from depression and struggling with suicidal tendencies rooted in his Christian principles and his Christian life? Why are you criticizing divegeester and his Christian beliefs (and him standing up for them) whilst ruling out the possibility of you criticizing Grampy Bobby for his Christian beliefs? It's a text book case of a partisan double standard.
[Grampy Bobby's] remarks were tied in with his religious beliefs. As such, I let it pass.
- Joined
- 09 Feb 10
- Moves
- 48656
Because a person does not speak up loudly and incessantly about something, does not automatically mean they are not appalled. I, for one, was initially incensed over GB's suicide comments. It is a topic that personally has and continues to affect me on a regular basis.
My reply to his stance was a knee-jerk, angry one, which I erased and did not post. I waited until I thought I could respond in a less emotional way. He was already being chewed and spit out by a ton of posters, so I said my two cents and that was it. It is a heavy subject, not one that I wish to personally dwell on.
That being said, he apologized.I accept people's apologies as I hope that people will accept mine. No one seemed to like or approve of his apology. Of course not. There could never be an apology issued by him that would have sufficed. Perhaps some will argue there is no apology that can ever unring that bell...
Many feel that GB posts things that are questionable, offensive, etc. at times....and so one can choose to not read them.
No one seems to take Seitse to task for his seemingly daily rants that are, by most posters' measures, often insulting and offensive. He gets excused with the "oh, that is just how he is" pass.
I think many posters are intimidated by Seitse and refrain from confronting him as they so freely do with GB.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 186449
19 Dec 15
Originally posted by Landisqueen170As you've said the option to respond in any thread, in any forum, is a personal one. I used to make the odd appearance in the debates and spirituality forums but soon found them to be tiresome, as I know some find the GF (personal taste eh?). Thank goodness we live in countries, for the most part anyway, that have freedom of speech. There are millions/billions of people who don't.
Because a person does not speak up loudly and incessantly about something, does not automatically mean they are not appalled. I, for one, was initially incensed over GB's suicide comments. It is a topic that personally has and continues to affect me on a regular basis.
My reply to his stance was a knee-jerk, angry one, which I erased and did not pos ...[text shortened]... posters are intimidated by Seitse and refrain from confronting him as they so freely do with GB.
Originally posted by Landisqueen170On the matter of Seitse's behaviour, didn't you yourself say something along the lines of every forum needs a poster like him?
No one seems to take Seitse to task for his seemingly daily rants that are, by most posters' measures, often insulting and offensive. He gets excused with the "oh, that is just how he is" pass.