26 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Words to that effect"? You have misquoted me, robbie. You have got it wrong. Deliberately so it seems. How can changing the actual content of what I said possibly be "irrelevant to the actual content of what [I was] saying"?
If you think i am trawling all through the threads to find your actual words, then my
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.
If you have an observation to make that is at odds with what I actually said, why not just make it?
26 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI very deliberately did not claim that the ideal of being good is at the core of all religions. I think you are well aware of this, and yet you have changed the meaning of what I said by misquoting me - once, ok - but then a second time too, having had it pointed out to you. My observation seems to have upset you in some way. I don't really know why. I can scarcely remember anyone getting as het up about someone else having a different perspective, as you have been on this thread. Is there some big pronouncement you want to make?
then perhaps you might like to explain this,
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
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFFMF- I very deliberately did not claim that the ideal of being good is at the core of all
I very deliberately did not claim that the ideal of being good is at the core of all religions. I think you are well aware of this, and yet you have changed the meaning of what I said by misquoting me - once, ok - but then a second time too, having had it pointed out to you. My observation seems to have upset you in some way. I don't really know why. Is there some big pronouncement you want to make?
religions
FMF - As avalanchthecat and I pointed out on another thread recently this kind of
"goodness" is at the core of pretty much all religions
your words, you explain them, in fact, i seem to have hit the jackpot and quoted your
words accurately and verbatim. Shameful really for such a worthy opponent!
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI very deliberately chose my words so that I did not claim that the ideal of being good is at the core of all religions. Instead I claimed that it is at the core of pretty much all religions.
FMF- I very deliberately did not claim that the ideal of being good is at the core of all
religions
FMF - As avalanchthecat and I pointed out on another thread recently this kind of
"goodness" is at the core of pretty much all religions
your words, you explain them, in fact, i seem to have hit the jackpot and quoted your
words accurately and verbatim. Shameful really for such a worthy opponent!
26 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI see, not content with being found out, caught, red handed with a swag bag of
I very deliberately chose my words so that I did not claim that the ideal of being good is at the core of all religions. Instead I claimed that it is at the core of pretty much all religions.
accurately quoted texts which expose your now smouldering position, you must make a
parody of the whole debacle! Ok, very amusing! 😀
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe difference is crucial. Saying "the ideal of being good is at the core of all religions" is claiming it is at the core of all religions, while saying "the ideal of being good is at the core of pretty much all religions" is NOT claiming that it is at the core of all religions. If you cannot discern the difference, then that may explain your misunderstanding. If you CAN discern the difference, then that may explain you deliberately misquoting me.
I see, not content with being found out, caught, red handed with a swag bag of
accurately quoted texts which expose your now smouldering position, you must make a
parody of the whole debacle! Ok, very amusing! 😀
26 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFyes it is, its the same thing, you are talking jive.
The difference is crucial. Saying "the ideal of being good is at the core of all religions" is claiming it is at the core of all religions, while saying "the ideal of being good is at the core of pretty much all religions" is NOT claiming that it is at the core of all religions. If you cannot discern the difference, then that may explain your misunderstanding. If you CAN discern the difference, then that may explain you deliberately misquoting me.
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou claiming that they are not different is something I expect you to quietly drop over the next few posts. It's got no mileage, robbie. I can scarcely remember anyone getting as het up about someone else having a different perspective, as you have been on this thread. If you have an observation about what pretty much all religions have in common at their core, why not just make it? I say it is the ideal of being good. What do you think it is?
yes it is, its the same thing, you are talking jive.
26 Jul 12
Does anybody else get the feeling that robbie has some big pronouncement he wants to make - something about this OP, perhaps the trinity issue, or perhaps a self-serving personal definition of "good" - but that he just feels the need to land some 'you don't understand' or 'you are irrelevant' punches on everyone's jaw first before he does so?
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI gave my thoughts on the OP in my first post in the thread. you completely disregarded them, demanded "evidence" and stomped off, so to speak. So I feel completely justified in engaging with other posters on side themes within the thread.
you have given your thoughts, really, what are your thoughts for as far as i can
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 FMFYes, from the moment I read the OP. I think the whole thing has since been overplayed by him, so he is probably re-considering his strategy and pretending it's all about something you said in another thread.
Does anybody else get the feeling that robbie has some big pronouncement he wants to make - something about this OP, perhaps the trinity issue, or perhaps a self-serving personal definition of "good" - but that he just feels the need to land some 'you don't understand' or 'you are irrelevant' punches on everyone's jaw first before he does so?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
26 Jul 12
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMaybe you would leave me out of this, if you understood something, that I will now overexplain.
can you point to any single reference in the opening post which has even a remote
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
th ...[text shortened]... ingle reference where I have introduced a teaching from Jehovahs witnesses, no,
neither can I.
I referred to the JW organization as an example of a community in which a "reasonable person" might come to a different conclusion than a "reasonable person" in a community like the RHP Spirituality Forum (which has fewer JW's than other kinds of theists but even many of the nontheists tend to accept the idea that the passage in its overall Biblical context CLAIMED Jesus was God or at least did not blatently dispel that notion). I was referring to what a reasonable person in a given community would make of the Bible passage as written, I was NOT referring to whether Jesus was actually divine or specifically to what the JW organization taught. I was referring to what a reasonable person would make of the passage AS WRITTEN, and historically, I am correct about this. There is this difference in these two communities, and that was only AN EXAMPLE of how the reasonable person (RP) standard WORKS. But yes, I could have left the JW organization out of it. Since then I have participated in the thread without objecting to every single thing I disagree with, but if you find my participation objectionable, feel free to let me know.
That was one time when you complained about the JW organization being mentioned. You took my usage as an intentional focus on JWs, not what it really was, which was an EXAMPLE of how the RP standard WORKS. I could have used Buddhist or Catholics as an example. So maybe these people Raj and dive and so on that you mention, think that you are aligned with JW teachings on the passage. Maybe that's because they think if it's only about what YOU think, so what? So be it, as far as I am concerned. But it would help it you would, in reply to this post, lay out your current position on that Bible passage and Jesus' divinity. Or just say you don't have one or don't care to. As far as I am concerned I will be am happy to leave it at that.
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobielack of evidence? it just went over your head. i told you much of the husband god's eternal and unchanging commandments have been abandoned. this is solid evidence that biblegod is not "good." we humans decided long ago that we are better than biblegod and jesus christ is one of the symptoms of that realization.
Its neither a failure to comprehend nor a pattern, i merely dismissed your words on the
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 ...[text shortened]... who seek to establish their
own criteria at the expense of trying to attain understanding.
jesus christ represents an awakening in humanity reaching the west. it is an early awakening, one borrowed from eastern principles (they had an even earlier awakening than the westerners who were under roman/greek influence).
that awakening continues still as we improve upon the standards of the past and build upon the future. the husband god has long ago been abandoned in all but name. some backwards thinking humans still cling to those obsolete ideals, but most have moved on (including the christians).