@ vishvahetu

Originally posted by vishvahetu
The statements above are what I have said and I do not deny it, and I would say it again a million times if need be.....but those statements are not in question.

You don't deny it? So why are you claiming that "[I] purposely and falsely place words into [your] comments that were not actually presented"? These are the statements in question because it is me who has questioned them, as you well know.

Originally posted by Agerg
Our opinions differ wildly as to what is absurd vishvahetu - the key point is whether you can substantiate you 'rational' points by more than scriptural decree, and shoot down my 'absurd' points by more than scriptural decree. ;]

To Agerg

I do understand that I said Bible teachings....but I did mean science teachings.

Anyway Bible teachings or science teachings the point still remains....

Vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
To Agerg

I do understand that I said Bible teachings....but I did mean science teachings.

Anyway Bible teachings or science teachings the point still remains....

Vishva

You are mellowing! 😛

Hey, vishvahetu. Are you just going to try to brazen it out and not apologise to divegeester?

Originally posted by FMF
Hey, vishvahetu. Are you just going to try to brazen it out and [b]not apologise to divegeester?[/b]

Because of your mind games....you are disqualified from the discussion.

You may ask genuine questions of a spiritual nature though, but if the questions are of the loaded nature, I will not rerspond.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
You may ask genuine questions of a spiritual nature though, but if the questions are of the loaded nature, I will not rerspond.

This is a genuine question, vishvahetu. What bearing does your incessant abuse and insults directed at me have on the fact that you really ought to apologise to divegeester?

Originally posted by Agerg
The same fear I have of fundamentalist Christians like RBHILL wielding such power. If only he could deliver his message with less insults then upto the specific details; his insanity would be similar to the insanity of other Bible/Qu-ran/etc... literalists.

That there is a crazy theist on this board we can compare against other crazy theists of a different ...[text shortened]... posters from other religions just to view the entire pot of silly in a fair an objective light.

The same fear I have of fundamentalist Christians like RBHILL, and Robbie Carrobie wielding such power - Agers

Being truly a-political i doubt you will ever need to fear that i will ever have any power, and if i did, through some strange quirk of fate, i would try to be impartial even as God himself is.

(Acts 10:34-35) . . .At this Peter opened his mouth and said: “For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial,  but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The same fear I have of fundamentalist Christians like RBHILL, and Robbie Carrobie wielding such power - Agers

Being truly a-political i doubt you will ever need to fear that i will ever have any power, and if i did, through some strange quirk of fate, i would try to be impartial even as God himself is.

(Acts 10:34-35) . . .At this Peter opened ...[text shortened]... rtial,  but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.

Would you truly try to be imparial? Be honest.

I admire your true intentions and do not question your faith in goodness and kindeness towards all others, however, if fate should beset you with the power to rule the world, surely you would assemble a coucil of advisors at least, no? (that raises all types of impartial insinuations)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Would you truly try to be imparial? Be honest.

I admire your true intentions and do not question your faith in goodness and kindeness towards all others, however, if fate should beset you with the power to rule the world, surely you would assemble a coucil of advisors at least, no? (that raises all types of impartial insinuations)

yes, absolutely, Bible is quite clear on the matter,

(Proverbs 15:22)  There is a frustrating of plans where there is no confidential talk, but in the multitude of counsellors there is accomplishment.

these counsellors would also need to be impartial.

Originally posted by FMF
This is a genuine question, vishvahetu. What bearing does your incessant abuse and insults directed at me have on the fact that you really ought to apologise to divegeester?

He doesn't understand your question. As he 'selectively' chooses when, and when not, to understand English.

In fact, to quote him, he said 'forget the English.'

He said that because he does, indeed, recognise that calling somebody full of deceit, dishonest, etc all points to the meaning 'you're a liar'. As I previously said, dishonest implies 'liar', but he chooses to ignore that 'truth'! 😀

-m.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The same fear I have of fundamentalist Christians like RBHILL, and Robbie Carrobie wielding such power - Agers

Being truly a-political i doubt you will ever need to fear that i will ever have any power, and if i did, through some strange quirk of fate, i would try to be impartial even as God himself is.

(Acts 10:34-35) . . .At this Peter opened ...[text shortened]... rtial,  but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.

This seems a paradox to me. How can you act impartial when you believe laws and regulations are god made and not man made?

Originally posted by mikelom
In fact, to quote him, he said 'forget the English.' He said that because he does, indeed, recognise that calling somebody full of deceit, dishonest, etc all points to the meaning 'you're a liar'.

One thing that is puzzling. Having dropped the theory that he is satirizing ALL religionist's certitude and dogmatism, I pay him the respect of assuming that he is posting in good faith. And yet he doesn't reciprocate this by assuming that I am posting in good faith.

Indeed, he keeps accusing me of lying, fabricating, spreading falsity, being untruthful, being deceitful, being dishonest, being misleading, making false claims, cheating and whatever synonyms he's found. I now readily acknowledge his sincerity, despite his unusually abusive style, and yet he clearly refuses to acknowledge my sincerity.

Originally posted by FMF
One thing that is puzzling. Having dropped the theory that he is satirizing ALL religionist's certitude and dogmatism, I pay him the respect of assuming that he is posting in good faith. And yet he doesn't reciprocate this by assuming that I am posting in good faith.

Indeed, he keeps accusing me of lying, fabricating, spreading falsity, being untruthful, bei ...[text shortened]... despite his unusually abusive style, and yet he clearly refuses to acknowledge my sincerity.

I accept his sincerity of what he believes in.

What I don't accept are the paradoxical statements, often inconsistently self-opposing, that he makes.

He says one thing, for example; all life has concious soul, then in a flash he changes it to 'it doesn't matter for the lower life-form, as it doesn't feel pain'.

That is just crude self-conflict, and paradoxical statement.

On that basis, if he really does understand the depths of his religion, I cannot waste my time with those inequalities, in his religion, that just don't fathom out.

He believes in all that he writes, yes, and I don't doubt that. But the inconsistencies just don't wash with me, unfortunately for him.

He even stated that atheists and scientists don't know right from wrong. There are more atheists in the world than believers of religion. If atheists didn't know right from wrong then the world would just not exist as it does.

If I didn't know right from wrong then I would be constantly abusing him. But I don't. I simply question him; to which I get the reply I am 'dishonest'.

It's ludicrous.

-m.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, absolutely, Bible is quite clear on the matter,

(Proverbs 15:22)  There is a frustrating of plans where there is no confidential talk, [b]but in the multitude of counsellors there is accomplishment.

these counsellors would also need to be impartial.[/b]

And those counsellors would have to represent the vested interests of all the major groups in the world? Trying to give all points of view equal consideration? Be they bhuddist or Jehovas Witness?

Originally posted by FMF
One thing that is puzzling. Having dropped the theory that he is satirizing ALL religionist's certitude and dogmatism, I pay him the respect of assuming that he is posting in good faith. And yet he doesn't reciprocate this by assuming that I am posting in good faith.

Indeed, he keeps accusing me of lying, fabricating, spreading falsity, being untruthful, bei ...[text shortened]... despite his unusually abusive style, and yet he clearly refuses to acknowledge my sincerity.

Alas, FMF, I think Vishvahetu is exactly what he appears to be. He hasn't stepped out of character since he arrived here and he seems utterly unable to appreciate the irony he presents. How someone can purport to study Eastern scripture and yet behave as he does is quite beyond me, but once you stop expecting rationality he does become rather amusing at least.