Originally posted by FabianFnasthat's just being jocular.. far from being a bully. it never occured to me seeing Robbie and his posts as bullying, all but that. Different viewpoints, maybe incoherent sometimes, yes.. perhaps too defensive when it comes to JW, yes.. but never bullying
Please don't see me as a bully. Robbie has approvad a certain degree of bullyness.
If I may quote robbie:
"haha Fabidoooooo, boo hoo hoo, moo moo moo, floo floo floo, goo goo goo!"
"read it and weep Fabidoo!"
"ennsy weensy Fabian climbed up the water spout"
And so he goes. Rather rude if you ask me. And childish.
Originally posted by RenarsThank you my friend, really, my God shall repay this kindness to you a thousand fold!
that's just being jocular.. far from being a bully. it never occured to me seeing Robbie and his posts as bullying, all but that. Different viewpoints, maybe incoherent sometimes, yes.. perhaps too defensive when it comes to JW, yes.. but never bullying
(Matthew 25:40) Truly I say to you, To the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd you wonder why you get called arrogant and elitist.
Lol, its not so bad when you realise that Fabian and Noobster are spiritually bereft and need all the encouragement they can get, any little scrap of spirituality that percolates deep into their psyche may plant a seed of spiritual truth. Problem is that the soil needs to be cultivated and conditioned, its either too rocky or too acidic. Never the less, we are their only hope! 😉
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI loathe religion, it has been used as a premise for horrendous acts of genocide, slavery, eugenics, whole cultures have been systematically wiped out under its guise, wars fought on its basis, soon as we get rid of it the better.
Thats because its a case of the emperors new clothes!
i loathe evolutionary theory, it has been used as a premise for horrendous acts of genocide, slavery, eugenics, whole cultures have been systematically wiped out under its guise, wars fought on its basis, soon as we get rid of it the better.
Originally posted by Proper Knobevidence please!
I loathe religion, it has been used as a premise for horrendous acts of genocide, slavery, eugenics, whole cultures have been systematically wiped out under its guise, wars fought on its basis, soon as we get rid of it the better.
1 edit
Originally posted by RenarsActually my friend i dont think that he can substantiate eugenics, that was the carried out on the basis of purely scientific legitimacy. Id like also to see his religious basis for ethnic cleansing, although not specifically mentioned, also his religious basis for forced slavery. The wars that have been fought on a religious basis i would also like him to document, for they pall into insignificance in comparison to those fought on a geo political, racial or other basis.
don't think you want to go down that slippery path, Rob.. Mr. Proper just used your own ammunition, and rightly so..
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobplease see the above text dear Noobster, for i shall contend that those atrocities carried out on a religious basis pall into insignificance when compared to those of a different nature, especially those carried out under a scientific legitimacy, like the holocaust, the first and second world wars etc etc. In fact i am willing to look at the worst atrocities in mankind's history and state that less than five percent can be attributed to a religious cause.
Are you seriously denying that atrocities have been carried out in the name of religion?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is probably true, although we'll never know.
please see the above text dear Noobster, for i shall contend that those atrocities carried out on a religious basis pall into insignificance when compared to those of a different nature, especially those carried out under a scientific legitimacy, like the holocaust, the first and second world wars etc etc.
My point wasn't about 'who's killed the most', merely that religion doesn't exactly come out smelling of roses when looked through the lens of history.
especially those carried out under a scientific legitimacy, like the holocaust, the first and second world wars
That maybe so, but if the religious men of the Crusades had the 'tools' of modern warfare at their disposal, i would bet the results would be very different.
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobYes you are correct, i was reminded in my own thoughts of the partition of India in 1947 when some one million persons were killed due to religious intolerance, yet even it palls into insignificance when one considers the appalling famine in the same country in the 1870s due to commercial and political considerations of the British Raj, in which some eight million Indians starved to death, while the food the grew was stockpiled for export, looked upon as being weaker elements and thus fit to die!
This is probably true, although we'll never know.
My point wasn't about 'who's killed the most', merely that religion doesn't exactly come out smelling of roses when looked through the lens of history.
Forced slavery was abolished largely due to the efforts of religious persons.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhere did I say that you're dishonest?
fear not they virtually know nothing about spirituality, have no recourse to reason, cannot debate, produce ludicrous assertions, all they have is personal attacks and vague references to intellectual dishonesty (like he knows what's inside my person and motivates me, that's the level we are dealing with)
Take Fabian for example, he states that ...[text shortened]... ecretly respects that, whereas if you let him, he shall walk all over you and not even flinch.
I say that you are wrong when you say that creationism is founded in science. That's more or less the only you say that I strongly object to.
And the fact that you have a tendence of avoidance as a part of your retorics.
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo, it was not you, but your biggest fan, Karoly Poly, he has accused me, without reference and without basis of being underhand and dishonest. One must therefore draw the conclusion, that if there is no basis and no reference, he attempts to understand my motives and assigns to them a less than virtuous value. This quite naturally is nonsense for he does not know wht is inside a person, and he is, as is his want, simply bitchin like the Nancy that he purports to be.
Where did I say that you're dishonest?
I say that you are wrong when you say that creationism is founded in science. That's more or less the only you say that I strongly object to.
And the fact that you have a tendence of avoidance as a part of your retorics.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOriginally posted by robbie carrobie
you still reject the possibility that the aspects of the creation story that you think contradict evolution are similarly figurative,
yes i have shown else where not only are they mutually exclusive but that there is no basis for anything other than a literal interpretation. If you have any evidence to the contrary, or any reason whatsoever for ...[text shortened]... terms in the pages of Gods word, the water cycle of evaporation, condensation and dissipation.
yes i have shown else where not only are they mutually exclusive but that there is no basis for anything other than a literal interpretation.
Well, that's great but you have been asked to show it here. Will you do that?
If you have any evidence to the contrary, or any reason whatsoever for stating that the creation account should be viewed as allegorical then let it be heard.
That isn't necessary because you stated above that you are not a young earth creationist, hence you already accept that there are allegorical elements in the creation account.
No i need not reject either modern physics, nor cosmology, simply the evolutionary hypothesis that the diversity of life has arisen through gradual 'aberration', at a molecular level. All else can be accommodated.
More cherry picking.
i have stated that the description is poetic, sometimes figurative, however, it generally always describes a physical process.
That's the thing though, there was no description of the water cycle whatsoever. Just an account that god did it which you decided must be figurative in retrospect, because you realise that rejecting meteorology won't pass the giggle test.
You have still given no argument for why we cannot regard those passages that relate to the origin of life as abiogenesis and evolution described in poetic terms in the pages of Gods word. This is because you are a cherry picker, through and through.
Originally posted by RenarsI think Fabians "bullying" is in direct relation to Robbies disrespect and name calling. No I didn't say coherence =right to bully. I was just saying how I saw it ,to balance what you said previously. I dont know how long you have followed these two , but if you just came in at the end it could seem loke Fabians a bully, but like I said, probably with good reason.
well, coherence = right to bully ? I wish I could help Robbie but religion is not my thing (I haven't even read the Bible) nor is evolution, for that matter. Sometimes I have this feeling that Fabian believes that Robbie is running for a position of headmaster at a local school in Malmo or for an MP in The Riksdag and that he needs to stop him, no matter what ...[text shortened]... a culter (is that even a proper name?), God forbids having a JW running a school or a country.
Yes the JW's are harmless enough. They seem like a nice enough bunch. BUT whenever someone comes to you so incessantly and tries to tell you how it is and pass it off as a conversation (a two-way street) , then you have every right to reply. And that reply might be to call them "culters" . I'm sure they can handle it. They don't seem to listen anyway.