Go back
Persecution

Persecution

Spirituality



-Removed-
Another similar low-integrity interpersonal foible is the inevitable characterization of dissent or difference as being "evil". I recall sonship declaring my requests for evidence backing some of the claims he makes about himself to be driven by "unbelievably evil" motives.


2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

1 edit

@divegeester

I said recently that what you said about the Son not being eternal in office was heretical.

In Revelation the glory and the might of the Second's kingdom is forever and ever. Watch. The Son of God has eternal dignity, authority, status, and glory.

"And from Jesus Christ, the faithful Witness, the Firstborn of the dead, the Ruler of the kings of the earth.

To Him who loves us and has redeemed us rom our sins by His blood And has made us a kingdom to His God and Father, to Him be the glory and the might forever and ever. Amen." (Rev. 1:5,6)


Did you see that?
"To Him [Jesus Christ] be the glory and the might forever and ever. AMEN."

So we should distance ourselves from the heretical notion that the Son Jesus Christ is temporary in His dignity and status.


2 edits

@divegeester

Do you remember making a post of general apologies to anyone on the board I may have spoken an unkind word to? Did I call you a heretic after that apology or before?

I think I called you "a two bit heretic" before I made that apology. Which some said they didn't need anyway. At any rate I do remember apologizing for overboard hurtful comments I may have made.


1 edit

@divegeester

No.
Do I get any personal apologies from you for your hairdryer, jumbo-jumbo, waffle, brain-washed, cult follower insults?

If you can dish out that other posters are brainwashed then you shouldn't get upset if someone calls you a heretic.



@fmf said
Another similar low-integrity interpersonal foible is the inevitable characterization of dissent or difference as being "evil". I recall sonship declaring my requests for evidence backing some of the claims he makes about himself to be driven by "unbelievably evil" motives.
LOL, says the guy who tries to invalidate anyone using any aspect of Carl Schmitt's philosophies because "Nazi!"

1 edit

@philokalia said
LOL, says the guy who tries to invalidate anyone using any aspect of Carl Schmitt's philosophies because "Nazi!"
I said I did not subscribe to Carl Schmitt's philosophies. I also pointed out that his philosophies - the ones you were propagating - were key building blocks for the Nazi regime's philosophies. I pointed out that his philosophies made him a leading Nazi.

I also pointed out that Carl Schmitt's philosophies prevented him from ever expressing any regret for Nazism or for the Holocaust during the 40 years he lived after the war.

The inveterate antisemitic Carl Schmitt was a thoroughly evil man. The fact that you find him "inspiring" and an "important" man, is a matter for you.

For you to compare all that, in any way, to sonship accusing me of being "unbelievably evil" for challenging some of his claims on a message board makes you sound like a wound-licking manchild.


@fmf said
I said I did not subscribe to Carl Schmitt's philosophies. I also pointed out that his philosophies - the ones you were propagating - were key building blocks for the Nazi regime's philosophies. I pointed out that his philosophies made him a leading Nazi.

I also pointed out that Carl Schmitt's philosophies prevented him from ever expressing any regret for Nazism or for the Ho ...[text shortened]... for challenging some of his claims on a message board makes you sound like a wound-licking manchild.
Oh, sure, but the way I sees it,,,,

I sees it as....


Another similar low-integrity interpersonal foible is the inevitable characterization of dissent or difference as being "evil".


😆 😛 😍 😆

Schmitt wrote brilliant & captivating philosophy, and there's nothing that you can point to in his writing that condones genocide.

🤔

IDK, man.

Maybe, just remember....

Another similar low-integrity interpersonal foible is the inevitable characterization of dissent or difference as being "evil".

Vote Up
Vote Down

@philokalia said
Schmitt wrote brilliant & captivating philosophy, and there's nothing that you can point to in his writing that condones genocide.
Carl Schmitt was a thoroughly evil man ~ regardless of how much you are captivated by his writing.


@philokalia said
Oh, sure, but the way I sees it,,,,

I sees it as....

Another similar low-integrity interpersonal foible is the inevitable characterization of dissent or difference as being "evil".
I am not characterizing dissent or difference as being evil ~ in the way posters like sonship and SecondSon have done ~ with Carl Schmitt, I am characterizing Nazism as being evil.