16 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou call it a scripture, well, i call it a collection of books.
umm what is it about the scripture that is seemingly beyond you?
Nowhere are you, robbie, mentionned in that collection of books, nowhere. So when you compere yourself to christ, then I have to ask - Who do you think you are? Really?
And because that I don't identify you as a christ alike, only a christ-wannabe, then you think the books are beyond me? Well, some think themselves as gods, then we have robbie, then we have all other people that read the bible as what it is worth.
16 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy do you think I'm a forum hater? Why do you mention me specifically? Because I 'dare' say something against your opinion?
may i draw the haters of the forums attention (Fabians, Zapansy etc etc) to this post in the chess only forum,
under the heading of who is your favourite chess player
My second favourite player is Robbie C
posted by ice cold, peace be upon him!
You have a religion. That's fine with me.
But when you confuse your religion of yours with science, then I object.
When I undress your retorics, then you are of course frusrated, you are not just used with anyone doing that.
But when you compare yourself with christ? Now, this is pompous!
16 Nov 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasbecause you feed him. as i feed him.
Why do you think I'm a forum hater? Why do you mention me specifically? Because I 'dare' say something against your opinion?
You have a religion. That's fine with me.
But when you confuse your religion of yours with science, then I object.
When I undress your retorics, then you are of course frusrated, you are not just used with anyone doing that.
But when you compare yourself with christ? Now, this is pompous!
i am working on the addiction though. i have been seeking professional help from the "Troll feeders anonymous" and now i am on a 1 step program. Step 1 (and only): Stop feeding the troll
With "Troll feeders anonymous" you can get rid of this terrible affliction too. and then robbie will eventually die. or at least be less of a nuissance.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
16 Nov 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhen Robbie says that Jesus was not popular and his followers aren't, either, he's not comparing himself with Christ. He's analogizing levels of popularity. You're a bit quick to hit the Big Red Button there, dude.
....
But when you compare yourself with christ? Now, this is pompous!
16 Nov 09
Originally posted by BadwaterYou have to search further to find his statement about his comparison of he himself and christ.
When Robbie says that Jesus was not popular and his followers aren't, either, he's not comparing himself with Christ. He's analogizing levels of popularity. You're a bit quick to hit the Big Red Button there, dude.
16 Nov 09
Originally posted by Badwaterrelating to what fabian said, i don't have to search for this. your explanation is enough. and from your explanation "He's analogizing levels of popularity" i reason that he reasons that a selfless person, compassionate, kind person as jesus was unpopular for the same reasons he is unpopular: being a mindless buffoon.
When Robbie says that Jesus was not popular and his followers aren't, either, he's not comparing himself with Christ. He's analogizing levels of popularity. You're a bit quick to hit the Big Red Button there, dude.
it is insulting
16 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanziabsolute fallacy and as per usual showing a level of understanding comparable to a mindless pedagogue. Christ was not unpopular because he was compassionate and selfless, he was unpopular because 'he was no part of the world', as he himself states in scripture, perhaps you can reason within your self, what this biblical statement means Zappy? but as your powers of reason seem to indicate, so far i dont hold out much hope for you arriving at an accurate evaluation. As for insulting, well who comes close to you in vitriolic utterances?
relating to what fabian said, i don't have to search for this. your explanation is enough. and from your explanation "He's analogizing levels of popularity" i reason that he reasons that a selfless person, compassionate, kind person as jesus was unpopular for the same reasons he is unpopular: being a mindless buffoon.
it is insulting
16 Nov 09
Originally posted by Badwaterthankyou, perhaps if they read and understood the scripture, they would not make such unfounded and ludicrous statements!
When Robbie says that Jesus was not popular and his followers aren't, either, he's not comparing himself with Christ. He's analogizing levels of popularity. You're a bit quick to hit the Big Red Button there, dude.
16 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWe've been over this before, here's the thread you started in the science forum with regard to the beginning of the universe.
sorry Noob, sorry i forgot, ok, this has naught to do with the existence of God, but that the universe indeed had a beginning. Thus i do not think that there are many who disagree that there was a 'beginning', as the Bible clearly states, in perfect harmony with contemporary scientific thought, but that it was 'god who created', that some people have trouble with.
Thread 112370
Secondly, every culture has a story of how their God created everything. And i would guess they all start in 'the beginning'!!!
16 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOk, dear Robbie, I will answer.
shall we start with your statement, 'if i was going down'? these were your words were they not? where are you going down to? is that clear and simple enough?
If the I knew the world was about to end in 5 minutes I would follow someone more like Fabian and less like yourself.
Fabian doesn't seem to have an agenda whereas you do.
Fabian seems like more of a genuine truth seeker than yourself.
You seem to have aleady found the(your) truth and are trying to convert people to your way of thinking.
I have room in my world view for the likes of you. You don't seem harmful in a physical sense and you are obviously well educated in a lot of areas.
That doesn't mean that your truth is everyones truth. In fact, I contend that everyone needs to find their own truth , to put in a little piece of themselves , rather than blindly follow what others have taught them.
I am who I am because I have followed my heart in relation to the 'truths' I've come across in my life.
The JW's I've spoken to seem to have no idea what a conversation (a real debate) is. They've already made up their minds as to what truth is and seem only to engage in lines of 'conversation' that fits in with their agenda. Simple enough?
Sorry again ,dear Robbie, but I would have to call you the 'borg' who has been assimilated and not the likes of Fabian.
16 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by karoly aczelthankyou, let us analyse your statement for a moment,
Ok, dear Robbie, I will answer.
If the I knew the world was about to end in 5 minutes I would follow someone more like Fabian and less like yourself.
Fabian doesn't seem to have an agenda whereas you do.
Fabian seems like more of a genuine truth seeker than yourself.
You seem to have aleady found the(your) truth and are trying to convert people to y d have to call you the 'borg' who has been assimilated and not the likes of Fabian.
firstly you are intent to compare me to Fabians, while asserting that you value individuality, is that not contradictory, for it seems so to me. i am sure that you and Fabian would make a lovely couple!
secondly you make the assertion that all Jehovahs witness do not know how to engage in a debate, and why should they? for they are uninterested in argumentation for its own sake, but rather seek those who are interested in learning about what they have to say, if they find that someone is argumentative, they simply move on.
thirdly i do not expect you to agree with what i say, you have, as Fabian and most people, established their own morality, well good for you, i on the other hand have determined that God is greater than i, and therefore i have submitted to his authority, thus it is not surprising that you have many issues, we on the other hand are perfectly clear on all manner of issues.
you seem to be asserting that you have some type of freedom of thought, whereas we are subject to assimilation, well, follow your heart, its the usual type of emotionalism, devoid of reason that one becomes accustomed to and it may interest you to note, but i doubt that you will understand the import of the words, what Christ and the Bible states on this subject.
(Mark 7:20-21) 20 Further, he said: “That which issues forth out of a man is what defiles a man; for from inside, out of the heart of men, injurious reasoning's issue forth. . .
(Proverbs 3:5-6) . . .do not lean upon your own understanding. In all your ways take notice of him, and he himself will make your paths straight.
16 Nov 09
Originally posted by Proper Knobperhaps you would like to compare the Hindu creation account, or the ancient Nordic creation account, and search for any semblance of truth Noobster?
We've been over this before, here's the thread you started in the science forum with regard to the beginning of the universe.
Thread 112370
Secondly, every culture has a story of how their God created everything. And i would guess they all start in 'the beginning'!!!
16 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI guess by "we" you mean you,right?
thankyou, let us analyse your statement for a moment,
firstly you are intent to compare me to Fabians, while asserting that you value individuality, is that not contradictory, for it seems so to me. i am sure that you and Fabian would make a lovely couple!
secondly you make the assertion that all Jehovahs witness do not know how to engage in ...[text shortened]... erstanding. In all your ways take notice of him, and he himself will make your paths straight.
Yes I am comparing you to Fabian,why not. I'm not sure why you would say we would make a lovely couple other than to try to bug me. You'll have to try harder.
I said "debate" not arguement.
I'll agree with you, and do, when you are right. I don't just swallow everything that comes my way. Stop putting barriers between you and God.
Free thought is a gift from God to all people, its not my fault if you choose not to use it. And trust me, my heart is guided by my head and it is you that seems to be subject to emotionalism.
In the end my beef is with God and not you or anyone else. It is my own consience that will decide my fate and no amount of shrewd twisting on the part of JW's or anyone else will make me change my mind. (Bearing in mind that we are all instruments of God).
I've debated with creationists as well as evolutionists on here. I'm just trying to reconcile the polarities. The "truth" is in the middle there somewhere.
16 Nov 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelSorry, I don't think so.
I've debated with creationists as well as evolutionists on here. I'm just trying to reconcile the polarities. The "truth" is in the middle there somewhere.
There is a religious truth, and that may very well be creationism. There are other religious truths out there too.
There is a scientific truth, and that's evolution.
But there are no middle grounds here. It's either religion or science. The both cannot ever be mixed!
Creationists often try to convince that science backs up creatioism - sorry, it cannot. Because creatioism is based upon the belief that there is a creator. That's totally outside the domains of science. Why? Because creationism has nothing to do with science! Creationism is pure religion. Religion and science cannot ever be mixed!