Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Here is my explanation of why many of you find my prayers and praying offensive, why many of you wish I wouldn't pray or offer a blessing to those in need of positive support, why many of you wish I would submit to your notion of how a Christian is supposed to think and act, why many of you wish I would just conform to the majority, etc.
Zongerfield, as long as you dodge giving a direct answer to some obvious wrongs that Clirus is posting, you will not get the respect from this forum. You are giving a pass to someone that is misinterpreting the Bible.
quoite of sdmsanjose
Zongerfield seems to want to support her and has not stood up against her misrepresentation of the Bible when she tries to say the Bible supports her quotes below.
Quotes by Clirus
I believe the failure of a man to provide for his family should require execution of the man.
Enact Absolute Paternity legislation that would execute the father of a child that fails to make child care payments for an illegitimate child.
Zongerfield
Are you using hyperbole? Who are you referring to when you say that “she should not be stoned?” Did anyone on this forum say that Clirus should be stoned?
I know you know that Clirus has promoted execution on the people she deems worthy of death even though the Bible does not support her. You seem to support her because you will not take a stand against her even though you take a stand on others and their issues. In my last post (see reprint below) you had a chance to state weather Clirus has the biblical support of her statements about executing people and you avoided the issue. Why?
Zongerfield, as long as you dodge giving a direct answer to some obvious wrongs that Clirus is posting, you will not get the respect from this forum. You are giving a pass to someone that is misinterpreting the Bible.[/quote]
This confirms what I was saying in my other post. As long as I continue to defend someone's right to voice their opinions, ie Clirus, I "will not get respect from this forum." In short, I need to capitulate to the majority view of Clirus in order to be deemed worthy of respect.
Also, I am not dodging any of your questions. Clirus supports a graduated scale of punitive measures, I too support this type of a system. I believe in the death penalty, so does Clirus. What else would you like to know?
Oh, about genocide? Well, when we were at war against Japan in WWII, we bombed two cities killing roughly 300,000 people (or more, after you count the fallout from radiation). This counts as genocide. So, Clirus is not the only one who supports (or has supported) the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people. And, just because we were at war, it's no excuse. We killed far more innocents than military personnel. We knew the damage from the first bomb we dropped, and opted to drop a second. War or no war, this is genocide.
So, in closing, Clirus is not as radical as you make her out to be. She has a viewpoint, albeit different from yours, but that doesn't mean she isn't worthy of respect. Embrace her as a Christian.
I forgive you, and I will pray for you.
I forgive you, and I will pray for you.
This confirms what I was saying in my other post. As long as I continue to defend someone's right to voice their opinions, ie Clirus, I "will not get respect from this forum." In short, I need to capitulate to the majority view of Clirus in order to be deemed worthy of respect.
Also, I am not dodging any of your questions. Clirus supports a graduated scale of punitive measures, I too support this type of a system. I believe in the death penalty, so does Clirus. What else would you like to know?
Oh, about genocide? Well, when we were at war against Japan in WWII, we bombed two cities killing roughly 300,000 people (or more, after you count the fallout from radiation). This counts as genocide.
So, in closing, Clirus is not as radical as you make her out to be.
She has a viewpoint, albeit different from yours, but that doesn't mean she isn't worthy of respect. Embrace her as a Christian.
I forgive you, and I will pray for you.
Lets take close look at your contention.
First, my quote does not contain the word civilian. It is when you add the word civilian that the "Straw Man Exaggeration" begin. Now you can assume that there are civilians in a war zone, but you cannot prove that. Is the wife of a terrorists a civilian? Is the child of a terrorist a civilian? Now prove it.
Second, my statement is totally consistent with what God says in the Bible. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:3
One of us does not understand the Bible.
Okay Zongerfield. This does it. You constantly glorify yourself by pointing at how good and righteous you are, you belittle others [yes, at first I thought your behavior was strictly cultural collision, but you persist after reprimand. You now know how we understand your words yet you persist knowingly, meaning it is knowing derision and belittlement. That I will not defend nor excuse.]I forgive you, and I will pray for you.
while this is more direct than Clirus exact quotes, it still hits the proverbial nail on it's proverbial head. Dead on, at that.Anton Lavey said:4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!
5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!
Yes, and do you know who the punitive measures of clirus are to be used against, Zongerfield? Do you know who would be the recipients there?Zongerfield said:Also, I am not dodging any of your questions. Clirus supports a graduated scale of punitive measures, I too support this type of a system. I believe in the death penalty, so does Clirus. What else would you like to know?
This confirms what I was saying in my other post. As long as I continue to defend someone's right to voice their opinions, ie Clirus, I "will not get respect from this forum." In short, I need to capitulate to the majority view of Clirus in order to be deemed worthy of respect.
Also, I am not dodging any of your questions. Clirus supports a graduated scale of punitive measures, I too support this type of a system. I believe in the death penalty, so does Clirus. What else would you like to know?
Oh, about genocide? Well, when we were at war against Japan in WWII, we bombed two cities killing roughly 300,000 people (or more, after you count the fallout from radiation). This counts as genocide.
So, in closing, Clirus is not as radical as you make her out to be. She has a viewpoint, albeit different from yours, but that doesn't mean she isn't worthy of respect. Embrace her as a Christian.
I forgive you, and I will pray for you.
I love that verse (coupled with 23:28 as well).For this I'm going to call Matthew 23:27 on you Z.
While we're on the topic of satanism, as a sidenote I'd like to bring up (again) that Clirus' position adheres very well to satanic principles 4 through 6:
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!
5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!
while this is more direct than Clirus exact quotes, it still hits the proverbial nail on it's proverbial head. Dead on, at that.
Aye. Both fit snugly. Naturally. Same context, so...I love that verse (coupled with 23:28 as well).
As I've always been interested in the tenets of LaVeyan satanism, I'm going to have to correct you on this...
4. This one is saying help those who need it, and show them kindness and love. Do not waste your love and energy on hypocrites and ingrates.
5. This isn't advocating violence, it's advocating the 'eye for an eye' approach. Not the same as clirus and Zongerfield are for persecuting innocents who don't hold their views.
6. This is basically saying that people are responsible for their own actions, and says not to blame things on supernatural beliefs.
So no, the tenets of satanism really don't fit with clirus' views...
She is a fascist through and through. Just as Jews and gypsies were demonized and persecuted in Nazi Germany, she is advocating demonizing and persecuting homosexuals and atheists (and if you're Zongerfield, include 'liberal wastrels')
Yes, thats why I posted it...
The wink doesnt mean Im sarcastic there, I am trying to convey an over the top sense of shared knowledge.
But perhaps Ive already said too much, speaking of the rules is expressly forbidden unlike calling for the deaths of people who dont think like you do.
Also ironic is Zong's christian stance on not rebukeing Clirus's christian stance even though her philosophy calles for rebuke of those who disagree (down to killing if nessisary).
I wonder if he knows that he has rebuked it by logical default.
You know what the difference is between someone who is truly humble and someone who only pretends to be humble? The real humble would ask for forgiveness in case they've offended anyone and the fakes would claim to forgive all those who offended them.
tulc(just something he's noticed over the years)
Referring to oneself in the third person is about as haughty and condescending as speech gets. It sounds foolish and I find it offensive. Just think of those who have done it in the past - rubes, sports stars, Hollywood Idols, etc.
It's a way of attempting to establish "authority" over a group of people, so one appears to be a figurehead of sorts.
Yet, despite my personal feelings about this, I have not said one word to Tulc about his condescending way of communicating. Should I make this public? Do others share my perspective? Moving forward should he change his writing style to conform to my wishes because I find it offensive? Think about this.
Furthermore, should I tell tulc that she is a wicked hypocrite because she doesn't align with my beliefs?
Okay, Tulc read this, because this is what you are. I can't tolerate your "arrogance" so now I will label you wicked and wish you ill-will because I find it pleasurable to do so (instead of embracing your uniqueness, I'd rather publicly remonstrate you):
27 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
Lastly, there's this:
Although bombings do not meet the definition of genocide, some consider that this definition is too strict, and that these bombings do represent a genocide.[61][62] For example, University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement, that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst.
I fall into that category of those that believe it was in fact genocide (or worse).
And yet you defend far worse from Clirus as "valid". What does that tell about you Z?
In fact, the verse you just quoted fits you snugly. You constantly appear to want to make everyone else feel devalued and emphasize your own 'holiness' over and over and over again.
I never said I was holier than thou. Not once. Nor have I intentionally implied such. There's too much reading between the lines going on here. Too much speculation as to one's "motives." Take my words at face value, because that is my candor. I have no subtext to my speech, there's no "hidden meaning" despite your efforts to explicate one. I am a cracked vessel. We are all cracked vessels. It's time we acknowledge this and move on.
Again, if I wish to pray for one, and forgive one to start a friendship, than I believe I've earned that right. Perhaps I should start a list of those that wish to accept my friendship, or the potential to start one, and those that don't.
Consider yourself on the list that wishes to rebuke my friendship. Especially after that Matthew reference.
And, I am going to send you back your blessings, with interest.
I never said I was holier than thou. Not once. Nor have I intentionally implied such. There's too much reading between the lines going on here. Too much speculation as to one's "motives." Take my words at face value, because that is my candor. I have no subtext to my speech, there's no "hidden meaning" despite your efforts to explicate one. I am a cracked vessel. We are all cracked vessels. It's time we acknowledge this and move on.
Again, if I wish to pray for one, and forgive one to start a friendship, than I believe I've earned that right. Perhaps I should start a list of those that wish to accept my friendship, or the potential to start one, and those that don't.
Consider yourself on the list that wishes to rebuke my friendship. Especially after that Matthew reference.
And, I am going to send you back your blessings, with interest.
Referring to oneself in the third person is about as haughty and condescending as speech gets. It sounds foolish and I find it offensive. Just think of those who have done it in the past - rubes, sports stars, Hollywood Idols, etc.
It's a way of attempting to establish "authority" over a group of people, so one appears to be a figurehead of sorts.
Yet, despite my personal feelings about this, I have not said one word to Tulc about his condescending way of communicating. Should I make this public? Do others share my perspective? Moving forward should he change his writing style to conform to my wishes because I find it offensive? Think about this.
Furthermore, should I tell tulc that she is a wicked hypocrite because she doesn't align with my beliefs?
Okay, Tulc read this, because this is what you are. I can't tolerate your "arrogance" so now I will label you wicked and wish you ill-will because I find it pleasurable to do so (instead of embracing your uniqueness, I'd rather publicly remonstrate you):
27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
Lastly, there's this:
Although bombings do not meet the definition of genocide, some consider that this definition is too strict, and that these bombings do represent a genocide.[61][62] For example, University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement, that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst.
I fall into that category of those that believe it was in fact genocide (or worse).
Referring to oneself in the third person is about as haughty and condescending as speech gets. It sounds foolish and I find it offensive.
It's a way of attempting to establish "authority" over a group of people, so one appears to be a figurehead of sorts.
Yet, despite my personal feelings about this, I have not said one word to Tulc about his condescending way of communicating. Should I make this public? Do others share my perspective? Moving forward should he change his writing style to conform to my wishes because I find it offensive? Think about this.
Furthermore, should I tell tulc that she is a wicked hypocrite because she doesn't align with my beliefs?
Okay, Tulc read this, because this is what you are. I can't tolerate your "arrogance" so now I will label you wicked and wish you ill-will because I find it pleasurable to do so (instead of embracing your uniqueness, I'd rather publicly remonstrate you):
27 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
Lastly, there's this:
Although bombings do not meet the definition of genocide, some consider that this definition is too strict, and that these bombings do represent a genocide.[61][62] For example, University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement, that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst.
I fall into that category of those that believe it was in fact genocide (or worse).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?