I don't believe in evolution... (2)

[tulc]

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.

So...you now intend to explain to everyone why they all think as they do.
tulc(thinks you're not very good at this are you?)

 

[sdmsanjose]

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?

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, 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.

 

[Zongerfield]

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.

 

[tulc]

I forgive you, and I will pray for you.

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)

 

[HosannaHM]

Zongerfield:

I forgive you, and I will pray for you.


Man this is getting annoying. Ever get the feeling your talking to a brick wall?

 

[Snow Phoenix]

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.

No Z, there's a difference between supporting someone's view and tolerating it. We all tolerate clirus' view, and I think most of us would defend to the death her right to voice her opinion. Why? Because freedom of speech is one of the most important rights given to us during the enlightenment.

You've created a lovely persecution complex, but you're not just defending her right to say it, you're rationalizing her views and supporting them. There IS a difference.

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?

Yes, you support the genocidal elimination of all who do not conform to your prescribed view. I believe you mentioned atheists, homosexuals and 'liberal wastrels'? As sdmsanjose pointed out, you'll find no biblical support for this, and it's quite a monstrous and evil view to hold.

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.

No, it doesn't. By your definition fighting the Nazis was also genocide. ALL wars would then be defined as genocide. You're misinterpreting the definition of the term. The bombings weren't about systematically eliminating a race of people, they were about sending an absolute message of power and victory to the Japanese people.

So, in closing, Clirus is not as radical as you make her out to be.

Judging by above you're just as radical as she is. Albeit much more docile and less pushy about it.

She has a viewpoint, albeit different from yours, but that doesn't mean she isn't worthy of respect. Embrace her as a Christian.

Would you respect a Muslim who supported the view of a similar law system, but you would be forced to convert to Islam or be executed after 3 strikes? I'd hazard a guess that no, you would not. Respect isn't a right, respect is earned.

I forgive you, and I will pray for you.

I'm sorry you support such an evil view, but I still forgive you, and I will hope that you somehow 'see the light' and realize how asinine they are.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Maybe you should start proving things. Prove that there are no civilians in a war zone Clirus. Go ahead... You can't. You know why? Because you're wrong. You've called civilians in a war-zone 'non-civilians' and then attempted to justify their deaths. This isn't a strawman exaggeration. You just can't handle the critical commentary such abhorrent ideas attract.

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

It would be consistent if you were at war with Amalek. But you are not. The Bible tells the Israelites to go and smite a specific group of people. This is not a general endorsement of that kind of action across the board.

One of us does not understand the Bible.

I know who my bet is on.

 

[TheReasoner]

I forgive you, and I will pray for you.

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.]

In addition you defend someone who is a false teacher, a promoter of violence, murder and hatred. One who is about as anti-christian as anyone or anything I have ever encountered (And I used to work with devil worshipers for crying out loud. She tops most of them by a fair measure.)

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.

 

[Skavau]

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?

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?

 

[Nathan Poe]

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.

What you're actually saying is that don't don't think anyone but clirus and yourself has the right to an opinion.

Clirus is unBiblical -- so are you for defending her. You've been offered every opportunity to defend your point and hers, but, knowing that your position is indefensible, you're preparing to leave in a huff.

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?

You believe deadbeat dads should be executed -- yes or no?

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.

Actually, it doesn't count, since we didn't try to kill the rest of them.

Genocide, despite what you want it to mean, means the indiscriminant killing of an entire race of people.

Clirus has advocated this before, with the War on Terror -- she will do so again.

And you will defend her, but you want them all dead almost as much as she does.

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 will not embrace mass murderers -- especially when they see me as part of the masses that needs murdering.

I forgive you, and I will pray for you.

I pity you, and hope you get an education.

^ haven't seen how patronizing and condescending that sounds yet?

 

[Snow Phoenix]

For this I'm going to call Matthew 23:27 on you Z.

I love that verse (coupled with 23:28 as well).

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.

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')

 

[TheReasoner]

I love that verse (coupled with 23:28 as well).

Aye. Both fit snugly. Naturally. Same context, so...

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')

I stand corrected! Thank you.

 

[TheReasoner]

Yes, that’s why I posted it...

The wink doesn’t mean I’m sarcastic there, I am trying to convey an over the top sense of shared knowledge.

But perhaps I’ve already said too much, speaking of the rules is expressly forbidden unlike calling for the deaths of people who don’t 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.

*sigh*
yeah.

 

[Zongerfield]

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).

 

[TheReasoner]

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.

 

[Zongerfield]

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.

 

[TheReasoner]

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.

Zongerfield. I have enough integrity to really stand by my beliefs. Even if it hurts. When you now KNOW that we see your words concerning prayer and forgiveness (for nonexistent insults) as condescending yet you STILL use them, that's wrong. And I'll say so.

If I give blessings they are freely given. I do not think your intention is evil and I stand by giving them to you. But I also stand by my rebuke. From your words. Your support of Clirus' vile genocidal position, your constant focus on the good you do and what we see and you know we see as condescension Matthew 23:27 fits the image you have made here.

You have offended many people here, and your support of Clirus is something I take GREAT offense at. (Hitler did claim to be a christian and used christian lingo often. Heard of "German Christians?")
I take serious offense of it. Just as much as defense of Hitler or Stalin would. And you should know the difference between the three in terms of the bloodiness of two and the potential bloodiness of Clirus is slight, possibly worse for C than H and S.

 

[HosannaHM]

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.

So wait? It's ok for you to throw a verse of conviction at everyone else in this forum but not to rebuke you right back? Wow

Instead of reading what Tulc said earlier, you remarked him for being silly in the 3rd person. But we cannot rebuke you can we?

I suppose Faith Guardian is in need of a swift theogical lesson from your standpoint right? Is Clirus your "prodigal son" while he is Judas Iscarot? But wait, we cannot rebuke you.

And then there are the atheists, or what YOU believe to be all the pedos, killers, ands devil worshipers because they don't conform to YOUR interpretation. Be we cannot rebuke you, can we?

Bigotry does not lead people to the cross. Please decrease your posts, so more people can increase in the faith.

 

[tulc]

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).

hmmm...looks like I may have touched a nerve that time, that honestly wasn't my intention, so I just wanted to say I'm sorry and ask your forgiveness.
tulc(will now consume more coffee)

 

[Nathan Poe]

Referring to oneself in the third person is about as haughty and condescending as speech gets. It sounds foolish and I find it offensive.

And nobody cares -- alas, you have nobody to blame but yourself.

It's a way of attempting to establish "authority" over a group of people, so one appears to be a figurehead of sorts.

It's almost as bad as doling out meaningless "forgiveness."

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.

Thought about it -- that tulc chooses to end every one of his posts with signature and coffee related comment offends nobody except you -- and your own opinion on the matter is insignificant.

Furthermore, should I tell tulc that she is a wicked hypocrite because she doesn't align with my beliefs?

Nah -- you can get a lot more out of it for yourself by "forgiving" tulc.

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.

You've rebuked tulc, and it's laughably ineffective.

What comes next after rebuke doesn't work?

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).

As a matter of convenience, nothing more.