Was my response to theist too harsh?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-05-2016, 12:34 PM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 12:28 PM)julep Wrote:  
(01-05-2016 05:48 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  No I actually meant diluted.

Deluded would have worked too.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
I just can't get past this. Or in Pops speak: I just canned get passed this.

What, exactly, do you mean by "diluted" hypocrites? How would diluted and deluded be applicable to what you intended to say?
Prepare yourself for some of pops world famous mental gymnastics!
[Image: 86751-gymnastics-uneven-bars-fail-gi-qlyA.gif]

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
01-05-2016, 12:35 PM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(30-04-2016 09:20 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Poor diluted hypocrites.

Seems to me like dilution of hypocrisy is a good thing. With the goal of eliminating it completely. No?

(30-04-2016 09:20 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

You should put that in your siggie. I think that's the gist of your message and I think I like it.

I learned a long time ago not to engage in a debate with an opponent who already knows every point I'm gonna make and how to refute each and everyone one of them. I offer that lesson to you as my gift to you, popsicle.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
01-05-2016, 01:14 PM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 10:53 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Yes it was negative.

Like in kind to most posts directed at me, and as such obviously wrong and not beneficial to any.
I tried being nice and engage you in discussion. But you disregarded me in favor of arguing. So I guess you are not interested in positive talks. So I will leave you to squabbling instead. I wish you well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Clockwork's post
01-05-2016, 01:30 PM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 12:28 PM)julep Wrote:  
(01-05-2016 05:48 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  No I actually meant diluted.

Deluded would have worked too.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
I just can't get past this. Or in Pops speak: I just canned get passed this.

What, exactly, do you mean by "diluted" hypocrites? How would diluted and deluded be applicable to what you intended to say?
Diluted as in weak. Neutered like the imp.

Deluded as in very mislead.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 01:37 PM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 01:30 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Neutered like the imp.

Which particular imp we talking?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 01:37 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2016 01:50 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 01:30 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Neutered like the imp.

Which particular imp we talking? Troyer or Dinklage?

[Image: vern.jpg][Image: midget.jpg]

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 01:41 PM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(28-04-2016 10:42 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(25-04-2016 11:03 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Isaiah 13 (KJV) & Isaiah 14 (KJV)
Both of those chapters are about Babylon/ Satan/ blaspheme against the Holy Spirit/ knowing misdirection of the faithful. It's the only umforgiven sin.
It's about Babylon kinda (it's not about Satan at all, but I wouldn't expect someone who's only gotten their knowledge of the book of apologetic sites to know that, that's a mistake they all make), and it's also not about blaspheme towards the "holy Spirit". More specifically it's about the great army that will one day be formed to commit genocide against Babylon. Which is presented as a good thing. It's about how god will come in wrath, anger, and cruelty to utterly destroy a civilization through his armies on earth (which is funny cause you keep repeating that god is all goodness and has no anger or wrath....). This is ALSO a good thing apparently.
Among the things that god will have his army do is the mass murder of surrendered prisoners, the wholesale murder of children and infants, the targeting of civilian homes and the systematic rape of civilian women. Which, again, are all considered to be fucking war crimes.

Isaiah 14 is a continuation of what the Lord says he will do to Babylon .....you know...one day...
This includes the murdering of children for the sins of their fathers, SPECIFICALLY to stop the reign of the Babylonian "God-Kings". So even if I accept your dumbfuck assertion that blasphemy is unforgivable (not rape, or murder, or child rape, or burning people alive, oh no those are all forgivable but don't you fucking DARE say something bad about the Holy Spirit!) the CHILDREN which are to be murdered are being murdered for the actions/thoughts of SOMEONE ELSE.

Not only is all of that super motherfucking immoral, but you are not on the side of the argument arguing that war crimes, including the rape of civilians and the murder of children is REASONABLE and ACCEPTABLE.

Fuck. You.

(25-04-2016 11:03 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Jeremiah 48 (KJV) - ኤርምያስ
Same as previous. Blasphemy is the sin that isn't forgiven.
The whole of Jeremiah 48 is about the destruction of Moab and the mass murder of it's people. 48:10 is very clear in what it's saying and that is that any person who refuses to take part in this genocide is cursed by god.

And in your little brain because of your unproven assertion that blasphemy can't be forgiven (rape and child murder can though! Priorities!) that some how makes not just genocide morally fine but the prosecution of those who won't take part in the genocide as well.

What the actual fuck dude?!

(25-04-2016 11:03 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Judges 21 said nothing of rape at all.
That's not just wrong it's disgusting if you don't think what happened to the virgin women in this story was rape. Lets look at what happened:
1.) A group of fanatics destroys your home and murders every single member of your family. Your father is murdered your brothers and uncles, and nephews are all murdered, many of them in front of you.
2.) Next you are kidnapped and taken from your home as the spoils of war.(Side Note: In this time period and in this part of the world that means one thing: being rapped. This is entirely consistent with the times and continued to be the case for far far to long. It still is in some places, sadly.)
3.) You are brought before the leaders of the people who just destroyed your home and murdered most of your family along with your mother and many female relatives. these relatives, including your own mother, are then butchered in front of you because they have had sex before.
4.)You are then told by the people who murdered your family, kidnapped you, killed your mother in front of you that you now have to marry the people who did all that.
And you what? Think these women went to these marriages willingly? You think that they consented to having sex with the people who murdered and destroyed everything and everyone they ever loved or knew? You think it's morally fine to kill someones entire family and then FORCE them to marry you and have your children?
Lets say that they all for some reason gave full, informed, and non-coerced consent and it wasn't rape. Does the rest of the fuckin' actions by the Israelis sound moral to you?

(25-04-2016 11:03 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Judges 11 (KJV) - መሳፍንቲ
It was an oath. The daughter consented, and lastly, all offerings of the Jewish people have not pleased GOD because it wasn't the will of GOD.
Bull-fucking-shit you little weasel. First off it was an deal....that god knew how it would turn out before he made it, he knew that a human sacrifice was going to result in this deal. Secondly it was a deal that god made so that Jephthah could commit genocide towards the people of Ammon (he utterly destroys 20 villages, CIVILANS!) which god has NO FUCKIN' PROBLEM helping him with.
So in this story god willingly allows a young girl to be burned alive in human sacrifice so god will help commit mass murder on a heavily civilian population. And this is all morally fine to you? Killing your child is fine if you promised to do so?

If it's not the will of god why didn't God stop it like he did with Abraham? If killing the mans daughter was not the will of god WHY THE FUCK did god hold up his fucking end of the murder deal knowing it was the result?

Your full of shit dude.

(25-04-2016 11:03 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Matthew 10:21
It just says what is going to happen as the sword or Word of GOD is that of right division between those of Faith. Christ is t advocating physical violence as the sword of God is the Word of GOD and not a sword to kill flesh but to divide the spirit.
Absolute apologetics bullshit. No where in the entire thing does he speak of "spirit" at all but talks specifically about members of a family turning on one another had has this to say earlier in Matthew 10:
"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone because of me...."
He is making it VERY clear that the mission of his 12 Apostles will result in family members killing each other. Brutally clear. Jesus is, of course, perfectly fine with this. It's not about some bullshit sword of the spirit, it's about causing dissension and death within families at the spread of his message and that is the POINT of spreading it.

Stop getting your excuses from shitty faith websites.

(25-04-2016 11:03 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Matthew 11 (KJV) - ማቴዎስ
Upbraid means to chastise, not condemn ro he'll for eternity.
.......
Matthew 11:23 "And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hell."
Not only have you obviously not read the NT you didn't even bother to read the rest of his speech.

Forget what I said and go back to your shitty faith websites it's clear you can't hack it with out them telling you what your views are.Drinking Beverage

(25-04-2016 11:03 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Matthew 13 (KJV) - ማቴዎስ
He says they can't understand, but if they could then they will. He doesn't do it to confuse them, they are confused regardless.
Nope, he doesn't say that they can't understand he says that the disciples are allowed to know the secrets of heaven but they (the other people) are not allowed to know the secrets.
"Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given."
He intentionally speaks in parables so that the common people won't figure out the secrets 'cause they are not permitted to know them. He talks intentionally to confuse people so they won't figure it out. This is quite clear.

(25-04-2016 11:03 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Mark 4 (KJV) - ማርቆስ
Again same thing.
Nope, wrong for the same reason. He talks to them specifically so that they will not be able to to understand his message. In fact in Mark he is far more explicit in why he does that saying that he speaks so that they will see and not perceive, hear and not understand...:
"lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them"

He talks to them in riddles instead of plainly because doing so would cause them to see and perceive, hear and understand which would cause them to convert and have their sins forgiven....which apparently Jesus does not want so he speaks in parables to confuse them from the truth. Which is HILARIOUSLY dickish given he condemns the city of Capernaum to Hell for doing just that.

(25-04-2016 11:03 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Matthew 15 (KJV) - ማቴዎስ
He was defending others and simultaniously showing the error and hypocricy of the accusers.
He was defending the practice of his followers not washing their hands before they eat (which is fucking stoopid and this verse would contribute to thousands of deaths over the next 2000 years, effectively proving him to have no supernatural knowledge whatsoever.) by comparing it in severity to not murdering children. Which is immoral and also kind of insane.


(25-04-2016 11:03 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Matthew 19 (KJV) - ማቴዎስ
Has to do with detachment and Faith that GOD will provide for any who actually here and listen. Not waiting around after one has recieved guidance or duty.
Again you are just flatly making up things.
His followers specifically say that they have abandoned all others to follow Jesus and ask what their reward will be to which he responds that his Apostles will sit on 12 thrones judging Israel and that anyone who has abandoned their families will receive rewards in heaven.

It has LITERALLY nothing to do what what you just wrote. At all.



Your knowledge of the bible continues to come from other peoples biased interpretations and twisted logic. Your morality is hideous, your intellect is dysfunctional if functional at all, and you should be ashamed.

Sadly, though not surprisingly, it seems like you have already tucked tail and ran from my last post like this, having completely ignored it. Oh well, hopefully some lurkers can get some benefit out of it.
What? I get my understanding of scripture from scripture alone. Not any website at all. Stop assuming shit. Or continue, whatever. Just know your wrong. And about the slaves. I have stated previously that the bible is full of double and triple entendres and the case of the servant, steward, slave is no exception.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 01:43 PM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 01:14 PM)Clockwork Wrote:  
(01-05-2016 10:53 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Yes it was negative.

Like in kind to most posts directed at me, and as such obviously wrong and not beneficial to any.
I tried being nice and engage you in discussion. But you disregarded me in favor of arguing. So I guess you are not interested in positive talks. So I will leave you to squabbling instead. I wish you well.
What post are you reforming to?

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 01:45 PM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 01:30 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(01-05-2016 12:28 PM)julep Wrote:  I just can't get past this. Or in Pops speak: I just canned get passed this.

What, exactly, do you mean by "diluted" hypocrites? How would diluted and deluded be applicable to what you intended to say?
Diluted as in weak. Neutered like the imp.

Deluded as in very mislead.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Misled, not "mislead." The more interesting question, I suppose, is who you imagine is doing the misleading. But please, don't feel obliged to answer it.

Weak hypocrites would be people who are not very hypocritical. "Diluted,"in the phrase as you wrote it, is an adjective that would modify the noun hypocrisy, NOT the position (atheism? logic? grammar?) that you find to be hypocritical. You would need to rewrite your sentence to have it make the sense you intended. Further: weak and misled/mistaken are not synonyms and do not substitute for one another.

I hope you have found this information helpful and will try to write with more clarity in the future.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes julep's post
01-05-2016, 01:53 PM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 12:35 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(30-04-2016 09:20 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Poor diluted hypocrites.

Seems to me like dilution of hypocrisy is a good thing. With the goal of eliminating it completely. No?

Unless it's homeopathic hypocrisy. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: