Why Should Jesus Love Me?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567926 Aug 4, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>

And we will do it in the only way we can: by critiquing Christianity and the church as a single social institution, not as a collection of congregations.
Which is bigotry

You could care less who actually does what or ho wmany people aren't like how you claim

You just label it all as one and condemn everybody

That's stereotyping and that's bigoted

How can you not understand that?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567927 Aug 4, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I don't condemn Christians, just select Christians, and not for being Christian.
First of all you are a blatant liar

Not only you just got done posting this

IANS said:

"And we will do it in the only way we can: by critiquing Christianity and the church as a single social institution, not as a collection of congregations."

I also just showed you this:

Ians said:

Ians said:

"I have never been anything but open about condemning Christian morality."

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR...

And I don't know where the other one is wher eyou were talking to HL that I found a few days ago but two exampels are enough. You simply lie because you know being a bigot is a hard sell. But you have exposed your real feelings plenty. Posts like the one i am responding to are just damage control and not honest

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567928 Aug 4, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I told you, and why I rejected your narrative fiction example. It wasn't relevant.
<quoted text>
In writing, quoting requires the use of quotation marks. Without them, unless you attach a dash and source, as after scripture or a Mark Twain quote, you are representing them as your words. This is because there is no reason to think that you didn't write them .
As far as a link goes, there was no reason to think that the link in that post was the source of those words or any others in your post. I assumed that it was provided as support for your argument, not as its source. I didn't even look at it.
Your second example, which also lacked quotation marks, had attribution appended to it, making it apparent that they were not your own words. You have an obligation use quotes or an attached attribution in every case to avoid plagiarizing.
Your first example was actually somebody else's example, wasn't it? There was no indication of that in the post. You used somebody else's words without quotation marks, and placed a link several lines after the end of it with no indication that it was connected to your example. Your expectation that the reader would figure that out was unfounded.
I doesn't matter whether you were aware of it or not, nor what your intentions were. When you misrepresented the words of another as your own, you plagiarized.
Nobody is upset or surprised, so get over it.
<quoted text>
No, you're that simple - simpler than this simple concept that eludes you. Move on.
<quoted text>
Thanks. I appreciate your support.
You are insane

The links went to the direct words i just posted

How is that plagiarizing Because I forgot to include the quotation marks? When I said here are two example and linked them both? LOL, the link is clearly there to show something is being sourced

And you still don't know what second person means!

You are sooo desperate for anything aren't you?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567929 Aug 4, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:

It doesn't need to be condescending. It is condescending.
There is a difference between saying that you disagree with one's religion versus calling it childish.

Why can't you see that?
I believe differently, and I believe using a superior standard.
There is nothing that makes your beliefs superior to mine.
If you were talking to a Muslim, or Scientologist, or someone who believes in the Lizard People, then you would be justified in being offended. Such people are on equal footing with you, pertaining to belief.
Ah. So you see yourself as my superior.

Ok.
I don't have to point it out, that it is.
Your Bible even instructs you to be childish.
Matthew 18:3
"Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
Out of context nonsense.

18:1-6 Christ spoke many words of his sufferings, but only one of his glory; yet the disciples fasten upon that, and overlook the others. Many love to hear and speak of privileges and glory, who are willing to pass by the thoughts of work and trouble. Our Lord set a little child before them, solemnly assuring them, that unless they were converted and made like little children, they could not enter his kingdom. Children, when very young, do not desire authority, do not regard outward distinctions, are free from malice, are teachable, and willingly dependent on their parents. It is true that they soon begin to show other dispositions, and other ideas are taught them at an early age; but these are marks of childhood, and render them proper emblems of the lowly minds of true Christians. Surely we need to be daily renewed in the spirit of our minds, that we may become simple and humble, as little children, and willing to be the least of all. Let us daily study this subject, and examine our own spirits.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567930 Aug 4, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I told you, and why I rejected your narrative fiction example. It wasn't relevant.
<quoted text>
In writing, quoting requires the use of quotation marks. Without them, unless you attach a dash and source, as after scripture or a Mark Twain quote, you are representing them as your words. This is because there is no reason to think that you didn't write them .
As far as a link goes, there was no reason to think that the link in that post was the source of those words or any others in your post. I assumed that it was provided as support for your argument, not as its source. I didn't even look at it.
Your second example, which also lacked quotation marks, had attribution appended to it, making it apparent that they were not your own words. You have an obligation use quotes or an attached attribution in every case to avoid plagiarizing.
Your first example was actually somebody else's example, wasn't it? There was no indication of that in the post. You used somebody else's words without quotation marks, and placed a link several lines after the end of it with no indication that it was connected to your example. Your expectation that the reader would figure that out was unfounded.
I doesn't matter whether you were aware of it or not, nor what your intentions were. When you misrepresented the words of another as your own, you plagiarized.
Nobody is upset or surprised, so get over it.
<quoted text>
No, you're that simple - simpler than this simple concept that eludes you. Move on.
<quoted text>
Thanks. I appreciate your support.
LOL

You are trying to change the subject. I didn't bring up narrative fiction, YOU did!

And you are just embarrassed you didn't know what second person meant

You thought using my posts to talk about me or using my posts to talk to someone else made them second person!

It's ok my little muchacho, you probably are not practicing your English much lately and forgot some of the basics

:)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567931 Aug 4, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I believe that Christian ethics are inferior, and that many Christians are the product of Christian ethical teaching.
LOL right..

So when you say things like this

It aint necessarily so wrote:
"I don't condemn Christians, just select Christians, and not for being Christian."

You are full of shite. You specifically feel them being Christian is part of the problem.

And you wonder why I call you a lair? You absolutely do condemn them for being Christin as you think they have inferior morals and ethics and got those inferior morals and ethics from being a Christian

You are just a bigot and not even an honest one

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567932 Aug 4, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
This is why we define words for ourselves.
Your worldview, which is reflected in the way you use language, is useless to me. Your use of language embeds unshared assumptions. Your understanding of spirituality seems to be inextricably linked to gods. I'm pretty sure that your position is that if I have a spiritual experience, I am experiencing your god whether I allow myself to recognize it or not.
It's second hand language useful to a subculture that is antagonistic to mine. I have little use for many of your words, like "holy," and find many of the others more useful if I modify them to reflect my worldview.
Hope you don't mind.
Hope I don't Mind?

That 5 dorks on the internet make up their own definition for words?

LOL, trust me dude, knock yourself out! It makes no difference to me what fantasies you want to pretend online:)

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#567933 Aug 4, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
You are trying to change the subject. I didn't bring up narrative fiction, YOU did!
And you are just embarrassed you didn't know what second person meant
You thought using my posts to talk about me or using my posts to talk to someone else made them second person!
It's ok my little muchacho, you probably are not practicing your English much lately and forgot some of the basics
:)
Why don't we go back to the discussion about spirituality?

That was much more fun!

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#567934 Aug 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>

Ah. So you see yourself as my superior.
Ok.
I do see myself as your superior, intellectually that is.

I know that god loves all his children and all that, so in that sense you and I are equals.

But dude, you believe very, very silly stuff.

I'm way, way above that.

Please respect my opinion on this.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567935 Aug 4, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think that you can call anybody else a dork? What are you? You've made a mess of your life, you seem to know nothing well, you are a loner, your cultural IQ is zero, you work nights at an entry level job, you take vacations in your rental in Detroit, and your idea of wit is "LOL" or ":)"
How is that different from a dork?
What do you drive?
LOL
Your fantasies about me are your business!

I own my own home and make more on my worst year than most people do on their best

And no stalker boy, just like i am not telling you what suburb I live in, I also am not telling you the make and model of my car

What I will tell you is I know what pic you used to have on your FB account (big surprise) and i know who contacted you to be friends and i know who you are

And if I get even one more whiff that you are trying to find out my identity, well...let's just say that would be a bad idea

You take care muchacho

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567936 Aug 4, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
They're your delusions. I said no such thing. Does that matter to you at all? Would that even be a factor?
LOL

You absolutely did say you don't take after science, that science takes after you!

Man, you are even trying any more

I realize you don't care that you are a liar. You trolls will still follow regardless. I was going to pull the post but after like a dozen lies you have been caught in, it has lost its effect

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567937 Aug 4, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't we go back to the discussion about spirituality?
That was much more fun!
That is because you are a huge dork and anything about words or word play is super exciting for you!

I see you didn't even bother to explain why your falsely called me a lair.

You must just be a real ethical lawyer..a good one too..if Topix is any indication!

When is it that you work? Do you like go on a field trip once a month to teach poor children language as some sort of community outreach your legal firm does where they send their prettiest legal secretary?

Because I have never seen a lawyer with as much free time as you

“BE BRAVE ENOUGH ”

Since: Oct 09

TO STEP IN MUD PUDDLES

#567938 Aug 4, 2013
simplyput wrote:
<quoted text>
a 'Tip'
When they can't answer your questions or give a good debate on a giving subject----they tell us to 'grow up' or 'how old are you??'
that is their cop out attitude, to get out of answering intelligently---they think it gets them off the hook to answer, they think we won't notice that.
You know this how? Have you given a good debate?

Oh...we know that you won't notice...I don't know if it is because you are so sharp...or if you are just not paying attention.

"Grow up"..."how old are you?"...is that anything like when you told HFY "you sound like a man"? Is that your cop out attitude?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567939 Aug 4, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That wasn't a spelling error, Aristotle.
Is this going to be your defense against being ridiculed for your myriad errors? If I mock you, I'll be called a dork?
Deal.
Did you answer my question about what distinguishes you from a dork?
Yeah it was spelling error dork, you ever hear of auto-correct?

And what distinguishes me from a dork?

LOL, you trying to gill me about spelling errors and quote on links pretty much answered your own question!

Oh yeah, also I am not a guy close to 60 years old on the internet posting things like "true dat" and "butt-hurt"

Can someone imagine if they walked by their parents, if any are close to that age, and saw them on an Internet chat-room telling somebody they must be "butt-hurt"?

Dude, you gotta be one of the biggest losers on the planet!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567940 Aug 4, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's another topic you apparently know nothing about - loyalty. Authentic loyalty is a virtue. There is no virtue in rooting for any sports team over another.
LOL, another reason why you are a dork

Not only doesn't watch sports but can't even understand the concept of being loyal to a local team.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#567941 Aug 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
...
Agreed. I have heard God's voice. I have felt His touch. I've evaluated all that I know and am convinced of it.
How did you know the voice was from the god you believe in, instead of one of the others, or an alien, or a lizard man, or any number of things one could believe? By what method did you ascertain that it was in fact "God". Would that method be good enough to differentiate between "God" and a hallucination? Are hallucinations possible? Are they common? Is it impossible for you to have them?

If you can recognize the possibility of an alternate explanation, how are you justified in being convinced?

Is this conviction you have not the result of a need to be convinced, to justify your belief in God? How many people do you think have had similar experiences that they use to justify beliefs in other gods? Do you think your god is fooling them, or their god is fooling you? Is your Satan or their equivalent bad guy fooling people?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
So? So does the scientific POV. So what? I've seen you atheists/skeptics squabble over whether or not the BBT is true or not.
Different POV's are important.
Skeptics compete to find the truth. Consensus towards reality is the goal.

Faith based thinkers don't care about what is actually true, or they'd follow a method designed to find it. Instead, they follow faith, which reliably fails. Faith allows you to believe absolutely anything with more conviction than a skeptic has for that which they can demonstrate as true.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
How can you reject the untestable?
If it can't be tested, I don't give afuck about it. There is absolutely no limit to the amount of untestable claims that can be made.

I have no reason to put your untestable claim in front of the infinite amount of others that can be made. They are not interesting in a conversation about WHAT IS.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Not true. It's my opinion. You want to call out some silly Lizard people, be my guest.
Your opinion is based on an appeal to popularity.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I highly doubt that. Prove yourself right.
I don't believe that you doubt it.

Exactly what do you claim to doubt, my ability to write something as voluminous as the Bible, or my creative ability?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Then it wouldn't be anything like the Bible.
I don't know how your brain did this.

The effect of the book is not the book. If people stopped believing in the Bible, it would not change the Bible, or the claims made therein.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Then by your own admission, I do have more respect.
Thank you.
Congratulations?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You claim to only believe that which is testable yet you make this untestable claim?
That is in no way untestable. All one has to do is look at the history of Scientology in America.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Another untestable claim.
You're not the skeptic you claim to be.
These are not untestable claims. I don't understand why you think so, so it would be hard for me to address.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I do not and have not ever succumbed to peer pressure. You are incorrect.
If you do not succumb to peer pressure, you're not human in one of the most important ways. It would mean that you are not a social animal.

"Peer pressure" is a term with some baggage that makes you want to distance yourself from it, but it is unavoidable for social animals. We all respond to social pressures to some extent.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Another untestable claim?
I get it now. You've picked up a word to toss around, like you do.

Everything you don't like will be "untestable" now.

A belief in the Lizard People requires no belief in the supernatural, and it's falsifiable, making it less absurd than the claims of Christianity.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#567942 Aug 4, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
That is because you are a huge dork and anything about words or word play is super exciting for you!
I see you didn't even bother to explain why your falsely called me a lair.
You must just be a real ethical lawyer..a good one too..if Topix is any indication!
When is it that you work? Do you like go on a field trip once a month to teach poor children language as some sort of community outreach your legal firm does where they send their prettiest legal secretary?
Because I have never seen a lawyer with as much free time as you
I didn't call you a lair.

I didn't call you a liar either.

You misread my post.

What else is new?

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#567943 Aug 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I assailed.
Straighten your hat.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567944 Aug 4, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't call you a lair.
I didn't call you a liar either.
You misread my post.
What else is new?
Another typo...good one dork

And here is your post about me

Catcher said:

"ou noticed, eh?
And he pretends he's not backpedaling at all, just refining his position.
Or perhaps he's not even aware of what he's doing.
Strange bird, that Skom.
I think I'd rather be a dork.
A liar, not so much."

You absolutely did. Unless you are going to start playing technicality games between call and infer or imply?

Take your pick. So what did i do that was dishonest? How did I change my position?

I don't expect you to answer on point. That would take integrity. And you are a "lawyer".

“I.Spirit.Son.God”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#567945 Aug 4, 2013
A Spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ is the number one priority for the Christian. Religion plays a part too. But a person can follow Jesus, and not take Christianity. I however think Christianity does a lot of good.

I absolutely believe Hawkins is an atheist. I'm just glad other secular real atheist scientist calls out his flawed research. That's what's important.

??you said what??
"You can disprove my statement by presenting anything resembling new knowledge or technology that a belief in your religion was key to producing in the last ten years"

oy!lol!. That like you telling a person that is a sports follower and tell them "You can disprove my statement by presenting anything resembling new knowledge or technology that a belief in [Sports]was key to producing in the last ten years" LOL. Religion and Science are as different as Sports and Science. oh man!lol.

I'm a closet atheist?? lol. No, but Fair enough. I don't believe you're atheist. So it's fair to say--you could be a closet Christian?? ;)
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you didn't read that link.
<quoted text>
I no longer think so. I basically see religion as worthless in my life - I have "no truck with it."
Clearly for you, it's important. It's enough for me that it's beneficial to you. I'll take your word on that and not need any proof.
<quoted text>
Hawking is an atheist. He came out recently and said something to the effect of "the universe doesn't require a creator."
He's one of the world's top physicists, just so you know.
<quoted text>
You can disprove my statement by presenting anything resembling new knowledge or technology that a belief in your religion was key to producing in the last ten years.
<quoted text>
Nice - see! You're a closet atheist!
Well done :)
<quoted text>
hahaha - not you, too!
Ok, two comments:
First, dictionaries for lay people aren't used by scientists. We have jargon dictionaries that are highly specific in their descriptions. This serves to make science as unambiguous as possible. Lay definitions for words, like the way Skom plays fast and easy with "theory," are totally worthless in science. You can't be precise when your tools are vague.
Second, I can work with that. It says "the process by which an individual learns the traditional content of a culture and assimilates its practices and values." Now I'm going to get technical on you, mainly for show.
The processes I'm talking about are "evolved mechanisms of learning." Humans are genetically wired to learn the rules, mores, norms and behaviors of "culture" (where culture is a shorthand for "shared practices, ways of knowing, experiencing, conceiving and constructing reality and referents, signs and signals vis a vis social behavior and language."). These learning mechanisms permanently and semi-permanently shape the brain. And the older you get, the more permanent the shaping becomes.
In a literal sense, you assimilate culture through brain maturation.
Shall I continue or is that enough? I can explain in great detail, if you like, how the brain develops, how rules of behavior form "reverberating circuits" in the brain and, while developing, it eliminates neurons that do not fit the cultural pattern being learned. I can discuss this at the level of the synapse if that makes you happy - but it will get highly technical at that point.
<quoted text>
Don't be stupid. None of us owe our understandings of experience to the dictionary. It's a description of how people use words, not a source for how we understand words.
Even if we apply your definition--how does your definition of enculturation explain Christianity growth in decidedly anti-Christian cultures such as Pakistan China and others??

Science does not have the authority to change the meaning of a word. Hawkins tried to change the word "nothing" to mean something else and was roundly and rightfully ridiculed for it.

Definition of a word IS understanding the word..., hence the Dictionary, iyai!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min kent 673,351
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 4 min Clearwater 104,778
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 6 min Clearwater 981,356
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 45 min ChromiuMan 6,190
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr bad bob 184,626
Well.......now I KNOW I won't buy with Amazon.com 3 hr Doctor REALITY 1
Orlando Hair MD (Nov '13) 5 hr Garry K 7
More from around the web