Thanking God for your good fortune is the ultimate conceit

Quote from Doubter:

_____________________________________________

Thanks for pointing it out, I make judgements, you make observations.
More...

No problem, anytime. In this case, it was shown that I was simply pointing out that religious mystics routinely judge others by holding up their own faith informed moral compass and getting a reading. Agnostics look at this behavior and wonder how it is that the mystic can generalize his own received-faith claim that other who don't share his faith should follow his path.

With regard to whether or not you were judging me for my pointing this out, I'm not sure, and frankly I don't care.

You are a moral relativist. You say that we cannot look at any action and condemn it. I am not a moral relativist. I can look at an action (the hanging until dead of a young Muslim woman because she was found flirting with a young man, for example) and say that it is immoral.

It is also immoral for a religious mystic to censure another human because the other's behavior doesn't conform to the believers faith-informed prejudices. Hoepfully you will be able to correctly interpret the use of the word 'prejudice' in this sentence. If you are like most of the faithful, you will say 'See!! You are being judgemental!!'.

Fairly simple, isn't it?
 
"("There but for the grace of God go I.")"
On the flip side. Everyone who suffers misfortune begs "Why me?"
No one who has a fortunate circumstance asks "Why me?"
More...
Not true at all. That's exactly what "survivor's guilt" is. "Why was I spared when everyone else died?" And if they are religious, they might well preface that question with "Dear God..."

Harold
 
Quote from jem:

Stu you need help. Really - I am sorry some religious person hurt you but you need to move on with your life. Your emotions cause you to say stupid stuff.

Your point is completely irrational. It does not matter if the story is real or not. The guy is calling himself Jesus and claiming to help people achieve eternal life.

If he is going to teach stuff inconsistent with the biblical Jesus what is the point of calling himself Jesus. why not call himself Gilbert of God.


Adopting such a contra handle is a disinformation device and perhaps a little diabolical.
More...
I know you like to pretend that anyone who doesn't lap up church "teaching" in the way you do, must have suffered some hurt or other. That illustrates I think precisely the 'ultimate conceit' of some believers like yourself which Thunderdog's OP addresses

Consumed in that conceit, you have once again mistakenly jumped to a wrong conclusion (nothing new then) which, -as evident in many of your posts if not quite all of them-, is a common occurrence.
I didn't refer to the Iam-Jesus character at all. Indeed in the post of yours which I included, neither did you.

Irrationality is also present in the way you recite bible passages as though they were meant to be true. It's is on a par with someone reciting passages from Mother Goose or Jack and the Beanstalk as though they were meant to be true.

My argument is that doing so and the lengths to which you do so , in the extremes you have gone to defend that irrationality ( in another thread claiming you literally eat Jesus for instance) is nothing less than delusional.(and somewhat sick in that example,) in my view.


However seeing on how you have now brought this up...
Quote from jem:

It does not matter if the story is real or not. The guy is calling himself Jesus and claiming to help people achieve eternal life.
More...

That's exactly what the Jesus in the bible tale did as well. Why should a 2000 year old Jesus story be true or real, any more than today's Iam-Jesus story be true or real.


"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion" Zen and the art of....
 
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion"

As the courts have deemed atheism is a religion, that confirms the view that the ET atheists are suffering from and blinded by mass delusion...

http://www.afa.net/CLP/ReleaseDetail.asp?id=102

Quote from stu:

I know you like to pretend that anyone who doesn't lap up church "teaching" in the way you do, must have suffered some hurt or other. That illustrates I think precisely the 'ultimate conceit' of some believers like yourself which Thunderdog's OP addresses

Consumed in that conceit, you have once again mistakenly jumped to a wrong conclusion (nothing new then) which, -as evident in many of your posts if not quite all of them-, is a common occurrence.
I didn't refer to the Iam-Jesus character at all. Indeed in the post of yours which I included, neither did you.

Irrationality is also present in the way you recite bible passages as though they were meant to be true. It's is on a par with someone reciting passages from Mother Goose or Jack and the Beanstalk as though they were meant to be true.

My argument is that doing so and the lengths to which you do so , in the extremes you have gone to defend that irrationality ( in another thread claiming you literally eat Jesus for instance) is nothing less than delusional.(and somewhat sick in that example,) in my view.


However seeing on how you have now brought this up...


That's exactly what the Jesus in the bible tale did as well. Why should a 2000 year old Jesus story be true or real, any more than today's Iam-Jesus story be true or real.


"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion" Zen and the art of....
More...
 
Quote from traderNik:

No problem, anytime. In this case, it was shown that I was simply pointing out that religious mystics routinely judge others by holding up their own faith informed moral compass and getting a reading. Agnostics look at this behavior and wonder how it is that the mystic can generalize his own received-faith claim that other who don't share his faith should follow his path.

With regard to whether or not you were judging me for my pointing this out, I'm not sure, and frankly I don't care.

You are a moral relativist. You say that we cannot look at any action and condemn it. I am not a moral relativist. I can look at an action (the hanging until dead of a young Muslim woman because she was found flirting with a young man, for example) and say that it is immoral.

It is also immoral for a religious mystic to censure another human because the other's behavior doesn't conform to the believers faith-informed prejudices. Hoepfully you will be able to correctly interpret the use of the word 'prejudice' in this sentence. If you are like most of the faithful, you will say 'See!! You are being judgemental!!'.

Fairly simple, isn't it?
More...
__________________________________________

Simple? You don't seem to get the irony of your "observing" versus others "judging" and yet denying that that is exactly what you are doing and still claiming that this is balanced thinking.
 
Quote from stu:

I know you like to pretend that anyone who doesn't lap up church "teaching" in the way you do, must have suffered some hurt or other. That illustrates I think precisely the 'ultimate conceit' of some believers like yourself which Thunderdog's OP addresses

Consumed in that conceit, you have once again mistakenly jumped to a wrong conclusion (nothing new then) which, -as evident in many of your posts if not quite all of them-, is a common occurrence.
I didn't refer to the Iam-Jesus character at all. Indeed in the post of yours which I included, neither did you.

Irrationality is also present in the way you recite bible passages as though they were meant to be true. It's is on a par with someone reciting passages from Mother Goose or Jack and the Beanstalk as though they were meant to be true.

My argument is that doing so and the lengths to which you do so , in the extremes you have gone to defend that irrationality ( in another thread claiming you literally eat Jesus for instance) is nothing less than delusional.(and somewhat sick in that example,) in my view.


However seeing on how you have now brought this up...


That's exactly what the Jesus in the bible tale did as well. Why should a 2000 year old Jesus story be true or real, any more than today's Iam-Jesus story be true or real.


"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion" Zen and the art of....
More...


Stu take a step back and examine what you did. A guy (me) is having theological conversation with a guy whose screen name is "I AM" and signs his posts as Jesus.

You somehow felt compelled to interject yourself into our dialogue and sort of attack me and tell me the bible is just a story.

Dude I was writing to a guy calling himself Jesus and God. What compelled you to make such an obvious statement and create such a stupid tangent?



You do not think a Christian exchanging dozens of posts with a guy calling himself God does not understand that there can be people who believe differently or not at all. Dude - get a grip.


I assume you were injured because only a wounded person would act like you. It has nothing to do with my pride. You are a smart guy. Yet your hatred of anyone who has faith motivates you to fall off your rocker.

Instead of admitting you took my statements out of context and got all emotional - you come back with the above.


Really Stu- glad you were here to inject reality into our conversation. What would writer of those posts named Jesus have done without your voice of sanity.

go back - put my conversations in context and get a grip. I cite bible passages in the context of biblical understanding. I never state to a non believer you have to believe the bible as I do. That would be pointless.

You just hate seeing the writings of anyone with faith - so you pretend that I am telling an atheists like yourself that you have to believe. Dude, you may never believe and I take no pride in that statement.
 
jem, its a message board. I interject, people interject, you have interjected, even without call many times before in other threads. It's what happens. Take your own advice and go back and see that for yourself , if you like.

I interjected and included your quote so you could see where my comment was coming from. For you to suggest a pleading for holding some special conversational privileges with another poster in an open thread is, well, just silly.

Yes I can see you are having a conversation and I highlighted a particular post of yours which in my opinion relates all the things I then laid at your door in criticism. Your response, first to insult, and evade in the way you have.
. It's what you do

You made one isolated separate post about the bible and a tale within it which I commented on . For you to claim it is part of a conversation and therefore taken out of context is quite frankly laughable.

If it doesn't stand on it's own why post it on its own against one of the Iam-Jesus 's , which did not alter the context of your post one bit.

The only weapon you choose is to use insult and or evade and / or absurdity. You',ve picked up on a couple of zz trolls insults about 'childhood issues' and now continuously try to use them as argument
In doing so you fit the conceit in thinking that someone who does not follow your God in the childish way you portray must be "hurt" as a child. All you are doing is repeatedly displaying the conceit highlighted in the OP

You cite bible passages in context of YOUR biblical understandings. There are countless such understandings. Religion is spit into thousands of separate bits of such understandings which in turn argue against their own understandings Just as there are many understandings of Jack and the Beanstalk.

You have not approached any of the substance within my post to you, not one. For instance without relying on what the tales themselves say , why should a 2000 year old fable be from any more a real Jesus than the tales you are getting now from the Iam-Jesus.

Instead of addressing that all you can do is insult , evade, use absurdity. No doubt you feel your "faith" gives you a righteousness to allow such conceit.
 
"I interject, people interject..."

And then when you don't like what they interject, you call them trolls...

What a fraudulent panzy ass little bitch you are...


Quote from stu:

jem, its a message board. I interject, people interject, you have interjected, even without call many times before in other threads. It's what happens. Take your own advice and go back and see that for yourself , if you like.

I interjected and included your quote so you could see where my comment was coming from. For you to suggest a pleading for holding some special conversational privileges with another poster in an open thread is, well, just silly.

Yes I can see you are having a conversation and I highlighted a particular post of yours which in my opinion relates all the things I then laid at your door in criticism. Your response, first to insult, and evade in the way you have.
. It's what you do

You made one isolated separate post about the bible and a tale within it which I commented on . For you to claim it is part of a conversation and therefore taken out of context is quite frankly laughable.

If it doesn't stand on it's own why post it on its own against one of the Iam-Jesus 's , which did not alter the context of your post one bit.

The only weapon you choose is to use insult and or evade and / or absurdity. You',ve picked up on a couple of zz trolls insults about 'childhood issues' and now continuously try to use them as argument
In doing so you fit the conceit in thinking that someone who does not follow your God in the childish way you portray must be "hurt" as a child. All you are doing is repeatedly displaying the conceit highlighted.
OP
You cite bible passages in context of YOUR biblical understandings. There are countless such understandings. Religion is spit into thousands of separate bits of such understandings which in turn argue against their own understandings Just as there are many understandings of Jack and the Beanstalk.

You have not approached any of the substance within my post to you, not one. For instance without relying on what the tales themselves say , why should a 2000 year old fable be from any more a real Jesus than the tales you are getting now from the Iam-Jesus.

Instead of addressing that all you can do is insult , evade, use absurdity. No doubt you feel your "faith" gives you a righteousness to allow such conceit.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

...And then when you don't like what they interject, you call them trolls...

What a fraudulent panzy ass little bitch you are...
More...

And thus Z10 validates the characterization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top