one is in paradise shipping pinacolada's
the other is getting laid by 72 virgins ha!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Tillman's Brother Speaks Out
- Thread starter aphexcoil
- Start date
one is in paradise shipping pinacolada's
the other is getting laid by 72 virgins ha!
Quote from LMAO:
oh please..
if i had a non-religious brother who gave his life in a war, I'D BE PISSED to think some jesus worshippers think he just gave up his life on earth and is now living happily ever after with jesus in heaven. as his brother stated, HE'S DEAD. he gave EVERYTHING HE HAD AND IS GONE FOREVER. to say he's with jesus or some crap is insulting.
Pat Tillman's brother said "Pat isn't with God." But what if God does exist? Then I hope Pat Tillman is with God. And if God doesn't exist, then Pat Tillman's brother should say there is no God, not that "Pat isn't with God."
Really, Pat Tillman's brother is expressing a view that God does not exist. But is he exploiting his brother's death, just like the "jesus freaks?" I don't remember Pat Tillman talking like that...
Tilman ain't with G-d... that's for sure...
Pat Tillman's brother is expressing a view that his brother is not with God.Quote from newbunch:
Pat Tillman's brother said "Pat isn't with God." But what if God does exist? Then I hope Pat Tillman is with God. And if God doesn't exist, then Pat Tillman's brother should say there is no God, not that "Pat isn't with God."
Really, Pat Tillman's brother is expressing a view that God does not exist. But is he exploiting his brother's death, just like the "jesus freaks?" I don't remember Pat Tillman talking like that...
He said ...
"Pat isn't with God,''
That is not expressing the view that God does or does not exist.
He said ...
"Pat isn't with God,''
That is not expressing the view that God does or does not exist.
True.
Nice to know that we have some people out there on ET that actually have the ability to flat-out reason in a logical fashion without any bias or subjective influence. Certainly a "rare" event on ET.
Congrats!
"Pat isn't with God,''
That is not expressing the view that God does or does not exist.
True.
Nice to know that we have some people out there on ET that actually have the ability to flat-out reason in a logical fashion without any bias or subjective influence. Certainly a "rare" event on ET.
Congrats!
I find it ironic that a fundamentalist might agree with Stu's reading. And waggie is all for a very literal interpretation of that statement as well. (Pretty soon they will be strict constructionists and reject the right of privacy being read into the constitution.)
However, having discourse in the past with Stu, I know Stu likes to read into things and put them in context. So I wonder?
Do you think Pat's brother was making his statments in reply the people that were probably speaking about Jesus, sacrifice and heaven or do you think someone at the funeral asked---- where is Pat, I cant find Pat?
Please...
newbunch made the correct read. Pats brother was grandstanding and asserting his beliefs as much as the religious people were asserting theirs.
Again, he had as much as right or more than anyone to make the statement. But, it was sort of passive aggressive. And like I said if he were to be characterized as "honest" he should have said what he meant. That is all.
I objected to the anti religious people holding up his statement as "honest" and what we need see more of.
I saw his statement to be as loaded as a Christians pro Jesus statements. I was not objecting to his right to make it just the characterization as "honest" vis a vis the other side.
However, having discourse in the past with Stu, I know Stu likes to read into things and put them in context. So I wonder?
Do you think Pat's brother was making his statments in reply the people that were probably speaking about Jesus, sacrifice and heaven or do you think someone at the funeral asked---- where is Pat, I cant find Pat?
Please...
newbunch made the correct read. Pats brother was grandstanding and asserting his beliefs as much as the religious people were asserting theirs.
Again, he had as much as right or more than anyone to make the statement. But, it was sort of passive aggressive. And like I said if he were to be characterized as "honest" he should have said what he meant. That is all.
I objected to the anti religious people holding up his statement as "honest" and what we need see more of.
I saw his statement to be as loaded as a Christians pro Jesus statements. I was not objecting to his right to make it just the characterization as "honest" vis a vis the other side.
Jem:
>Pats brother was grandstanding ...
Yeah, sure seemed to me like all those grieving family members were grandstanding with their emotional remberances of their fallen kin. Couldn't have been real...no way.
JB
>Pats brother was grandstanding ...
Yeah, sure seemed to me like all those grieving family members were grandstanding with their emotional remberances of their fallen kin. Couldn't have been real...no way.
JB
Quote from jem:
I find it ironic that a fundamentalist might agree with Stu's reading. And waggie is all for a very literal interpretation of that statement as well. (Pretty soon they will be strict constructionists and reject the right of privacy being read into the constitution.)
However, having discourse in the past with Stu, I know Stu likes to read into things and put them in context. So I wonder?
Do you think Pat's brother was making his statments in reply the people that were probably speaking about Jesus, sacrifice and heaven or do you think someone at the funeral asked---- where is Pat, I cant find Pat?
Please...
newbunch made the correct read. Pats brother was grandstanding and asserting his beliefs as much as the religious people were asserting theirs.
Again, he had as much as right or more than anyone to make the statement. But, it was sort of passive aggressive. And like I said if he were to be characterized as "honest" he should have said what he meant. That is all.
I objected to the anti religious people holding up his statement as "honest" and what we need see more of.
I saw his statement to be as loaded as a Christians pro Jesus statements. I was not objecting to his right to make it just the characterization as "honest" vis a vis the other side.
jem,
Reading things ...or reading things into things ??
Putting statements into context is surely preferable to putting them out of context or reading supposition into them, thereby running a big risk of reaching incorrect or inappropriate conclusion.Don't you agree??
By making his sincere statement, the Honesty belongs to Pat's brother.
Holding up his statement -made honestly by Pat's brother- makes the holder up of it, de facto anti religious??. Surely not ?!
So a person is now anti religious for recognizing sincere statements , which are made in all honesty??
Reading things ...or reading things into things ??
Putting statements into context is surely preferable to putting them out of context or reading supposition into them, thereby running a big risk of reaching incorrect or inappropriate conclusion.Don't you agree??
Probably yes,...but that was not what was being referred to when FLESH GORDON (lol) made his comments about honesty... and hasn't he adequately explained the context of his remarks to you already?.Quote from jem:
Do you think Pat's brother was making his statments in reply the people that were probably speaking about Jesus, sacrifice and heaven or do you think someone at the funeral asked---- where is Pat, I cant find Pat?
As Turok has already shown, you are now simply imposing your own standard for honesty onto Pat's brother.Quote from jem:
Honesty would have been, HEY I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT GOD AT MY BROTHERS FUNERAL.
By making his sincere statement, the Honesty belongs to Pat's brother.
I think you may be confusing honest with true.Quote from jem:
I objected to the anti religious people holding up his statement as "honest" and what we need see more of.
Holding up his statement -made honestly by Pat's brother- makes the holder up of it, de facto anti religious??. Surely not ?!
So a person is now anti religious for recognizing sincere statements , which are made in all honesty??
Since this point really is not worth spending anymore time on, this will be my last post on this subject. (if I have any will power)
He honestly has no idea where Pat is. He certainly can not state he is not with God. Without stating that he knows for sure there is no God. Or that he knows Gods rules.
Pat isn't with God,'' he said. "He's f -- ing dead. He wasn't religious. So thank you for your thoughts, but he's f -- ing dead.''
Nobody knows for sure what happens when we die.
Consequently this is a loaded and charged statement. Is it honest?
From Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: 1hon·est
Pronunciation: 'ä-n&st
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French honeste, from Latin honestus honorable, from honos, honor honor
1 a : free from fraud or deception : LEGITIMATE, TRUTHFUL <an honest plea> b : GENUINE, REAL <making honest stops at stop signs -- Christian Science Monitor> c : HUMBLE, PLAIN <good honest food>
2 a : REPUTABLE, RESPECTABLE <honest decent people> b chiefly British : GOOD, WORTHY
3 : CREDITABLE, PRAISEWORTHY <an honest day's work>
4 a : marked by integrity b : marked by free, forthright, and sincere expression : FRANK <an honest appraisal> c : INNOCENT, SIMPLE
synonym see UPRIGHT
1. Free from fraud or decepection. Well since he really does not know where his brother is - it is not free from deception.
2. I do not see the expression as good or worthy, I saw as loaded and passive agreesive.
3. see 2
4. It was clearly not a Frank- honest appraisal, because like I said he can have not idea where his brother is. (It was a response to religious people telling them there is no god/ but thanks for your thoughts.)
I also believe the "thanks for your thoughts part" was perhaps insincere. After all he followed it up with he is fucking dead. Not your normal funeral statement.
Pat isn't with God,'' he said. "He's f -- ing dead. He wasn't religious. So thank you for your thoughts, but he's f -- ing dead.''
In all likelihood this guy was like rowenwood or GG anoyed that his brother had just given his life and could not stand to here others talking about God. So he made it know that Pat is not with God (because there is no God you morons).
A loaded and charged reply to the pro God group. Not an honest reply to the question whre is Pat?
He honestly has no idea where Pat is. He certainly can not state he is not with God. Without stating that he knows for sure there is no God. Or that he knows Gods rules.
Pat isn't with God,'' he said. "He's f -- ing dead. He wasn't religious. So thank you for your thoughts, but he's f -- ing dead.''
Nobody knows for sure what happens when we die.
Consequently this is a loaded and charged statement. Is it honest?
From Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: 1hon·est
Pronunciation: 'ä-n&st
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French honeste, from Latin honestus honorable, from honos, honor honor
1 a : free from fraud or deception : LEGITIMATE, TRUTHFUL <an honest plea> b : GENUINE, REAL <making honest stops at stop signs -- Christian Science Monitor> c : HUMBLE, PLAIN <good honest food>
2 a : REPUTABLE, RESPECTABLE <honest decent people> b chiefly British : GOOD, WORTHY
3 : CREDITABLE, PRAISEWORTHY <an honest day's work>
4 a : marked by integrity b : marked by free, forthright, and sincere expression : FRANK <an honest appraisal> c : INNOCENT, SIMPLE
synonym see UPRIGHT
1. Free from fraud or decepection. Well since he really does not know where his brother is - it is not free from deception.
2. I do not see the expression as good or worthy, I saw as loaded and passive agreesive.
3. see 2
4. It was clearly not a Frank- honest appraisal, because like I said he can have not idea where his brother is. (It was a response to religious people telling them there is no god/ but thanks for your thoughts.)
I also believe the "thanks for your thoughts part" was perhaps insincere. After all he followed it up with he is fucking dead. Not your normal funeral statement.
Pat isn't with God,'' he said. "He's f -- ing dead. He wasn't religious. So thank you for your thoughts, but he's f -- ing dead.''
In all likelihood this guy was like rowenwood or GG anoyed that his brother had just given his life and could not stand to here others talking about God. So he made it know that Pat is not with God (because there is no God you morons).
A loaded and charged reply to the pro God group. Not an honest reply to the question whre is Pat?