Prime example of what religon does to people...

[XxtraMannish]

What would be the purpose of God telling someone to have an abortion or smoke crack? ...Often times these people recant their stories and claims altogether. In other cases severe mental problems have contributed to their claims. Again, what would be the purpose of God telling them to do it?

I dont know what the purpose would be, but just because I dont understand it doesn't mean its not a possibility.

But that does not make it wrong. It makes it wrong for YOU and for those who view the situation in the same manner.

Exactly, it makes it wrong to me, which is why I am critical of it, which is the answer to the question you asked.

If her intentions are ethical how can you imply she is morally wrong?

We dont know her intentions, but if her intentions are ethical, I guess it cant be implied that she is MORALLY wrong, but regardless of her intentions, her ACTIONS are.

Also, the fact that her intentions have no bearing on your viewing shows you are not capable of looking at this manner from a different perspective, and it also shows you are quick to judge a book by its cover.

You are wrong about that. I am more adept at seeing things from other perspectives than the vast majority of people I know. Just because i can see another perspective does not mean that I dont have my own.

 

[HERESY]

I dont know what the purpose would be, but just because I dont understand it doesn't mean its not a possibility.

Are you an atheist?

Exactly, it makes it wrong to me, which is why I am critical of it, which is the answer to the question you asked.

But you are critical without looking at what all you could look at.

We dont know her intentions, but if her intentions are ethical, I guess it cant be implied that she is MORALLY wrong, but regardless of her intentions, her ACTIONS are.

If her actions are dictated/commanded/instructed by God himself her actions are 100% correct.

You are wrong about that.

I'm talking about in this thread.

I am more adept at seeing things from other perspectives than the vast majority of people I know. Just because i can see another perspective does not mean that I dont have my own.

In this thread your sole point is: She is not considerate, how dare she protest at someones funeral.

If you did look at it from another perspective you wouldn't have asked me what you initially asked.

 

[XxtraMannish]

Are you an atheist?

No.

If her actions are dictated/commanded/instructed by God himself her actions are 100% correct.

Thats a big "if." I don't believe what she is doing could have been instructed by God, because I dont believe God talks to people. Anyone hearing voices tell them to do things needs to be temporarily or permanently institutionalized.

In this thread your sole point is: She is not considerate, how dare she protest at someones funeral.

Its not just that. Its also the fact that she goes around to these funerals and says "Thank God your son/ daughter/ parent/brother/ sister/ aunt/ uncle/ grandparent etc is dead!" How do you not see something wrong with that?

If you did look at it from another perspective you wouldn't have asked me what you initially asked.

Not true. Its just that her perspective is bullshit. I can look at the situation from another angle, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

 

[Cmoke]

protesting a funeral is bold now? haha. you really have lost it.

 

[HERESY]

No.

Ok, what are you?

Thats a big "if."

Based on your belief system.

I don't believe what she is doing could have been instructed by God, because I dont believe God talks to people.

You don't have to believe it, but simply consider the possibilty and go from that point.

Anyone hearing voices tell them to do things needs to be temporarily or permanently institutionalized.

In some cases yes, in some cases no, and my stance is dictated by my personal experiences/beliefs.

Its not just that. Its also the fact that she goes around to these funerals and says "Thank God your son/ daughter/ parent/brother/ sister/ aunt/ uncle/ grandparent etc is dead!" How do you not see something wrong with that?

You can look at this from several perspectives. I recently talked about the blessings of death. Thank God hitler is dead (something Stockton said) is a prime example. She could be saying the people are evil and deserving of the wrath of God. Some people do not view death as the same way you do. Some people see death as LIFE and the answer to unanswered questions. In this case, death is a blessing.

Not true. Its just that her perspective is bullshit.

That is the thing, we don't really know her perspective or why she is doing it. Since we don't know we can speculate and give opinions, but we can't say this is bullshit and be certain of it 100%.

I can look at the situation from another angle, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

I agree with this and I am currently doing it. I said I don't agree with her methods, but I am also saying her methods could be correct. I am also saying her methods may have something to do with things outside of religion (mental illness, past sexual abuse etc.)

 

[XxtraMannish]

Ok, what are you?

I don't adhere to any particular religion. I believe there is something more powerful and intelligent than us that breathes life and structure into the universe. The best word I can think of to describe that in a way that most people will understand is "God."

You don't have to believe it, but simply consider the possibilty and go from that point.

As long as you acknowledge the possibility that God tells people to smoke crack and kill people.

You can look at this from several perspectives. I recently talked about the blessings of death. Thank God hitler is dead (something Stockton said) is a prime example. She could be saying the people are evil and deserving of the wrath of God. Some people do not view death as the same way you do. Some people see death as LIFE and the answer to unanswered questions. In this case, death is a blessing.

My issue is not with the dead. I am taking issue with the way she is reating the families and friends who are trying to grieve and mourn. The dead dont care what the hell she is doing, but the living people who survive the deceased do.

That is the thing, we don't really know her perspective or why she is doing it. Since we don't know we can speculate and give opinions, but we can't say this is bullshit and be certain of it 100%.

I agree with that. But since we dont know her intentions, all we have is our speculation to base it on, so thats what I'm doing, just as you are.

I agree with this and I am currently doing it. I said I don't agree with her methods, but I am also saying her methods could be correct. I am also saying her methods may have something to do with things outside of religion (mental illness, past sexual abuse etc.)

Fair enough.

 

[HERESY]

I don't adhere to any particular religion. I believe there is something more powerful and intelligent than us that breathes life and structure into the universe. The best word I can think of to describe that in a way that most people will understand is "God."

Is smoking crack life and structure?

As long as you acknowledge the possibility that God tells people to smoke crack and kill people.

No, because the God I follow does not tell peopel to smoke crack because he says our bodies are temples and should be treated as such. As far as killing people, he has ordered people to rise up against other nations and fight them, but as I said before, the people you are talking about usually recant the stories or their are severe mental issues going on. I do not believe God is telling one person to go out and murder 20. That goes against his own commandments of not murdering.

My issue is not with the dead. I am taking issue with the way she is reating the families and friends who are trying to grieve and mourn. The dead dont care what the hell she is doing, but the living people who survive the deceased do.

If she is doing it to agitate them that is wrong. If she is saying it to comfort them (and it can be comforting depending on how you look at it) she is right.

I agree with that. But since we dont know her intentions, all we have is our speculation to base it on, so thats what I'm doing, just as you are.

Listen, there is no need to say, "just as you are", because I have said from the start that everything I am saying may or may not be the case. However, since I don't know her intentions I am forced to look at possible scenarios and reasons.

 

[ilikeballs]

^^^if she did mean all that she said in a good way then she should have awknowlegde it and realize that her way may not be the best way to go about it. until she apologizes for her offending actions she is wrong in my book. Unless she has mental issues, in which case she should back down from her leadership position and let someone that is more capable handle it, than she is wrong.

 

[HERESY]

^^^if she did mean all that she said in a good way then she should have awknowlegde it and realize that her way may not be the best way to go about it

She shouldn't have to acknowledge anything, and how does realizing her way not being the best way change anything?

until she apologizes for her offending actions she is wrong in my book.

Besides yourself how many people care about your book? Although I am replying, that doesn't mean I care.

Unless she has mental issues, in which case she should back down from her leadership position and let someone that is more capable handle it

Who is going to lead? Everyone in that church tends to think and agree in the same fashion.

than she is wrong.

This is your opinion. If God told her to be bold and protest a funeral she isn't wrong in my book. In fact, if he told her to do it she is doing the right thing.

 

[ilikeballs]

She shouldn't have to acknowledge anything, and how does realizing her way not being the best way change anything?

Its obviously not the best way, all she is doing is angering people. all she is causing is to upset all the families of dead soldiers who may or may have not supported the war.

Besides yourself how many people care about your book? Although I am replying, that doesn't mean I care.

dont need others to aprove of it. i know whats right and whats wrong, and totally disrespecting the families of dead soldiers and the soldiers themselves is something she doesnt have the right to do.

Who is going to lead? Everyone in that church tends to think and agree in the same fashion.

Well if you have nothing good to say dont say it at all. Maybe If she showed some respect people would take her more seriously

This is your opinion. If God told her to be bold and protest a funeral she isn't wrong in my book. In fact, if he told her to do it she is doing the right thing.

I dont think god would say be bold and disrespect your neighboor at their time of need.

 

[HERESY]

Its obviously not the best way,

No it isn't.

all she is doing is angering people. all she is causing is to upset all the families of dead soldiers who may or may have not supported the war

People are angered everyday, and I don't know if she is causing anger to all of the families. It seems that the majority of those who are outspoken don't even have anything to do with these families.

dont need others to aprove of it.

So why mention it as if it is remotely important?

i know whats right and whats wrong,

so?

and totally disrespecting the families of dead soldiers and the soldiers themselves is something she doesnt have the right to do.

Why doesn't she have the right? Is it not her constitutional right to protest and practice freedom of speech?

Well if you have nothing good to say dont say it at all. Maybe If she showed some respect people would take her more seriously

Maybe if people would respect themselves she wouldn't have to do what she does. Who knows?

I dont think god would say be bold and disrespect your neighboor at their time of need.

God is no respector of persons, and what you think is not really important at this time. Again, if she was commanded by God to do what she is doing it is not disrespect. God has commanded many people to do many things, and some would appear "worse" than what this lady is doing.

 

[ilikeballs]

So why mention it as if it is remotely important?

because she is using religion to justify her actions. it could be that she is not even religious and just trying to make it look bad. just like you said it could be anything. we dont know.

Why doesn't she have the right? Is it not her constitutional right to protest and practice freedom of speech?

yeah i guess its constitutional, but does she have the moral right to inflict pain in others? words are powerful. with that power comes responsibility. plus nobody is forcing her to live here with the "Sinners". if anything, she should separate herself from them.

Maybe if people would respect themselves she wouldn't have to do what she does. Who knows?

she should worry about her own actions. nobody is bodering her in her church so why should she bother someone else at a funeral? i dont think she would appreciate someone standing outside her house talking shit.

God is no respector of persons, and what you think is not really important at this time. Again, if she was commanded by God to do what she is doing it is not disrespect. God has commanded many people to do many things, and some would appear "worse" than what this lady is doing.

Dont put gods name in this if your not even sure it was him who commanded it.

 

[XxtraMannish]

Is smoking crack life and structure?

No. Life and structure is life and structure. I was basing that on your belief that God talks to people. As I said, I dont believe God talks to people.

No, because the God I follow does not tell peopel to smoke crack because he says our bodies are temples and should be treated as such. As far as killing people, he has ordered people to rise up against other nations and fight them, but as I said before, the people you are talking about usually recant the stories or their are severe mental issues going on. I do not believe God is telling one person to go out and murder 20. That goes against his own commandments of not murdering.

None of that contradicts the POSSIBILITY that God would tell someone to do such things. How do you know what God really wants? Because you read a book about it? If you say you can talk to God, please enlighten the rest of us as to how you do this. It would be greatly appreciated by all who do not know how. I'm not saying that sarcastically either, so dont get me wrong on that. I'm sure everyon would love to talk to God if it were possible.

If she is doing it to agitate them that is wrong. If she is saying it to comfort them (and it can be comforting depending on how you look at it) she is right.

How could what she is doing possibly be considered a comforting act?

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Is the question "Why do you insist on typing and dragging things out?" a rhetorical one?

Since when does Heresy follow his own advice?

Which is why you should have ASKED before you replied. Again, when I need clarification, or I don't understand the context of the question/statement I ask the poster to clarify/elaborate.

I don't understand the magical context that only Heresy can see. As far as this thread goes, I understand that your question was a response to Stockton's statement that God loves everybody. There was no other context there to indicate the rhetorical implications you had. What you were essentially asking was, "Since when did people believe that God loves everybody?" When you write, "Since when did God love everybody?" the most direct and logical implication that can be drawn is that you are suggesting that God does not love everybody. You are asking a question pertaining directly to God, not to what people think about God. I simply took the question in the most straight forward way. I could have asked for clarification, but then I would have needed to felt that clarification was required, in the first place. Obviously I didn't feel that way.

I made a post @ 8:31 am stating the question was rhetorical and explaining the context. Why Stockton chose to answer it hours later is beyond me, but the fact that OTHERS did NOT reply shows that several people took it the way it was supposed to be. However, the way Stockton took it actually opened the doors for dialog between he and myself on a positive level. The way you took it came off as confrontational and here we are now going back and forth over something small.

1) If it is small, then why are you going back and forth over it? You could have left it alone after I wrote, "Thank you for clarifying that which I would've had to speculate otherwise."

2) The fact that other people did not reply does NOT necessarily tell you that they took it the way you meant it. Many people don't care (because they are atheists) and then they may see the implication that God doesn't love everybody and like the idea since it gives them more a reason to be averse toward God and/or religion. Why argue with someone who implies a point that would strengthen their own (the potential arguer's) beliefs?

I blame you for what you typed and what you implied when you typed it.

I am perfectly okay taking the blame for implying that your question was of the straight forward kind. I feel there is no fault to be found there.

And it may also imply that God loving everybody is some new ideaology that someone concoted while eating a bowl of cookie crisp. It may imply that I am outside of the loop and late when it comes to this belief. It does not have to imply that GOD doesn't love everybody, rather, that PEOPLE believe God doesn't love everybody.

I chose to answer the question regarding it's most direct implication. Notice how the question was not, "Since when was there this ideology about God loving everyone?"

I don't know what Stockton got from it. Hell, J probably got the idea that stockton is a blind bat, so that could be the reason why J quoted me. However, if you and Stockton thought that, both of you need to concentrate on reading questions first and asking for clarification before you reply. Be selective in what you say and think about it before you do. Otherwise, we have long drawn out discussions like we are now.

I am not worried about how long and drawn out this discussion is. You are.

My point is that I am not at fault for regarding your question in a straight forward way. You did not mention "people" in the question. You did not mention "ideologies" in the question. THEREFORE I DID NOT RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION IN THESE REGARDS.

This could have ended a long time ago, but you insist on dragging it on thinking that I am to blame for responding the way I did.

But it is NOT the same argument. We already know God is eternal, inside and outside of time, so the argument IS different.

Do "we" already know that? Perhaps there is indication that we do, but I have encountered plenty of times when the ramifications of one point seem to go without notice. It is very possible that one of us, although knowing that God is eternal, mistakenly applied some aspect of God as being subject to time. And although this can be a potentially separate line of argument, it is also very much related.

Which is why I've tried to keep the responses down, but you seem to want this to keep on going.

At least I am consistent. Your words imply that you don't want this to drag on, but your actions say otherwise.

Now you're coming across as confrontational and trying to imply that it is my fault that YOU jumped the gun and now look foolish. I don't take orders from you, so I don't need to "just accept" anything yourself, stockton or ANYONE on this board types. Am I holding it against you? No, which is why I keep telling you to drop it, but when your initial response is "blah blah blah is irrelevant", you are setting the tone and direction for the flow of the convo, and it's direction is one of negativity.

I didn't "jump the gun". It wasn't like I cut you off mid-sentence. You made a post asking a question. I responded to the direct implication of that question. Plain. And. Simple. In response to me, you wrote, "You obviously don't understand the context of the question". There is no context (save the one in your mind) that indicates the implication you meant. Since there is no such context, my response was not irrelevant. This was just you trying to push the blame on me from the get go. It would have saved you from a long, drawn out conversation if you had simply responded, "To clarify, by asking that question I meant to imply that many people think that God does not love everybody" instead of attempting to push the blame on me for missing some "context" and then concluding your post with a condescending, "see how it works?"

Again, meditate on something else.

Since when did I take orders from someone right after they wrote, "I don't take orders from you"?

 

[HERESY]

Since when does Heresy follow his own advice?




I don't understand the magical context that only Heresy can see. As far as this thread goes, I understand that your question was a response to Stockton's statement that God loves everybody. There was no other context there to indicate the rhetorical implications you had. What you were essentially asking was, "Since when did people believe that God loves everybody?" When you write, "Since when did God love everybody?" the most direct and logical implication that can be drawn is that you are suggesting that God does not love everybody. You are asking a question pertaining directly to God, not to what people think about God. I simply took the question in the most straight forward way. I could have asked for clarification, but then I would have needed to felt that clarification was required, in the first place. Obviously I didn't feel that way.




1) If it is small, then why are you going back and forth over it? You could have left it alone after I wrote, "Thank you for clarifying that which I would've had to speculate otherwise."

2) The fact that other people did not reply does NOT necessarily tell you that they took it the way you meant it. Many people don't care (because they are atheists) and then they may see the implication that God doesn't love everybody and like the idea since it gives them more a reason to be averse toward God and/or religion. Why argue with someone who implies a point that would strengthen their own (the potential arguer's) beliefs?




I am perfectly okay taking the blame for implying that your question was of the straight forward kind. I feel there is no fault to be found there.




I chose to answer the question regarding it's most direct implication. Notice how the question was not, "Since when was there this ideology about God loving everyone?"




I am not worried about how long and drawn out this discussion is. You are.

My point is that I am not at fault for regarding your question in a straight forward way. You did not mention "people" in the question. You did not mention "ideologies" in the question. THEREFORE I DID NOT RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION IN THESE REGARDS.

This could have ended a long time ago, but you insist on dragging it on thinking that I am to blame for responding the way I did.




Do "we" already know that? Perhaps there is indication that we do, but I have encountered plenty of times when the ramifications of one point seem to go without notice. It is very possible that one of us, although knowing that God is eternal, mistakenly applied some aspect of God as being subject to time. And although this can be a potentially separate line of argument, it is also very much related.




At least I am consistent. Your words imply that you don't want this to drag on, but your actions say otherwise.




I didn't "jump the gun". It wasn't like I cut you off mid-sentence. You made a post asking a question. I responded to the direct implication of that question. Plain. And. Simple. In response to me, you wrote, "You obviously don't understand the context of the question". There is no context (save the one in your mind) that indicates the implication you meant. Since there is no such context, my response was not irrelevant. This was just you trying to push the blame on me from the get go. It would have saved you from a long, drawn out conversation if you had simply responded, "To clarify, by asking that question I meant to imply that many people think that God does not love everybody" instead of attempting to push the blame on me for missing some "context" and then concluding your post with a condescending, "see how it works?"




Since when did I take orders from someone right after they wrote, "I don't take orders from you"?

Go and meditate on something else. I didn't even read what you typed. I just quoted it, scrolled to the bottom and typed my response. have a nice day!

 

[HERESY]

because she is using religion to justify her actions. it could be that she is not even religious and just trying to make it look bad. just like you said it could be anything. we dont know.

Doesn't look like she is using "religion" to me.

yeah i guess its constitutional, but does she have the moral right to inflict pain in others?

Are you reading anything I have typed? IF she was told by God to do it she DOES have the moral right.

words are powerful.

In some cases yes.

with that power comes responsibility.

No disagreement here.

plus nobody is forcing her to live here with the "Sinners". if anything, she should separate herself from them.

She can be in the world but not of it. She can be a light to the world and the only reason she should leave is if God told her to. If not, she can live where she wants and has a right to protest.

she should worry about her own actions.

It appears that she is.

nobody is bodering her in her church so why should she bother someone else at a funeral?

1. If she has been lead by God to do what she is doing she is not bothering anyone.

2. It is in her constitutional right to protest.

3. If someone wants to protest her church they have the right to do so.

i dont think she would appreciate someone standing outside her house talking shit.

Actually, I believe she would probably encourage it.

Dont put gods name in this if your not even sure it was him who commanded it.

First of all, don't tell me what to do. Second of all, I'M NOT THE ONE PUTTING GOD IN THIS. THE LADY IS. Third of all, take your own advice, because YOU don't know if God has commanded it, and since you don't know, you should probably be a bit more careful when you question this lady and her tactics because she may actually be an instrument to warn people.

 

[Azazin]

"God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him." Nietzsche

 

[2-0-NINE]

@Jon21, can you tell me what happened to the Egyptians that pursued the Hebrews when they were freed? Can you tell me what will happen to the wicked according to revelation? Can you tell me what happened to those who didn't take heed of Noah's warning*somewhat irrelevant* well my point is, divine judgment was all given to them.

"God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him." Nietzsche

So is your great grandmother, your great uncle, your greatgrand father, your mom in a few years, your dad as well, you, and your siblings. Lame, are you contributing?

 

[HERESY]

No. Life and structure is life and structure. I was basing that on your belief that God talks to people. As I said, I dont believe God talks to people.

So why are we having this discussion? If you don't believe God talks to people (something that is your right to do), you are ruling out the possibility that she might be telling the truth.

None of that contradicts the POSSIBILITY that God would tell someone to do such things.

Again, what would be the PURPOSE of it? If you are going to sit here and say there is a possibility you need to explain how it is possible and the reason for it.

How do you know what God really wants?

How do you NOT know is more important. WHY you don't know is equally important.

Because you read a book about it? If you say you can talk to God, please enlighten the rest of us as to how you do this. It would be greatly appreciated by all who do not know how. I'm not saying that sarcastically either, so dont get me wrong on that. I'm sure everyon would love to talk to God if it were possible.

Did you not say several times now that you don't believe God talks to people? Yes you did, and if you think I am going to sit and entertain your curiosity you are sadly mistaken. I already skipped over one persons reply because of their unwillingness to say something important, so if you want the convo to proceed, say something remotely important or worthwile. Otherwise, I'll simply take it as you going round and round and stopping where no one knows.

How could what she is doing possibly be considered a comforting act?

Refer to stocktons previous post and refer to my posts where I mentioned it. You are starting to go in circles read all previous replies.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Go and meditate on something else. I didn't even read what you typed. I just quoted it, scrolled to the bottom and typed my response. have a nice day!

Since when did I take orders from someone right after they wrote, "I don't take orders from you"?