Prime example of what religon does to people...
- Thread starter Cmoke
- Start date
okay, hows this we can agree that religon might not be the only reason this bitch is crazy.. but you can very well tell that it has fueled and influenced her. She tells you that god tells her these things to do...
And how the fuck are a couple of you dudes tryn to say its not disrespectful to protest a dead mans funeral after he was killed in the military? There is a time and place for everything and disrespecting a recently deceased man while his family tries to remember his life is not one of them.
And how the fuck are a couple of you dudes tryn to say its not disrespectful to protest a dead mans funeral after he was killed in the military? There is a time and place for everything and disrespecting a recently deceased man while his family tries to remember his life is not one of them.
You obviously don't understand the context of the question, and your response is irrelevant.
"Since when did God love everybody" = "Since when did people start believing God loves everybody"
Example:
"Since when did big ass shades, worn in the 60's by funk bands, become the "stunna shades" worn by almost every bay area lunatic and heathen?"
"Since when where you paid to think or reply without reading the question in teh correct context?"
See how it works? Good. Now I need to enjoy my Baileys and Laceys.
"Since when did God love everybody" = "Since when did people start believing God loves everybody"
Example:
"Since when did big ass shades, worn in the 60's by funk bands, become the "stunna shades" worn by almost every bay area lunatic and heathen?"
"Since when where you paid to think or reply without reading the question in teh correct context?"
See how it works? Good. Now I need to enjoy my Baileys and Laceys.
If her dislike/disdain for homosexuality is caused by latent homosexuality within herself, molestation, or a loved one turning to homosexuality, how can you tell that religion has fueled and influenced her? Religion is the method she uses to convey her thoughts and feelings, but to imply that she is fueled by it or influenced by it is not something I am willing to agree with at this time. Of course, it doesn't matter if I agree or not, but the fact is she could be fueled by something other than religion, but simply use it as a tool to validate her views. White america/europeans did the same thing to afrikans and natives by using the bible to carry out their own agenda. Was it fueled by religious zealotry or bigotry and greed?
How the fuck are you going to say a guy who was shot at over 80 times and hit over 20 is deserving of death? Do you not see how you are being hypocritical? You'll probably reply with, "but he was a criminal blah blah blah", but didn't these soldiers sign up for the millitary? Didn't they also know they could be killed and that guns would be blasting off 24-7? Are these soldiers supposed to get a pass because they served in the millitary? What the millitary is doing is WRONG, and it has been wrong, so explain to me how it is disrespectful? Here try this one on for size, do the dead people even care about the protesters?
Btw, who said she was not being disrespectful? What I said was they are in their constitutional right to PROTEST, but I also said I don't agree with the way she is going about doing it. Again, who said she was not being disrespectful?
You know what? Nah, scratch that. She isn't being disrespectful. She is actually honoring the dead, by taking a stand in death and being bold enough to stand up when their familiy members, most of whom probably claim to be christian, wouldn't stand up against the war.
Stop playing humanitarian. Here it is you are whining about people doing what is in their constituinal right to do, yet you have no problem with police not following protocol and gunning a man down. Please, pick up a book on ethics before you drag this out any longer--it will make for a better debate.
How the fuck are you going to say a guy who was shot at over 80 times and hit over 20 is deserving of death? Do you not see how you are being hypocritical? You'll probably reply with, "but he was a criminal blah blah blah", but didn't these soldiers sign up for the millitary? Didn't they also know they could be killed and that guns would be blasting off 24-7? Are these soldiers supposed to get a pass because they served in the millitary? What the millitary is doing is WRONG, and it has been wrong, so explain to me how it is disrespectful? Here try this one on for size, do the dead people even care about the protesters?
Btw, who said she was not being disrespectful? What I said was they are in their constitutional right to PROTEST, but I also said I don't agree with the way she is going about doing it. Again, who said she was not being disrespectful?
You know what? Nah, scratch that. She isn't being disrespectful. She is actually honoring the dead, by taking a stand in death and being bold enough to stand up when their familiy members, most of whom probably claim to be christian, wouldn't stand up against the war.
Stop playing humanitarian. Here it is you are whining about people doing what is in their constituinal right to do, yet you have no problem with police not following protocol and gunning a man down. Please, pick up a book on ethics before you drag this out any longer--it will make for a better debate.
I'm not going to question him, or try to lower him unto my standards. But does he not love all his children? Honestly Heresy, would God have sent Yeshua Meshiach unto the world for the remission of Sins, just for the Jews? What about the Descendants of Esau? John 3:16 Remember?
Wow I'm surprised by this Heresy.
Wow I'm surprised by this Heresy.
No, you didn't suspect a hidden meaning because there is none, and the question was rhetorical and should have been regarded is such. That my friend is logical. Asking questions is logical, running off and typing babble (which you are constantly convicted of) is illogical. Please, no more dwelling on this, try to find something else to meditate on.
@ Stockton, read what J quoted.
However, for the sake of argument and the spirit of debate:
Why do you see it as such?
No, and no one has implied otherwise. How are you connecting this to what I said?
I have no time to destroy your argument, this link will do it for me.
http://www.dabhand.org/Essays/OT590B_mal_extent_of_the_love_of_god.htm
However, for the sake of argument and the spirit of debate:
Why do you see it as such?
No, and no one has implied otherwise. How are you connecting this to what I said?
I have no time to destroy your argument, this link will do it for me.
http://www.dabhand.org/Essays/OT590B_mal_extent_of_the_love_of_god.htm
Wow, before I've read the first paragraph, and it's already talking about what I spoke on. So I'll make an edit after the read. Ro 9:11 clearly states that the election part of this equation occurred prior to the birth of Jacob and Esau and is explicit that this occurred before either of them could be counted as having done good or bad. I totally agree brother man, but I think you though that I said his unconditional love means no one would be punished. I believe that, the merciful Jesus was the same slow-angered, tolerant yet punishing God of the Old Testament. I'm just saying he loves everybody, but it doesn't mean that he won't punish them. I never excused the fact that he hated Esau, because at one time he did love him.
Edit: I was surprised, because I may have taken your statement that God hates you automatically. I was just saying what about homosexuals that were born into a homosexual life, with no straight people, and didn't know Jesus. If they had repented, changed, and accepted Jesus they would be forgiven. I understand the Concept of John 3:16, THAT WHO SO EVER BELIEVETH IN HIM.
Edit: I was surprised, because I may have taken your statement that God hates you automatically. I was just saying what about homosexuals that were born into a homosexual life, with no straight people, and didn't know Jesus. If they had repented, changed, and accepted Jesus they would be forgiven. I understand the Concept of John 3:16, THAT WHO SO EVER BELIEVETH IN HIM.
What part of, "and the question was rhetorical" do you not understand? If it is rhetorical how is it straight forward?
The rhetorical question is usually defined as any question asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the question asks. For example, "Why are you so stupid?" is likely to be a statement regarding one's opinion of the person addressed rather than a genuine request to know. Similarly, when someone responds to a tragic event by saying, "Why me, God?!" it is more likely to be an accusation or an expression of feeling than a realistic request for information.
Apart from these more obviously rhetorical uses, the question as a grammatical form has important rhetorical dimensions. For example, the rhetorical critic may assess the effect of asking a question as a method of beginning discourse: "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" says the persona of Shakespeare's 18th sonnet. This kind of rhetorical question, in which one asks the opinion of those listening, is called anacoenosis. This rhetorical question has a definite ethical dimension, since to ask in this way generally endears the speaker to the audience and so improves his or her credibility or ethos. The technical term for rhetorical questions in general is erotema.
(all emphasis mine)
http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/R/rhetorical questions.htm
ALSO:
A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for rhetorical effect rather than for the purpose of getting an answer. ("How many times do I have to tell you to stop walking into the house with mud on your shoes?").
A rhetorical question seeks to encourage reflection within the listener as to what the answer to the question (at least, the answer implied by the questioner) must be. When a speaker declaims, "How much longer must our people endure this injustice?" or "Will our company grow or shrink?", no formal answer is expected. Rather, it is a device used by the speaker to assert or deny something.
(all emphasis mine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
In cases such as this, where the question is rhetorical, there is no need for answering.
Listen, you jumped the gun, didn't understand the context of the question, and now you want to drag it out. Just let it go man. Meditate on something else because it's not that serious.
The rhetorical question is usually defined as any question asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the question asks. For example, "Why are you so stupid?" is likely to be a statement regarding one's opinion of the person addressed rather than a genuine request to know. Similarly, when someone responds to a tragic event by saying, "Why me, God?!" it is more likely to be an accusation or an expression of feeling than a realistic request for information.
Apart from these more obviously rhetorical uses, the question as a grammatical form has important rhetorical dimensions. For example, the rhetorical critic may assess the effect of asking a question as a method of beginning discourse: "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" says the persona of Shakespeare's 18th sonnet. This kind of rhetorical question, in which one asks the opinion of those listening, is called anacoenosis. This rhetorical question has a definite ethical dimension, since to ask in this way generally endears the speaker to the audience and so improves his or her credibility or ethos. The technical term for rhetorical questions in general is erotema.
(all emphasis mine)
http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/R/rhetorical questions.htm
ALSO:
A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for rhetorical effect rather than for the purpose of getting an answer. ("How many times do I have to tell you to stop walking into the house with mud on your shoes?").
A rhetorical question seeks to encourage reflection within the listener as to what the answer to the question (at least, the answer implied by the questioner) must be. When a speaker declaims, "How much longer must our people endure this injustice?" or "Will our company grow or shrink?", no formal answer is expected. Rather, it is a device used by the speaker to assert or deny something.
(all emphasis mine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
In cases such as this, where the question is rhetorical, there is no need for answering.
Listen, you jumped the gun, didn't understand the context of the question, and now you want to drag it out. Just let it go man. Meditate on something else because it's not that serious.
I understand the question is rhetorical... NOW. Otherwise, without you saying so, there was no indication of that. And I wasn't the only one who responded to your question in a way other than what you meant. My only point is that you can't rightfully blame me for responding the way I did. "Since when did God love everybody" seems to imply that God doesn't love everybody. This is what I got from it, and this is what Stockton got from it. I just chose to respond to the time factor as a different route toward approaching the same argument.
You're right. It's not that serious. So just accept that clarification was necessary and that otherwise you can't hold it against people for responding the way they did.
You're right. It's not that serious. So just accept that clarification was necessary and that otherwise you can't hold it against people for responding the way they did.
Is the question "Why do you insist on typing and dragging things out?" a rhetorical one?
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 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.
I blame you for what you typed and what you implied when you typed it.
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 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.
But it is NOT the same argument. We already know God is eternal, inside and outside of time, so the argument IS different.
Which is why I've tried to keep the responses down, but you seem to want this to keep on going.
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.
Again, meditate on something else.
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 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.
I blame you for what you typed and what you implied when you typed it.
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 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.
But it is NOT the same argument. We already know God is eternal, inside and outside of time, so the argument IS different.
Which is why I've tried to keep the responses down, but you seem to want this to keep on going.
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.
Again, meditate on something else.