On What are your Religious Beliefs Based?

Shibolet said:
Yes, it is but, there is nothing in Isaiah as a reference to Jesus but only according to Christian preconceived notions.
Click to expand...
Do you *ever* read with comprehension of the English language? Perhaps English isn't your first language? If so then it would be forgivable, otherwise you seriously need to get off of your preconceived notions and stop putting words into people's mouths in order to make yourself look good. That is disingenuous and downright rude.

Do yourself a favor and read what I actually said and why...in the proper context. Otherwise you are a typical narrow minded bigot who can't see past the end of your nose.

Ball's in your court, sport.
 
juantoo3 said:
Do you *ever* read with comprehension of the English language? Perhaps English isn't your first language? If so then it would be forgivable, otherwise you seriously need to get off of your preconceived notions and stop putting words into people's mouths in order to make yourself look good. That is disingenuous and downright rude.

Do yourself a favor and read what I actually said and why...in the proper context. Otherwise you are a typical narrow minded bigot who can't see past the end of your nose.

Ball's in your court, sport.
Click to expand...

You got only one right: English is not my first language. English is my third language in the order of the four languages I speak. The rest of what you say, is not much differently from ad hominem. But I understand you. The mouth usually speaks only of what the heart is full.
 
Indeed.

Aren't you the one advocating conflict as being good? I'm just giving you some conflict to think about. That's MY interpretation of "turn the other cheek," from the Aramaic. Do unto others as they show you they want to be done unto.
 
Last edited:
juantoo3 said:
Indeed.

Aren't you the one advocating conflict as being good? I'm just giving you some conflict to think about. That's MY interpretation of "turn the other cheek," from the Aramaic. Do unto others as they show you they want to be done unto.
Click to expand...

I have never advocated conflict but controversy. Conflict is akin to hostility. Controversy is an incentive to learning. To turn the other cheek is akin to masochism. And, "to do unto others as they show you they want to be done unto" is not how the Golden Rule goes but thus: "Don't do unto others what you would not want they did unto you."
 
Shibolet said:
I have never advocated conflict but controversy. Conflict is akin to hostility. Controversy is an incentive to learning. To turn the other cheek is akin to masochism. And, "to do unto others as they show you they want to be done unto" is not how the Golden Rule goes but thus: "Don't do unto others what you would not want they did unto you."
Click to expand...
So you want me to lie to you? That is what you have done unto me. You want me to dismiss you libelously? That is what you have done unto me. You want me to look down my nose at you, and dismiss you with a prejudicial sneer? That is what you have done unto me.

You are not here for discussion. That is made exceptionally clear.
 
juantoo3 said:
So you want me to lie to you? That is what you have done unto me. You want me to dismiss you libelously? That is what you have done unto me. You want me to look down my nose at you, and dismiss you with a prejudicial sneer? That is what you have done unto me.

You are not here for discussion. That is made exceptionally clear.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you still have not understood the definition of the Golden Rule. Again: "Do not do unto others what you would not like they did unto you." That's quite different from what you explain above.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That version of the golden rule is arrogant...assuming everyone has the same wants/needs.... Do unto others as they would have done unto them...

Should one follow the rule you propose....as 123 suggested...we would all be joining other forums under various names, spamming the forums with pages of cut and paste 'proof', demeaning others beliefs, telling them all they are wrong, not listening, not discussing, just monologue rants on the same topic on infinitum....
 
wil said:
That version of the golden rule is arrogant...assuming everyone has the same wants/needs.... Do unto others as they would have done unto them...

Should one follow the rule you propose....as 123 suggested...we would all be joining other forums under various names, spamming the forums with pages of cut and paste 'proof', demeaning others beliefs, telling them all they are wrong, not listening, not discussing, just monologue rants on the same topic on infinitum....
Click to expand...

As I can see, you like to slander, but that's okay. I don't care. But still about the Golden Rule, to explain your version above, what about if others are suicide-oriented, should you just go ahead and do that favor for them?
 
Lol....love your silliness.... yeah...that is the ticket, if they want drugs...give it to them... suicide...yeah kill them for them...sheesh...can we be any more ridiculous?

Slander? How? are you claiming authorship of the golden rule now as well??
 
wil said:
Lol....love your silliness.... yeah...that is the ticket, if they want drugs...give it to them... suicide...yeah kill them for them...sheesh...can we be any more ridiculous?

Slander? How? are you claiming authorship of the golden rule now as well??
Click to expand...

No, I am claiming nothing as mine; just giving some logical form to it in order to make sense. If we don't do unto others what we would not like they did unto us, we are safe.
 
Yes, that is one of the many forms of it (we have a whole thread here).... and now that we've established I did not slander you, but simply said a common phrase is arrogant...is accusing me of slander slander?
 
wil said:
Yes, that is one of the many forms of it (we have a whole thread here).... and now that we've established I did not slander you, but simply said a common phrase is arrogant...is accusing me of slander slander?
Click to expand...

No, if it was not a slander, it was a mistake by the accuser.
 
I was once a 'born again' Christian until the doubts became too overwhelming. My non-belief is based on my regular reading of the Bible, which only goes to confirm my position.
 
JJ50 said:
I was once a 'born again' Christian until the doubts became too overwhelming. My non-belief is based on my regular reading of the Bible, which only goes to confirm my position.
Click to expand...
That has happened to many.... What was your religious history before you were born-again? And how long after that before you gave up?
 
JJ50 said:
I was once a 'born again' Christian until the doubts became too overwhelming. My non-belief is based on my regular reading of the Bible, which only goes to confirm my position.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that the Bible is the cause of your unbelief?
 
juantoo3 said:
So you want me to lie to you? That is what you have done unto me. You want me to dismiss you libelously? That is what you have done unto me. You want me to look down my nose at you, and dismiss you with a prejudicial sneer? That is what you have done unto me.

You are not here for discussion. That is made exceptionally clear.
Click to expand...

You can't prove any of the above. That's what you have done unto me.
 
Namaste Jesus said:
Some folks are just better off not reading the Bible.
Click to expand...
lol...that is what was preached with the catechism for centuries....

and it has some validity... reading on your own without guidance or patience can lead to issues.... of course reading scripture at the direction and interpretations of others can lead to wars, death and destruction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top