| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bible Bob" |
| Date: |
10 Apr 2005 10:19:12 AM |
| Object: |
Praying for Atheists and Agnostics |
There has been much posted about the right and wrong of praying for
atheists and agnostics who some say are "lost." Christians, including
myself, who have argued that vain repetitious mocking prayer is wrong
have been spoken against. Below is Biblical evidence that immoral
behavior on the part of Christians against unbeleivers is wrong.
Prayer for the Lost.
The Bible does not speak of atheists or agnostics as "the lost."
Christians incorrectly use the words through poor habit and ignorance.
When Jesus spoke of "the lost" He always spoke of the lost of lost
sheep of the house of Isreal. At the bottom of this post are the
verses where the word "lost" is used in the NT. It occurs only in the
Gospels and applies only to Israel.
Atheists and agnostics are not Jews. They are Gentiles. The message
to the Gentiles did to come until after the resurrection and ascension
when Gentiles were given the invitation to join the church of the body
of Christ. God did not force the Gentiles to become saved. God put
forth an invitation that the Gentiles could accept or reject. God
honors free will because God is a just God.
Now it is true that those Gentiles who chose not to be saved will
suffer the consequences for making the wrong decision; but we
Christians have no right to attack them for exercising the free will
that God gave them to exercise. You do not get people saved by
criticizing and condemning them.
It is not the Christian's job to convict people of sin or save anyone.
Too often Christians assume the role of God or Jesus Christ. They
beleive that they have the power to convict people of sin or that they
can save people. Neither is true and to think otherwise is self
idolatry.
Romans 10:9 KJV
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved.
It is God that does the saving, not the Christian.
It is the Comforter's job to convict people of sin; not the Christian.
John 16:7 KJV
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go
away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but
if I depart, I will send him unto you.
John 16:8 KJV
And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of
righteousness, and of judgment:
John 16:9 KJV
Of sin, because they believe not on me;
John 16:10 KJV
Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
John 16:11 KJV
Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
Christians who try to usurp the power and authority of God or the holy
spirit are doing wrong. Even the words "reprove" "rebuke" and
"exhort" are applicable to actions between believes; not between
believers and unbelievers. How can one reprove someone for not doing
what the Word teaches if the Word does not apply to that individual?
Matthew 5:44 is cited as authority for prayer for atheists and
agnostics:
Matthew 5:44 KJV
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use
you, and persecute you;
The problem is that the words "bless them that curse you, do good to
them that hate you" and "despitefully use you, and" are not in the
Greek texts. The vese should read:
Matthew 5:44 KJV
But I say unto you, Love your enemies and pray for them which
persecute you;
If an atheist or agnostic is not bothering you, is he your enemy? If
he is not bothering you is he persecting you? Is "love" using vain
repetitious mocking prayer against unbelievers? Would Jesus use vain
repetitions show off mockery against atheists or agnostics (Gentiles)?
Or would Jesus do as he taught his disciples to do?
Matthew 6:5 KJV
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for
they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the
streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They
have their reward.
Matthew 6:6 KJV
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast
shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father
which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Matthew 6:7 KJV
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for
they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Matthew 6:8 KJV
Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what
things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
The reason that Christians are making public prayer against atheists
and agnostics is because they do not realize that it is the goodness
of God that leads people to repentence:
Romans 2:4 KJV
Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and
longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to
repentance?
God is not in the business of abusing people or belittling people to
get thems saved. Do a word study on "goodness" and you wil see that
goodness is a fruit of the spirit - love. False love manifested in
the form of false prayer is not not love and is not goodness.
Christians need to clean up their own act before they begin railing on
those who are not Christians.
1 Peter 4:17 KJV
For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of God:
and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that
obey not the gospel of God?
Whether an agnostic or atheist gets saved is not our business, it id
God's business and for any one of us to try to usurpt the authority of
God is just plain wrong.
Having said all that. There are some atheists and agnostics that
attack members of the church of the body of Christ and they will get
their reward. It is not our job to dish out rewards and consequences.
There is nothing wrong with putting one of them in their place or
exposing their falsehoods IF your motive is to protect yourself or the
church. But, that must be done with the Word; not with name calling,
phoney prayer and other forms of hypocricy. There is nothing wrong
with praying for an atheist or agnostic in your private prayer life;
or, even for praying for a specific need of an atheist or agnostic in
public if you heart is right. There would be nothing wrong with
praying for the health of an atheist - unless he tells you to stop.
But to make a form letter vain repetitious public prayer to save the
soul of an atheist is hypocricy and wrong.
Now, with regard to the lost. Below is every verse where the word
appears. Notice that it is used only in the Gospels and that it
speaks of the lost sheep of the house of Isreal. You have to own
something before it can be lost. Jesus came to call out his own which
were the lost sheep of the house of Isreal. He did not come to call
out the goats or the dogs of the Gentiles. Gentiles were not called
until later when God revealed to Peter and Paul that salvation was
available to the Gentiles. Atheists and agnostics do not belong to
God or the church of God. They may be wandering in darkness and lost
from our point of view; but that is between them and God. We are
ambassadors for Christ and speak what God tells us to speak to "whom"
God tells us to speak. It is the goodness of God that leads people to
repentence; not overbearing hypocricy.
Matthew 5:13 KJV
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour,
wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but
to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
Matthew 10:6 KJV
But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matthew 15:24 KJV
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the
house of Israel.
Matthew 18:11 KJV
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Mark 9:50 KJV
Salt [is] good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will
ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with
another.
Luke 14:34 KJV
Salt [is] good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall
it be seasoned?
Luke 15:4 KJV
What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth
not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that
which is lost, until he find it?
Luke 15:9 KJV
And when she hath found [it], she calleth [her] friends and [her]
neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the
piece which I had lost.
Luke 19:10 KJV
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
John 6:12 KJV
When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the
fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
John 17:12 KJV
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those
that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son
of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
John 18:9 KJV
That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou
gavest me have I lost none.
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn Davey (was:Re: Praying for Atheists and Agnostics) |
14 May 2005 06:56:15 PM |
|
|
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1ceecabb141acbef989742@news.comcast.giganews.com...
Davey,
Now that you're back, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my
question below. Many thanks.
<snipped the swathe of other stuff>
Let's try this again. You don't seem to have disagreed with my
characterization of your position, so let me rephrase it slightly
and ask you if you still agree with it.
"The only reason a person could possibly take offense at
something is if they think it will harm them."
Do you agree with that statement? Yes or no?
Please answer this.
Thanks.
A person can take offence at something without thinking that it will harm
them, but more serious offence is usually reserved for things that could be
harmful.
There are people who are brought up to take offense at things which couldn't
possibly harm them, in fact most people would take offense if you got out
your genitalia and started waving them at them, even if you were not in a
position to harm them.
In UK law 'assault' is defined by whether the recipient had "the reasonable
apprehension of violence". I think that a similar condition, "a reasonable
apprehension of harm" could be given as the cut off betwen things which are
more seriously offensive and merely culturally offensive.
Of course, the boundary is blurred between these cases.
What is the point of your line of questioning, by the way?
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory A Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn Davey (was:Re: Praying for Atheists and Agnostics) |
14 May 2005 08:09:26 PM |
|
|
In article <d663as$56q$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1ceecabb141acbef989742@news.comcast.giganews.com...
Davey,
Now that you're back, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my
question below. Many thanks.
<snipped the swathe of other stuff>
Let's try this again. You don't seem to have disagreed with my
characterization of your position, so let me rephrase it slightly
and ask you if you still agree with it.
"The only reason a person could possibly take offense at
something is if they think it will harm them."
Do you agree with that statement? Yes or no?
Please answer this.
Thanks.
A person can take offence at something without thinking that it will harm
them, but more serious offence is usually reserved for things that could be
harmful.
There are people who are brought up to take offense at things which couldn't
possibly harm them, in fact most people would take offense if you got out
your genitalia and started waving them at them, even if you were not in a
position to harm them.
In UK law 'assault' is defined by whether the recipient had "the reasonable
apprehension of violence". I think that a similar condition, "a reasonable
apprehension of harm" could be given as the cut off betwen things which are
more seriously offensive and merely culturally offensive.
Of course, the boundary is blurred between these cases.
What is the point of your line of questioning, by the way?
Perhaps if you read the rest of the post instead of snipping it
all you'd see what the point is. I swear, you're as good at
dodging questions as Jason is. Do you guys have sunday school
lessons on that topic or is this a natural ability? Maybe you
should lead the classes, if you don't already. "How to Dodge Your
Debate Opponent's Questions Until They Give Up so You Can Declare
Victory".
Since you've answered the first part of the question, I'll
restore the rest of it, in the hope that this time you'll answer:
If the answer is "yes", then do you still hold the position that
people should not use bad language? And, if you do, kindly
explain how you think that it harms ~you~.
If the answer is "no", then do you still hold the position that
atheists who are offended by "Dr" Gastrich's childish prayers
really, deep down, must actually believe in god?
It sounds like this time your answer is "no", so please answer
the appropriate question above.
Thanks,
--
Greg
----
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn Davey (was:Re: Praying for Atheists and Agnostics) |
15 May 2005 01:08:40 PM |
|
|
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1cf05d411584d252989744@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d663as$56q$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1ceecabb141acbef989742@news.comcast.giganews.com...
Davey,
Now that you're back, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my
question below. Many thanks.
<snipped the swathe of other stuff>
Let's try this again. You don't seem to have disagreed with my
characterization of your position, so let me rephrase it slightly
and ask you if you still agree with it.
"The only reason a person could possibly take offense at
something is if they think it will harm them."
Do you agree with that statement? Yes or no?
Please answer this.
Thanks.
A person can take offence at something without thinking that it will
harm
them, but more serious offence is usually reserved for things that could
be
harmful.
There are people who are brought up to take offense at things which
couldn't
possibly harm them, in fact most people would take offense if you got
out
your genitalia and started waving them at them, even if you were not in
a
position to harm them.
In UK law 'assault' is defined by whether the recipient had "the
reasonable
apprehension of violence". I think that a similar condition, "a
reasonable
apprehension of harm" could be given as the cut off betwen things which
are
more seriously offensive and merely culturally offensive.
Of course, the boundary is blurred between these cases.
What is the point of your line of questioning, by the way?
Perhaps if you read the rest of the post instead of snipping it
all you'd see what the point is. I swear, you're as good at
dodging questions as Jason is.
Oh so it's my fault.
Do you guys have sunday school
lessons on that topic or is this a natural ability? Maybe you
should lead the classes, if you don't already. "How to Dodge Your
Debate Opponent's Questions Until They Give Up so You Can Declare
Victory".
Grow up, will you?
I'm trying to answer your questions, and all I get for my trouble is some
juvenile attempt at snideness.
When have I ever declared a victory?
Jesus is victor.
Since you've answered the first part of the question, I'll
restore the rest of it, in the hope that this time you'll answer:
If the answer is "yes", then do you still hold the position that
people should not use bad language? And, if you do, kindly
explain how you think that it harms ~you~.
If the answer is "no", then do you still hold the position that
atheists who are offended by "Dr" Gastrich's childish prayers
really, deep down, must actually believe in god?
It sounds like this time your answer is "no", so please answer
the appropriate question above.
Thanks,
I have already said that you can be offended without any expectation of
harm, but that is a less problematic level of offense than with the
reasonable expectation of harm.
I called the offense without expectation of harm "culturally offensive" and
with the expectation of harm "seriously offensive".
You are now asking whether people should use bad language - bad language in
a situation where it cannot escalate into violence is usually culturally
offensive. They should not do it in order not to culturally offend, but they
do not "seriously offend" as previously defined by me in this thread.
If a person is prayed for and takes offense at what I have predefined as a
"cultural" level, then they might take offense without expecting that they
will be harmed by them. If they anticipate harm, then they are more likely
to take the more serious level of offence. Which is what they did take.
Applying this practically to the case in hand, Lizzard Woman's "he's got a
nerve, praying for me" was an example of cultural level offence taking,
whereas Harvestdancer's fullblown wail about Jason trying some sort of
witch's duelling with him without the oversight of Snape and Lockhart was
indicative of a more serious level of offence taking. From this alone, we
could infer that Lizzard woman's confidence level about the non-existance of
God is higher than that of Harvestdancer.
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory A Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn Davey (was:Re: Praying for Atheists and Agnostics) |
15 May 2005 03:41:54 PM |
|
|
In article <d683b4$b6j$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1cf05d411584d252989744@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d663as$56q$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1ceecabb141acbef989742@news.comcast.giganews.com...
Davey,
Now that you're back, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my
question below. Many thanks.
<snipped the swathe of other stuff>
Let's try this again. You don't seem to have disagreed with my
characterization of your position, so let me rephrase it slightly
and ask you if you still agree with it.
"The only reason a person could possibly take offense at
something is if they think it will harm them."
Do you agree with that statement? Yes or no?
Please answer this.
Thanks.
A person can take offence at something without thinking that it will
harm them, but more serious offence is usually reserved for things
that could be harmful.
There are people who are brought up to take offense at things which
couldn't possibly harm them, in fact most people would take offense
if you got out your genitalia and started waving them at them, even
if you were not in a position to harm them.
In UK law 'assault' is defined by whether the recipient had "the
reasonable apprehension of violence". I think that a similar
condition, "a reasonable apprehension of harm" could be given as
the cut off betwen things which are more seriously offensive and
merely culturally offensive.
Of course, the boundary is blurred between these cases.
What is the point of your line of questioning, by the way?
Perhaps if you read the rest of the post instead of snipping it
all you'd see what the point is. I swear, you're as good at
dodging questions as Jason is.
Oh so it's my fault.
Aren't you the one that snipped the questions?
Do you guys have sunday school
lessons on that topic or is this a natural ability? Maybe you
should lead the classes, if you don't already. "How to Dodge Your
Debate Opponent's Questions Until They Give Up so You Can Declare
Victory".
Grow up, will you?
Done.
I'm trying to answer your questions, and all I get for my trouble is some
juvenile attempt at snideness.
Forgive me if I get a little frustrated when I have to repeat my
questions post after post before I'm able to drag a response out
of you guys.
When have I ever declared a victory?
Jesus is victor.
Hugo is Victor.
Since you've answered the first part of the question, I'll
restore the rest of it, in the hope that this time you'll answer:
If the answer is "yes", then do you still hold the position that
people should not use bad language? And, if you do, kindly
explain how you think that it harms ~you~.
If the answer is "no", then do you still hold the position that
atheists who are offended by "Dr" Gastrich's childish prayers
really, deep down, must actually believe in god?
It sounds like this time your answer is "no", so please answer
the appropriate question above.
Thanks,
I have already said that you can be offended without any expectation of
harm, but that is a less problematic level of offense than with the
reasonable expectation of harm.
I called the offense without expectation of harm "culturally offensive" and
with the expectation of harm "seriously offensive".
You are now asking whether people should use bad language - bad language in
a situation where it cannot escalate into violence is usually culturally
offensive. They should not do it in order not to culturally offend, but they
do not "seriously offend" as previously defined by me in this thread.
If a person is prayed for and takes offense at what I have predefined as a
"cultural" level, then they might take offense without expecting that they
will be harmed by them. If they anticipate harm, then they are more likely
to take the more serious level of offence. Which is what they did take.
Applying this practically to the case in hand, Lizzard Woman's "he's got a
nerve, praying for me" was an example of cultural level offence taking,
whereas Harvestdancer's fullblown wail about Jason trying some sort of
witch's duelling with him without the oversight of Snape and Lockhart was
indicative of a more serious level of offence taking. From this alone, we
could infer that Lizzard woman's confidence level about the non-existance of
God is higher than that of Harvestdancer.
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
Then you have retracted your statement from way back when:
-------
"Basically, what I meant is that you are the only one whose
reaction to being prayed for - namely total insouciance in your
case - is consistent with the claim not to believe in God.
I am bemused at how many people have gotten their knickers in a
twist over our praying to a God which they supposedly think
doesn't even exist.
That's why I don't think that deep down they are quite as
atheistic as they claim."
-------
Since you seem to now be saying that Lizzard Woman merely took
"cultural offence" and that is consistent with being an atheist,
you obviously no longer believe that the only reaction to being
prayed at, that is consistent with being an atheist, is "total
insouciance".
Am I correct in this claim (that you've retracted your previous
statement)?
--
Greg
----
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn Davey (was:Re: Praying for Atheists and Agnostics) |
15 May 2005 04:18:06 PM |
|
|
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1cf1700b69363005989746@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d683b4$b6j$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1cf05d411584d252989744@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d663as$56q$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1ceecabb141acbef989742@news.comcast.giganews.com...
Davey,
Now that you're back, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my
question below. Many thanks.
<snipped the swathe of other stuff>
Let's try this again. You don't seem to have disagreed with my
characterization of your position, so let me rephrase it
slightly
and ask you if you still agree with it.
"The only reason a person could possibly take offense at
something is if they think it will harm them."
Do you agree with that statement? Yes or no?
Please answer this.
Thanks.
A person can take offence at something without thinking that it will
harm them, but more serious offence is usually reserved for things
that could be harmful.
There are people who are brought up to take offense at things which
couldn't possibly harm them, in fact most people would take offense
if you got out your genitalia and started waving them at them, even
if you were not in a position to harm them.
In UK law 'assault' is defined by whether the recipient had "the
reasonable apprehension of violence". I think that a similar
condition, "a reasonable apprehension of harm" could be given as
the cut off betwen things which are more seriously offensive and
merely culturally offensive.
Of course, the boundary is blurred between these cases.
What is the point of your line of questioning, by the way?
Perhaps if you read the rest of the post instead of snipping it
all you'd see what the point is. I swear, you're as good at
dodging questions as Jason is.
Oh so it's my fault.
Aren't you the one that snipped the questions?
I could barely see the relevance of them.
Do you guys have sunday school
lessons on that topic or is this a natural ability? Maybe you
should lead the classes, if you don't already. "How to Dodge Your
Debate Opponent's Questions Until They Give Up so You Can Declare
Victory".
Grow up, will you?
Done.
Good.
I'm trying to answer your questions, and all I get for my trouble is
some
juvenile attempt at snideness.
Forgive me if I get a little frustrated when I have to repeat my
questions post after post before I'm able to drag a response out
of you guys.
When have I ever declared a victory?
Jesus is victor.
Hugo is Victor.
That may be so, but in another sense.
Since you've answered the first part of the question, I'll
restore the rest of it, in the hope that this time you'll answer:
If the answer is "yes", then do you still hold the position that
people should not use bad language? And, if you do, kindly
explain how you think that it harms ~you~.
If the answer is "no", then do you still hold the position that
atheists who are offended by "Dr" Gastrich's childish prayers
really, deep down, must actually believe in god?
It sounds like this time your answer is "no", so please answer
the appropriate question above.
Thanks,
I have already said that you can be offended without any expectation of
harm, but that is a less problematic level of offense than with the
reasonable expectation of harm.
I called the offense without expectation of harm "culturally offensive"
and
with the expectation of harm "seriously offensive".
You are now asking whether people should use bad language - bad language
in
a situation where it cannot escalate into violence is usually culturally
offensive. They should not do it in order not to culturally offend, but
they
do not "seriously offend" as previously defined by me in this thread.
If a person is prayed for and takes offense at what I have predefined as
a
"cultural" level, then they might take offense without expecting that
they
will be harmed by them. If they anticipate harm, then they are more
likely
to take the more serious level of offence. Which is what they did take.
Applying this practically to the case in hand, Lizzard Woman's "he's got
a
nerve, praying for me" was an example of cultural level offence taking,
whereas Harvestdancer's fullblown wail about Jason trying some sort of
witch's duelling with him without the oversight of Snape and Lockhart
was
indicative of a more serious level of offence taking. From this alone,
we
could infer that Lizzard woman's confidence level about the
non-existance of
God is higher than that of Harvestdancer.
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
Then you have retracted your statement from way back when:
-------
"Basically, what I meant is that you are the only one whose
reaction to being prayed for - namely total insouciance in your
case - is consistent with the claim not to believe in God.
I am bemused at how many people have gotten their knickers in a
twist over our praying to a God which they supposedly think
doesn't even exist.
That's why I don't think that deep down they are quite as
atheistic as they claim."
-------
Since you seem to now be saying that Lizzard Woman merely took
"cultural offence" and that is consistent with being an atheist,
you obviously no longer believe that the only reaction to being
prayed at, that is consistent with being an atheist, is "total
insouciance".
Am I correct in this claim (that you've retracted your previous
statement)?
I've honed my statement.
Now I'm saying this, less less offence they took, the more likely it is that
they are a 100% atheist.
If their reaction was more than pure cultural offence, then it casts doubt
on their atheistic sincerity.
Is that any better for you?
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory A Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn Davey (was:Re: Praying for Atheists and Agnostics) |
15 May 2005 06:22:50 PM |
|
|
In article <d68eed$v77$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1cf1700b69363005989746@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d683b4$b6j$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1cf05d411584d252989744@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d663as$56q$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1ceecabb141acbef989742@news.comcast.giganews.com...
Davey,
Now that you're back, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my
question below. Many thanks.
<snipped the swathe of other stuff>
Let's try this again. You don't seem to have disagreed with my
characterization of your position, so let me rephrase it
slightly
and ask you if you still agree with it.
"The only reason a person could possibly take offense at
something is if they think it will harm them."
Do you agree with that statement? Yes or no?
Please answer this.
Thanks.
A person can take offence at something without thinking that it will
harm them, but more serious offence is usually reserved for things
that could be harmful.
There are people who are brought up to take offense at things which
couldn't possibly harm them, in fact most people would take offense
if you got out your genitalia and started waving them at them, even
if you were not in a position to harm them.
Since you've answered the first part of the question, I'll
restore the rest of it, in the hope that this time you'll answer:
If the answer is "yes", then do you still hold the position that
people should not use bad language? And, if you do, kindly
explain how you think that it harms ~you~.
If the answer is "no", then do you still hold the position that
atheists who are offended by "Dr" Gastrich's childish prayers
really, deep down, must actually believe in god?
It sounds like this time your answer is "no", so please answer
the appropriate question above.
I have already said that you can be offended without any expectation of
harm, but that is a less problematic level of offense than with the
reasonable expectation of harm.
I called the offense without expectation of harm "culturally offensive"
and with the expectation of harm "seriously offensive".
You are now asking whether people should use bad language - bad
language in a situation where it cannot escalate into violence
is usually culturally offensive. They should not do it in order
not to culturally offend, but they do not "seriously offend" as
previously defined by me in this thread.
If a person is prayed for and takes offense at what I have
predefined as a "cultural" level, then they might take offense
without expecting that they will be harmed by them. If they
anticipate harm, then they are more likely to take the more
serious level of offence. Which is what they did take.
Applying this practically to the case in hand, Lizzard Woman's
"he's got a nerve, praying for me" was an example of cultural
level offence taking, whereas Harvestdancer's fullblown wail
about Jason trying some sort of witch's duelling with him
without the oversight of Snape and Lockhart was indicative of
a more serious level of offence taking. From this alone, we
could infer that Lizzard woman's confidence level about the
non-existance of God is higher than that of Harvestdancer.
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
Then you have retracted your statement from way back when:
-------
"Basically, what I meant is that you are the only one whose
reaction to being prayed for - namely total insouciance in your
case - is consistent with the claim not to believe in God.
I am bemused at how many people have gotten their knickers in a
twist over our praying to a God which they supposedly think
doesn't even exist.
That's why I don't think that deep down they are quite as
atheistic as they claim."
-------
Since you seem to now be saying that Lizzard Woman merely took
"cultural offence" and that is consistent with being an atheist,
you obviously no longer believe that the only reaction to being
prayed at, that is consistent with being an atheist, is "total
insouciance".
Am I correct in this claim (that you've retracted your previous
statement)?
I've honed my statement.
I guess hoping for a "yes" or a "no" to a simple question was
expecting too much. You don't want to be pinned down, so you
always try to give an ambiguous answer. That way, when it's
pointed out to you later on that your position isn't consistent,
you can try to weasel out of it.
Dodge, dodge, dodge.
Now I'm saying this, less less offence they took, the more likely it is that
they are a 100% atheist.
If their reaction was more than pure cultural offence, then it casts doubt
on their atheistic sincerity.
Is that any better for you?
Sure. What you're saying is that even after more than half a
dozen posts showing that you were wrong, you still refuse to
retract your position. You're squirming around trying to say that
it was at least sometimes right and that with your mind reading
capabilities you're able to tell who is an atheist and who isn't.
Different people are offended to different degrees by various
offenses. Even if two people are offended to the same degree they
don't necessarily react the same way.
If Jason continues to pray at an atheist a day, using the list he
stole, I'm still two years away from his smug little FU Atheist.
Personally, I suspect he'll lose interest long before then, if he
hasn't already. To the best of my knowledge, he's not posting his
insults anywhere right now. When and if he does, I'll be plenty
offended (as I am already), but that doesn't mean I'll start to
believe in god.
--
Greg
----
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn Davey (was:Re: Praying for Atheists and Agnostics) |
16 May 2005 11:58:05 AM |
|
|
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1cf195c7972c77cc989747@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d68eed$v77$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1cf1700b69363005989746@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d683b4$b6j$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1cf05d411584d252989744@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d663as$56q$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w
wiadomości
news:MPG.1ceecabb141acbef989742@news.comcast.giganews.com...
Davey,
Now that you're back, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my
question below. Many thanks.
<snipped the swathe of other stuff>
Let's try this again. You don't seem to have disagreed
with my
characterization of your position, so let me rephrase it
slightly
and ask you if you still agree with it.
"The only reason a person could possibly take offense at
something is if they think it will harm them."
Do you agree with that statement? Yes or no?
Please answer this.
Thanks.
A person can take offence at something without thinking that it
will
harm them, but more serious offence is usually reserved for
things
that could be harmful.
There are people who are brought up to take offense at things
which
couldn't possibly harm them, in fact most people would take
offense
if you got out your genitalia and started waving them at them,
even
if you were not in a position to harm them.
Since you've answered the first part of the question, I'll
restore the rest of it, in the hope that this time you'll answer:
If the answer is "yes", then do you still hold the position
that
people should not use bad language? And, if you do, kindly
explain how you think that it harms ~you~.
If the answer is "no", then do you still hold the position
that
atheists who are offended by "Dr" Gastrich's childish prayers
really, deep down, must actually believe in god?
It sounds like this time your answer is "no", so please answer
the appropriate question above.
I have already said that you can be offended without any expectation
of
harm, but that is a less problematic level of offense than with the
reasonable expectation of harm.
I called the offense without expectation of harm "culturally
offensive"
and with the expectation of harm "seriously offensive".
You are now asking whether people should use bad language - bad
language in a situation where it cannot escalate into violence
is usually culturally offensive. They should not do it in order
not to culturally offend, but they do not "seriously offend" as
previously defined by me in this thread.
If a person is prayed for and takes offense at what I have
predefined as a "cultural" level, then they might take offense
without expecting that they will be harmed by them. If they
anticipate harm, then they are more likely to take the more
serious level of offence. Which is what they did take.
Applying this practically to the case in hand, Lizzard Woman's
"he's got a nerve, praying for me" was an example of cultural
level offence taking, whereas Harvestdancer's fullblown wail
about Jason trying some sort of witch's duelling with him
without the oversight of Snape and Lockhart was indicative of
a more serious level of offence taking. From this alone, we
could infer that Lizzard woman's confidence level about the
non-existance of God is higher than that of Harvestdancer.
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
Then you have retracted your statement from way back when:
-------
"Basically, what I meant is that you are the only one whose
reaction to being prayed for - namely total insouciance in your
case - is consistent with the claim not to believe in God.
I am bemused at how many people have gotten their knickers in a
twist over our praying to a God which they supposedly think
doesn't even exist.
That's why I don't think that deep down they are quite as
atheistic as they claim."
-------
Since you seem to now be saying that Lizzard Woman merely took
"cultural offence" and that is consistent with being an atheist,
you obviously no longer believe that the only reaction to being
prayed at, that is consistent with being an atheist, is "total
insouciance".
Am I correct in this claim (that you've retracted your previous
statement)?
I've honed my statement.
I guess hoping for a "yes" or a "no" to a simple question was
expecting too much. You don't want to be pinned down, so you
always try to give an ambiguous answer. That way, when it's
pointed out to you later on that your position isn't consistent,
you can try to weasel out of it.
Dodge, dodge, dodge.
So, having failed to pin me down with this facile line of questioning, you
now become abusive.
YMI not surprised?
Now I'm saying this, less less offence they took, the more likely it is
that
they are a 100% atheist.
If their reaction was more than pure cultural offence, then it casts
doubt
on their atheistic sincerity.
Is that any better for you?
Sure. What you're saying is that even after more than half a
dozen posts showing that you were wrong, you still refuse to
retract your position.
I refined my position. What the hell is wrong with refining a position?
Has a person in your opinion either to stick doggedly to the same position
or to give themselves a manick depression attack over having been wrong?
Try to see shades of grey, not just black and white positions.
You're squirming around trying to say that
it was at least sometimes right and that with your mind reading
capabilities you're able to tell who is an atheist and who isn't.
I haven't said any such thing. I only said who was likely to be more of an
atheist than another.
So why are you lying?
Different people are offended to different degrees by various
offenses. Even if two people are offended to the same degree they
don't necessarily react the same way.
If Jason continues to pray at an atheist a day, using the list he
stole, I'm still two years away from his smug little FU Atheist.
So this is all about you, in the final analysis.
If you ask him, I'm sure he'll pray for you earlier.
Not on Usenet though, he appears done with that for now.
Personally, I suspect he'll lose interest long before then, if he
hasn't already. To the best of my knowledge, he's not posting his
insults anywhere right now. When and if he does, I'll be plenty
offended (as I am already), but that doesn't mean I'll start to
believe in god.
You seem mainly offended at being left out.
But you won't do God any favours by believing in Him, or disfavours by
failing to.
Do yourself a favour, and turn your belief capacity on.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory A Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn Davey (was:Re: Praying for Atheists and Agnostics) |
17 May 2005 05:16:34 AM |
|
|
In article <d6ajir$udp$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1cf195c7972c77cc989747@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d68eed$v77$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1cf1700b69363005989746@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d683b4$b6j$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1cf05d411584d252989744@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d663as$56q$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w
wiadomości
news:MPG.1ceecabb141acbef989742@news.comcast.giganews.com...
Davey,
Now that you're back, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer
my question below. Many thanks.
<snipped the swathe of other stuff>
Let's try this again. You don't seem to have
disagreed with my characterization of your position,
so let me rephrase it slightly
and ask you if you still agree with it.
"The only reason a person could possibly take offense at
something is if they think it will harm them."
Do you agree with that statement? Yes or no?
Please answer this.
Thanks.
A person can take offence at something without thinking
that it will harm them, but more serious offence is
usually reserved for things that could be harmful.
There are people who are brought up to take offense at
things which couldn't possibly harm them, in fact most
people would take offense if you got out your genitalia
and started waving them at them, even
if you were not in a position to harm them.
Since you've answered the first part of the question, I'll
restore the rest of it, in the hope that this time you'll answer:
If the answer is "yes", then do you still hold the
position that people should not use bad language? And,
if you do, kindly explain how you think that it harms ~you~.
If the answer is "no", then do you still hold the
position that atheists who are offended by "Dr" Gastrich's
childish prayers really, deep down, must actually believe
in god?
It sounds like this time your answer is "no", so please answer
the appropriate question above.
I have already said that you can be offended without any
expectation of harm, but that is a less problematic level
of offense than with the reasonable expectation of harm.
I called the offense without expectation of harm "culturally
offensive" and with the expectation of harm "seriously offensive".
You are now asking whether people should use bad language - bad
language in a situation where it cannot escalate into violence
is usually culturally offensive. They should not do it in order
not to culturally offend, but they do not "seriously offend" as
previously defined by me in this thread.
If a person is prayed for and takes offense at what I have
predefined as a "cultural" level, then they might take offense
without expecting that they will be harmed by them. If they
anticipate harm, then they are more likely to take the more
serious level of offence. Which is what they did take.
Applying this practically to the case in hand, Lizzard Woman's
"he's got a nerve, praying for me" was an example of cultural
level offence taking, whereas Harvestdancer's fullblown wail
about Jason trying some sort of witch's duelling with him
without the oversight of Snape and Lockhart was indicative of
a more serious level of offence taking. From this alone, we
could infer that Lizzard woman's confidence level about the
non-existance of God is higher than that of Harvestdancer.
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
Then you have retracted your statement from way back when:
-------
"Basically, what I meant is that you are the only one whose
reaction to being prayed for - namely total insouciance in your
case - is consistent with the claim not to believe in God.
I am bemused at how many people have gotten their knickers in a
twist over our praying to a God which they supposedly think
doesn't even exist.
That's why I don't think that deep down they are quite as
atheistic as they claim."
-------
Since you seem to now be saying that Lizzard Woman merely took
"cultural offence" and that is consistent with being an atheist,
you obviously no longer believe that the only reaction to being
prayed at, that is consistent with being an atheist, is "total
insouciance".
Am I correct in this claim (that you've retracted your previous
statement)?
I've honed my statement.
I guess hoping for a "yes" or a "no" to a simple question was
expecting too much. You don't want to be pinned down, so you
always try to give an ambiguous answer. That way, when it's
pointed out to you later on that your position isn't consistent,
you can try to weasel out of it.
Dodge, dodge, dodge.
So, having failed to pin me down with this facile line of questioning, you
now become abusive.
YMI not surprised?
Saying "Dodge, dodge, dodge" and pointing out that you
consistently fail to give straight answers is abuse? Wow, I would
have thought it would take alot more than that to rile someone
for whom "the insults I get flow off me like water from the
proverbial duck's back."
http://groups-
beta.google.com/group/free.christians/msg/6575bce42f73e199?hl=en
And if this complaint of mine bothers you so much, why don't you
give a simple yes or no to my question so that your dodges will
no longer be an issue? Apparently you're proud of your ability to
dodge questions. Otherwise, why would you claim that your refusal
to answer the question is my failure, rather than yours?
Now I'm saying this, less less offence they took, the more
likely it is that they are a 100% atheist.
If their reaction was more than pure cultural offence, then
it casts doubt on their atheistic sincerity.
Is that any better for you?
Sure. What you're saying is that even after more than half a
dozen posts showing that you were wrong, you still refuse to
retract your position.
I refined my position. What the hell is wrong with refining a position?
Did I say anything is wrong with refining a position? No. There
is nothing wrong with it, provided you state unequivocally that
you retract your former position. Is that asking too much?
Has a person in your opinion either to stick doggedly to the same position
or to give themselves a manick depression attack over having been wrong?
No. Just tell me that you retract your former position.
I suspect that the reason you won't is that as soon as you think
no one is looking, you'll go back to it. Then, if I point out
that you've reverted to a position you retracted, you'll tell me
to show you where you ever said that you retracted the position.
Maybe I'm wrong on this. But if so, I wonder why you refuse to
answer in a way that's clear and unequivocal.
Try to see shades of grey, not just black and white positions.
You're squirming around trying to say that
it was at least sometimes right and that with your mind reading
capabilities you're able to tell who is an atheist and who isn't.
I haven't said any such thing. I only said who was likely to be more of an
atheist than another.
Because you, and only you, know how offended we all should be at
Jason's antics. Your position was demonstrated to be wrong now
you're trying to salvage as much of it as you can.
So why are you lying?
What are you talking about?
Different people are offended to different degrees by various
offenses. Even if two people are offended to the same degree they
don't necessarily react the same way.
If Jason continues to pray at an atheist a day, using the list he
stole, I'm still two years away from his smug little FU Atheist.
So this is all about you, in the final analysis.
Again you claim to be able to read minds.
If you ask him, I'm sure he'll pray for you earlier.
Thanks but no thanks.
Not on Usenet though, he appears done with that for now.
Well good for usenet. That's one less person who thinks he can
insult people to their faces and expect to be praised for it.
Personally, I suspect he'll lose interest long before then, if he
hasn't already. To the best of my knowledge, he's not posting his
insults anywhere right now. When and if he does, I'll be plenty
offended (as I am already), but that doesn't mean I'll start to
believe in god.
You seem mainly offended at being left out.
Sorry, Davey. I'm just using myself as an example. See, I can't
read other people's minds to know for sure how they feel about it
so I'm telling you how I feel. It's reasonable to assume that
others feel similar to the way I do.
But you won't do God any favours by believing in Him, or disfavours by
failing to.
Since he doesn't exist, obviously not.
Do yourself a favour, and turn your belief capacity on.
I believe in lots of things, so I guess that capacity is already
on. If god really does exist and he wants to make it onto the
list of things I believe in, all he has to do is provide me with
some evidence. He hasn't done that so far, so apparently, either
he doesn't exist or he's perfectly happy off that list.
--
Greg
----
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn Davey (was:Re: Praying for Atheists and Agnostics) |
17 May 2005 02:14:17 PM |
|
|
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1cf3807afb7cc1cd989748@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d6ajir$udp$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1cf195c7972c77cc989747@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d68eed$v77$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w wiadomości
news:MPG.1cf1700b69363005989746@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d683b4$b6j$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w
wiadomości
news:MPG.1cf05d411584d252989744@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d663as$56q$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey
<noway@jose.com> declared...
Użytkownik "Gregory A Greenman" <see@sig.below> napisał w
wiadomości
news:MPG.1ceecabb141acbef989742@news.comcast.giganews.com...
Davey,
Now that you're back, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer
my question below. Many thanks.
<snipped the swathe of other stuff>
Let's try this again. You don't seem to have
disagreed with my characterization of your position,
so let me rephrase it slightly
and ask you if you still agree with it.
"The only reason a person could possibly take offense
at
something is if they think it will harm them."
Do you agree with that statement? Yes or no?
Please answer this.
Thanks.
A person can take offence at something without thinking
that it will harm them, but more serious offence is
usually reserved for things that could be harmful.
There are people who are brought up to take offense at
things which couldn't possibly harm them, in fact most
people would take offense if you got out your genitalia
and started waving them at them, even
if you were not in a position to harm them.
Since you've answered the first part of the question, I'll
restore the rest of it, in the hope that this time you'll
answer:
If the answer is "yes", then do you still hold the
position that people should not use bad language? And,
if you do, kindly explain how you think that it harms
~you~.
If the answer is "no", then do you still hold the
position that atheists who are offended by "Dr" Gastrich's
childish prayers really, deep down, must actually believe
in god?
It sounds like this time your answer is "no", so please answer
the appropriate question above.
I have already said that you can be offended without any
expectation of harm, but that is a less problematic level
of offense than with the reasonable expectation of harm.
I called the offense without expectation of harm "culturally
offensive" and with the expectation of harm "seriously
offensive".
You are now asking whether people should use bad language - bad
language in a situation where it cannot escalate into violence
is usually culturally offensive. They should not do it in order
not to culturally offend, but they do not "seriously offend" as
previously defined by me in this thread.
If a person is prayed for and takes offense at what I have
predefined as a "cultural" level, then they might take offense
without expecting that they will be harmed by them. If they
anticipate harm, then they are more likely to take the more
serious level of offence. Which is what they did take.
Applying this practically to the case in hand, Lizzard Woman's
"he's got a nerve, praying for me" was an example of cultural
level offence taking, whereas Harvestdancer's fullblown wail
about Jason trying some sort of witch's duelling with him
without the oversight of Snape and Lockhart was indicative of
a more serious level of offence taking. From this alone, we
could infer that Lizzard woman's confidence level about the
non-existance of God is higher than that of Harvestdancer.
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
Then you have retracted your statement from way back when:
-------
"Basically, what I meant is that you are the only one whose
reaction to being prayed for - namely total insouciance in your
case - is consistent with the claim not to believe in God.
I am bemused at how many people have gotten their knickers in a
twist over our praying to a God which they supposedly think
doesn't even exist.
That's why I don't think that deep down they are quite as
atheistic as they claim."
-------
Since you seem to now be saying that Lizzard Woman merely took
"cultural offence" and that is consistent with being an atheist,
you obviously no longer believe that the only reaction to being
prayed at, that is consistent with being an atheist, is "total
insouciance".
Am I correct in this claim (that you've retracted your previous
statement)?
I've honed my statement.
I guess hoping for a "yes" or a "no" to a simple question was
expecting too much. You don't want to be pinned down, so you
always try to give an ambiguous answer. That way, when it's
pointed out to you later on that your position isn't consistent,
you can try to weasel out of it.
Dodge, dodge, dodge.
So, having failed to pin me down with this facile line of questioning,
you
now become abusive.
YMI not surprised?
Saying "Dodge, dodge, dodge" and pointing out that you
consistently fail to give straight answers is abuse? Wow, I would
have thought it would take alot more than that to rile someone
for whom "the insults I get flow off me like water from the
proverbial duck's back."
http://groups-
beta.google.com/group/free.christians/msg/6575bce42f73e199?hl=en
And if this complaint of mine bothers you so much, why don't you
give a simple yes or no to my question so that your dodges will
no longer be an issue? Apparently you're proud of your ability to
dodge questions. Otherwise, why would you claim that your refusal
to answer the question is my failure, rather than yours?
Now I'm saying this, less less offence they took, the more
likely it is that they are a 100% atheist.
If their reaction was more than pure cultural offence, then
it casts doubt on their atheistic sincerity.
Is that any better for you?
Sure. What you're saying is that even after more than half a
dozen posts showing that you were wrong, you still refuse to
retract your position.
I refined my position. What the hell is wrong with refining a position?
Did I say anything is wrong with refining a position? No. There
is nothing wrong with it, provided you state unequivocally that
you retract your former position. Is that asking too much?
Improving a position and refining it is impossible without superseding the
former position.
Why do you need to have these very basic things told to you?
What's the difference between saying "I've got a better position" and "the
old position wasn't good enough"?
You are suffering from the propaganda of the world of product advertising,
in which products have a new improved formula, but no-one is expected to
complain that they used to be paying for something substandard.
Has a person in your opinion either to stick doggedly to the same
position
or to give themselves a manick depression attack over having been wrong?
No. Just tell me that you retract your former position.
I've superseded it. That implies retraction.
If I adjust my homepage, then the old one automatically disappears. I don't
have to "retract" it, I just give the new one the file name "index.htm" and
plop it on the server, and bingo.
Is that so hard for you to understand?
I suspect that the reason you won't is that as soon as you think
no one is looking, you'll go back to it. Then, if I point out
that you've reverted to a position you retracted, you'll tell me
to show you where you ever said that you retracted the position.
Maybe I'm wrong on this. But if so, I wonder why you refuse to
answer in a way that's clear and unequivocal.
Because instead of allowing me to concede graciously, you are intent on
rubbing it in and trying to humiliate me.
How glad I am that God is more merciful than you atheists!
Try to see shades of grey, not just black and white positions.
You're squirming around trying to say that
it was at least sometimes right and that with your mind reading
capabilities you're able to tell who is an atheist and who isn't.
I haven't said any such thing. I only said who was likely to be more of
an
atheist than another.
Because you, and only you, know how offended we all should be at
Jason's antics. Your position was demonstrated to be wrong now
you're trying to salvage as much of it as you can.
I am not. I superseded, refined, honed and improved my position.
And you still want more. What do you want, blood?
So why are you lying?
What are you talking about?
I never made myself out to be a mind reader, that's a porkie pie, that is,
by you.
Different people are offended to different degrees by various
offenses. Even if two people are offended to the same degree they
don't necessarily react the same way.
If Jason continues to pray at an atheist a day, using the list he
stole, I'm still two years away from his smug little FU Atheist.
So this is all about you, in the final analysis.
Again you claim to be able to read minds.
I didn't and will you stop it with the lying.
If you ask him, I'm sure he'll pray for you earlier.
Thanks but no thanks.
OK.
Not on Usenet though, he appears done with that for now.
Well good for usenet. That's one less person who thinks he can
insult people to their faces and expect to be praised for it.
Is it?
Personally, I suspect he'll lose interest long before then, if he
hasn't already. To the best of my knowledge, he's not posting his
insults anywhere right now. When and if he does, I'll be plenty
offended (as I am already), but that doesn't mean I'll start to
believe in god.
You seem mainly offended at being left out.
Sorry, Davey. I'm just using myself as an example. See, I can't
read other people's minds to know for sure how they feel about it
so I'm telling you how I feel. It's reasonable to assume that
others feel similar to the way I do.
In the end, some may. But you cannot speak for the entire usenet community
any more than I can.
But you won't do God any favours by believing in Him, or disfavours by
failing to.
Since he doesn't exist, obviously not.
He does, though.
Do yourself a favour, and turn your belief capacity on.
I believe in lots of things, so I guess that capacity is already
on. If god really does exist and he wants to make it onto the
list of things I believe in, all he has to do is provide me with
some evidence. He hasn't done that so far, so apparently, either
he doesn't exist or he's perfectly happy off that list.
Evidence isn't about belief. If you only "believe" things you have evidence
for, then you don't believe anything, and are an unbeliever.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harvest Dancer" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn Davey (was:Re: Praying for Atheists and Agnostics) |
16 May 2005 01:45:56 PM |
|
|
Uncle Davey wrote:
Applying this practically to the case in hand, Lizzard Woman's "he's
got a
nerve, praying for me" was an example of cultural level offence
taking,
whereas Harvestdancer's fullblown wail about Jason trying some sort
of
witch's duelling with him without the oversight of Snape and Lockhart
was
indicative of a more serious level of offence taking. From this
alone, we
could infer that Lizzard woman's confidence level about the
non-existance of
God is higher than that of Harvestdancer.
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
If you had the brains that the Gods gave a tadpole, you'd remember that
I never claimed to be an atheist. I claimed to be a polytheist.
It was your messiah Gastrich who, upon seeing that I disagreed with
him, proclaimed me an atheist.
I am pleased to see that you acknowledge your messiah Gastrich's
activities as black magick though.
Jason Harvestdancer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn Davey (was:Re: Praying for Atheists and Agnostics) |
17 May 2005 04:25:40 AM |
|
|
Uzytkownik "Harvest Dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:1116269156.524540.190410@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Davey wrote:
Applying this practically to the case in hand, Lizzard Woman's "he's
got a
nerve, praying for me" was an example of cultural level offence
taking,
whereas Harvestdancer's fullblown wail about Jason trying some sort
of
witch's duelling with him without the oversight of Snape and Lockhart
was
indicative of a more serious level of offence taking. From this
alone, we
could infer that Lizzard woman's confidence level about the
non-existance of
God is higher than that of Harvestdancer.
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
If you had the brains that the Gods gave a tadpole, you'd remember that
I never claimed to be an atheist. I claimed to be a polytheist.
That just goes to show my hypothesis is right, then.
It was your messiah Gastrich who, upon seeing that I disagreed with
him, proclaimed me an atheist.
He isn't the Messiah. Christ is the Messiah. Jason is a believer trying to
promote the truth, which is the same as I am. I see him as an equal and a
brother. You may think that he is automatically superior to me by dint of
being an American, but we in Europe have ceased believing in the Uebermensch
philosophy, and only Americans, who in so many things are the new Germans,
while the Germans try their best to become the new French, see themselves in
those terms these days.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but American people, despite their rigmarole
over airport procedures, green cards, and all the other paraphenalia, are
just equal to everybody else on the planet, and there's nothing special
about them.
Just get used to it.
I am pleased to see that you acknowledge your messiah Gastrich's
activities as black magick though.
Prayer is the opposite of magick, as I have already explained to you on more
than one occasion.
You said it wasn't, because they both require a spiritual effort, but that
is as illogical as claiming that "left" is not the opposite of "right" as
they are both expressions of direction.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn Davey (was:Re: Praying for Atheists and Agnostics) |
17 May 2005 01:25:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 11:25:40 +0200, Uncle Davey wrote:
Prayer is the opposite of magick, as I have already explained to you on more
than one occasion.
This is an incorrect statement. I've seen any of your explanations,
but given that the conclusion is wrong they're not likely to be correct
themselves.
Prayer is identical to magic. The point is to contact a deity and
either ask her or him to do something for the believer, to make the
believer capable of doing something personally or to just thank the
deity for doing good work with the world.
Whether it's Jews in a synagogue, Christians in a church, Moslems in a
mosque or Wiccans in a circle, they're all doing magic in the manner
laid out by their traditions, no matter how recent those traditions are.
Solitary believers sitting alone and communing with their deity are
performing the identical action no matter whom they're trying to
contact.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harvest Dancer" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn Davey (was:Re: Praying for Atheists and Agnostics) |
17 May 2005 09:40:41 AM |
|
|
Uncle Davey wrote:
Uzytkownik "Harvest Dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> napisal w
wiadomosci
news:1116269156.524540.190410@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Davey wrote:
Applying this practically to the case in hand, Lizzard Woman's
"he's
got a nerve, praying for me" was an example of cultural level
offence
taking, whereas Harvestdancer's fullblown wail about Jason trying
some
sort of witch's duelling with him without the oversight of Snape
and
Lockhart was indicative of a more serious level of offence
taking. From
this alone, we could infer that Lizzard woman's confidence level
about
the non-existance of God is higher than that of Harvestdancer.
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
If you had the brains that the Gods gave a tadpole, you'd remember
that
I never claimed to be an atheist. I claimed to be a polytheist.
That just goes to show my hypothesis is right, then.
It was your messiah Gastrich who, upon seeing that I disagreed with
him, proclaimed me an atheist.
He isn't the Messiah. Christ is the Messiah.
Your words and your actions contradict who you treat as messiah.
Jason is a believer trying to promote the truth, which is the same as
I am.
The "truth" of the divinity of Gastrich?
I see him as an equal and a brother. You may think that he is
automatically
superior to me by dint of being an American, but we in Europe have
ceased
believing in the Uebermensch philosophy, and only Americans, who in
so many
things are the new Germans, while the Germans try their best to
become the
new French, see themselves in those terms these days.
I don't think Gastrich is superior to anyone, and consider him to be an
embarassment to America, but it is obvious that you don't consider him
an equal but a superior by the deference you show your messiah
Gastrich.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but American people, despite their
rigmarole
over airport procedures, green cards, and all the other paraphenalia,
are
just equal to everybody else on the planet, and there's nothing
special
about them.
I've never said otherwise.
I am pleased to see that you acknowledge your messiah Gastrich's
activities as black magick though.
Prayer is the opposite of magick, as I have already explained to you
on more
than one occasion.
And I've explained how and why you were wrong on more than one
occasion, and you failed to answer my counter argument on more than one
occasion.
You state your argument. I state my counter argument. Try answering
my counter argument instead of restating your initial disproven
discredited worthless argument.
They are the same, and I explained why. You gave arguments as to why I
was wrong. I gave counter arguments as to why you were wrong. You run
from the thread at that point. You will run from this thread at this
point, because you realize I gave counter arguments, and that scares
you.
I stated my case. You answered with your case. I gave my rebuttal to
your case. You ran from the thread. This happened in several threads.
Each time you say "I explained to you", when you didn't. That makes
you a liar. But you are not likely to answer this, because at this
point you always run away.
You said it wasn't, because they both require a spiritual effort, but
that
is as illogical as claiming that "left" is not the opposite of
"right" as
they are both expressions of direction.
You might have an inkling as to what I am saying. I'm hoping your
comprehension expands.
Jason Harvestdancer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn Davey (was:Re: Praying for Atheists and Agnostics) |
17 May 2005 02:00:48 PM |
|
|
Uzytkownik "Harvest Dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:1116340841.449812.43840@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Davey wrote:
Uzytkownik "Harvest Dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> napisal w
wiadomosci
news:1116269156.524540.190410@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Davey wrote:
Applying this practically to the case in hand, Lizzard Woman's
"he's
got a nerve, praying for me" was an example of cultural level
offence
taking, whereas Harvestdancer's fullblown wail about Jason trying
some
sort of witch's duelling with him without the oversight of Snape
and
Lockhart was indicative of a more serious level of offence
taking. From
this alone, we could infer that Lizzard woman's confidence level
about
the non-existance of God is higher than that of Harvestdancer.
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
If you had the brains that the Gods gave a tadpole, you'd remember
that
I never claimed to be an atheist. I claimed to be a polytheist.
That just goes to show my hypothesis is right, then.
It was your messiah Gastrich who, upon seeing that I disagreed with
him, proclaimed me an atheist.
He isn't the Messiah. Christ is the Messiah.
Your words and your actions contradict who you treat as messiah.
Jason is a believer trying to promote the truth, which is the same as
I am.
The "truth" of the divinity of Gastrich?
Oh, grow up.
I see him as an equal and a brother. You may think that he is
automatically
superior to me by dint of being an American, but we in Europe have
ceased
believing in the Uebermensch philosophy, and only Americans, who in
so many
things are the new Germans, while the Germans try their best to
become the
new French, see themselves in those terms these days.
I don't think Gastrich is superior to anyone, and consider him to be an
embarassment to America,
You reckon you guys would be better at making yourselves out to be the
master race without him?
but it is obvious that you don't consider him
an equal but a superior by the deference you show your messiah
Gastrich.
Defending someone doesn't imply that they are superior. I usually, being
British, support the underdog. Americans can't understand that, as the only
time they support anyone, it's to gain power. You people are, and always
will be, deeply sick.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but American people, despite their
rigmarole
over airport procedures, green cards, and all the other paraphenalia,
are
just equal to everybody else on the planet, and there's nothing
special
about them.
I've never said otherwise.
So why is Jason "an embarassment to the American people" IYHO, then, if
you're not saying that you think the US is a special case?
I am pleased to see that you acknowledge your messiah Gastrich's
activities as black magick though.
Prayer is the opposite of magick, as I have already explained to you
on more
than one occasion.
And I've explained how and why you were wrong on more than one
occasion, and you failed to answer my counter argument on more than one
occasion.
I see no sensible counter argument. The counter argument was that both
actions are spiritual exercises, and therefore cannot be opposites, but
that's as stupid as saying that up and down cannot be opposites, because
they are both vertical motions.
You state your argument. I state my counter argument. Try answering
my counter argument instead of restating your initial disproven
discredited worthless argument.
Let's have a sensible counterargument, succinctly worded, and without any of
your occultic mumbo-jumbo. I'm a rationalist, and I don't wanna have to deal
with any shamanism, here.
They are the same, and I explained why. You gave arguments as to why I
was wrong. I gave counter arguments as to why you were wrong. You run
from the thread at that point. You will run from this thread at this
point, because you realize I gave counter arguments, and that scares
you.
You don't give counterarguments, you only state that you have given them,
but this is a typical post where you make out there are counterarguments but
it is nothing but bluff and illusion.
Don't you try your Crowley techniques on me, young man. I don't wanna know.
I stated my case. You answered with your case. I gave my rebuttal to
your case. You ran from the thread. This happened in several threads.
Each time you say "I explained to you", when you didn't. That makes
you a liar. But you are not likely to answer this, because at this
point you always run away.
I don't run anywhere. You have nothing to offer by way of counter-argument
that has the least bit of rational sense.
You said it wasn't, because they both require a spiritual effort, but
that
is as illogical as claiming that "left" is not the opposite of
"right" as
they are both expressions of direction.
You might have an inkling as to what I am saying. I'm hoping your
comprehension expands.
I just summarised all you ever said on the matter, and dismissed the kern of
it as an illogicality.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harvest Dancer" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn Davey (was:Re: Praying for Atheists and Agnostics) |
17 May 2005 03:09:02 PM |
|
|
Uncle Davey wrote:
Uzytkownik "Harvest Dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> napisal w
wiadomosci
news:1116340841.449812.43840@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Davey wrote:
Uzytkownik "Harvest Dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> napisal w
wiadomosci
news:1116269156.524540.190410@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Davey wrote:
Applying this practically to the case in hand, Lizzard
Woman's
"he's got a nerve, praying for me" was an example of cultural
level
offence taking, whereas Harvestdancer's fullblown wail about
Jason
trying some sort of witch's duelling with him without the
oversight
of Snape and Lockhart was indicative of a more serious level
of
offence taking. From this alone, we could infer that Lizzard
woman's
confidence level about the non-existance of God is higher
than that
of Harvestdancer.
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
If you had the brains that the Gods gave a tadpole, you'd
remember
that I never claimed to be an atheist. I claimed to be a
polytheist.
That just goes to show my hypothesis is right, then.
It was your messiah Gastrich who, upon seeing that I disagreed
with
him, proclaimed me an atheist.
He isn't the Messiah. Christ is the Messiah.
Your words and your actions contradict who you treat as messiah.
Jason is a believer trying to promote the truth, which is the
same as
I am.
The "truth" of the divinity of Gastrich?
Oh, grow up.
As soon as your idol worshipping ceases.
I see him as an equal and a brother. You may think that he is
automatically superior to me by dint of being an American, but we
in
Europe have ceased believing in the Uebermensch philosophy, and
only
Americans, who in so many things are the new Germans, while the
Germans
try their best to become the new French, see themselves in those
terms
these days.
I don't think Gastrich is superior to anyone, and consider him to
be an
embarassment to America,
You reckon you guys would be better at making yourselves out to be
the
master race without him?
Your projection is fascinating. Are you trying to say that only Nazis
like you oppose Gastrich?
but it is obvious that you don't consider him
an equal but a superior by the deference you show your messiah
Gastrich.
Defending someone doesn't imply that they are superior.
Worshiping someone does imply that you think he is superior.
I usually, being British, support the underdog. Americans can't
understand
that, as the only time they support anyone, it's to gain power. You
people
are, and always will be, deeply sick.
Ah, such a broad brush you use to defend your messiah Gastrich.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but American people, despite their
rigmarole over airport procedures, green cards, and all the other
paraphenalia, are just equal to everybody else on the planet, and
there's nothing special about them.
I've never said otherwise.
So why is Jason "an embarassment to the American people" IYHO, then,
if
you're not saying that you think the US is a special case?
Because Gastrich is an American, and Gastrich is a blithering idiot and
a con man.
I am pleased to see that you acknowledge your messiah
Gastrich's
activities as black magick though.
Prayer is the opposite of magick, as I have already explained to
you
on more than one occasion.
And I've explained how and why you were wrong on more than one
occasion, and you failed to answer my counter argument on more than
one
occasion.
I see no sensible counter argument. The counter argument was that
both
actions are spiritual exercises, and therefore cannot be opposites,
but
that's as stupid as saying that up and down cannot be opposites,
because
they are both vertical motions.
You use a false analogy to mischaracterize my argument. To use your
analogy, I argued that they are not opposites because one of them is
"10 feet up" (prayer) while the other is "20 feet up" (magick), and you
are saying that because one is less high than the other, it is
therefore down.
See, I answered your argument by analogy by showing how it was a false
analogy. They are not opposites because they are both vertical motions
IN THE SAME DIRECTION!
You state your argument. I state my counter argument. Try
answering
my counter argument instead of restating your initial disproven
discredited worthless argument.
Let's have a sensible counterargument, succinctly worded, and without
any of
your occultic mumbo-jumbo. I'm a rationalist, and I don't wanna have
to deal
with any shamanism, here.
I never claimed to be a shaman, only a witch. I gave you a sensible
counterargument, succinctly worded. Your messiah Gastrich plonked me
the first time I did that because th | | | | | | | | |
