+- Sinisterly (https://sinister.ly)
+-- Forum: General (https://sinister.ly/Forum-General)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://sinister.ly/Forum-The-Lounge)
+--- Thread: Life (/Thread-Life--49854)
RE: Life - Linuxephus™ - 06-19-2013
(06-19-2013, 05:49 AM)Toby12600 Wrote: True. I am not Christian, either. I like to study the Big Bang Theory.
That my friend is not a theory.
That my friend is an actual account of how the universe came into existence.
And that my friend is one count that the worldly and philosophical have little if no choice but to agree upon.
Even the most uninformed individual is aware of such.
Though I'll never understand why scientists still refer to it as the Big Bang Theory when that "theory" has been so refined over the years it is as factual as the very definition of the word.
RE: Life - Solixious - 06-19-2013
(06-19-2013, 04:08 AM)Linuxephus™ Wrote: -->>Negative.
That part shows you to merely be in fanatical denial. Which was the entire point in the comment being worded as it was.
By the way, I never mentioned that you had made mention of "my God" [is right instead of Jesus]. Those words came from you directly in the above statement is another misunderstanding of what you read from me and then misquote when my literal words are right there to contradict the very lack of understanding you applied to my words.
Not I to my words.
But you to my words.
In fact, I very clearly stated directly that it "was your God given right to choose denial" in whatever degree you see fit. Followed by "regardless of what denial you choose [because you say so] be that as it may holds zero validity for correctness when your very "say" is incorrect, thus making you wrong, which changes nothing at all except the inept attempt you make at justifying your "say".
Concluding the above that stands your own wording in the light of failing to even comprehend what it is you read from my very words when they are very specifically crafted to avoid any misunderstanding.
Sorry I read later and understand that I had misread earlier.
(06-19-2013, 04:08 AM)Linuxephus™ Wrote: {I believe you lack the knowledge of other religions to make that statement. You are clearly reflecting on what you have seen around you. and care to go no further.}
-->>What you believe in support of your own personally incorrect opinion regarding me and my knowledge of religion in general is not so much what you genuinely believe so much as it is your inability to convincingly rebutt the very statements you read from me. On top of the second time your own words in quoting of mine own words has shown the misunderstanding you have encountered when you read my dissertation, which is a fault belonging to you and not I, considering I certainly know what it is that I'm transcribing with full knowledge of what I'm stating. Admittedly, it is to be expected for one to call into question another's knowledge when the one calling the other's knowledge into question is lacking the understanding to continue a discussion that one is hard pressed to remain relevant within.
And I won't bother addressing here your lack of understanding regarding various religions since that has been made mention of above as of these words.
Are you sure you are having the full knowledge? I see nothing more than blind faith in what you have been saying. To be blunt, you have even stated wrong facts. Not just "maybe wrong facts", but completely wrong ones. You fear to address my (as you call it) because you lack the very knowledge of various religions yourself. That is why you have been on the defensive ever since it all started.
(06-19-2013, 04:08 AM)Linuxephus™ Wrote: {I wouldn't comment on the former part of your post, but I would like to say that stating that the proof exists does not bring into existence. A little hoax never proves a fact.}
-->>On the contrary, I make no statement that proof exists when such a statement is not necessary due to the very numerous instances of that being evident.
What you mean to state is: You cannot comment on it per a level of disproving said evidence by the very realistic manner in which it exists except your attempt to label such as a hoax and other varying use of words that remain in the poorly conceived state of theory.
In fact, you're quite correct when it comes to your opinion failing to exist on a realistic level that can withstand the obvious reality for what the situation exists as on a factual basis that you've researched to this point yet cannot come to grips with as such.
I stated that I would not comment on the former part of your earlier comment where you wrongly conclude that it is my frustration, I'm under emotional distress and you try to gain on me by attacking my personal state of existence. You misinterpret my statement.
You call, what you believe in, an obvious reality. It seems a bit too far from reality to me honestly speaking. I already said, simply stating that something is real proves nothing.
(06-19-2013, 04:08 AM)Linuxephus™ Wrote: -->>This shows my vast understanding on a wide area of subject fields that has in this case been used to correct common misunderstandings as is the norm for those who either simply do not genuinely know or as is your case, a fanatical yet poorly conceived denial.
Nothing more.
Nothing less.
No. This shows that you are you don't care to look back to see if what you have spoken is actually a fact which leads me to a conclusion that it is an evidence t your vast misunderstanding on a wide area of subject fields.
(06-19-2013, 04:08 AM)Linuxephus™ Wrote: Were the subject material along different matters, you would not be so frustrated with me personally as the very context of your words give statement to. And I'm okay with that as it comes with the territory of my job description.
No I'm not frustrated with you. It is just that I feel pity for you. It isn't your fault as a matter of fact since it must be the type of environment you live in which made you so religious. As far as I'm concerned, I've learned to question everything that is followed which is the reason why I get my conclusion a bit different from yours. No religion binds me, nothing supernatural chains me, and no predefined set of text dictates my life. I have my own set of ideals and it is not influenced by anything other than what I perceive. I choose to believe what I think is right instead of following the entire crowd like a lamb.
I believe I would not change, and neither would you. So I would prefer saving both of our energies and time which could be used to do something more productive instead of carrying on this pointless never ending discussion.
I'm sorry if I have offended you in any way and also for the parts I misunderstood you (you know, it gets a little difficult at times you read your language since it is little tough). I still love ya :wub:
Cheers :angel:
RE: Life - Linuxephus™ - 06-20-2013
@Solixious:
{Sorry I read later and understand that I had misread earlier.}
-->>I want you to keep this very statement in mind when I point out several other items to you here in your comments.
{Are you sure you are having the full knowledge? I see nothing more than blind faith in what you have been saying. To be blunt, you have even stated wrong facts. Not just "maybe wrong facts", but completely wrong ones. You fear to address my (as you call it) because you lack the very knowledge of various religions yourself. That is why you have been on the defensive ever since it all started.}
-->>Methinks the real question isn't "whether I'm sure of having full knowledge" versus are you sure don't require more knowledge or at least an equal amount of knowledge as mine of the subject material when one takes into account your admitted and numerous misunderstandings of the context of the words I've written that you've misquoted a number of times?
To be quite honest, I've had no time to be in fear of addressing you in all pertaining comments when the fact remains that you've been addressed directly without fail on each & every comment you've misunderstood and misquoted quite a few times. I wouldn't call that a "fear of addressing you" when the very action of addressing you is evident through out the entire proceedings.
Which also leaves me no time to be on the defensive when with each forthcoming rebuttal from me, I've spent more time correcting your misunderstandings with methodical steadiness at every comment whilst you in turn offer further conjecture with-out concrete persuasiveness that leaves me spending the time as needed offering rebuttal that has yet to be properly rebutted to the point that there is no further commentation forthcoming on my end.
Thus, I would logically conclude it to be you who has been on the defensive on the merit I've held the advantage the entire discussion.
Notwithstanding you beeing left to actually having to stop long enough to formulate a new line of commentation that is readily rebutted.
Fortunately for you I do so directly yet eloquently that leaves you in no need of being on the defensive, let alone feeling pressured enough to reply when the forum atmosphere here gives you all the time you need to think of a reply or to concede with no further reply.
As you stated yourself, "it is very difficult understanding my particular use of English", leaving you to feel pressured enough to reply hastily at times that you misunderstand, and then even misquote the context of my own words.
{I stated that I would not comment on the former part of your earlier comment where you wrongly conclude that it is my frustration, I'm under emotional distress and you try to gain on me by attacking my personal state of existence. You misinterpret my statement.
You call, what you believe in, an obvious reality. It seems a bit too far from reality to me honestly speaking. I already said, simply stating that something is real proves nothing.}
-->>Correction: I have merely addressed your misunderstandings in nothing but a direct, yet eloquent manner that no Member here can state otherwise, with the exception of your allegation mind you, offered forthwith by you based upon Your Misunderstanding, which leaves me no need to "attack you to gain an advantage" as I've had the advantage from the start and knew well the end result even at the start of this discussion.
On the contrary, you call what you believe in opposition to the reality of the situation because "it seems abit too far from reality to you honestly speaking"; alluding to, based upon your understanding, or lack thereof, you therefore label it as "too far from reality". Yet reality is not based upon one's understanding, nor is it defined by what one understands or lacks thereof.
Reality is based upon evidences and facts established by historical accounts, research that many brilliant men long before our time have done for most of us already while even providing evidence as conclusion to their research, and thus have set the foundations for those proofs be it scientific, scholarly, historically, or any other credited field.
I would question the qualification of any man who would discount such things on the merit of fearing a potential for being wrong (in this case, infer any given subject field).
Thus reality of any given situation is not defined by what one does or does not understand, nor is it defined by one's lack of an ability to reason such out.
{No. This shows that you are you don't care to look back to see if what you have spoken is actually a fact which leads me to a conclusion that it is an evidence t your vast misunderstanding on a wide area of subject fields.}
-->>Negative my friend, this shows that I've had no need to look back upon what I myself have stated (because I already have) in correction to several comments made based upon what you did not understand and therefore misquoted, lest I know not what be in need of correction.
{No I'm not frustrated with you. It is just that I feel pity for you. It isn't your fault as a matter of fact since it must be the type of environment you live in which made you so religious. As far as I'm concerned, I've learned to question everything that is followed which is the reason why I get my conclusion a bit different from yours. No religion binds me, nothing supernatural chains me, and no predefined set of text dictates my life. I have my own set of ideals and it is not influenced by anything other than what I perceive. I choose to believe what I think is right instead of following the entire crowd like a lamb.}
-->>Had you been following the entirety of any of the conversation with any level of reasonable comprehension, you would conclude as stated by me at least 7 times, that A) I am not religious on the merit of any given man made religion not defining that which is God, B) I am owned and operated by The Lord My God, C) and therefore have no need to be pitied because I am not bound by religion, but by The Lord My God because I've already asked All of the Questions I have need of asking and therefore accepted the answer for the reality that it is without fear of being wrong.
If I were not ready to accept the answer to the very questions you ask, I would not be God fearing either and I would indeed "deny" His existence with the knowledge that I'm wrong and the fear that accompanies the knowledge of being wrong.
Fortunately for me at least, my nature is to confront what I fear and to overcome such by obtaining an answer, even if that answer is what I may not like it to be.
At this point, you are yet to be ready for this.
God's okay with that.
All things come when an individual is ready to accept the answer, even if one must question more at first which is only our nature.
{I believe I would not change, and neither would you. So I would prefer saving both of our energies and time which could be used to do something more productive instead of carrying on this pointless never ending discussion.}
-->>I have no need to change because I have long since ridden myself of such a useless mental state of "belief" that leads to knowing as a byproduct of believing.
Then you are free to carry on no further with this very good conversation for something that will be more productive for you personally considering you're are on the other end of my screen which logically makes it your time.:lol:
P.S.-Indeed, if a conversation involves me, generally it never ends until the opposition concedes or points out where I'm incorrect and therefore concede myself.
{I'm sorry if I have offended you in any way and also for the parts I misunderstood you (you know, it gets a little difficult at times you read your language since it is little tough). I still love ya :wub:
Cheers :angel:}
-->>I've had no time to be offended.
Despite several admitted misunderstandings of your own accord, it has been a very enlightening quest into your nature and intellectual makeup of your character.
I salute you...so long as you never call me "Sire" (or was that meant as Sir[?]) again.
Meanwhile, provided you are done, let us mark this as Resolved.
RE: Life - Nailo - 06-20-2013
(05-30-2013, 08:08 PM)Linuxephus™ Wrote:There is no disparity between a god claim and a religion. A religion is defined as an ideological belief based around a supernatural agency or "holy" text, .Virtually all god claims are claimed in a way that can't be anything except supernatural.(05-30-2013, 07:40 PM)Keepalive Wrote: -Snip-
God is not a Religion that required God "to send a Religion".
Religion is a Man Made Ideology based upon finite understanding to explain the aforementioned "finite understanding" of what Man's Ideal is to establish an explanation of God.
None of which defines God, due to God already being Defined using his own Words, the Bible.
Of which, Christianity is not "interpolated", rather it is a word used to define those who willingly accept Christ as Savior and thereby Live by the Bible, which is the Word of God and whose Actions need no words to explain the self explanatory that those very actions define, to correct another misunderstood conception.
No individual should trust any source except the only source qualified to be called The Source, which is the Bible and none other when it regards God.
Lest any given "guide" mislabeled as a "source" expose the flawed misunderstanding falsely labeled as an "understanding" when in most cases such is painfully found to be flawed and easily obfuscated by any qualified to truly speak upon the subject matter.
Which first and foremost Requires an intimate knowledge in real world application of both the Bible and Science as a whole, leaving the human interaction as a positive byproduct on the subject.
For all intents and purposes a religion=god
RE: Life - Linuxephus™ - 06-20-2013
(06-20-2013, 03:53 AM)LiveFaster Wrote: There is no disparity between a god claim and a religion. A religion is defined as an ideological belief based around a supernatural agency, like a god.Virtually all god claims are claimed in a way that can't be anything except supernatural.
For all intents and purposes a religion=god
Excellent.
Then we'll conclude a "god claim" to be of a religious nature versus the existence of The God (far different than claiming "a god"), which alludes to Christ, being the Son Of God, based upon historical account, as acknowledgement of God considering Christ couldn't be the Son Of God if God didn't exist.
Which further differs God from being a claim in concern to "virtually all other god claims" being anything except supernatural.
After all, if "virtually all other god claims" are less than realistic, your precise wording leaves room for the existence of God, a God, the God.
P.S.-Naturally I was awaiting your comment along those very lines.
RE: Life - Linuxephus™ - 06-21-2013
(06-21-2013, 07:58 PM)AbCdEf Wrote: There's Nothing Call That God Is not Who Make Us Suffer..Cause He Started every Thing ..And He should know where It will lead..Like When he give Us the "Free Will" He Should Know How Some Will Use it,He Should know The Consequences..What Is the guilt of those are effected of Others Action ?.. And I think he Created the Devil With intention To be like That..To do evil But Linked it to Someone Else Than God..And God Hands Still Clean..I hate God Because Of this fking life..Like when I see Bad Product ..I say Fk The one Who made it!.
Then make better choices and cease blaming God or any other use of an attempted scapegoat for choices you make, that you alone are accountable for.
Not God, not me, not any other individual who has taken the time to at least pose a logical argument in this thread is at fault for your personal choices versus your belly aching in regards to choices you apparently regret having made and thus learn from them accordingly.
Meanwhile, have a read through the thread material as your Scapegoat Syndrome about it being "all God's fault" is readily obfuscated in prior conversations above.
RE: Life - Nailo - 06-25-2013
(06-19-2013, 04:08 AM)Linuxephus™ Wrote: @Solixious:
{That part shows that you are a fanatic. By the way I never mentioned "my God". So your statement that I choose that "my God" is right instead of Jesus is far from truth. You choose to accept the only part of history where it states that Jesus was Son of God. But this is also a part of History that Jesus was believed as a fake who just had many followers. So you see, history tells many stories. But you choose to believe only the pretty one.}
-->>Negative.
That part shows you to merely be in fanatical denial. Which was the entire point in the comment being worded as it was.
By the way, I never mentioned that you had made mention of "my God" [is right instead of Jesus]. Those words came from you directly in the above statement is another misunderstanding of what you read from me and then misquote when my literal words are right there to contradict the very lack of understanding you applied to my words.
Not I to my words.
But you to my words.
In fact, I very clearly stated directly that it "was your God given right to choose denial" in whatever degree you see fit. Followed by "regardless of what denial you choose [because you say so] be that as it may holds zero validity for correctness when your very "say" is incorrect, thus making you wrong, which changes nothing at all except the inept attempt you make at justifying your "say".
Concluding the above that stands your own wording in the light of failing to even comprehend what it is you read from my very words when they are very specifically crafted to avoid any misunderstanding.
I'd state quite correctly that you have a lot of comprehension skills that you are in need of updating yourself on my friend accordingly.
{I believe you lack the knowledge of other religions to make that statement. You are clearly reflecting on what you have seen around you. and care to go no further.}
-->>What you believe in support of your own personally incorrect opinion regarding me and my knowledge of religion in general is not so much what you genuinely believe so much as it is your inability to convincingly rebutt the very statements you read from me. On top of the second time your own words in quoting of mine own words has shown the misunderstanding you have encountered when you read my dissertation, which is a fault belonging to you and not I, considering I certainly know what it is that I'm transcribing with full knowledge of what I'm stating. Admittedly, it is to be expected for one to call into question another's knowledge when the one calling the other's knowledge into question is lacking the understanding to continue a discussion that one is hard pressed to remain relevant within.
And I won't bother addressing here your lack of understanding regarding various religions since that has been made mention of above as of these words.
{I wouldn't comment on the former part of your post, but I would like to say that stating that the proof exists does not bring into existence. A little hoax never proves a fact.}
-->>On the contrary, I make no statement that proof exists when such a statement is not necessary due to the very numerous instances of that being evident.
What you mean to state is: You cannot comment on it per a level of disproving said evidence by the very realistic manner in which it exists except your attempt to label such as a hoax and other varying use of words that remain in the poorly conceived state of theory.
In fact, you're quite correct when it comes to your opinion failing to exist on a realistic level that can withstand the obvious reality for what the situation exists as on a factual basis that you've researched to this point yet cannot come to grips with as such.
{This shows your lack in knowledge about other religions and history. I'm too tired and would not go over the pain of correcting your fact because it is futile and I know it.}
-->>This shows my vast understanding on a wide area of subject fields that has in this case been used to correct common misunderstandings as is the norm for those who either simply do not genuinely know or as is your case, a fanatical yet poorly conceived denial.
Nothing more.
Nothing less.
Were the subject material along different matters, you would not be so frustrated with me personally as the very context of your words give statement to. And I'm okay with that as it comes with the territory of my job description.
You still remain free to merely disagree as an agreement reading as how none of this changes my outlook with you or any other individual for the negative.
It's been an excellent conversation, and that is the fact I will abide by regardless. Were it any other way or were I at least offended, we would be having a completely different discussion that would leave no doubt as to given offense.
Much to your credit, you have carried this conversation further than even what LiveFaster has.
As such you'll respect my knowledge on the subject material, and I'll regardless respect your choice of belief to the contrary.
Thus have you now the means to exit on the grounds of us agreeing to disagree.
@"LiveFaster":
{It always amazes linuxfetus how Bible allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).Not only that but god himself have order the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill” meh a good example would be the killing 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21).the also destruction of 60 cities and the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).I could go on but lately i been short of time.}
-->>It always amazes me how such a brilliant mind as yours will always quote a passage or an individual even knowing full well it will be rebutted to the contrary of your quoting, followed by several Inboxes of bantering, and then no further commentation from you on the material rebutted.
As such, logic dictates you took the time to look those passages up and either read them quickly, or took the time to read before posting them here with an intentional misquote, fully expecting me to rebutt it with what the author genuinely states.
In this case, I'm going to do the last thing you expect me to do which is to let the Reader read such as they choose or not and let the Bible speak for itself as no intentional misquote by you is going to change what any author in the Bible genuinely states in the context of their very passages.
Essentially, this is one time you will not troll me into doing research that you're too damn smart to be ignorant of.
(06-22-2013, 06:58 AM)Linuxephus™ Wrote:(06-22-2013, 06:52 AM)LiveFaster Wrote: I agreed one must have self control, but i put to you that almost nobody in the planet would have ever gotten married if they have not look at their present life partners lusty.
Agreed.
Many people at first can be motivated for marriage by lust, some of which doesn't last or survive marriage wise.
Others, over time, such grows into what it should, unconditional love, and in those marriages you'll find a very high degree of long lasting relationships accordingly.
This is again more emotional projection, this time in the form of a dismissive ad hominem meant to devalue me for not believing in or not understanding your bible in a outer greater context . Telling me "this isn't really for my benefit, it is for your own". Since, having devalued my humanity, you don't have to take me seriously.
It also speaks to a larger issue in that you are completely unconcerned with validating the merits of your own religious "moral" belief. You are inherently more concerned with just getting us to acknowledge or repeat the rhetorical aspects of your belief "moral" system in the form of platitudes biblical nonsense. As if verbalizing components of your belief were all that were required for belief itself. You've reduced your belief set to a series of mantras both to reaffirm to yourself and to dismiss people out of hand who don't engage in that reaffirmation.We are not limited to a dichotomy of such thinly veiled anthropomorphic projection of yourself or no god. We don't have to choose between your god or no god, we instead of an infinite variety of supernatural claims to consider or humbly admit that we do not believe what we do not know.Work and college has been robbing quite a bit of time so do forgiven for not playing the full game :lub:.
RE: Life - noize - 06-25-2013
Religion is not equal to god. There are many religions with more than one god or with no god at all. For the latter ones, I could say Buddhism Taoism.
RE: Life - Nailo - 06-25-2013
(06-25-2013, 03:43 PM)noize Wrote: Religion is not equal to god. There are many religions with more than one god or with no god at all. For the latter ones, I could say Buddhism Taoism.
Monotheistic religions such as Christianity do for if there were no "holy scriptures" or mindless followers how can the abrahamic god can exists
beyond the scope of a mad man?
RE: Life - noize - 06-25-2013
(06-25-2013, 06:11 PM)Astrophysics Wrote:(06-25-2013, 03:43 PM)noize Wrote: Religion is not equal to god. There are many religions with more than one god or with no god at all. For the latter ones, I could say Buddhism Taoism.
Monotheistic religions such as Christianity do for if there were no "holy scriptures" or mindless followers how can the abrahamic god can exists
beyond the scope of a mad man?
Well, you just said religion needs a god. That's not true, I think also atheism is a religion.