This means that my posts aren't the dumbest you've ever seen?
Woohoo!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Putin challenges Biden to a live debate after "killer" comment.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
Woohoo!
Dave Watchman
Active Member
Half of American Voters Do Not Believe Joe Biden is in Charge of The Presidency
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 47% of Likely U.S. Voters believe Biden is really doing the job of president. The same number (47%) say others are making decisions for Biden behind the scenes. (read more)
Even die-hard democrats will admit privately that someone else seems to be running the White House.
Half of American Voters Do Not Believe Joe Biden is in Charge of The Presidency - The Last Refuge
From the comment section of the article:
ahem
March 20, 2021 9:52 pm
… and 98% believe it’s Obama’s fourth term.
9
Reply
USMCLt
March 21, 2021 8:46 am
Reply to ahem
Yes, Obama, the man of uncertain lineage and citizenship status. Was Obama even in charge from 2008-2016? Or was it ValJar or some other shadowy figure?
The Democrats are so devoid of any American values that they must lie and cheat constantly. They cannot even come up with a single man or woman capable of appealing to the legally entitled American electorate without cheating, even to the point of creating composite, fake candidates.
They think they’re so damned clever, covering all their bases. But in reality, they are like a colony of fire ants building a big ugly mound in the middle of an otherwise beautiful yard. Nasty creatures, indeed!
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 47% of Likely U.S. Voters believe Biden is really doing the job of president. The same number (47%) say others are making decisions for Biden behind the scenes. (read more)
Even die-hard democrats will admit privately that someone else seems to be running the White House.
Half of American Voters Do Not Believe Joe Biden is in Charge of The Presidency - The Last Refuge
From the comment section of the article:
ahem
March 20, 2021 9:52 pm
… and 98% believe it’s Obama’s fourth term.
9
Reply
USMCLt
March 21, 2021 8:46 am
Reply to ahem
Yes, Obama, the man of uncertain lineage and citizenship status. Was Obama even in charge from 2008-2016? Or was it ValJar or some other shadowy figure?
The Democrats are so devoid of any American values that they must lie and cheat constantly. They cannot even come up with a single man or woman capable of appealing to the legally entitled American electorate without cheating, even to the point of creating composite, fake candidates.
They think they’re so damned clever, covering all their bases. But in reality, they are like a colony of fire ants building a big ugly mound in the middle of an otherwise beautiful yard. Nasty creatures, indeed!
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Oh my gosh... I WAS NOT being sarcastic - well, the "Congratulations" was obviously sarcasm - because there is obviously nothing to be proud of considering the nature of your post, and my opinion of it - but I was all too serious in my assessment of the quote itself. Please understand this. If you get anything out of this conversation, please know that I was being serious about at least that - and please, please do not dismiss my entire post as sarcasm. I truly want you to understand how ridiculous I found your words.
And while as a standalone statement in general: "not all people are smart enough to understand" may be true about just about any topic, and "study is the solution" may also make sense regarding the "problem" stated (that is, that "not all people are smart enough."), the SUBJECT MATTER you were obviously (so, so obviously) referencing - that is, specifically, in reference to this exact quote:
wherein you are explicitly calling on the subject "God" and the attribute "Divine" - I would like you, please, if you could, to describe how EITHER OF THOSE THINGS approaches anything near the realm of "facts." Please - go ahead. I await your studious application of real-world discernable truths within those subjects.
Last edited:
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Correct. Congratulations to you also.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
You said to me "This has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this site. Congratulations."
Thanks for clarifying that. Good to know, was not clear before
But this part did feel quite offensive hence my reply the way I replied.
And congratulations feels sarcastic, or is it called irony, cynism, belittling or hypocritical.
I don't even bother which, because I rather don't use any of them at all, and avoid people using it
@stvdvRF
Thanks for clarifying that. Good to know, was not clear before
But this part did feel quite offensive hence my reply the way I replied.
And congratulations feels sarcastic, or is it called irony, cynism, belittling or hypocritical.
I don't even bother which, because I rather don't use any of them at all, and avoid people using it
Correct. This was a very applicable reply, and both ways, as you called my post "this has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this site"
@stvdvRF
Last edited:
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I read that you were serious. so, please understand that I was serious here. Though short, my answer gave all the information needed.
IF you are interested THEN there is only one solution, you have to do your own study, because I don't solve major spiritual questions for others.
IF you are not really interested to know about Spiritual Life THEN I don't feel the urge to explain/talk about Spiritual matters.
I do not ask others to solve my questions regarding spirituality. More gratifiying to solve them myself. I am quite consistent in this "do (not do) unto others what you (do not) want them to do unto you". Once I was given a Koan, it took me maybe 25 years before I solved this Koan, but I never wanted others to tell me the solution
What is the fun of having others solving your spiritual questions? I don't see it.
I share my views sometimes with others. Others can take it if they like it, or leave it if they don't like it. They can ask clarification of course. And some might reply something like "this is the dumbest thing I ever read on this site", then there are 2 possibilities. Either I play their game or I don't play their game. Depends on the day and/or my mood how I reply. But chances are 99% that I will usually go for the latter
@stvdvRF
Last edited:
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
The "congratulations" was sarcastic, yes. And I edited my reply (before you replied, but apparently not before you had read and started to reply) in order to make sure I admitted to this. I just don't want you to dismiss the entire post as sarcasm, simply because one part of it was. Your post truly was one of the dumbest things I feel I have read on this site.
You're free not to use them. I honestly don't care.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
I have no spiritual questions. I do not even understand what category of question, or what subject this pertains to. All I have are the ideas of others to go on. So, I would guess that you mean questions about "God" or "the supernatural" or some amorphousness surrounding human consciousness or connectedness. The only question I believe matters in either case is whether or not these things even exist in the first place. Without the answer to that, there is no reason to study, postulate or pretend that I know anything about these things. That would be foolishness.
"Spiritual" things do not present themselves within the reality I experience. Perhaps you would insist that they do in yours? To that, the only thing I can say is "good for you"... and you alone. I find absolutely no reason to study the items you are apparently implying I should study up on. Not one. Once I can be sure there is a God, then I may study it. Not before. Please just stop and think about how ridiculous it would be if I stated that I had a good, working knowledge of unicorns and how they behave, what they like and don't like, what influence they have on the world, etc. - and yet not once have I or anyone else ever come in contact with a unicorn. Wouldn't that be absolutely ridiculous? What if I claimed I had a DEGREE in studying unicorns? Folly. Absolute folly.
Your post was one of the worst examples of intellectual tomfoolery I have ever encountered. You need only answer one question for yourself to understand why. And that question is: Do you see any utility at all in maintaining any sort of account (memory or recording) of particular individuals who are willing to kill other individuals? Within the context of your quote, it would be somehow "wrong" to single out anyone who had killed anyone else or had a hand in it from others. For example, you literally couldn't warn a fellow human being that someone they were interacting with might be a "killer," because to do so would be "calling God a killer." Ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Well if Biden would have clamed up do you think this would even be news?
Of course Biden made a challenge, Putin met that challenge.
If it was just lip service, then Putin comes out as strong and Biden weak.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Not really. Putin is a killer of course , although I can't say with absolute certainty he was like Stalin was, making a death list of his enemies.
Biden and anyone else involved in upper tier politics btw is a killer through many various actions and policies in running a country that create loss offers for people.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I know, hence I do not reply to you with spiritual stuff, unless I'm asked sincerely. Why would I do that, knowing that you are? (Atheist?)
I do my best to only reply in a 'Spiritual way' to people who are sincerely interested in Spirituality. Doing otherwise feels disrespectful
NO. I was not implying that you should study up on. I only implied that "IF you WANT to know THEN you must study, because I don't tell you". I am the opposite of an evangelist. I tell Atheists to stick to Atheism. Why would I want you to change away from Atheism? And I do not think that Atheism is more or less than Spiritual life. Just 2 different people have different interests in life they like to explore, using different words. That's all.
@stvdvRF
Last edited:
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Of course. I am not surprised about that, I would be surprised if it were any different. You are an intellectual, so maybe you heard about something called "the upside down tree". If not, forget I said it. But that explains why I understand that you call it "intellectual tomfoolery"
I could easily explain all of this to you, but it has to do with a spiritual view, hence I do NOT do that
NO. Nothing wrong here IMO; you phrased it perfectly, here. You said "anyone who had killed anyone else". You did not say "they are killers"
Did you read they let an Australian free, who sliced up (chainsaw) the husband of a woman whom he raped, after 35 years prison, recently. The man showed totally no remorse. Would be enough for me to send him back in jail. Maybe better to "slice him up first".
@stvdvRF
Last edited:
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
NO.
I try to explain below:
Putin has killed people (no problem with that)
Putin = killer (that is mathematically/spiritually from my POV not correct, because "Putin = man" is also true)(say X = 5, then it can't be 6)
In your eyes this might seem crazy, that's fine. But from my point of view this makes sense, and is needed to understand a certain insight
So, if you still think this is absolutely foolish then no need to debate on it, I am fine to agree to disagree on this
I can give 1 more example that might give you an eureka moment:
Explained using RF Rules, so in RF language: We are not allowed to say "You are an idiot (killer)", that would be an ad Hominem Attack. That exactly is what is meant when the Wise advise to refrain from saying "I am (or Putin is) an idiot/killer/whatever". Ask yourself the question "Who am I?"
From worldly POV, we are all human beings, and some of these humans kill others. So, we should not say "we are all killers". That is all. The essence of us in the worldly view, is, that we are humans. The essence is not that we are killers. The action we (the essence), perform is for some humans "killing".
Same with Putin. If someone says "Putin is a killer in my opinion", no problem for me. If someone says "Putin has killed many people", you won''t hear me complain at all. Saying "Putin is a killer" is not correct as explained above. And I agree if others disagree with my opinion.
Others will call it just semantics, but to understand a certain aspect of spirituality, it is essential to see the difference between saying:
a) Putin is a killer (or I am a killer)
b) Putin killed people (or I killed people)
To understand the answer to the question "Who am I", it's essential to see/feel the difference between these 2 above examples
Better than this I can't explain. If still not clear, or you still think its stupid, so be it.
@stvdvRF
Last edited:
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
What? So it is okay to say about someone that they have killed another person, but not okay to state that they are a "killer" in order to convey the same information? What about "They were a killer, but I don't know about now."? How does that fit in this? So if I say "Watch out for that guy, he has been known to kill people." that is somehow completely different from "What out for that guy, he is a known killer."? I am confused. Is it just the present-tense of calling someone "a killer" that you object to? Is it just in that instance that you are also calling God a killer, because that person is a "spark of the divine?" But when I call them out for having killed someone in the past, what is that? Isn't that calling part of God a "former killer?" And when does one become a "former killer" and is no longer? The very moment after the last kill they intend on perpetrating? You might see how that definition could be a bit tenuous. The cops grab the guy who just stabbed another to death and he says "Wait! No! I am a spark of the divine, and that was my very last killing ever! So you see, I am only a former killer, you cannot label me as such now without also labeling God." Do you see where one might take issue with this very weird and unnecessary tangent?
But wait... wouldn't you also be "slicing [God] up first?" Or does that extension of man-to-God only count with labels and words?
@stvdvRF
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
I replied with the other before I read through this... and I see where you are coming from with this. The distinction being some form of ongoing intent to harm or end people's lives. So, if a person who kills in self-defense is terribly shook up about it all, and when they confide in you their experience and reasons for feeling they had to kill someone, they could say "I have killed, I am a killer!" and one might console them to try and reassure them that they are not a killer, because they did not have the intent to do so without extenuating circumstances. It is a bit of semantics, for sure, and a more intellectually honest approach would be to not simply assume anything about the reasons for killing, REGARDLESS which word is being used. As my example illustrates, someone stating "I am a killer" DOES NOT necessarily impart that they are a human being intent on ending the lives of other human beings. So that should display my side as well as it does your own.
However, tossing in the "spark of the divine" and "God" nonsense, I still wouldn't be able to accept this position. Take that away, and it becomes sort of sensical. Sort of.
This isn't news. This is more character assassination from the Republican swamp. This is all we will see from them for four years - the lowest of the low, zero ideas of their own, zero accomplishments, just grievance, and the hope than in four years the lotus-eating American electorate will relapse into civic incompetence.
No, Biden made no challenge. He called a murderous thug a killer. He owes nothing to the Republicans or their dictator friend.
<crickets>
<crickets>
I'll take that as you'll be rooting for the the American enemy. I would think that you would be quick to point out otherwise if that were not the case. But you're not alone. Pretty much the entire American right seems to agree with you that they want to see a Russian prevail over an American.
<crickets>
Again.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Yes, that's about what I meant. The distinction between "who we are", and "our actions". Their is a proverb in Dutch "our actions define who we are", but that is tricky in this context. I was about to say "It seems a bit of semantics, because all people kind of know, that we are all humans belonging to the human race, of which some kill others". So, I totally get your point also.
For example in the case of this Australian man who had been slicing up people, it's very easy to see him not as human at first sight, but more as killer. In the documentary I saw, people were scared that police put them in their city/street. And they really wanted to hear him tell that he changed and won't harm them again. But he did not want to do that, no bit of remorse. And he violated within a few days his parole anyway. So, now they have given him a chain till he dies, to be able to track his every move. I was happy to hear that they at least did this
IF I were a judge, I would put someone straight back in jail, who shows no remorse, after slicing up other people and raping their wives.
No need to accept this position about Divine, hence I "tossed that out" in my reply to you, trying to find another way to explain what I meant with it.
(I only "tossed it in" in my reply to "@Windwalker"). And good to know for me, that I can explain it also without spiritual context.