This means that my posts aren't the dumbest you've ever seen?I have no one on ignore. I see absolutely no point.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
This means that my posts aren't the dumbest you've ever seen?I have no one on ignore. I see absolutely no point.
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.Very true.
I replied to @Windwalker, and you felt the need to reply offensive and sarcastic to me
I just replied to you, stating two facts. So, I was not peddling my wares to you
Hence the proverb "follow your own advice" is applicable here
(All humans are sparks of the Divine, to claim Putin IS a killer is saying God IS a killer)
Correct. Congratulations to you also.This means that my posts aren't the dumbest you've ever seen?
Woohoo!
Oh my gosh... I WAS NOT being sarcastic. Please understand this. If you get anything out of this conversation, please know that I was being serious.
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"And while as a standalone statement in general: "not all people are smart enough to understand" may be true about just about any topic
I read that you were serious. so, please understand that I was serious here. Though short, my answer gave all the information needed.and "study is the solution" may also make sense regarding the "problem" stated (that is, that "not all people are smart enough.")
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 said to me "This has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this site. Congratulations."
You're free not to use them. I honestly don't care.This part did feel quite offensive hence my reply the way I replied.
And congratulations feels sarcastic, or is it called irony, cynism or hypocritical. I don't even bother which, because I rather don't use any them at all
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.I read that you were serious. so, please also understand that I was serious here also. And though a short answer, I gave all the information you need. I did my study and found my answer. 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. Nor do I do Spiritual Debate Games. I do not ask others to solve my questions regarding spirituality. Much 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.
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.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 my mood how I reply. But chances are 99% that I will usually go for the second option
Well if Biden would have clamed up do you think this would even be news?Biden created what?
And whatever it is you mean, how does that obligate Biden to debate Putin? You understand, don't you, that they're not competing for an elected seat, which is why Biden debated the rabid Trump.
But why would Biden give an enemy of America a platform or dignify him by treating Putin as an equal? Your answer above doesn't address that question.
So who will you be rooting for if a debate transpires, the American or his enemy (should be your enemy, too). I suspect that most of the right is rooting for the murderous thug in the hopes that he humiliates the American president. How about you?
And would you like to address the entire post this time rather than a cryptic deflection of one part of it?
So you admit that you are too much of a coward to call a killer a killer?
I also find this attitude extremely odd coming from someone who has no problems at all saying "if X person was in charge, they would do Y". It seems you're keen make value judgements when they favour people of your political position, and much less keen to make value judgements when it comes to condemning murderous tyrants.
Kinda shows up your values, really.
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 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." 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.
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."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.
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"Your post was one of the worst examples of intellectual tomfoolery I have ever encountered.
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"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.
NO.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.
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?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"
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?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".
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.NO.
I try to explain below:
Putin has killed people (no problem with that)
Putin = killer (that is not 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 start a spiritual aspect
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
how does that obligate Biden to debate Putin? You understand, don't you, that they're not competing for an elected seat, which is why Biden debated the rabid Trump.
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.
why would Biden give an enemy of America a platform or dignify him by treating Putin as an equal? Your answer above doesn't address that question.
So who will you be rooting for if a debate transpires, the American or his enemy (should be your enemy, too). I suspect that most of the right is rooting for the murderous thug in the hopes that he humiliates the American president. How about you?
And would you like to address the entire post this time rather than a cryptic deflection of one part of it?
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.
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.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.