The bestest part of the yoo-toobe is when it looks like hes dead at the end.
What's with all the abusive believers?
by NewChapter 91 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
palmtree67
Sab, Why not just address the points made then, instead of the way the points are made?
Sorry, but that's something I've been noticing for a while.
-
FlyingHighNow
Truck it in.
-
NewChapter
Yeah I guess so, but there is a range to that aggression.
LOL---and where do I stand in that range Sab? I simply said I have been called names by some believers etc. and they shouldn't do that. That's perty darn aggressive! FIGHTIN' WORDS.
Look here little missy, we have centuries of witch burnin's and torture chambers----don't be thinkin' you can be tellin' us to stop now! HOW INSENSITIVE you evil atheist---you know our emotions are all locked up in our slavery and crusades! Do we not bleed?
The above was just to give you an idea of the range---I'd say my OP was butterflies and rainbows, while my last comment falls on the barbed wire side.
-
sabastious
Sab, Why not just address the points made then, instead of the way the points are made?
Because it's obviously a topic of great interest to both believers and atheists. That's how all the discussions breakdown into mud slinging matches. The presentation is all off and it distracts from the real conflict at hand. Like I said, believers should get special treatment because they are not asserting that whatever they say is based in rationale like the atheist is.
Say a gay atheist shows a public display of affection with a mate and a fundamental believer is standing six feet away. To the believer what they are watching is an abominable act of sin deserving of eternal soul torture. This is not the case in the atheist reality, but that doesn't change the fact that there are two versions of percieved reality being experienced very close in proximity. How would these two realities reconcile their differences? The non believer is the one who is going to have to be the strong one and not allow the deeply held religious beliefs to incense them outwardly.
Lets say the believer approaches the gay atheist and tells him that what he is doing is wrong. The believer has compassion for the sinner and is trying to help them. However the atheist doesn't believe what they are doing is wrong even in the slightest. In fact the very idea of his entire world view being considered heresy is going to be a problem for him. The conversation can go many different directions. What if the atheist told the believer that they were actually acting more inhuman then them? It would be an accurate statement because the believer is looking straight through the humanity of the atheist by saying what they are doing is punishable under any circumstances. However it may be prudent for the atheist to keep that kind of talk to himself because it will have no chance of success of getting past the beleivers blinders.
But what if the atheist did choose to say it, but only after the believer had already used many insulting ideas to try to help the sinner? Does the believer have any right to defend themselves at a percieved attack? Because to them and their reality they are merely trying to help a fellow human attain eternal life in the hereafter which is an act of friendship. But the friendship will be lost if the atheist calls them inhuman for trying to help. Therefore the believer in a way actually has a point to call the atheist out on the statement even though they had just made a bunch of insulting accusations from the atheist's perspective.
What I am trying to illustrate is the law of personal responsibility. If someone is going to have a world view that is percieved as unlawful by a large group of people living in the same country then they are going to have be on the up and up and try to stay out of trouble. It's an unfortunate circumstance for the unbeliever because they will have to allow what they feel to be double standards in others while remaining true to their stance against double standards personally.
-Sab
-
NewChapter
format bump
-
mrsjones5
When did the board become divided in to believer/atheist camps? I think there maybe other camps that haven't been included. Oops, I forgot the other camps have been lumped in with the atheist camp. My bad. Carry on.
-
NewChapter
I'm sorry (sort of) but this just blows me away. This believer is saying the most offensive things (IMO) and other believers can't really say a whole bunch because they have this odd solidarity that allows them to look the other way when atheists are being called names etc---but brings them forward to call foul when they think a believer is being put down. So this is just funny.
Like I said, believers should get special treatment because they are not asserting that whatever they say is based in rationale like the atheist is.
Say a gay atheist shows a public display of affection with a mate and a fundamental believer is standing six feet away. To the believer what they are watching is an abominable act of sin deserving of eternal soul torture. This is not the case in the atheist reality, but that doesn't change the fact that there are two versions of percieved reality being experienced very close in proximity. How would these two realities reconcile their differences? The non believer is the one who is going to have to be the strong one and not allow the deeply held religious beliefs to incense them outwardly.
Lets say the believer approaches the gay atheist and tells him that what he is doing is wrong. The believer has compassion for the sinner and is trying to help them. However the atheist doesn't believe what they are doing is wrong even in the slightest. In fact the very idea of his entire world view being considered heresy is going to be a problem for him. The conversation can go many different directions. What if the atheist told the believer that they were actually acting more inhuman then them? It would be an accurate statement because the believer is looking straight through the humanity of the atheist by saying what they are doing is punishable under any circumstances. However it may be prudent for the atheist to keep that kind of talk to himself because it will have no chance of success of getting past the beleivers blinders.
But what if the atheist did choose to say it, but only after the believer had already used many insulting ideas to try to help the sinner? Does the believer have any right to defend themselves at a percieved attack? Because to them and their reality they are merely trying to help a fellow human attain eternal life in the hereafter which is an act of friendship. But the friendship will be lost if the atheist calls them inhuman for trying to help. Therefore the believer in a way actually has a point to call the atheist out on the statement even though they had just made a bunch of insulting accusations from the atheist's perspective.
What I am trying to illustrate is the law of personal responsibility. If someone is going to have a world view that is percieved as unlawful by a large group of people living in the same country then they are going to have be on the up and up and try to stay out of trouble. It's an unfortunate circumstance for the unbeliever because they will have to allow what they feel to be double standards in others while remaining true to their stance against double standards personally
Sab ---you are ridiculous. UH OH---Let the believing brigade come and call me out---but I do not take this back. You are ridiculous. You have absolutely no respect for civil rights---you reduce believers to impulsive children---and you have offended both believer and nonbeliever. WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE SO ABUSIVE? LOL
-
EntirelyPossible
First, sheesh, I know I said I wasn't coming back, but I still lurk and follow a few posters I like. What can I say, these comments are enough to bring Superman back from a self-imposed exile.
Can you please give a detailed explanation of said abuse with examples from this forum?
Yes. You. You have lied, called names, played the victim and then loudly and visibily created an attention whore moment when you played the victim and martyed yourself on your own sword when you couldn't defend yourself and blamed the person you were lying about.
Shelby can call people alcoholics and say whatever she wants about them as long as God or Jesus or whoever whispered it in here ear, no apology expected because Jesus.
They don't know better because they are following a belief rather than a rational.
I don't think you intended to include yourself in that category, but as you are a believer, I want to congratulate you on what I consider to be one of the smartest things you ever wrote, "What is real is that people who believe in God will get emotional and there is no sense in trying to control it".
Despite the fact that the irrational, emotional belief cannot be controlled shouldn't in any way be interpreted to mean that atheist, agnostics, doubters, etc., will in ANY way accept the abuse or not stand up to it.
Superman out.
-
palmtree67
Like I said, believers should get special treatment because they are not asserting that whatever they say is based in rationale like the atheist is.
Yes, the believers here keep saying they are deserving of special treatment.....I'm sorry, but I very much disagree.
It's an unfortunate circumstance for the unbeliever because they will have to allow what they feel to be double standards in others while remaining true to their stance against double standards personally.
But thank you for finally admitting what the rest of the believers here deny - *you* are the ones with the double standard. And the lack of rational thought structure.