Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
gone

deleted

deleted
Ketty

Religion does seem to bring out the worst, I agree - whatever it may be about which, or what, people are being religious. Religion restricts and binds people and encourages them to desire to restrict and bind others in the same way.
gone

Ketty wrote:
Religion does seem to bring out the worst, I agree - whatever it may be about which, or what, people are being religious. Religion restricts and binds people and encourages them to desire to restrict and bind others in the same way.


I agree.

Having been brought up with the 'you must be 'saved' or else' dogma, I know how very damaging and abusive it can be. Surely our aim in life should be to be good enough?
Shaker

Re: What is it about religion?

Floo wrote:
Religion seems to bring out the worst in some people, Christianity, Judaism and Islam are the three, which particularly spring to mind. Of course there are good people belonging to those faiths, but sadly they are often eclipsed by the bad.

I am probably being extremely naive in my thinking, but surely if you espouse a faith the aim should be to make you a better person? Whatever religion to which you belong, or none at all, one's aim in life should be to help others a long the way, 'then my living has not been in vain'.

What do other's think?


It brings out the worst in people (a) because for some people it deals with the biggest things that humans ever have to contend with: the meaning, worth and import of their own existences and (especially) the thing a great many people hate and fear most, namely death and (b) because it deals in pseudo-answers, not real, actual answers which are rooted in fact, logic and evidence. In the absence of any factual grounding, any one person's/group's individual interpretation (and that's all it is) has exact parity with absolutely any other - all others, in fact. There's no external reference point to which anyone can point and say, "Well, look, I think you'll find that actually you're wrong here, and this is the evidence which demonstrates why ..." If you can't do that - as you so often can in science for example - the Big-Endians and their opinion that you should and must tap open your boiled egg at the big end and the Small-Endians and their opinion that no, it must be the other end have precisely equal parity - it's just opinion - and so their witless witterings can go on and on and on and on and on for ever and ever, world without end.

It's all just opinion, and we all know what opinions are like, I'm sure.

You singled out Christianity, Judaism and Islam as the worst offenders in this regard in much the same way as I've also done in the past. The problem here is monotheism - belief in just the one god fertilises the soil with the rich manure you need to allow division, exclusion and sectarianism to flourish because it provides the ideal environment. If there is only one god it follows that there is only one right, true, correct and proper way of going about things - whatever that god has said. Anything which steps outside of this is wrong in both senses of the word - factually incorrect and morally objectionable. If you are absolutely convinced that there is only one way, truth and life and that nobody gets to the Father but by Jesus, or that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet, it is a very, very short step from there to wanting to be able to make others see things your way if you can make them. It's not inevitable, but certainly the ground has been well prepared.

You don't have to be much of an historian of religion to compare the histories of, say, Christianity and Islam with ancient Greek paganism or Hinduism to spot the salient differences in this regard.
Leonard James

If humanity would concentrate on simply bringing kids up to obey the Golden Rule, instead of following the instructions of any of the innumerable gods that have been dreamed up, this world would be a far happier and peaceful place.
Powwow

Yes i recognize the atheism of Lenin, Mao and the crazy Kim's and it's link to their murderous ways.
Shaker

There has to be some sort of award for that degree of whataboutery.

Whether there's a comparable award for the most abject failure to engage with the subject of a thread, I don't know.
Ketty

Re: What is it about religion?

Shaker wrote:

It's all just opinion, and we all know what opinions are like, I'm sure.


Ten a penny - even allowing for inflation and decimalisation.  

Shaker wrote:
[Floo] You singled out Christianity, Judaism and Islam as the worst offenders in this regard . . .


Religious adherents of anything can be the 'worse offenders'.  It's all subjective and relative.  If gambling is a person's religion, if soccer is a person's religion, if the wishy-washy unquantifiable 'Golden Rule' is a person's religion is no worse and no better than if a person insists that 'christianity' is their religion and yet, for example, they insist all others including those who do not know Christ should follow OT Levitical laws whilst themselves ignoring the two greatest Commandments.  Religious adherents of Islam do things like flying into buildings, decapitating innocents, and insisting their women must cover themselves from head to toe in order to make a 'religious statement' to societies who do not recognise their god.
Shaker

Re: What is it about religion?

Ketty wrote:
Shaker wrote:

It's all just opinion, and we all know what opinions are like, I'm sure.


Ten a penny - even allowing for inflation and decimalisation. †

Not the phrase I was thinking of, but near enough!

Quote:
Religious adherents of anything can be the 'worse offenders'. †It's all subjective and relative. †


All? Gosh: that's quite an admission. Though not to me
JamesJah

What is it about religion? It is the god you choose.

People today have in many cases stopped choosing a  god and plumbed for theirs being the one true god, which favours them but no else.

How many gods are there and hoe many have instructed their followers in how they should be worshiped?

What is the point of the worship and why do people think they have to indulge in it?

Is most worship just self gratification, or do some actually do what their god asks of them?

What is the big problem with self determination?

Which God knows best has been the issue through the ages so who is the winner?




Click to see full size image

Do all roads lead to god???
Leonard James

JamesJah wrote:


Do all roads lead to god???


One thing is certain ... nobody knows whether any gods even exist, so talking about 'roads leading to god'  is nothing more than a flight of fancy.
Ketty

Re: What is it about religion?

Shaker wrote:
All? Gosh: that's quite an admission. Though not to me


Ketty

JamesJah wrote:
Do all roads lead to god???


If you believe that all will one day be answerable to your god, that's your answer - to be answerable to your god, their various roads will lead to your god.
JamesJah

Ketty wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Do all roads lead to god???


If you believe that all will one day be answerable to your god, that's your answer - to be answerable to your god, their various roads will lead to your god.


Looking at the picture it looked to me as if there was at least two that did not.????
cyberman

Re: What is it about religion?

Floo wrote:
Religion seems to bring out the worst in some people, Christianity, Judaism and Islam are the three, which particularly spring to mind. Of course there are good people belonging to those faiths, but sadly they are often eclipsed by the bad.

I am probably being extremely naive in my thinking, but surely if you espouse a faith the aim should be to make you a better person? Whatever religion to which you belong, or none at all, one's aim in life should be to help others a long the way, 'then my living has not been in vain'.

What do other's think?


Is this your way of saying that when you are nasty to Christians, you expect them to roll over and take it, and not snap back at you? Tough shit!
Shaker

Re: What is it about religion?

cyberman wrote:
Is this your way of saying that when you are nasty to Christians, you expect them to roll over and take it, and not snap back at you? Tough shit!

Not that I've seen Floo be nasty to any Christians but even if it were the case that she thinks as you claim (I've seen no evidence of it) presumably she'd be led in that direction by explicit Christian doctrine.
cyberman

Re: What is it about religion?

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Is this your way of saying that when you are nasty to Christians, you expect them to roll over and take it, and not snap back at you? Tough shit!

Not that I've seen Floo be nasty to any Christians but even if it were the case that she thinks as you claim (I've seen no evidence of it) presumably she'd be led in that direction by explicit Christian doctrine.


If she is nasty to people, it is their fault? Victim blaming, much?

Even if that's the case, the fact that we surprise her by reacting as anyone else would doesn't mean that she is right to say that religion makes people nasty. We're just not the doormats that a bully like her hopes to encounter.
Shaker

Re: What is it about religion?

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Is this your way of saying that when you are nasty to Christians, you expect them to roll over and take it, and not snap back at you? Tough shit!

Not that I've seen Floo be nasty to any Christians but even if it were the case that she thinks as you claim (I've seen no evidence of it) presumably she'd be led in that direction by explicit Christian doctrine.


If she is nasty to people, it is their fault? Victim blaming, much?

Evidently you write out of what you think I've said rather than what I actually have said - far from the first time. I haven't seen her being nasty to anyone - I don't know what you're referring to. If you have a specific example in mind, provide it.
gone

To whom I have been nasty? Some people have said unpleasant things to me, but that goes with the territory if one posts on forums, I suppose.

I state my views about religion, and make no apology for that. I reiterate that I have NO problem with many Christians who don't proselytise, and let their good deeds do the talking. I have a BIG problem with the nasty 'born again' dogma, and the Christians who go on about getting saved or else. Many of their lives leave a heck of a lot to be desired!
cyberman

Floo wrote:
To whom I have been nasty? Some people have said unpleasant things to me, but that goes with the territory if one posts on forums, I suppose.

I state my views about religion, and make no apology for that. I reiterate that I have NO problem with many Christians who don't proselytise, and let their good deeds do the talking. I have a BIG problem with the nasty 'born again' dogma, and the Christians who go on about getting saved or else. Many of their lives leave a heck of a lot to be desired!


When you came back onto R&E you laid into powwow with an attack on his sanity which had nothing whatsoever to do with any argument or debate at all. When I asked you if you had any reasononing to back up your insults, you attacked me in a similar way. You don't engage in debate at all. You preach your ideas and if anyone disagrees you say they're stupid or mad. You never ever actually engage in discussion.
Powwow

Of course Shaker, in your mind, what Floo did to Lexi wasn't nasty at all. Too funny you.

Sounds like in floo's mind she gets a pass on being nasty to others because she has no faith. She can stick it to Christians like Lexi, because floo is not a person of faith. But boy oh boy, if Lexi had taken a strip off floo, as she had every right to do, floo would have had a tantrum over been told of by a nasty Christian. Oh my world!
Ketty

JamesJah wrote:
Looking at the picture it looked to me as if there was at least two that did not.????


You didn't show a picture, you simply asked a question.  What picture?  Which two?  And at least two - so who others?
JamesJah

Who invented a religion for Christians?

Why did Allah invent a religion for Arabs?
Ketty

Answer my questions first.
JamesJah

Ketty wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Looking at the picture it looked to me as if there was at least two that did not.????


You didn't show a picture, you simply asked a question. †What picture? †Which two? †And at least two - so who others?


What was this?



Click to see full size image
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Of course Shaker, in your mind, what Floo did to Lexi wasn't nasty at all.


No. Nasty isn't the word I'd use. I think "out of order" and "in my opinion, pretty largely incorrect in certain specifics" covers it. Nasty, no.

Quote:
She can stick it to Christians like Lexi, because floo is not a person of faith. But boy oh boy, if Lexi had taken a strip off floo, as she had every right to do, floo would have had a tantrum over been told of by a nasty Christian. Oh my world!

If Floo was - as you put it - "nasty" to Lexi, was that on the basis of Lexi being Christian? Was it a religiously-motivated nastiness? If not, why bring Christianity into it?
Ketty

JamesJah wrote:

What was this?


Something that is not viewable on my screen and therefore has no obvious (or even tenuous) connection with your stand-alone question - which, in fact, did not refer to a picture.

Just to remind you, this was your question:

JamesJah wrote:
Do all roads lead to god???


This continues to be my reply:  If you believe that everyone will one day be answerable to your god, that's your answer - to be answerable to your god, their various roads will lead to your god.
JamesJah

Ketty wrote:
JamesJah wrote:

What was this?


Something that is not viewable on my screen and therefore has no obvious (or even tenuous) connection with your stand-alone question - which, in fact, did not refer to a picture.

Just to remind you, this was your question:

JamesJah wrote:
Do all roads lead to god???


This continues to be my reply: †If you believe that everyone will one day be answerable to your god, that's your answer - to be answerable to your god, their various roads will lead to your god.


I think you did tell me some time ago but I must have forgot, never mind the picture is easy to describe.

The picture is of some men in black robes fleeing from  a forest fire, which is behind them,  having arrived at a giant precipice [it is a cliff actually] but for some one who can not see it goes down and not up, making the point I think that some clergy do talk nonsense from time to time, showing that they have little idea as to what is required by God.

Now what do you think do all roads lead to god?
cyberman

Re: What is it about religion?

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Is this your way of saying that when you are nasty to Christians, you expect them to roll over and take it, and not snap back at you? Tough shit!

Not that I've seen Floo be nasty to any Christians but even if it were the case that she thinks as you claim (I've seen no evidence of it) presumably she'd be led in that direction by explicit Christian doctrine.


If she is nasty to people, it is their fault? Victim blaming, much?

Evidently you write out of what you think I've said rather than what I actually have said - far from the first time. I haven't seen her being nasty to anyone - I don't know what you're referring to. If you have a specific example in mind, provide it.


You have stated that you presume that floo being nasty to Christians is a direct result of Christian doctrine. I am indeed responding to what you have actually written. You are victim-blaming.
gone

I am NOT nasty to Christians as a species, many of them are decent people. I only retaliate when someone claiming to be a Christian behaves in a manner that brings the faith they claim to espouse into disrepute.
Ketty

Floo wrote:
I only retaliate when someone claiming to be a Christian behaves in a manner that brings the faith they claim to espouse into disrepute.


How do you think a Christian should behave?  We're human, uniquely ourselves, with our own personalities and experiences; we do not act as automatons simply because we're disciples of Christ - you've only to look at His original Disciples for the examples of various personalities and how they dealt with things differently to each other.

Tbh Floo, it's probably your own idea of a "one size fitting all" and 'shoulds / oughts' once somebody claims the label Christian that is a little skewed - maybe because of your experiences when young, and the things you were taught?   Remember too, that not everyone who claims the label has done so in Truth - therefore it's not wise to paint people with the same brush.

Therefore, your retaliation should be because that's how you feel, or how you want to be, and what you want to do, but not based on what label the other person may or may not claim.
gone

Ketty wrote:
Floo wrote:
I only retaliate when someone claiming to be a Christian behaves in a manner that brings the faith they claim to espouse into disrepute.


How do you think a Christian [i]should
behave? †We're human, uniquely ourselves, with our own personalities and experiences; we do not act as automatons simply because we're disciples of Christ - you've only to look at His original Disciples for the examples of various personalities and how they dealt with things differently to each other.

Tbh Floo, it's probably your own idea of a "one size fitting all" and 'shoulds / oughts' once somebody claims the label Christian that is a little skewed - maybe because of your experiences when young, and the things you were taught? † Remember too, that not everyone who claims the label has done so in Truth - therefore it's not wise to paint people with the same brush.

Therefore, your retaliation should be because that's how you feel, or how you want to be, and what you want to do, but not based on what label the other person may or may not claim.


[/i]


There are so many Christian doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, all claiming to have the elusive 'truth'. With no evidence to support any of them the truth is as long as a piece of string, imo.    
Ketty

Floo wrote:
[/i][/u]

There are so many Christian doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, all claiming to have the elusive 'truth'. With no evidence to support any of them the truth is as long as a piece of string, imo. † †


Maybe, but that also demonstrates that your retaliation would be more 'real' if it were based on what is said rather that what the person saying it is 'supposed' to be.
gone

Ketty wrote:
Floo wrote:
[/i][/u]

There are so many Christian doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, all claiming to have the elusive 'truth'. With no evidence to support any of them the truth is as long as a piece of string, imo. † †


Maybe, but that also demonstrates that your retaliation would be more 'real' if it were based on what is said rather that what the person saying it is 'supposed' to be.



Not quite sure what you mean by that?
Ketty

Floo wrote:
Not quite sure what you mean by that?


Eg, I claim to be a good Muslim and I chop off somebody's head.  Your reaction to that, if it's based upon the fact I claim to be a good Muslim, because clearly and demonstrably I'm neither of those things, but if that was the basis of your reaction, it's not as 'real' (I'm unable to think of another word just now) as if your reaction was based upon what was done.  Ie, what was done was far, far worse and more truthful than anything I may or may not claim to be.
cyberman

Floo wrote:
Ketty wrote:
Floo wrote:
[/i][/u]

There are so many Christian doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, all claiming to have the elusive 'truth'. With no evidence to support any of them the truth is as long as a piece of string, imo. † †


Maybe, but that also demonstrates that your retaliation would be more 'real' if it were based on what is said rather that what the person saying it is 'supposed' to be.



Not quite sure what you mean by that?


It is perfectly clear. Ketty is saying that you should respond to what people say, and leave aside your preconceptions about how you think they ought to behave. Why would you hold Christians to a different standard from everyone else?
The Boyg

cyberman wrote:

It is perfectly clear. Ketty is saying that you should respond to what people say, and leave aside your preconceptions about how you think they ought to behave. Why would you hold Christians to a different standard from everyone else?


Because it gives her an additional stick to beat them with?
Shaker

Re: What is it about religion?

cyberman wrote:
You have stated that you presume that floo being nasty to Christians is a direct result of Christian doctrine.

I said absolutely nothing of the kind. Where on earth do you dredge this rubbish up from?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Ketty is saying that you should respond to what people say

Sound advice.

Quote:
Why would you hold Christians to a different standard from everyone else?

Aren't Christians - if they're following the book with reasonable care at any rate - rather visibly and explicitly supposed to be of a different standard?
Ketty

Shaker wrote:

Aren't Christians - if they're following the book with reasonable care at any rate - rather visibly and explicitly supposed to be of a different standard?


Errrmmm, a 'different standard', hmmmm, don't think so. †That's putting a 'greater/lesser than' sort of measure on things.

If I do a kind act, is it a greater standard to you doing a kind act? †No, not in my opinion. †A kindness is a kindness. †

But!  If I do something wilfully and intentionally 'bad' I have to account to God every day.  If you do something wilfully and intentionally 'bad' - you get away with it (well, for now at least   )



I'm hungry: I need some tea before I try and think some more.  
cyberman

Re: What is it about religion?

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
You have stated that you presume that floo being nasty to Christians is a direct result of Christian doctrine.

I said absolutely nothing of the kind. Where on earth do you dredge this rubbish up from?


Shaker wrote:

Not that I've seen Floo be nasty to any Christians but even if it were the case that she thinks as you claim presumably she'd be led in that direction by explicit Christian doctrine.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:

Aren't Christians - if they're following the book with reasonable care at any rate - rather visibly and explicitly supposed to be of a different standard?


No.

Have you been labouring these long years under the misapprehension that Christians think themselves to be better people than others?

When you say "supposed" - supposed by whom? If you are saying that Christians suppose themselves to be of a higher standard, what does that have to do with what floo does?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
No.

Have you been labouring these long years under the misapprehension that Christians think themselves to be better people than others?

When you say "supposed" - supposed by whom? If you are saying that Christians suppose themselves to be of a higher standard, what does that have to do with what floo does?


I was referring to the fact that when faced with those who antagonistic or even explicitly hostile to them, Christians are commanded to turn the other cheek instead of retaliating in kind, are they not?

What does anything have to do with whatever it is that Floo does - what is it that Floo does? She has been accused of being nasty to Christians but wholly without foundation as far as I can see.
Powwow

Shaker are you familiar with the Bible? Christ told people off quite a bit. And He instigated many confrontations. Calling people Satan, vipers and hypocrites. Jesus meek and mild is not the Jesus of the Bible.
gone

Jesus needed telling off as well, he wasn't exactly perfect if some of the deeds attributed to the guy were true.
trentvoyager

pow wow wrote:
Shaker are you familiar with the Bible? Christ told people off quite a bit. And He instigated many confrontations. Calling people Satan, vipers and hypocrites. Jesus meek and mild is not the Jesus of the Bible.


So many confllicting ideas - turn the other cheek, thowing people out of temples, calling people names.

It's almost as if the Bible was written by different people at different times to suit their own agendas.  
Powwow

"You brood of snakes!"   John the Baptist
"You brood of snakes!"   Christ
"Offspring of vipers"   Christ
"Snakes! Offspring of snakes!"   Christ
"But a curse is on you..."   Christ
Powwow

Floo, don't start that, poor herd of piggies, thing again. YAWN!
gone

pow wow wrote:
"You brood of snakes!" † John the Baptist
"You brood of snakes!" † Christ
"Offspring of vipers" † Christ
"Snakes! Offspring of snakes!" † Christ
"But a curse is on you..." † Christ


I like snakes!    
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Shaker are you familiar with the Bible?

I am.

Quote:
Christ told people off quite a bit. And He instigated many confrontations. Calling people Satan, vipers and hypocrites. Jesus meek and mild is not the Jesus of the Bible.

Quite so ... something I've pointed out many times.
JamesJah

Was Jesus before Abraham or not?


If he was why all the juggling with the I AM?
Powwow

Shaker,
There we go then, what's the fuss and shame shame from you about then. The religious leaders had nasty things to say to Christ and He returned it to them in kind. As far as a back handed strike across the right cheek, that is very different, if you ever care to do the research on what that ancient insult was all about.
So in future, try not to use scripture verses in blind ignorance. Atheists always do that for some reason.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Shaker,
There we go then, what's the fuss and shame shame from you about then. The religious leaders had nasty things to say to Christ and He returned it to them in kind. As far as a back handed strike across the right cheek, that is very different, if you ever care to do the research on what that ancient insult was all about.
So in future, try not to use scripture verses in blind ignorance. Atheists always do that for some reason.

Absolutely no idea what this bizarre word salad is supposed to mean.
Powwow

Couldn't care any less Shaker. An ape has a better knowledge of scripture than you do.
Ketty

Shaker wrote:

Absolutely no idea what this bizarre word salad is supposed to mean.


It means 1 Corinthians 2, Ecclesiastes 11, John 14.

The Message:  

The unspiritual self, just as it is by nature, canít receive the gifts of Godís Spirit.

Just as youíll never understand the mystery of life forming in a pregnant woman, so youíll never understand the mystery at work in all that God does.

Christ (TM)on the Holy Spirit:  ďIf you love me, show it by doing what Iíve told you. I will talk to the Father, and Heíll provide you another Friend so that you will always have someone with you. This Friend is the Spirit of Truth. The godless world canít take Him in because it doesnít have eyes to see Him, doesnít know what to look for. But you know Him already because He has been staying with you, and will even be in you!"
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Couldn't care any less Shaker. An ape has a better knowledge of scripture than you do.


Well, as humans we're apes anyway, actually, but if you're referring to primates other than H. sapiens, no, they don't - they have better things to do with their time, such as picking fleas off each other and throwing turds around.
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
Just as youíll never understand the mystery of life forming in a pregnant woman


We have genetics and embryology for that, don't we?
Ketty

I knew you'd say something like that. †

ETA, you replied before my post posted, if you see what I mean - I was referring to the ape thing.  
Leonard James

Ketty wrote:
Shaker wrote:

Absolutely no idea what this bizarre word salad is supposed to mean.


It means 1 Corinthians 2, Ecclesiastes 11, John 14.

The Message: †

The unspiritual self, just as it is by nature, canít receive the gifts of Godís Spirit.

Just as youíll never understand the mystery of life forming in a pregnant woman, so youíll never understand the mystery at work in all that God does.

Christ (TM)on the Holy Spirit: †ďIf you love me, show it by doing what Iíve told you. I will talk to the Father, and Heíll provide you another Friend so that you will always have someone with you. This Friend is the Spirit of Truth. The godless world canít take Him in because it doesnít have eyes to see Him, doesnít know what to look for. But you know Him already because He has been staying with you, and will even be in you!"


Reading that makes it easy to see why some credulous people fall for this pretentious bull!  
Ketty

Leonard James wrote:
Reading that makes it easy to see why some credulous people fall for this pretentious bull! †


Good morning dear Lennie.  

Nah!  Reading that makes it easy to see why some write as you have just done.  
Leonard James

Ketty wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Reading that makes it easy to see why some credulous people fall for this pretentious bull! †


Good morning dear Lennie. †

Nah! †Reading that makes it easy to see why some write as you have just done. †


I totally agree, Ket. Anybody not fooled by such rubbish would do the same.  
JamesJah

Where does the correct thinking come from?

Why are humans bourn like animals?

Who is educated in the correct method of teaching their children how to think correctly for living with other humans and animals?


Why is there so much confusion on this forum?

horsethorn

JamesJah wrote:
Where does the correct thinking come from?

There is no such thing as the correct thinking, there is only opinion.

JamesJah wrote:
Why are humans bourn like animals?

Because they are animals.

JamesJah wrote:
Who is educated in the correct method of teaching their children how to think correctly for living with other humans and animals?

See above.

JamesJah wrote:
Why is there so much confusion on this forum?


Because you seem to have difficulty expressing yourself clearly?

ht
JamesJah

horsethorn wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Where does the correct thinking come from?

There is no such thing as the correct thinking, there is only opinion.

JamesJah wrote:
Why are humans bourn like animals?

Because they are animals.

JamesJah wrote:
Who is educated in the correct method of teaching their children how to think correctly for living with other humans and animals?

See above.

JamesJah wrote:
Why is there so much confusion on this forum?


Because you seem to have difficulty expressing yourself clearly?

ht


What is clear exasperations to some one who lacks understanding and knowledge of the universe?
The Boyg

JamesJah wrote:
What is clear exasperations to some one who lacks understanding and knowledge of the universe?


Nope.

I've read that sentence a number of times and still cannot make sense of what it was that you were trying to convey.
trentvoyager

The Boyg wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
What is clear exasperations to some one who lacks understanding and knowledge of the universe?


Nope.

I've read that sentence a number of times and still cannot make sense of what it was that you were trying to convey.


Perhaps because James lacks understanding and knowledge of English.
The Boyg

trentvoyager wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
What is clear exasperations to some one who lacks understanding and knowledge of the universe?


Nope.

I've read that sentence a number of times and still cannot make sense of what it was that you were trying to convey.


Perhaps because James lacks understanding and knowledge of English.


I think it's probably because he doesn't read back his posts to check them for clarity before pressing "submit".
JamesJah

What is clear exasperations to some one who lacks understanding
Shaker

I thought Stanley Unwin was dead.
The Boyg

JamesJah wrote:
What is clear exasperations to some one who lacks understanding


Syntax error. Fail.
horsethorn

JamesJah wrote:
horsethorn wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Where does the correct thinking come from?

There is no such thing as the correct thinking, there is only opinion.

JamesJah wrote:
Why are humans bourn like animals?

Because they are animals.

JamesJah wrote:
Who is educated in the correct method of teaching their children how to think correctly for living with other humans and animals?

See above.

JamesJah wrote:
Why is there so much confusion on this forum?


Because you seem to have difficulty expressing yourself clearly?

ht


What is clear exasperations to some one who lacks understanding and knowledge of the universe?


I rest my case.

ht
Powwow

Hello  Mr. horse, how nice that you suddenly make an appearance.
Ketty

Leonard James wrote:
I totally agree, Ket. Anybody not fooled by such rubbish would do the same. †


Back atcha  

 
JamesJah

pow wow wrote:
Hello †Mr. horse, how nice that you suddenly make an appearance.


If we judge human wisdom by results do we see them improving creation or making a real mess of  it???

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum