Text 44390, 248 rader
Skriven 2006-12-21 12:48:34 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Kommentar till text 44298 av bob klahn (1:275/311)
Ärende: The Truth part 2 of 2
================================
20 Dec 06 23:53, bob klahn wrote to Roy Witt:
st>>>>> He states that if one hides behind their god to justify
st>>>>> their means, then "yes", he hates them.
bk>>> Since he has made it clear he intended for that to mean evil
bk>>> deeds, that should make it clear.
RW>> Forsstrom didn't state that. He stated that he hates anyone
RW>> who hides behind their God to justify their means.
bk> And since it made no sense to say that about people who are
bk> doing good things,
On the contrary, it made perfect sense. It makes sense because 'hiding
behind their god' would in fact make perfect sense to a follower of Luthor
when he prescribed the breaking away from the Catholic church. It would
also make sense to a loyal Catholic, if he knew the history. So, 'hiding
behind their God to justify their means' is what he meant, good or bad.
bk> I inquired for a more precise statement. At that time he clarified
bk> it, as I said above.
And of course, you would most certainly get that reply, after he'd been
chastised for his statement by others who didn't think it was such a great
idea. He wanted to look good in their eyes and he knew it would make
Shannon look bad at the same time.
bk> Further, just reading it should have alerted anyone to the fact
bk> that it was not clear as to it's intent, as "justify their
bk> means" is pretty meaningless. It's only when you get the
bk> clarification that it takes on any meaning. Clearly written by
bk> someone for whom English is the second language.
It was just what you wanted to hear and he knew that.
RW>> "I hate every Jew, Muslim or Christian or wharever that
RW>> uses their god to hide behind to justify their means."
RW>> Bjorn Forsstrom - 2006
bk> Yes, and after the clarification it became clear.
As mud to the non-thinker.
RW>> He made no distinction between good or evil.
bk> Anyone who thinks about it would realize, those doing good don't
bk> need to hide behind anyone. Only those doing evil would need to.
See reference to Martin Luthor, above. Good or evil is in the eye of the
beholder.
RW>> "A true Christian doesn't behave like you just lika a true
RW>> Muslem isn't a terrorist." B Forsstrom - 2006
RW>> So far, no distinction.
bk> That sentence is clear and accurate AFAICS, without further
bk> clarification.
As an Atheist, how would he know what a Christian should behave like? How
does an Atheist know whether a true Muslim is a terrorist or not? Not to
mention that his opinion is of no concern to either of the above, fore he
has no reference of morality to go by.
RW>> "When it all turns into fanatism at least I react to it and
RW>> by that I condemn both you and the terrorists." B Forsstrom
RW>> - 2006
RW>> Here he may come close, but he still hasn't defined good or
RW>> evil.
bk> Why would he need to define good and evil? That part is
bk> understood. As to the above, again, it is clear and reasonable.
It's neither clear nor reasonable since he has no moral reference to judge
by.
RW>> "You are all just as dangerous to a democracy but neither
RW>> of you realize this untill it's too late." B Forsstrom -
RW>> 2006
bk> His opinion. When applied to fanatics, I agree. The Christian
bk> right in this country is more a threat to our way of life than
bk> any Islamic group could be,
The Christian right is a minority and there is no threat. And you're the
reason why we're fighting Islamic terrorists today.
bk> IMO. No Islamic group is a serious threat to us.
LOL! Strike two.
RW>> Which isn't a statement of good nor evil. In fact, I
RW>> haven't figured out what he's talking about, probably
RW>> because 'he' doesn't know what he's talking about.
bk> Other than the first statement, it's pretty clear. Unless one is
bk> in denial.
Or both of you don't know what he's talking about. One is lying, one
is backing him up.
RW>> "You never listen to anyone except your own and as soon
RW>> anything doesn't go your way you all can do whatever it
RW>> takes in the name of your God." B Forsstrom - 2006
RW>> I'm not sure whether listening to an unknown source or
RW>> another's whom you know and trust is good or evil in his
RW>> mind. Maybe both.
bk> Listening to the other side is a good thing, even if you don't
bk> agree with them afterwards. Sorry, that one is too easy.
Not for him. He definately only listens to himself.
RW>> "THAT'S the people I hate and then I'm on a much higher
RW>> moral ground than you ever will be because......I haven't a
RW>> God to hide behind." B Forsstrom - 2006
RW>> So, he's on a higher plane than anyone else because he has
RW>> his own source of morality - his own?
bk> Could be. That is all opinion. IMO.
Which is what we're supposed to be discussing. He has no moral background
to judge others by.
RW>> There's the evil!
RW>> Where's the good?
bk> As he made clear above.
RW>> Is Bjorn Forsstrom's morality higher than everyone elses?
RW>> Are Bjorn's deeds exempt because he has no god to hide
RW>> behind?
bk> Not everyone else, just yours. Since I belong to the one true
bk> church, that can't apply.
We're members of the same church?
bk>>> And it is perfectly reasonable.
RW>> I'll bet you think so.
bk> Yes, I think using God to excuse evil is evil. Seems clear
bk> enough.
As mud.
bk>>> I would say God isn't too pleased with so called Christians who try
bk>>> to hide behind Him to justify their wrongdoing.
RW>> Who among you can point out a wrong-doing in God's eyes?
bk> Murder and terror and torture are wrong. I believe that.
You were told that it was wrong by whom? How about Forsstrom, who told
him?
bk> You could argue it, but you cannot know, no one can, but I believe
bk> it.
LOL! I'll bet you do.
RW>> (remember that the bible was written by men who claimed
RW>> that it was inspired by God, but offer no proof other than
RW>> 'you must have faith')
bk> Yep.
RW>> Christians preach that their God will forgive any
RW>> backslider as long as the backslider repents and trys to
RW>> mend his/her ways. Being a christian doesn't mean that one
RW>> is perfect and must follow everything to the letter without
RW>> fail. It just means that they can only try and if they
RW>> fail, pick themselves up again and try again.
bk> Yep.
RW>> Afterall, they're only human and can only try to live up to
RW>> their religious beliefs.
bk> Yep.
RW>> They're not gods themselves.
bk> Yep. And not anointed by God to be president.
LOL! In the ways of God, he may do just that and the person chosen may
just as well know it too. In the face of all the adversity our present
President has had in the last 6 years, he HAS to be the chosen one.
RW>> You can't say that much for an athiest, because he has no
bk> Yes, I can. They can only try to live up to their religious
bk> beliefs.
LOL! They have no religious beliefs, just themselves.
RW>> god to hide behind and has no moral source to live up to.
bk> That except reason.
Who's to say that Forsstrom can reason with any sense of morality other
than what his society has given him? Which is a very bad example, as the
Christian church is not a majority in Sveden.
RW>> Therefore, how can an athiest define good or evil to one
RW>> who has a source not their own?
bk> Same can be said about Hindus and Buddhists. They have a source
bk> that is not yours.
Went over your head, didn't it. They have a source, but that source isn't
their own mind.
bk> Buddah really was not a God, and Hindus have many gods. How do you
bk> talk to them?
Only Christians claim that Jesus was a God. How do you talk to him?
bk> And how do those of us who consider our church the one true
bk> church talk to those of you who don't? And how do we talk to
bk> those, like Jimmy Swaggart, who called the Catholic Church the
bk> "Whore of Babylon"?
Believe what he says, for it is the truth, even if he isn't a member of
the one true church.
bk> You just try being reasonable
OK..
bk> and tolerant.
Not me.
R\%/itt
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
* Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)
|