Text 44793, 346 rader
Skriven 2006-12-24 17:03:00 av bob klahn (1:275/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Roy Witt
Ärende: The Truth    part 2 of 2
================================

 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,

 RW> On the contrary, it made perfect sense. It makes sense
 RW> because 'hiding behind their god' would in fact make
 RW> perfect sense to a follower of Luthor when he prescribed
 RW> the breaking away from the Catholic church. It would also

 That would not be hiding behind God, cause that is directly
 connected to God, not something else entirely.

 RW> make sense to a loyal Catholic, if he knew the history. So,
 RW> 'hiding behind their God to justify their means' is what he
 RW> meant, good or bad.

 Say what?

 bk>> I inquired for a more precise statement. At that time he clarified
 bk>> it, as I said above.

 RW> And of course, you would most certainly get that reply,
 RW> after he'd been chastised for his statement by others who
 RW> didn't think it was such a great idea. He wanted to look
 RW> good in their eyes and he knew it would make Shannon look
 RW> bad at the same time.

 It makes everyone who can't see beyond a simple failure to
 communicate look bad. Anyone who wants to play gotcha with this
 deserves to look bad.

 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.

 RW> It was just what you wanted to hear and he knew that.

 So, you now claim not only to be telepathic, but to have great
 range in your telepathy?

 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.

 RW> As mud to the non-thinker.

 **************************************************************************
 Since he has made it clear he intended for that to mean evil
 deeds, that should make it clear.
 **************************************************************************

 Hell, if that isn't clear to you then you need a remedial
 reading course.

 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.

 RW> See reference to Martin Luthor, above. Good or evil is in
 RW> the eye of the beholder.

 Which doesn't really change the value of the arguement, just the
 details. You are arguing nits, not real issues.

 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.

 RW> As an Atheist, how would he know what a Christian should
 RW> behave like?

 You may not have noticed, but we live in a Christian culture.
 Even Europe, with the abandonment of religion, is still a
 Christain culture. It would take centuries, probably to alter
 our society that much.

 That plus just reading.

 RW> How does an Atheist know whether a true Muslim
 RW> is a terrorist or not? Not to mention that his opinion is
 RW> of no concern to either of the above, fore he has no
 RW> reference of morality to go by.

 The morality of the Christian society he grew up in. The
 Morality of the Christian faith he was probably raised in, and
 later abandoned.

 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.

 RW> It's neither clear nor reasonable since he has no moral
 RW> reference to judge by.

 Christianity.

 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,

 RW> The Christian right is a minority and there is no threat.

 The Christian right is a minority, and a great threat to our
 civil liberties.

 RW> And you're the reason why we're fighting Islamic terrorists
 RW> today.

 I am? I am one of those who warned we should not have invaded
 Iraq. If they had listened to me we would not be facing so many
 Islamic terrorists now. If we had finished the job in
 Afghanistan as I said we would probably be done with it, OBL
 would be captured or dead. And the rest of the Islamic world
 would be too scared to challenge us.

 bk>>  IMO. No Islamic group is a serious threat to us.

 RW> LOL! Strike two.

 Show how any Islamic group can take us down. The worst any is
 likely to be able to do to us is much less than we do to ourselves
 every year on the highways.

 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.

 RW> Or both of you don't know what he's talking about. One is
 RW> lying, one is backing him up.

 Apply Occam's razor. Your way takes convoluted reasoning. My way
 it becomes clear and simple and accurate.

 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.

 RW> Not for him. He definately only listens to himself.

 Meaningless interjection.

 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.

 RW> Which is what we're supposed to be discussing. He has no
 RW> moral background to judge others by.

 How would you know? There is a great body of philosophy
 involving morality that does not include God. Buddhism for one.
 There is a great deal of study of moral philosophy.

 And, as I said, it's likely he was trained in Christianity, and
 chose to leave it. They don't erase your memory if you chose to
 leave.

 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.

 RW> We're members of the same church?

 Apparently not.

 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.

 RW> As mud.

 Now that is an example of very poor moral philosophy, IMO.

 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.

 RW> You were told that it was wrong by whom? How about
 RW> Forsstrom, who told him?

 My one true Church.

 If we do not hold some truths in common we have no basis for
 civilization. Your denial of right and wrong puts you in the
 place you want to put Bjorn in.

 bk>>  You could argue it, but you cannot know, no one can, but I believe
 bk>>  it.

 RW> LOL! I'll bet you do.

 Does that mean you do not believe murder and rape and torture
 are wrong?

 ...

 RW>>> They're not gods themselves.

 bk>>  Yep. And not anointed by God to be president.

 RW> LOL! In the ways of God, he may do just that and the person
 RW> chosen may just as well know it too.

 Now that doesn't make sense.

 RW> In the face of all the
 RW> adversity our present President has had in the last 6
 RW> years, he HAS to be the chosen one.

 The present occupant of the oval office has faced damn little
 adversity he didn't bring on himself.

 His predecessor faced far more adversity for far less offense.

 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.

 RW> LOL! They have no religious beliefs, just themselves.

 Which they can try to live up to.

 RW>>> god to hide behind and has no moral source to live up to.

 bk>>  That except reason.

 RW> Who's to say that Forsstrom can reason with any sense of
 RW> morality other than what his society has given him? Which
 RW> is a very bad example, as the Christian church is not a
 RW> majority in Sveden.

 I'd bet it was within his lifetime.

 And whose to say any of us can do any better, Christian, Jew,
 Muslim, Pagan or athiest?

 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.

 RW> Went over your head, didn't it. They have a source, but
 RW> that source isn't their own mind.

 For all of us, the source is in out mind, whether reasoned or
 learned. However, what you said appears to mean his source is
 not yours. Which is true of all other faiths.

 bk>> Buddah really was not a God, and Hindus have many gods. How do you
 bk>> talk to them?

 RW> Only Christians claim that Jesus was a God. How do you talk
 RW> to him?

 Our Father, who art in heaven...

 Or any other way I chose.

 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"?

 RW> Believe what he says, for it is the truth, even if he isn't
 RW> a member of the one true church.

 It is a lie, which anyone familiar with the one true church
 would know.

 bk>>  You just try being reasonable

 RW> OK..

 bk>>  and tolerant.

 RW> Not me.

 Thanks for the warning.

 If I was going to refuse one, it would have been the one before.

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... George W. Bush... presidential mushroom. Kept in the dark and fed manure.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)