Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1145 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

The OP's initial post makes it clear your 'value' is based on you increasing the 'value' of others.

Do you have a point to make, or are you just being silly? I know what the OP's post said. The part that you quoted has nothing to do with what Skell said (the part that I quoted), that I replied to. My english is fine, ty, but yours appears to be have a flaw.

In case you haven't got it yet, adding value to others isn't the same as doing unto others as you would have then do unto you. It simply isn't. Not in the englsh language, anyway.

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 261
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

*Reads the OPs post* ... ....... ......... ......... Hail Cthulhu! *walks off*

Well, you got it partly right.

I wonder if you realize that you don't get to determine whether or not anyone has the ability to reject or not reject what it is you say. That's entirely out of your hands. I don't mean the ACTUAL rej

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

Do you have a point to make, or are you just being silly? I know what the OP's post said. The part that you quoted has nothing to do with what Skell said (the part that I quoted), that I replied to. My english is fine, ty, but yours appears to be have a flaw.

You claimed, incorrectly, that the op's post had nothing to do with how you, me or Skell treat others, because you FAILED to read the damn words that I quoted for your benefit, that make it clear that the op's cult considers your 'value' to be based on how you treat others and increase their 'value'.

Do at least TRY and keep up, and, oh, have you figured the op is promoting a cult yet? I know you wanted to 'wait and see'.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Unfortunately, your post found fault with something that the OP didn't say.

The OP said:

 

12 hours ago, JoeDex said:

You are a child of God.

I told him why I didn't believe I was a child of god, because god's teachings tell those that follow them I should be put to death.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Klytyna I know that it can be difficult for someone whose native language isn't english, so I appreciate that you can easily misunderstand. Yes, adding value to others is as you say - well partly. You don't have to be directly involved with people to add value to them.

What you've conveniently omitted to address is the truth. Skell said, "But I don't need someone else [...] to tell me that I should be kind and compassionate, and to treat others as I would have them treat me." You see, you are doing what he did. He found fault with something that the OP didn't say, and you're finding fault with my reply to him, by writing as though I said something that I didn't say.

Hint: go back and read the relevant posts to get clarification ;)

Edited by Phil Deakins
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Skell Dagger said:

The OP said:

"You are a child of God"

I told him why I didn't believe I was a child of god, because god's teachings tell those that follow them I should be put to death.

That's not what I criticised. You went on the say that you don't need anyone to tell you to .... treat others as you would have them treat you. That's what I criticised because the OP didn't say that at all, and yet you criticised the OP on account of it.

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Skell Dagger said:

The OP also said:

Your being alive is valuable and your purpose is to add to the value of others.

That's the OP's view. It's not my view, and I wouldn't criticise you if you disagreed with him. I only criticised the part that I quoted from your post.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

Skell said, "But I don't need someone else [...] to tell me that I should be kind and compassionate, and to treat others as I would have them treat me." You see, you are doing what he did. He found fault with something that the OP didn't say, and you're finding fault with my reply to him, byt writing as though I said something that I didn't say.

Phil, I wasn't finding fault with the OP by saying that. I was stating my own belief, just as he was stating his own belief. That statement from me - about not needing another person or organisation to tell me I need to be a good person - is a sidenote to the main subject. Yes, it's a bit of a tangent, but it's something that I felt added to my side of the discussion.

I'm not a professional disagreer. I don't do it for the sake of it. Likewise I don't hash out, over and over, what I meant by saying this or that, against what someone else thinks or assumes I meant.

You have your own opinion of what I said, and that opinion is that I was wrongly finding fault with something the OP didn't even say.

I have my own opinion of what I said, and that opinion is that I was offering a tangential side-thought on the subject of external influences on whether I should be a kind and compassionate person or not.

And since we're both rational, intelligent human beings who probably have far more fun things to do than go back and forth over the same thing for post after post on an internet forum we can leave it there, with us both agreeing to disagree. Right? :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Skell Dagger said:

That statement from me - about not needing another person or organisation to tell me I need to be a good person - is a sidenote to the main subject. Yes, it's a bit of a tangent, but it's something that I felt added to my side of the discussion.

Alright, Skell. It came across as you criticising the OP for it, and I pointed out that he didn't say it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

You certainly hold your own against amateurs like Phil! ^_^~

Lol. You wouldn't want to get into it with me, Love :D

Actually we can't get into it these days because SuperTom or one of the crew would clamp down on it super-quick. Sigh... I do miss the good old days but they disappeared many years ago :(

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

I know that it can be difficult for someone whose native language isn't english, so I appreciate that you can easily misunderstand.

English is my native language, because I am English, as you well know, but glossing over your clumsy amateur attempt to incite flamewar...

31 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Yes, adding value to others is as you say - well partly.

I said originally that you had 'incorrectly' interpreted the op's post, that was a mistake on my part, the correct term should have been 'fraudulently'. Mea Culpa Mea Culpa Mea Maxima Culpa.

34 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

What you've conveniently omitted to address is the truth.

Truth - A meaningless noise that fraudulently masquerades as a Proper Noun by attempting to impersonate, usually very badly, the word 'Fact'.

36 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

He found fault with something that the OP didn't say, and you're finding fault with my reply to him, by writing as though I said something that I didn't say.

You fraudulently claimed that Skell was 'wrong' because the OP didn't say anything about treating others, when in fact, the op made it clear their cult defines a persons value on the basis of adding value to others by the way you treat them. Short version, you either messed up, or just outright lied, frankly I don't care which, you needed correcting, I did so, case closed, move along.

39 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Hint: go back and read the relevant posts to get clarification

I did, thats why I quoted your claptrap and the op's claptrap side by side so to speak, to make perfectly clear your fraudulent misunderstanding and claims about the op's post.

And finally on a lighter note...

30 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

You certainly hold your own against amateurs like Phil! ^_^~

It's hardly counts a skill... ;) 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

404?cb=20170512053807

Personally, I do believe in a higher power or at least an intelligence beyond conventional understanding.

But that's the rub" "beyond conventional understanding"

Human misinterpretation of any sort of higher-order has had all sorts of negative consequences.

Human misappropriation of belief in a higher order has led to crusades/jihads where -everyone- claims God is on their side and where religion always seems to lead to oppression of somebody and forcing conformity to the political ruling-class's ideology.

That sort of thing had me (in the 90's) living in a conflict zone and trying to locate mass-graves of people who were killed by other people who believed- they- had a mandate from their-God to slaughter people. In fairness, so was the Other Side.

So, I handle organized/systemitised religion like a handful of broken glass; very carefully and without trying to get any on me.

Second life is probably a poor choice of places to seek an audience; too many of us are here because we're fleeing the orthodoxy of real-life......

......and you're poaching on the Flying Spaghetti Monster's turf.......

Edited by AmandaKeen
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AmandaKeen said:

......and you're poaching on the Flying Spaghetti Monster's turf.......

Your claim defies the will of Koomi, God of Toaster Ovens, and on the eve of that most sacred of days, Tuesday, while I was enjoying the blessed sacrament of Grilled Cheese on Toast!

Repent your sins, you heathen and join me in prayer...

Our Father, the Taste of Heaven

Hallowed be thy Flame, Thy Grill be done...
 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

Quite frankly, you are all being incredibly, and unnecessarily, unkind, and that's putting it mildly.

I honestly do not see that most posts prior to this fit that description.  There was disagreement with the OP, but the majority (not all) posts were not extremely rude about it - at least, not IMO.

 

This thread is the perfect example of why anything touching on religion or politics should not be discussed in general forums.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1145 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...