76 Reply by Econ (edited by Econ 16-Apr-2009 00:59:13)

  • Econ
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 916

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

oops I didn't see this one.

> Red Phoenix wrote:

> I apparently was not clear enough.  The religion you mentioned earlier is Christianity.  Christianity=Catholicism.  I will repeat my earlier statement with a couple of qualifiers.  The Catholic Church (with a capital C) is the only "church" which stretches back to the time of Christ.  The "bible" is a collection of Catholic liturgical documents and was never intended for, nor will ever have an intended use as a "primary" document of instruction.  You are repeating your straw man.

Thanks for the grammar lesson. IMHO turning to hassling grammar (unlez iz reeely b@d) in a casual online forum indicates some kind of desperation. Otherwise, you do seem to be quite a skilled debater, thanks for posting.

Perhaps you can instruct me then, monsieur. If the stories of Jesus, God, and some of these other phantasmical events of yester-year.... along with the morals  and standards that we should live and worshop God by.... were not recorded in the bible or scripture, then where should we get it from? The Vatican & word of mouth? Is the religion not based upon these events that have been written down? Whenever people say "My opinion is xyz because it says so in the Bible" should I then tell them that this is not nessarily true, and they should think for themselves, because the Bible was never intended as a "primary document of instruction?".

I am 'repeating my straw man' because I am (edit: constantly) saying (over and over) how I disagree with all religion, where as you are obviously cathloic. Do you think that Muslims or Hindus are mistaken in their beliefs?




>I did not "laugh" at the subject matter.  You are misconstruing my intention.  I laughed because of the worn out material that you are presenting.  Did you even read/research the fact that prots/secular perverts vastly outnumber priestly molestations?  Please, don't be insulting.

I'm going to quote myself: "Do you think that it is bought up over-and-over is because it is a complete disgrace and completely hypocrtical?"

I don't care about seperate "prots' (with a capital P, by the way wink ). They are religious so they fit under the title of the thread "destruction of religion" when they screw kids.

No I don't know what the stats are. I'm sure they would be really interesting. 80% of the people in the US believe in God. Do you think all the molestations in the US are caused by that 20% or do you think it would be a rough 80/20 split? Do you think that the '80% believers' should be better at resisting than the 20% and that priests should be a bit better at resisting than everyone else?

Priests molesting kids is obviously a disgrace, but it seem's their faith in God and any concerns about hell has not come into it. You could quote something about forgiveness and the temptations of flesh and being human, but please don't that'd be degrading.



"-------animals...your god...logical"

> After subtracting your attack against obscure statements instead of the actual response...I boiled your response down to the above.
Animals inbreed and eat their young.
You say we should take an example from animals.
We should inbreed and eat our young.
See how "logical" that was?  wink

This is just stupid, I take back the compliment about your debate skills. Someone else already answered this for me, and as I've said before:

This is one little comment out of my rather large post. In your posts today you have talked about this, sex with boys, and 'the bible is not meant for teaching'. Hopefully some of the other things I touched on will also get some interest?


>  Again with the priests, and found less polemical rubbish.  I counter with your atheist Arthur C Clarke who bangs little boys.  Is that a sore point for you?

I'm not the one going on about it.



> And I conclude that you have not read my posts at all.  For the last time, the bible is a LITURGICAL document and was never intended for primary instruction.  That is like dropping an issue of Home and Garden into an aboriginal village and seeing how they construct their shelters in 500 years.  Did the King James Version of the "bible" just drop out of the sky in 33 AD?  Were all of Jesus' words written in red?  LMAO  I think not.

So we can just choose what to believe and what not to believe. Please talk to me about, say, the creation of humans. I believe the story goes that Adam was created out of dust, and Eve from his rib? This makes me LMAO, yet many people (perhaps you) take this as for granted as actually happening. Why did this happen but not King JV falling out of the sky? Someone told you that's what to believe, or did you personally choose this?

Gondor: wtf, im not even mentioned. I was the glue to this family. Thats BS!
Econ: Gondor, if you were the glue, then I was the glue sticky thing that applies the glue.
(edit: I believe that's called the brush).
Torqez: Econ you forgot the part where you say "and I made Torqez delete!"

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 255

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

> Justinian I wrote:

> Red Phoenix,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying this argument for why humans aren't animals.

Every animal is violent, incestuous and extremely hedonistic etc.
Some humans are not any of the above.
___

Some humans are not animals.

Fine.  If you are lazy.

The argument was:

Animals are indicative of what the "natural" process should be. 

Animals eat their young and the siblings inbreed.

It is natural that we inbreed and eat our young.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Econ
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 916

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

> Red Phoenix wrote:

> Ok, you rehprased your ad hominem.  Was there anything else?  wink

How about the rest of the OP that you didn't respond to? Not too much ad hominem there.

Gondor: wtf, im not even mentioned. I was the glue to this family. Thats BS!
Econ: Gondor, if you were the glue, then I was the glue sticky thing that applies the glue.
(edit: I believe that's called the brush).
Torqez: Econ you forgot the part where you say "and I made Torqez delete!"

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

79 Reply by avogadro (edited by avogadro 16-Apr-2009 01:04:50)

  • Posts: 3,454

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

"Please educate me! Why do these stories that are in the Bible hold such important sway"

i dont think they do. the church came before the bible. the church created the bible. the bible is a tool to teach the religion. one day abunch of important people in the catholic church got together, and decided what was in the catholic church's bible.

"the guy who cares enough that we must call him by the right name"

i still dont see where you're getting this

"You are also generalising. You have said a few times "generalizations, most christians do not believe this"'

i am, because you only want to talk in generalizations. i have already summed up everything that isnt a generalization. christians beleive in Jesus; religious people beleive in something. everything else is a generalization.


"me that the majority of Christians do not in fact believe that it was God (edit: entering a new example here; talking snakes gets boring) who sent the plague of frogs, locusts, or kill first-born.... yet did/did not send the boxing day tsunami or Katrina?"

Christians believe that God is all-powerful and all-knowing. so yes, we would believe that God is responsible for everything, including  the boxing day tsunami and Katrina. When he created what we call reality, he knew everything that would happen, including katrina, he created the world so that Katrina would happen.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 255

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

"Thanks for the grammar lesson. IMHO turning to hassling grammar (unlez iz reeely b@d) in a casual online forum indicates some kind of desperation."

No.  I did not correct your grammar.  I corrected your grasp of "religious history".

"Otherwise, you do seem to be quite a skilled debater, thanks for posting."

Thank you.  I am a novice.

"Perhaps you can instruct me then, monsieur. If the stories of Jesus, God, and some of these other phantasmical events of yester-year.... along with the morals  and standards that we should live and worshop God by.... were not recorded in the bible or scripture, then where should we get it from? The Vatican & word of mouth?"

I may have to send you my point yet again, via email, text message, carrion pigeon, or smoke signal, as you prefer. 

For the FIFTH time.  The bible is a LITURGICAL document.  It was NEVER intended for primary religious instruction. 

"Is the religion not based upon these events that have been written down?"

NO.

"Whenever people say "My opinion is xyz because it says so in the Bible" should I then tell them that this is not nessarily true, and they should think for themselves, because the Bible was never intended as a "primary document of instruction?"

YES.

"I am 'repeating my straw man' because I am saying how I disagree with all religion, where as you are obviously cathloic."

YES.  Your straw man is against Christianity. You claim a "document" as the "founding" element of our religion.  This is false as I have been spouting many, many times.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Econ
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 916

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

>> avogadro wrote:

>> "Please educate me! Why do these stories that are in the Bible hold such important sway"

> i dont think they do. the church came before the bible. the church created the bible. the bible is a tool to teach the religion. one day abunch of important people in the catholic church got together, and decided what was in the catholic church's bible.

Red Phoenix says it's not intended for teaching. Now I'm confused. So anyway, (1) many people think that the bible is very very important (a generalisation you say? yet we both know this is true) and (2) as I asked Red Phoenix, the stories were passed word of mouth or from some other book then? Why was this other book(s) not used to write the bible (I thought they were?).... 2000 years of one man passing a story word of mouth to another is the only other alternative that I can see.



>>"the guy who cares enough that we must call him by the right name"

>i still dont see where you're getting this

THE THIRD COMMANDMENT.


>>"You are also generalising. You have said a few times "generalizations, most christians do not believe this"'

> i am, because you only want to talk in generalizations. i have already summed up everything that isnt a generalization. christians beleive in Jesus; religious people beleive in something. everything else is a generalization.

In other words some people say that, as per the example in my post to Phoenix, some people believe in Eve being created from a rib, and some don't. It's all part of the "delusion" in the title.

Gondor: wtf, im not even mentioned. I was the glue to this family. Thats BS!
Econ: Gondor, if you were the glue, then I was the glue sticky thing that applies the glue.
(edit: I believe that's called the brush).
Torqez: Econ you forgot the part where you say "and I made Torqez delete!"

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 255

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

"Red Phoenix says it's not intended for teaching."

No.  You are attempting to poison the well yet again.  sad

I did not say that now did I?

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 255

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

What did I actually say?

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Econ
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 916

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

> Red Phoenix wrote:

> No.  I did not correct your grammar.  I corrected your grasp of "religious history".

Go back and look at your post again. "Capical C".

>>  then where should we get it from? The Vatican & word of mouth?"

> I may have to send you my point yet again, via email, text message, carrion pigeon, or smoke signal, as you prefer. 

> For the FIFTH time.  The bible is a LITURGICAL document.  It was NEVER intended for primary religious instruction. 

I understand. Nothing in my previous post indicated that I didn't understand. You didn't answer my quesion.


>>"Is the religion not based upon these events that have been written down?"

>NO.

2000 years of word of mouth? Goly that must not be too reliable!


>>"Whenever people say "My opinion is xyz because it says so in the Bible" should I then tell them that this is not nessarily true, and they should think for themselves, because the Bible was never intended as a "primary document of instruction?"

>YES.

Excellent. Very good to know. Thanks.

>>"I am 'repeating my straw man' because I am saying how I disagree with all religion, where as you are obviously cathloic."

>YES.  Your straw man is against Christianity. You claim a "document" as the "founding" element of our religion.  This is false as I have been spouting many, many times.

I edited this sentence in my original post. Pls go look at it again if you so desire.  I don't remember if I used the word "founding -element-" as such. I don't believe that and if I used the word "element" I'd take it back. But you are probably changing what I said tongue

Gondor: wtf, im not even mentioned. I was the glue to this family. Thats BS!
Econ: Gondor, if you were the glue, then I was the glue sticky thing that applies the glue.
(edit: I believe that's called the brush).
Torqez: Econ you forgot the part where you say "and I made Torqez delete!"

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Econ
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 916

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

> Red Phoenix wrote:

> What did I actually say?


The "bible" is a collection of Catholic liturgical documents and was never intended for, nor will ever have an intended use as a "primary" document of instruction.

instruction = teaching. Well pretty close!

That was an easy one. I want to go home soon so may have to drop this for now. Ill see how it goes.

Gondor: wtf, im not even mentioned. I was the glue to this family. Thats BS!
Econ: Gondor, if you were the glue, then I was the glue sticky thing that applies the glue.
(edit: I believe that's called the brush).
Torqez: Econ you forgot the part where you say "and I made Torqez delete!"

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 255

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

> Econ wrote:

> > Red Phoenix wrote:

> No.  I did not correct your grammar.  I corrected your grasp of "religious history".

Go back and look at your post again. "Capical C".

>>  then where should we get it from? The Vatican & word of mouth?"

> I may have to send you my point yet again, via email, text message, carrion pigeon, or smoke signal, as you prefer. 

> For the FIFTH time.  The bible is a LITURGICAL document.  It was NEVER intended for primary religious instruction. 

I understand. Nothing in my previous post indicated that I didn't understand. You didn't answer my quesion.


>>"Is the religion not based upon these events that have been written down?"

>NO.

2000 years of word of mouth? Goly that must not be too reliable!


>>"Whenever people say "My opinion is xyz because it says so in the Bible" should I then tell them that this is not nessarily true, and they should think for themselves, because the Bible was never intended as a "primary document of instruction?"

>YES.

Excellent. Very good to know. Thanks.

>>"I am 'repeating my straw man' because I am saying how I disagree with all religion, where as you are obviously cathloic."

>YES.  Your straw man is against Christianity. You claim a "document" as the "founding" element of our religion.  This is false as I have been spouting many, many times.

I edited this sentence in my original post. Pls go look at it again if you so desire.  I don't remember if I used the word "founding -element-" as such. I don't believe that and if I used the word "element" I'd take it back. But you are probably changing what I said tongue


I am "changing" what you said now?  I let the posts stand. 

Those that can benefit from this will.  wink

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

87 Reply by Justinian I (edited by Justinian I 16-Apr-2009 01:20:50)

  • Posts: 3,373

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

Red,

<<Fine.  If you are lazy.

The argument was:

Animals are indicative of what the "natural" process should be. 

Animals eat their young and the siblings inbreed.

It is natural that we inbreed and eat our young.>>

I see, but your counter example is vague. You could interpret that among the following ways.

1. Eco has not been specific enough in stating what things other animals do that makes them natural for us to do them.
2. The conclusion would be true if humans were animals, but we are not so it's false.

If I wanted to clearly support 1, I would have made the second premise "Animals fly. Therefore it's natural that we fly." But there seems to be an implication that you are defending the 2nd interpretation. Would you clarify that?

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 255

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

> Econ wrote:

> > Red Phoenix wrote:

> What did I actually say?


The "bible" is a collection of Catholic liturgical documents and was never intended for, nor will ever have an intended use as a "primary" document of instruction.

instruction = teaching. Well pretty close!

That was an easy one. I want to go home soon so may have to drop this for now. Ill see how it goes.

Pointing to the straw man eh?

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 255

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

> Justinian I wrote:

> Red,

<<Fine.  If you are lazy.

The argument was:

Animals are indicative of what the "natural" process should be. 

Animals eat their young and the siblings inbreed.

It is natural that we inbreed and eat our young.>>

I see, but your counter example is vague. You could interpret that among the following ways.

1. Eco has not been specific enough in stating what things other animals do that makes them natural for us to do.
2. The conclusion would be true if humans were animals, but we are not so it's false.

If I wanted to clearly support 1, I would have made the second premise "Animals fly. Therefore it's natural that we fly." But there seems to be an air that you are defending the 2nd interpretation. Would you clarify that?


I am sorry.  The burden of proof is upon Econ.

1. Let us look to animals for our morality.

2. Animals inbreed and eat their young.

3. Let us eat our young and inbreed.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 255

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

"But you are probably changing what I said tongue"

Is this how modern "debate" works?

You throw out and ad hominem?

sad

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Econ
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 916

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

> Red Phoenix wrote:

> I am sorry.  The burden of proof is upon Econ.

> 1. Let us look to animals for our morality.

> 2. Animals inbreed and eat their young.

> 3. Let us eat our young and inbreed.


This was such a small part of the original post, I can't believe it's caused such conversation. I wish the rest of the post had got as much attention. I hardly think that we should look to animals for morality. It was a simple point about dolphins are recognised as more intelligent than most animals and it's interesting that they have sex for pleasure. Presumably they don't eat their young and inbreed. As far as I know. Maybe I'm just saying we should live like dolphins. I'm sure the world would be much happier. I'm ignoring this one from now on.

Gondor: wtf, im not even mentioned. I was the glue to this family. Thats BS!
Econ: Gondor, if you were the glue, then I was the glue sticky thing that applies the glue.
(edit: I believe that's called the brush).
Torqez: Econ you forgot the part where you say "and I made Torqez delete!"

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Econ
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 916

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

> Red Phoenix wrote:

> "But you are probably changing what I said tongue"

Is this how modern "debate" works?

You throw out and ad hominem?

sad


duuuuuude! There was a ":P" on the end for a reason! Is this how modern "debate" works? You choose to ignore the points I am making? (At least half of the OP has not been debated).

I will live and learn. I'll go another step and say "founding document" is not true either. Perhaps "central document" or some such similar thing. I hope I'm not going to regret giving some lee-way here as people sometimes adopt the position "look you used the wrong word/phrase so therefore your entire argument is false".

Gondor: wtf, im not even mentioned. I was the glue to this family. Thats BS!
Econ: Gondor, if you were the glue, then I was the glue sticky thing that applies the glue.
(edit: I believe that's called the brush).
Torqez: Econ you forgot the part where you say "and I made Torqez delete!"

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 3,454

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

"THE THIRD COMMANDMENT."

the third commandment doesnt prove that. if an all powerful being didnt want us to say a word, we wouldnt be able to say it.

"Red Phoenix says it's not intended for teaching. "

yes, because christians can be strong minded, which means we can disagree on certain aspects of our faith.

"many people think that the bible is very very important"

neing important is different then holding sway.

"Why was this other book(s) not used to write the bible"

what book(s)?

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Econ
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 916

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

> avogadro wrote:

>> "THE THIRD COMMANDMENT."

>the third commandment doesnt prove that. if an all powerful being didnt want us to say a word, we wouldnt be able to say it.

Haha please you have scraping the barrel. According to you, if this being didn't want us to kill people, we wouldnt be able to. If he didnt want us to do ANYTHING, we wouldnt be able to do it. But we can do whatever we want (except fly or shoot things with fireballs from our eyes - perhaps we were not meant to do that) so the superior-one has given us the commandments.

>>"Red Phoenix says it's not intended for teaching. "

> yes, because christians can be strong minded, which means we can disagree on certain aspects of our faith.

Thank you.

>>"many people think that the bible is very very important"

>neing important is different then holding sway.

Really? If something is very very important to you, then it would hold sway over you. Phoenix already told me that I could tell any Christians that I met that just because it says something in the bible, you don't have to believe it (Im having a little chuckle at that one).

>>"Why was this other book(s) not used to write the bible"

>what book(s)?

I was asking you. Read the paragraph in it's entirity and hopefully it's clear if you read it again.

Gondor: wtf, im not even mentioned. I was the glue to this family. Thats BS!
Econ: Gondor, if you were the glue, then I was the glue sticky thing that applies the glue.
(edit: I believe that's called the brush).
Torqez: Econ you forgot the part where you say "and I made Torqez delete!"

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

95 Reply by avogadro (edited by avogadro 16-Apr-2009 04:11:22)

  • Posts: 3,454

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

"According to you, if this being didn't want us to kill people, we wouldnt be able to"

yep, i dont see how this is scraping the bucket. Christians believe in an all powerful god. an all powerful being can exist even though humans have free will, but if God didnt want us to do anything, we wouldnt be able to do it, or else he wouldnt be all powerful.

"Really? If something is very very important to you, then it would hold sway over you"

if something is important to you, it doesnt mean it has control over you.

"Phoenix already told me that I could tell any Christians that I met that just because it says something in the bible, you don't have to believe it"

yeah.... and?


alot of the stories in the old testament were originally passed down through oral tradition before they were ever written down.  when the stories of the bible were collected and made into the bible, they most likely used written copies of the stories.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Econ
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 916

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

> avogadro wrote:

> yep, i dont see how this is scraping the bucket. Christians believe in an all powerful god. an all powerful being can exist even though humans have free will, but if God didnt want us to do anything, we wouldnt be able to do it, or else he wouldnt be all powerful.

Why bother with the 10 commandments? Just stop us from doing these things. Maybe he didn't really mean it when he made the commandments.


>if something is important to you, it doesnt mean it has control over you.

sway =/= control. Although for some people I have met, it does.

>>"Phoenix already told me that I could tell any Christians that I met that just because it says something in the bible, you don't have to believe it"

>yeah.... and?

So as long as you choose to believe in Jesus, you are Christian and can believe in anything else.

Answer me this: If I say that I agree there was a man who once lived called Jesus. I believe that the arc was a 20ft sailboat painted in bright rainbow colours because Noah was a raving homosexual, the God guy that Jesus talked about was made up, and Jesus just talked about him because Jesus liked the feeling of having lots of people follow him around. So because I believe in Jesus I am now Christian?


>alot of the stories in the old testament were originally passed down through oral tradition before they were ever written down.  when the stories of the bible were collected and made into the bible, they most likely used written copies of the stories.

I'm going to allow someone else to answer this one for me. It's a video clip about 30sec or so long:
http://www.truveo.com/Jesus/id/2670744822

Gondor: wtf, im not even mentioned. I was the glue to this family. Thats BS!
Econ: Gondor, if you were the glue, then I was the glue sticky thing that applies the glue.
(edit: I believe that's called the brush).
Torqez: Econ you forgot the part where you say "and I made Torqez delete!"

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

97 Reply by avogadro (edited by avogadro 16-Apr-2009 05:30:37)

  • Posts: 3,454

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

"So because I believe in Jesus I am now Christian?"

beleiving someone exists is not the same thing as beleiving in them. if you beleived in Jesus and believed everything else you stated, you would fit the definition of a christian.


"Why bother with the 10 commandments?"

because you're obviously not a christian; why do you beleive murder is wrong? why do you have values when logically you cant deduce values?

"sway =/= control."

"a controlling influence"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sway

"I'm going to allow someone else to answer this one for me. It's a video clip about 30sec or so long:
http://www.truveo.com/Jesus/id/2670744822"

well, the gospels and much of the new testament was passed down through text. the oral ones was largely if not solely the old testament. although i do not dispute the fact that the stories prove nothing.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

98 Reply by Econ (edited by Econ 16-Apr-2009 05:47:38)

  • Econ
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 916

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

> beleiving someone exists is not the same thing as beleiving in them. if you beleived in Jesus and believed everything else you stated, you would fit the definition of a christian.

heheh cute


>>"Why bother with the 10 commandments?"

>because you're obviously not a christian; why do you beleive murder is wrong? why do you have values when logically you cant deduce values?

I have answered this previously in a reply to Balsz.


"sway =/= control."

"a controlling influence"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sway

Yeah lets have a definition war:
"3.     to incline in opinion, sympathy, tendency, etc.: She swayed toward conservatism."

>well, the gospels and much of the new testament was passed down through text. the oral ones was largely if not solely the old testament. although i do not dispute the fact that the stories prove nothing.

So the Christian faith is based on stories passed sometimes word to word sometimes through text, over 2000 years. When compared to observations of what is physically possible in 2009, things that science has discovered (whilst proving that church opinion has been wrong) over those 2000 years, these stories seem rather similar to other phantasmical, supernatural and mythological stories - yet for some reason these are the ones that you, and many others, have chosen to be correct. craziness smile

Gondor: wtf, im not even mentioned. I was the glue to this family. Thats BS!
Econ: Gondor, if you were the glue, then I was the glue sticky thing that applies the glue.
(edit: I believe that's called the brush).
Torqez: Econ you forgot the part where you say "and I made Torqez delete!"

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

99 Reply by avogadro (edited by avogadro 16-Apr-2009 06:05:45)

  • Posts: 3,454

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

"
Yeah lets have a definition war:
"3.     to incline in opinion, sympathy, tendency, etc.: She swayed toward conservatism.""

you're using a definition of the word when used as a verb, when you used the word as a noun, you fail.  if you didnt mean "control" elaborate on what you meant, so we can continue.

"So the Christian faith is based on stories passed sometimes word to word sometimes through text, over 2000 years"

the christian faith is based off of tradition, just like everything else humans have.

"
I have answered this previously in a reply to Balsz."

it was a rhetorical question.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

100 Reply by Econ

  • Econ
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 916

Re: Econ's version of: The delusion and destruction of religion.

>you're using a definition of the word when used as a verb, when you used the word as a noun, you fail.  if you didnt mean "control" elaborate on what you meant, so we can continue.

Yes I know it wasn't an exact fit but it showed what I meant.  The word I should I have used also appeared in your definition "influence".

There are a -whole bunch- of ways we continue. In many of the posts I have made I have asked questions, and they are not rhetorical.


> the christian faith is based off of tradition, just like everything else humans have.

The ceremonys of religion are, for sure (even if they have changed over time), but beliefs based upon tradition and following along because everyone else does, sounds like lack of choice and a bit sheepish.

Gondor: wtf, im not even mentioned. I was the glue to this family. Thats BS!
Econ: Gondor, if you were the glue, then I was the glue sticky thing that applies the glue.
(edit: I believe that's called the brush).
Torqez: Econ you forgot the part where you say "and I made Torqez delete!"

0 Dislike 0 Post Points