Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Our god Isnt a deamon like yours Rosalie.Our god is a God who took on flesh and became man.Like I say everytime.Why? Our God is a true God and there can be... ONLY ONE!!!!!!!!!!.

_________________
What idiot thought the idea of putting the hole on the BUTT of them?Take a look one day!Notice those holes on top?Well thats where the Salt come out right?Well if you put the opening on butt guess what!When you go to fill them it is is going to spill and make a freaking mess all over myfloor!-Didy

Real life isn't Highlander, dear.

You provided no proof that your god is any more valid than mine.

My goddess is one with the earth itself - how can the earth be evil?

You dont so whatever called "pagans" dont have a god. And your god(s) are all false and cheap and old.

_________________
What idiot thought the idea of putting the hole on the BUTT of them?Take a look one day!Notice those holes on top?Well thats where the Salt come out right?Well if you put the opening on butt guess what!When you go to fill them it is is going to spill and make a freaking mess all over myfloor!-Didy

Prove that they're "false and cheap and old".

Thou shan't argue about whose God is better. That in any since is blasphamy. A religious person should preech peace and harmany, not aggression toward another religion.

The only religion you should hate is Satanism.

Hahahaha. That was the best two post hypocrisy I've seen in months.

Cheers for that laugh

That's not what I was trying to say with that at all. I was trying to point out that Rosalie has offered no reasons why her beliefs are superior to anyone else's here. So I'm asking her where her beliefs originate - to see if her answer is any different than one Didymus or anyone else may give.

_________________

Because mine are based off neutral fact and not religion which I've demonstrated numerous times! Aargh.

Look, go to ANY other board that's more neutral than this and you'll find you WILL get mocked for even attempting to use the Bible in an argument.

Does that make them superior, though?

_________________

YES.

If you need to know why, read up on the Intelligent Design debacle, which is much the same idiot lunacy vs. scientific fact.

So religion is "idiot lunacy"? Bravo. You have insulted probably at least half of this forum.

_________________

Where did I say that? I didn't. Since you're so utterly incapable of debating the only way you can even post in this topic is to shove words in my mouth, apparently.

This is the problem I have with your argument, you just managed to show MORE idiot lunacy considering you're very aware of what you're doing and do it anyway.

Conveniently, you ignored the "read up on intelligent design", beacuse you know you're talking out of your arse and can only pretend you're not if you keep as far away from fact and reality as possible.

Maybe I should clear things up. You HAVE a religion. Everyone has a religion. People who believe the theory that we came from little blob things in the ocean still have a religion, and that's what it is. You can't say there's anything wrong with religion.

_________________

I'm really loosing all patience with you. Either debate properly(and yes, despite my WARRANTED frustration I am making some attempt) or go away, please.

"Debate properly"? I'm debating just as well as you are. The only difference is that I'm not slinging insults at you.

_________________

No, I've seen trout that debate far better than you. And my insults are warranted because of the amount of frustration you are causing. If you didn't want me to make that kind of comment, you shouldn't have accused me of something that was a flat out lie. You were damn well asking for it.

Let's see, why are you so horrible at debating this issue?

First of all, I point out that it's similiar to the Intelligent debate in that it's idiot lunacy vs. scientific fact.

I never said religion was idiot lunacy, any more than I said atheism was scientific fact. You know this. You don't care.
You use the typical conservative tactic of dodging the subject at hand and going straight to defend something that isn't even under attack(no doubt you'll only respond rather predictably to the word "Conservative" being used here).

You then dedicate your whole argument to "RELIGION ISN'T BAD!!!1" to someone who does, as you say, have a "religion", therefore making your whole point rather stupid, since you quite simply can't defend the subject at hand, nor is there any appropriate defense for it.

That's not proper debating. That's called "Being a moron". If you don't want me to call your names, then don't do it, because as nutty as you are you at least have some level of awareness of what you're doing.

I have no reason to feel sorry for you since you have any multitude of similiarly incapable people on your side, whereas I have to put up with a mess of people who are essentially claiming their beliefs should be considered fact.

Insults are never warranted in a debate. Just prove the other person wrong and that's enough. For someone who claims to be such an expert debater in comparison to me, you seem to not know that.

And you completely misunderstood my point in that last part. You seem to be anti-religion from what I can tell, so I was trying to get you to think about the fact that you have one.

_________________

Reread my edit.

I am not anti-religion. There is nothing I have ever said that indicates I am "anti-religion", in fact I've said severel times that I am a Neo-Pagan throughout the debate. If you're too stupid to read, that's not my fault, and even so I've gone out of my way several times to say that I am not against religion, only how certain people use it, which in this case, I see, just as in the intelligent design debate, as Idiot Lunacy.

You are being frustrating. I have every right to insult the way in which you are arguing.

Right now, you're still doing it. You're nitpicking instead of dealing with the actual issue at hand, which is another thing that makes me get frustrating with arguing with conservatives online. Ad Hominem only applies if it's not for a warranted reason.

I doubt I'm a conservative. I'm 12 years old, as you know. In honesty, I don't even know what they are. Still, I am frustrated with the way you present yourself when debating. If you were having a debate in real life with someone just like me, would you start screaming insults in their face?

And about this thing you keep saying where the debaters are so much better on other forums, why don't you go there? We don't like flame wars here.

_________________

More nitpicking, no actual debating. Will ignore.

You're choosing to ignore the actual meanings of things to attempt to make yourself feel high and mighty. Way to go. Religion is not idiot lunacy; that's not what's being said (although with the comparison drawn to the Intelligent Design debate, it could be understandable, as a lot of the argument that's used to defend Intelligent Design IS idiot lunacy, in a logical sense). What is being said is that to use religion, a non-universal basis of argument, in an argument, is rather idiotic. What should be used is a universal basis of argument, such as common logic and sense. Also standing is the mention of the Intelligent Design debate, which plays host to a host of idiotic arguments, which are idiotic regardless of the involvement of religion.

EDIT: Never mind, she got to it. "No problem with religion, only how some people use it", or words to that effect.

Thanks for that.

I wouldn't "Never mind", though, I've said those exact words numerous times only for Didy or someone to turn around and say "OMG NO YOU HAVE A PROBLEMS WITH MY RELIGION HOW DARE YOU!"#

I do not use my religion as a serious grounds of debate as it only applies to me, nor would I "teach" my children in any other manner than sparking interest as opposed to promoting one as the one and one only purely because I believe it is(well, pretending I wasn't half theologist).

I fail to see why Didymus has a special right to do this purely because his religious text says he does.

That's like having someone throw stones at the goalkeeper to distract him purely because your soccer team captain says he can. EXACTLY the same principle.

Didymus and the rest of you are playing by team rules, not game rules. Therefore, you are breaking the game rules. As a fellow player I'm perfectly entitled to point out to the non existent referee the wrong that's being done.

This is all getting a bit too "Inherit the wind" for me...

exactly like you are. You still haven't offered any evidence that your beliefs should be accepted by all of us, except for the repeated claim that "it's based on neutral fact". Yet if the vast majority of members here disagree with you, doesn't that make it obvious that it's clearly NOT "neutral fact"?
Tell me I'm dodging the point if you want. Perhaps we should take a survey on what the point actually is.

_________________

No. Nor would you be able to prove it if I asked you to, whereas I spent a whole very long post showing how my point was true.



I've offered numerous. And you're STILL dodging things. The point is that my points are MORE valid than DIdymus/whoever's becuase you are religious text or acknowledging that unproven religious text is just as valid as basing my argument off say, actual scientifically collected statistics, research, etc, or in this case just plain common sense.

I've had it. If you think it's valid to use religious beliefs as fact in an argument, you're an idiot and please leave me alone. I don't care how much you whine about me personally attacking you, some of you really deserve it at this stage.

This is not how you debate, and yes there is a right way to debate, and no I didn't write the rules.



No, because if the majority of the members here are biased towards religious beliefs being fact and not opinion, there is most certianly not neutral.

We established that "Here" seemd to be a bit of a whack-hole for worshipping Didymus so much in the first place.

Quite frankly, I don't care who I offend with that. I'm fed up you passing off second rate reversals and general rubbish as an argument.

That's because, Rosalie, if religious beliefs are not fact but mere opinion, then why should anyone claim any religion at all?


And it's also been established that you are quite jealous of the fact that people find me a likeable person. I got that from avoiding things like ad hominem attacks.


Coming from you, Rosalie? The Queen of Ad Hominem? That's a laugh.


None of which has anything to do with the discussion at hand. If you feel spamming my inbox is okay, go right ahead. I’ll just forward it all to a friendly neighborhood admin and let him determine whether it’s right or wrong.


Stupid how? It’s a fact. You are the one trying to convince me that I’m wrong. I’m just pointing out that you continue to fail to do so, since you have yet to present me a single reason why I should not believe my religion is fact.


Maybe not, but I do see you trying to convince me that I shouldn’t teach my religion as though I actually believe it, and doing so without offering a single piece of evidence as to why I shouldn’t. Keep in mind, Rosalie, you’re the one trying to convince me I’m wrong; therefore it is your responsibility to provide reason why I should accept that. Calling my statement “stupid” is just one more ad hominem, and not a logical proof by any stretch of the imagination.


Wrong again. If your intention is to convince me I’m wrong, then it’s up to you to present facts as to why I should accept it. If not, then you really have nothing meaningful to offer and might as well keep silent.


Wrong again. My argument is essentially, “I believe my God, therefore I will obey my God rather than you.” Until you can convince me that you are wiser or have greater authority than my God, you really have nothing to offer.


Thank you for that clarification. But on the same token, you have yet to give me any reason why I should trust you more than the Apostles, or, for that matter, more than Jesus Christ himself. Therefore, until you can give me good sound reason why I should trust you more than them, I will continue to trust them rather than you. And as it stands, your past behavior on this forum (which in my observation hasn’t greatly improved) basically undermines any credibility you might have had.


But, I reiterate my previous point: you are the one trying to convince me. And as it stands, you still have given me no reason to believe you rather than the Prophets and Apostles and Saints. Maybe you should get that through your head. You expect me to treat my faith as a mere opinion, but why should I? As far as I’m concerned, it is fact, unless you can offer me any substantial reason not to believe it.


Chronological snobbery again. Claiming that they’re outdated rather than actually trying to prove them wrong. I’ve already pointed out the logical flaw of that. Just saying an idea, belief, or even people themselves are wrong just because they lived hundreds or even thousands of years ago is not the same as offering evidence to prove them wrong.



Wrong again. We have manuscripts dating back to the second century for the New Testament, and manuscripts dating back to the fourth century b.c. for the Old Testament. Oh, and incidentally, the emperors of those times were actually trying to destroy the manuscripts, not alter them. As far as they were concerned, these documents contradicted their own political and religious authority, and they wanted no part in them at all, other than to light them on fire.

Nevertheless, there are surviving manuscripts. I’ve actually posted pictures of them before. Maybe when I get a chance I’ll post them again. There is actually a whole discipline of studying these ancient manuscripts to determine their accuracy called Textual Criticism. You would do well to read up on it rather than try to bluff with your unsubstantiated claims.


Wrong again. I believe them to be great because of what God accomplished through them, because of the deeds they accomplished on his behalf. These were men who showed extraordinary courage, wisdom, compassion, and faith. When you have demonstrated these qualities, then you can make the claim that you are their equal. Not before.


Which is why you’ve also made ad hominem attacks against liberals as well, I suppose. Liberals like InterruptorJones. No, you have a pattern of abusive behavior against everybody, conservative and liberal alike.

Incidentally, ad hominem attacks include things like telling people to shut their mouths, calling someone’s statement stupid without offering facts to contradict their claims, expressing interest in seeing physical violence done to people, and making false accusations against people based on your own prejudices and presuppositions. All of these are things you have done on this forum, not just against me, but against people that might otherwise have sided with you.

And I have defended myself by pointing out how inconsistently you follow your own guidelines for “logical debate.” By universally accepted rules of debate, ad hominem attacks are forbidden, and if you cannot refrain from them, you undermine your own credibility. All I have to do, in fact, is point out how you consistently resort to them to demonstrate that you are not a credible debater. In other words, you bring it on yourself. You want people to take you seriously? Then cut it out. Take your frustrations out on a blow-up punchy clown or something.


As best I can tell, your main point is that I shouldn’t teach my religion as though it is factual, and, like I’ve said, until you can present me with evidence that it isn’t factual, I have no reason to do otherwise. You also claim it is wrong to expect children to spend one hour a week learning about Jesus (What Horror!). Well, again, until you can prove to me that what we teach is wrong, then it is not an unreasonable expectation (since, after all, we expect them to learn math, English, history, etc.). But my response is that, if what we believe is true, we would be doing those children a grave disservice by not teaching them the truth. Your other claim is that we should offer alternative worldviews to our teaching. Why? Why should I present falsehood alongside of the truth?

You have yet to address any of my points. I reiterate my main point: until you can demonstrate that my religion is not factual, then I am obligated to teach it as though it were. Until then, you really have nothing to stand on. You don’t like that I teach my religion as fact? Then prove that it’s not. Keep in mind, you’re the one claiming I’m wrong; therefore the burden of proof is on you. Until you can offer me reason to believe my religion is not fact, I will continue to proclaim it and teach it as such. And until you can do so, then I have no reason to believe that my teaching of my religion is any different than a math teacher teaching math, or an English teacher teaching English. In which case, your attempt to vilify us Christians for teaching anything at all is all rhetorical nonsense. We are no more forcing our religion than an English teacher is forcing English.

Therefore, I will offer this from another great man (great because he stood for truth against a corrupt religious organization, even though it meant sacrificing his own life): “Until I am convinced from Scripture and sound reasoning, I cannot and will not recant. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me” (Martin Luther, Diet of Worms, 1520).

You’re the one who started this whole discussion. You’re the one trying to convince us we’re wrong for teaching our faith. Therefore, if you intend to convince anyone, you might want to keep that in mind.

It is quite obvious that you are unable to substantiate your claims. As it stands, I have no obligation to please you. I serve a true and living God, and the last time I checked, you aren’t him. I have an obligation to the God I serve to teach the faith as he has revealed it in the Scriptures, as well as an obligation to serve my people, including those children. I would be doing my God, my people, and myself a grave disservice if I did not. And as it stands right now, my obligation to my God, my people, and myself far outweighs any obligation I might have toward you. So, until you can actually offer an argument with some substance, evidence, and sound reasoning, I will bid you good day.

Merry Christmas Everybody!

_________________

I have chosen to believe that the word of Crist has been perverted. When he comes, he will be ashamed to see that we have idolized the cross which killed him, instead of the star which guided his faithful to him on the day of his holy birth, from the womb of the vergin. I propose that a reformation be made. One which shall unite the masses of the truly faithful. We create a new holy symbol, and go back to the beliefs of the brothers in Israel (the Jews). Though some newer beliefs shall be kept, but the basis is to restore the true word of Crist. Spread peace to the world.

Rosalie, in light of the holy season, I refuse myself th gratification of insulting your vile and ignorant manor, to you I have only this to say: MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR PITTIFUL SOUL. I hope you enjoy hell. Peace be upon you heratic.

And Didymus, God prais you for standing up to this vile heratic. Peace be to you. Friend.

That's an interesting proposal, Steve. The problem is that it was upon that very cross that the Lamb of God suffered in order to forgive our sins. While I can appreciate your concern, that Christians need to proclaim peace, I must also ask how we can return to the Word of God if we turn away from the very means in which he revealed himself, that is, as one who suffers and dies for his people. As it stands now, we really have no other revelation of Christ other than the crucified one.

Even the Star of Bethlehem. The Wise Men presented him with frankincense and myrrh, both of which are perfumes used in sacrifices and burial of the dead. This was a sign that this child was the one who would one day suffer and die.

And please, let's not resort to insulting Rosalie. While I appreciate your concern, I must say we can do much better than consigning her to hell.

_________________

I really didn't want to get involved in this debate, and I guess I'm not really getting involved with the central issue here, but I have to say this. Though I disagree with Rosalie's opinion in this debate, what Steve said made me angry. Who are you to judge? Sorry if I'm "feeding the trolls", or whatever, but it furiates me when people start telling others they're going to Hell.
Sorry if I'm out of line here, I just had to say that.

_________________