Continued theology discussion... Not sure what to call this really....

[dan-cat]

Not exactly. chergh insulted the concept of god, and Paul insulted chergh with a completely different type of insult. Is Paul justified in insulting chergh? Perhaps, but its a different type, therefore saying "that insult" is not accurate, as it is a completely different insult.

The end result is that chergh rejects his original assertion that insulting behavior to others is fine when it is applied to himself. I believe the exposure of this hypocrisy was Paul's intention.

 

[chergh]

The end result is that chergh rejects his original assertion that insulting behavior to others is fine when it is applied to himself.

.

Thanks for letting me know what I think but you're wrong. You really think I care about the comments of a troll like paul? By the very nature of what I post in this forum I am inviting insults and I find threads like this quite cathartic.


If you dont personally like insulting behaviour perhaps you should stay away from these threads.

 

[Pauldohert]

.

Thanks for letting me know what I think but you're wrong. You really think I care about the comments of a troll like paul? By the very nature of what I post in this forum I am inviting insults and I find threads like this quite cathartic.


If you dont personally like insulting behaviour perhaps you should stay away from these threads.

My use of your offensive word has temporarily, at least, stopped your insults and mockery aimed at those with religious views. Job done.

But even putting you at the receiving end of your own word, doesn't seem to have empowered you with any empathy for others, just regret for yourself.

Let me spell it out - whilst you may be inviting insults - others in a thread entitled Continued Theology Discussion - are clearly not. Nor should they have to put up with them.

Its become evident that you dont appreciate what anyone thinks or feels - except yourself.

 

[chergh]

My use of your offensive word has temporarily, at least, stopped your insults and mockery aimed at those with religious views. Job done.

But even putting you at the receiving end of your own word, doesn't seem to have empowered you with any empathy for others, just regret for yourself.

Let me spell it out - whilst you may be inviting insults - others in a thread entitled Continued Theology Discussion - are clearly not. Nor should they have to put up with them.

Its become evident that dont appreciate what anyone thinks or feels - except yourself.

Your use of offensive words has acheived nothing except to perhaps indicate you're a homophobe.

I have every right to criticise and insult religion. When theists stop trying to tell me how to live my life, stop taking tax money to fund their schools and keep their religion to themselves then I will stop my insulting comments.

 

[Pauldohert]

Your use of offensive words has acheived nothing except to perhaps indicate you're a homophobe.

I have every right to criticise and insult religion. When theists stop trying to tell me how to live my life, stop taking tax money to fund their schools and keep their religion to themselves then I will stop my insulting comments.

Are you sure you are not the homophobe - your reaction to being on the receiving end of a Graham Norton one liner - seems to suggest you may be.

Which poster here told you how to live your life - in order for you to insult the many with God is a ****?

Its basic manners, logic and empathy that you teach a toddler, and you lack them all.

You intention is no other than to insult those with religion - do I have that correct? If so, sad , very sad.

 

[chergh]

Are you sure you are not the homophobe - your reaction to being on the receiving end of a Graham Norton one liner - seems to suggest you may be.

Which poster here told you how to live your life - in order for you to insult the many with God is a ****?

Its basic manners, logic and empathy that you teach a toddler, and you lack them all.

You intention is no other than to insult those with religion - do I have that correct? If so, sad , very sad.

I would much rather have a real discussion to questions regarding being born with sin and why god doesn't heal amputees I've never seen a convincing answer to these questions.

We've been told in this thread that if we don't recognise christ and accept him as our saviour then we are damned. We've also been told if you're not a christian but instead follow another religion then you have been deceived by satan and are evil. Nice stuff eh?

Given how outraged you seem to be my quip I really hope you never watch South Park.

 

[Pauldohert]

I would much rather have a real discussion to questions regarding being born with sin and why god doesn't heal amputees I've never seen a convincing answer to these questions.

We've been told in this thread that if we don't recognise christ and accept him as our saviour then we are damned. We've also been told if you're not a christian but instead follow another religion then you have been deceived by satan and are evil. Nice stuff eh?

Given how outraged you seem to be my quip I really hope you never watch South Park.

I hope you learn the differance between South Park and theological discussion.

 

[chergh]

I hope you learn the differance between South Park and theological discussion.

I hope you learn how to interpret a sentence.

 

[Pauldohert]

I hope you learn how to interpret a sentence.

C'mon on then - explain away?

Why do you hope I dont watch South Park?

I think we're going to find I interpreted you correctly. Maybe not actually. I'm not sure if insults are OK or not with you anymore - or only if you dont get the answers to all your questions.

Anyway South Park?

 

[chergh]

C'mon on then - explain away?

Why do you hope I dont watch South Park?

They insult religion a lot on south park which you seem to object to.

So why aren't you objecting to christians labelling anyone who isn't a christian as evil? Isn't this insulting?

 

[Pauldohert]

They insult religion a lot on south park which you seem to object to.

Yep I understood you correctly - I really do hope you learn the differance between this theological discussion and South Park. You are clueless! I'll leave it at that. Thanks.

 

[chergh]

Yep I understood you correctly - I really do hope you learn the differance between this theological discussion and South Park. You are clueless! I'll leave it at that. Thanks.

So you don't object to people insulting religion you just don't think it should be done in this thread? What exactly gives you the right to decide what is and is not appropriate

So why aren't you responding to christians labelling anyone who isn't a christian as evil?

 

[dan-cat]

So why aren't you responding to christians labelling anyone who isn't a christian as evil?

You can't see your own circularity can you? I'm sorry but you are beating yourself with your own stick

1) X = bad.
2) Y performs X.
3) X <> bad because of 2.

That's your logic. Makes no sense at all.

 

[dan-cat]

If you dont personally like insulting behaviour perhaps you should stay away from these threads.

Why should I be disqualified from the boards because of a personal preference? Sounds like discrimination to me.

 

[chergh]

You can't see your own circularity can you? I'm sorry but you are beating yourself with your own stick

1) X = bad.
2) Y performs X.
3) X <> bad because of 2.

That's your logic. Makes no sense at all.

No thats not my logic thats just something you made up. I was asking paul why objected to my insulting comments and not other insulting comments made. I freely admit my comment was insulting and was intended to be so.

Why should I be disqualified from the boards because of a personal preference? Sounds like discrimination to me.

I am not trying to disqualify you, I merely suggested you avoid threads which you didn't like.

 

[Adam Caramon]

You can't see your own circularity can you? I'm sorry but you are beating yourself with your own stick

1) X = bad.
2) Y performs X.
3) X <> bad because of 2.

To me, seems more like someone saying "You're a moron for stuffing your face with all that food."

And the person responding "Well you're a homosexual."

Maybe the person shouldn't have been mean about the other person stuffing their face, but they have a point. The response is completely nonsensical, it's simply an emotionally-charged response to elicit anger. Paul seems to agree now that that was in fact his purpose.

You made fun of me by insulting religion so I called you gay in a derogatory manner.

Now, had Paul said "You're a dumb atheist", that would have been pit for pat, so to speak. But going to sexual orientation is really hateful.

 

[Rich]

Paul's homophobic viewpoint has been well documented here over the years

 

[Rich]

Why should I be disqualified from the boards because of a personal preference? Sounds like discrimination to me.

And it's even more discriminatory for you to suggest that other members should not express they're opinions lest you're offended, big brother synndrome

 

[Pauldohert]

Paul's homophobic viewpoint has been well documented here over the years

One hundred percent lie, as you well know. That you have to resort to such tactics is low.

Ho hum - your problem not mine.

 

[Pauldohert]

To me, seems more like someone saying "You're a moron for stuffing your face with all that food."

And the person responding "Well you're a homosexual."

Maybe the person shouldn't have been mean about the other person stuffing their face, but they have a point. The response is completely nonsensical, it's simply an emotionally-charged response to elicit anger. Paul seems to agree now that that was in fact his purpose.

You made fun of me by insulting religion so I called you gay in a derogatory manner.

Now, had Paul said "You're a dumb atheist", that would have been pit for pat, so to speak. But going to sexual orientation is really hateful.

Hardly - if I had plucked may statement from thin air - then I would agree. However I just used the exact offensive terminology from Cherghs previous post, to pull him up a bit.

If you think it was homophobic - I apologise - it wasn't supposed to be, and to most, and more importantly myself I dont beleive it was, just a word play one liner - to stop chergh in his tracks.

Whereas Chergh is full of religiuos bigotry - which you think musn't be countered with a Graham Norton one liner. Please - get real.