Godly Love

[Dan56]

8 hours ago, cuchulain said:

FOR DAN>>>SO YOU KNOW.  Persecute:  subject to hostility and ill treatment, especially because of religious beliefs.

 

Now tell me, when you say your religion has been bullied, that the Satanists did it specifically to irk and interfere with your religion, DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF PERSECUTE???  You LIE...by claiming you aren't saying they are persecuting you.  Plain and simple lie.

 

Well, to me "hostility and ill-treatment" isn't the same as "irk, interfere, or annoy".. I suppose there are different degree's of what persecution might entail, but I don't interpret a Satanic statue as an act of hostility or ill-treatment.. To me, persecution is a hostile physical act, and ill-treatment is when someone is subjected to harm or violence, e.g; Jesus was persecuted, they attempted to stone him, had him flogged, and crucified. But I don't personally consider mere words or religious symbols as a form of persecution.

[cuchulain]

Redefine away.

 

Ill Treatment:  cruel or inhumane treatment.  

cruel:  disposed to inflict pain or suffering.

suffering:  the state of undergoing pain, distress or hardship.

distress:  anxiety sorrow or pain.

hardship:  difficult or unpleasant.

 

At this point, I acknowledge that I have a bias whereas after having observed your(dan) patterns of behavior, I believe you deliberately mislead others in what you think and speak.  I believe that you deliberately obfuscate conversations that turn against you in some perceived manner, even if it is imaginarily perceived on your part.  I believe you to be a misleading person.  You continuously redefine words to suit your meaning, and attempt to elude the points of others by "mistranslating" what they say, then defeating the new version(straw man).  You continually present things in a sideways manner, that is you will for example claim superiority by telling us atheists dont' have morals like Christians, or claim to be persecuted by defining the literal definition of the word without actually speaking the actual word and later claiming you never said that, then when called on it...you once again come up with some b.s. definition off the wall and say that's what you really meant.  I could say, and have in the past, that it must be mere coincidence or unintentional at worst.  But after years of observing you fight with Johnathan, after years of examining what you write and how you write it, and the numerous times you've had the same exact conversation and the terms pointed out as wrong or misleading...I have realized that Johnathan is exactly right.  You are a misleading individual who deliberately plays the victim in your debates on here in an effort to appear to have victory where none exists.  I have lost count of the number of people who have corrected you on the definition of atheist vs agnostic, or many other particular topics.  Anyone reading should be able to pick out the patterns of your postings fairly easily after having it pointed out, I consider myself slow in such matters as it took me a longer time than I feel it should have.

[Dan56]

12 hours ago, cuchulain said:

At this point, I acknowledge that I have a bias whereas after having observed your(dan) patterns of behavior, I believe you deliberately mislead others in what you think and speak.

 

Look at the definition you posted and compare it to what I wrote about persecution. As a Christian, I don't consider a Satanic statue as persecuting, it inflicts no pain or suffering,  distress or hardship,  distress or sorrow... Its simply an effort to irk and annoy Christians, so I don't feel persecuted by it, nor have I tried to redefine or mislead you about the definition of "persecute". When someone is chasing me with a baseball bat, I'll feel persecuted.

 

I answer every question directly, your only argument is that I'm "misleading" because you have no other argument. I said that I never wrote that I was persecuted and you claimed that I did. Then you claimed that being annoyed or irked about something insinuated "persecution".  That's you being misleading..  And as far as anyone correcting me on my definition of Atheist or Agnostic, that never happened because I posted the correct definition and there was nothing to correct. Here it is again, and I encourage you to correct me if I'm wrong; AGNOSTIC - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.... ATHEISM -  the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.or the absence of belief that any deities exist.. Nothing complicated about that.

 

Your present false accusations about my comments, and that is generally indicative of someone who has no answers of their own or has lost another argument. I never said that my biblical interpretation about everything was correct, but its my opinion of what means what. Disagree if you want, but I suspect that your accusation that I deliberately obfuscate conversations is more of a case of you guys not understanding the depth of the book I'm discussing, and that leaves you frustrated and angry. 

[cuchulain]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Look at the definition you posted and compare it to what I wrote about persecution. As a Christian, I don't consider a Satanic statue as persecuting, it inflicts no pain or suffering,  distress or hardship,  distress or sorrow... Its simply an effort to irk and annoy Christians, so I don't feel persecuted by it, nor have I tried to redefine or mislead you about the definition of "persecute". When someone is chasing me with a baseball bat, I'll feel persecuted.

 

I answer every question directly, your only argument is that I'm "misleading" because you have no other argument. I said that I never wrote that I was persecuted and you claimed that I did. Then you claimed that being annoyed or irked about something insinuated "persecution".  That's you being misleading..  And as far as anyone correcting me on my definition of Atheist or Agnostic, that never happened because I posted the correct definition and there was nothing to correct. Here it is again, and I encourage you to correct me if I'm wrong; AGNOSTIC - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.... ATHEISM -  the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.or the absence of belief that any deities exist.. Nothing complicated about that.

 

Your present false accusations about my comments, and that is generally indicative of someone who has no answers of their own or has lost another argument. I never said that my biblical interpretation about everything was correct, but its my opinion of what means what. Disagree if you want, but I suspect that your accusation that I deliberately obfuscate conversations is more of a case of you guys not understanding the depth of the book I'm discussing, and that leaves you frustrated and angry. 

Persecute:  1 subject someone to hostility and ill treatment, especially because of their religious beliefs.  2 harass or annoy someone persistently

 

Dictionary definitions are too hard for you, aren't they Dan?

[cuchulain]

I have to add how amazing I find it that you say I have no points to make against your arguments and so make false accusations about your comments.  You comment in one place that there is ample evidence, then in another that I personally just reject every piece of evidence and wouldn't accept it if Jesus appeared before me and performed a miracle, and then in yet another place you state clearly that there IS NO EVIDENCE, that it's entirely faith based...you realize that not all these comments you keep spewing can be true because some directly contradict the others, don't you?  And you accuse ME of being the one to attack you because I don't have answers or have lost another argument?  But then, you so often say it's us atheists that lack faith, that lack understanding, that choose not to believe...these are all statements that put you on a superior level than us, and you will deny saying that as well, even though you spell it out time and again.  And it's ME???? Seriously?

 

I tell you this in all seriousness.  If you provide me with acceptable evidence, I will reevaluate.  I have done so before, and have been proven wrong before, to the point that I changed my view.  But here's the thing.  You are not going to provide me with that evidence that you continually say I just keep rejecting.  You never provide actual evidence.  Your statements of belief, and biblical quotes, are NOT EVIDENCE.  I have to think at this point one of a few possibilities with you, Dan.  Either you genuinely don't get that your debate style is completely bonkers, meaning you circle around, you never come out and say things directly in the first place, you constantly change definitions to change what you really said, any number of tactics that you use.  Or you do indeed know what you are saying, that you are saying things in circular, manipulative fashion on purpose.  In the first case, you could be brainwashed so badly that you just don't understand debating and how evidence really works.  In the second you are deliberately deceptive.  Personally I think it's a blend of the two.  You have to realize that when you literally define a word as an argument, but don't use that word...it doesn't really mean you didn't say that.  Just that you set up a technicality to use later, so you could insist you never said "persecuted".  Honest advice from the atheist who seems to be more honest than you are capable of...You need to sit and reflect on all the things you believe with an open mind.  You could benefit from reevaluating what you consider evidence and why, and taking the time to honestly consider other positions than your own.  You could really, REALLY benefit, from learning some simple communications skills and in investing in a dictionary, since a vast majority of people use words from the dictionary how they are defined by the dictionary instead of in an arbitrary way.  And if you find yourself in the position of having misused a word, AS I HAVE MYSELF, simply acknowledge that you misused a word, or misdefined something.  Instead of insisting you didn't say "persecuted" simply acknowledge that your definition was not kosher with the dictionary, you reevaluate, and indeed that IS what you were referencing.  It's so much easier than digging with that shovel and trying your best to talk your way out of having defined the word precisely with your points then insisting you really didn't after all.

[Dan56]

9 hours ago, cuchulain said:

You comment in one place that there is ample evidence, then in another that I personally just reject every piece of evidence and wouldn't accept it if Jesus appeared before me and performed a miracle, and then in yet another place you state clearly that there IS NO EVIDENCE, that it's entirely faith based...you realize that not all these comments you keep spewing can be true because some directly contradict the others, don't you?

 

I've made different points in response to different questions in regards to evidence.. Yes, I've stated that there may not be any objective evidence, but I've also said that I believe there is plenty of subjective evidence, i.e; archeological, prophetic, creation, witnesses, etc.. I've also stated that in the absence of direct physical evidence, Christians are called by faith. I don't see any of that as being inconsistent or contradictory. For me, there is evidence, but belief is also required.

 

And again, all I can say is that I never used the word "persecuted" because the word wasn't applicable. But if for some reason you feel that I meant or implied that Christians were being persecuted by satanic symbolism, there's nothing I can say about that except that I'm not even offended by such things, let alone feel persecuted by it.  My only point was that the purpose of statues like that being placed next to a nativity scene was to irritate & interfere with a Christian holiday.

[Key]

16 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I've made different points in response to different questions in regards to evidence.. Yes, I've stated that there may not be any objective evidence, but I've also said that I believe there is plenty of subjective evidence, i.e; archeological, prophetic, creation, witnesses, etc.. I've also stated that in the absence of direct physical evidence, Christians are called by faith. I don't see any of that as being inconsistent or contradictory. For me, there is evidence, but belief is also required.

 

And again, all I can say is that I never used the word "persecuted" because the word wasn't applicable. But if for some reason you feel that I meant or implied that Christians were being persecuted by satanic symbolism, there's nothing I can say about that except that I'm not even offended by such things, let alone feel persecuted by it.  My only point was that the purpose of statues like that being placed next to a nativity scene was to irritate & interfere with a Christian holiday.

First question: How does it "interfere with a Christian holiday"? The holiday continues, regardless of any displays, whatsoever.

Second and Third question: As the displays in question are on public properties, and the public is made up of many faiths, why should one religion hold precedence over others in the manner of these presentations? If their"s "irritates" Christians, does it not hold that Christian displays may irritate others?

I can see their points, and do kind of comprehend what you are trying to imply, but your wording is failing to back you up, in my view. Sorry.

[Dan56]

9 hours ago, Key said:

First question: How does it "interfere with a Christian holiday"? The holiday continues, regardless of any displays, whatsoever.

Second and Third question: As the displays in question are on public properties, and the public is made up of many faiths, why should one religion hold precedence over others in the manner of these presentations? If their"s "irritates" Christians, does it not hold that Christian displays may irritate others?

I can see their points, and do kind of comprehend what you are trying to imply, but your wording is failing to back you up, in my view. Sorry.

 

Imo, the nativity scene celebrates a specific event at a specific time (holiday), while the opposing statue celebrated no religious holiday. So while I agree that the Satanic statue has an equal right to be displayed and did not interrupt a Christian holiday, I suspect its real purpose was to disrupt a celebrated Christian event. So while Christmas was unimpeded, it seemed obvious that the satanic groups intent was intended to pollute and oppose a holiday they detest.. That's just my take on it. 

[cuchulain]

On ‎1‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 3:06 AM, Dan56 said:

 

Imo, the nativity scene celebrates a specific event at a specific time (holiday), while the opposing statue celebrated no religious holiday. So while I agree that the Satanic statue has an equal right to be displayed and did not interrupt a Christian holiday, I suspect its real purpose was to disrupt a celebrated Christian event. So while Christmas was unimpeded, it seemed obvious that the satanic groups intent was intended to pollute and oppose a holiday they detest.. That's just my take on it. 

When specifically was Jesus born?  

 

Ultimately, it wasn't December 25th.  That's something most Christian authorities and studies agree on.  So...you are saying that Satanists picked the day merely to interfere with your religion on an arbitrary basis?  Your religion picked the date to interfere with pagan holidays in the same time span...pot and kettle?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

When specifically was Jesus born?  

 

Ultimately, it wasn't December 25th.  That's something most Christian authorities and studies agree on.  So...you are saying that Satanists picked the day merely to interfere with your religion on an arbitrary basis?  Your religion picked the date to interfere with pagan holidays in the same time span...pot and kettle?

 

You could have gone further.  The Pre-Christian Pagans, had a lot of gods.  Satan was not one of them.  Satan was a Christian invention.

 

     

 

 

It does turn Satan into the perfect political vessel, for protesting Christian bullies.  

 

Edited January 4, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Key]

On 1/3/2019 at 12:06 AM, Dan56 said:

 

Imo, the nativity scene celebrates a specific event at a specific time (holiday), while the opposing statue celebrated no religious holiday. So while I agree that the Satanic statue has an equal right to be displayed and did not interrupt a Christian holiday, I suspect its real purpose was to disrupt a celebrated Christian event. So while Christmas was unimpeded, it seemed obvious that the satanic groups intent was intended to pollute and oppose a holiday they detest.. That's just my take on it. 

Sorry, Dan, but this explanation still makes little sense to me. How could a mere display be a ploy to "disrupt" something that couldn't possibly have been impeded?  That would require those faithful to the holiday to simply stop observing it. Not seeing that happening, do you?

[Dan56]

4 hours ago, Key said:

Sorry, Dan, but this explanation still makes little sense to me. How could a mere display be a ploy to "disrupt" something that couldn't possibly have been impeded?  That would require those faithful to the holiday to simply stop observing it. Not seeing that happening, do you?

 

That's correct, it didn't disrupt or impede the traditional Christian holiday, but I think the motive was a deliberate attempt to tick-off Christians.. Its harder to believe that it was just a coincidence that these honorable Satanist had a genuine desire to celebrate something simultaneously.. Its kind of like someone going to a Fourth of July celebration and burning the flag. Likewise, I believe the Satanic symbol was simply placed there as a demonstration against Christianity.

[cuchulain]

13 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

That's correct, it didn't disrupt or impede the traditional Christian holiday, but I think the motive was a deliberate attempt to tick-off Christians.. Its harder to believe that it was just a coincidence that these honorable Satanist had a genuine desire to celebrate something simultaneously.. Its kind of like someone going to a Fourth of July celebration and burning the flag. Likewise, I believe the Satanic symbol was simply placed there as a demonstration against Christianity.

Not addressing the point that your religion stole the date first?

[Dan56]

55 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Not addressing the point that your religion stole the date first?

 

As I've stated in another thread, I don't believe the birth date assigned to Christ was correct, I think he was born 9/28/ 04 b.c... So yes, I agree that Dec 25 wasn't a  random date, the Roman Catholics decided to christianize that pagan holiday starting in 336 A.D.. That's not my religion, nor do I personally get into all of the Christmas crap, its just an end of the year Santa Claus day to me, but then again, I don't believe St Nick was any Saint either.

[cuchulain]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

As I've stated in another thread, I don't believe the birth date assigned to Christ was correct, I think he was born 9/28/ 04 b.c... So yes, I agree that Dec 25 wasn't a  random date, the Roman Catholics decided to christianize that pagan holiday starting in 336 A.D.. That's not my religion, nor do I personally get into all of the Christmas crap, its just an end of the year Santa Claus day to me, but then again, I don't believe St Nick was any Saint either.

Conveniently not your religion...but definitely its predasessor.  I get not wanting to admit years of your faiths history.  And if YOU believe 9 28 04...why celebrate on a stolen date?  You must acknowledge that complicity after the fact makes your religion just as guilty in the theft of that holiday...and validates my point that religious propaganda by christians has been met with the same from satanist but you cry foul because its against you.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Conveniently not your religion...but definitely its predasessor.  I get not wanting to admit years of your faiths history.  And if YOU believe 9 28 04...why celebrate on a stolen date?  You must acknowledge that complicity after the fact makes your religion just as guilty in the theft of that holiday...and validates my point that religious propaganda by christians has been met with the same from satanist but you cry foul because its against you.

 

 

The psychology behind the Winter Solstice is not deep.  It's cold, dark and depressing.  So people light the fires, sing the songs and party.  Of course, the new religion tried to steal it.

 

 

[cuchulain]

Hard to sell a religion when they take the party away.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Hard to sell a religion when they take the party away.

 

 

Lying was never a problem for Christian propagandists.  Then, or now.  Stealing the Solstice -- propagating the Gospels -- miracle stories -- witnessing --  Threats of Damnation -- apolologetics on this board.......  The details change.  Never the lies.  

 

And such a  variety of lies.  Error never creeps into Scripture -- Christians are more happy than Atheists -- -        "Atheists believe in nothing" -- Where do we even start?  

 

My personal favorite:  "You need to get saved!".

 

 

     

 

 

Edited January 5, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

9 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Conveniently not your religion...but definitely its predasessor.  I get not wanting to admit years of your faiths history.  And if YOU believe 9 28 04...why celebrate on a stolen date?  You must acknowledge that complicity after the fact makes your religion just as guilty in the theft of that holiday...and validates my point that religious propaganda by christians has been met with the same from satanist but you cry foul because its against you.

 

Nothing convenient about it, the RCC is not my religion, nor does that church predate my faith.. I don't celebrate anything on Dec 25th, so there's no complicity after the fact.

 

My whole point wasn't the holiday itself, but that the satanic statue was simply an effort to protest a holiday of a religion that they don't like.   

[cuchulain]

Roman catholocism doesnt predate your faith?  It traces back to Pentacost CE 30...i think you are wrong since you've stated multiple times you follow the kjv which clearly didnt exist till king james and fully published in the 1600's...