Who was responsible for the original sin ?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4966
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Who was responsible for the original sin ?

Post by attofishpi »

Age wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 5:03 am
attofishpi wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 4:54 am
Age wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 4:45 am

Adult human beings with their EXCUSES after EXCUSES after EXCUSES.

If one can NOT back up and support their CLAIMS BEFORE they make the CLAIM, then I suggest they do NOT even bother making the CLAIM in the FIRST PLACE.

And/or, if one can NOT be "bothered" to just answer a Truly VERY SIMPLE CLARIFYING QUESTION, then what are they doing here in a forum where back and forth discussions take place?

Providing CLARITY is NEEDED if one wants to be Truly UNDERSTOOD. If one can NOT be bothered providing CLARITY, then what does this MEAN?



So, when 'you' first came out of mommy what were you, supposedly and allegedly, BELIEVING in?

If you were NOT BELIEVING in something at that time, then WHY did you START BELIEVING 'in' some 'thing' (ANY 'thing') AFTERWARDS?

"sculptor" said they do NOT BELIEVE in what I so WRONGLY said they did. Now, if YOUR "you either believe in something or you do NOT" logic is True, Right, and Correct, then "sculptor" does NOT necessarily BELIEVE in what you ASSUME or BELIEVE they do. What is WRONG with this scenario?

All I did was just ask you, 'What, EXACTLY, makes you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE 'that', (what I WRONGLY ACCUSED "sculptor" of BELIEVING in') is a BELIEF?'

ALLEGEDLY you are "too busy to be bothered" to answer this SIMPLE question, but you are NOT 'too busy to be bothered' dragging this on and formulating EXCUSES for just NOT answering the question, posed to 'you', correct?
lol. I BELIEVE there are some things worth my time in arguing about - this IS NOT one of them. :lol:
Asking you to CLARIFY some 'thing' is NOT 'arguing'. So, there is NOTHING to 'argue about' here.

Either you KNOW what makes you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE some 'thing' or you do NOT KNOW.

What obviously appears to be the case now is that you do NOT KNOW what is making you ASSUME or BELIEVE what you do here.

'you', "attofishpi" NOT KNOWING what this is, is TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE.

What that 'thing' is EXACTLY, however, is ALREADY KNOWN by some of us, by the way.

So, there was and IS NOTHING to 'argue about' here. I was just SEEING if you ALREADY KNEW or NOT. Your responses, or more correctly NON responses, are REVEALING what thee ACTUAL Truth IS here.
..bla bla bla...get a fucking life.
Age
Posts: 6685
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Who was responsible for the original sin ?

Post by Age »

attofishpi wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 5:06 am
Age wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 5:03 am
attofishpi wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 4:54 am

lol. I BELIEVE there are some things worth my time in arguing about - this IS NOT one of them. :lol:
Asking you to CLARIFY some 'thing' is NOT 'arguing'. So, there is NOTHING to 'argue about' here.

Either you KNOW what makes you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE some 'thing' or you do NOT KNOW.

What obviously appears to be the case now is that you do NOT KNOW what is making you ASSUME or BELIEVE what you do here.

'you', "attofishpi" NOT KNOWING what this is, is TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE.

What that 'thing' is EXACTLY, however, is ALREADY KNOWN by some of us, by the way.

So, there was and IS NOTHING to 'argue about' here. I was just SEEING if you ALREADY KNEW or NOT. Your responses, or more correctly NON responses, are REVEALING what thee ACTUAL Truth IS here.
..bla bla bla...get a fucking life.
So, I just POINT OUT and REVEAL that you do NOT YET KNOW WHY you actually ASSUME and/or BELIEVE some of the things that you do, and you can then find the time to bother to resort to this kind of response.
Dontaskme
Posts: 9975
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Who was responsible for the original sin ?

Post by Dontaskme »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:56 pm
Belief is the death of reason.
It's what people do when they are scared of the truth.
My reason is that there is no story without the belief in the story. I'm personally not scared of the truth, but I know there are some that are scared. Belief is part and parcel of truth anyway, for how would one be convinced of a truth is they had no belief to back up the truth claim as being true or not. All we are doing here is making an interpretation of truths using our reasoning skills. Some truths are barmier than others, but it's always about what we personally want to believe that matters, we all create our own little ego tunnels of vision.

Sculptor wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:56 pmYou have zero reason to think that way. It's pathetic. Through sheer ignorance you even pretend to know the word of god. In this you combine utter ignorance with utter arrogance.
All I've said is that words impact us emotionally, whether they are gods words or not, matters not where the words originate from, they impact us.

As I've said to you previously, god is just another word for nothing, in my mind. I'm a nondualist, so there is no literal god in my world, although i use the word god sometimes, because it's unavoidable to discuss topics without using words.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3238
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Who was responsible for the original sin ?

Post by Sculptor »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:39 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:56 pm
Belief is the death of reason.
It's what people do when they are scared of the truth.
My reason is that there is no story without the belief in the story. I'm personally not scared of the truth, but I know there are some that are scared. Belief is part and parcel of truth anyway, for how would one be convinced of a truth is they had no belief to back up the truth claim as being true or not. All we are doing here is making an interpretation of truths using our reasoning skills. Some truths are barmier than others, but it's always about what we personally want to believe that matters, we all create our own little ego tunnels of vision.
QED You are scared.

Sculptor wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:56 pmYou have zero reason to think that way. It's pathetic. Through sheer ignorance you even pretend to know the word of god. In this you combine utter ignorance with utter arrogance.
All I've said is that words impact us emotionally, whether they are gods words or not, matters not where the words originate from, they impact us.
They impact on the weak minded.
Dontaskme
Posts: 9975
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Who was responsible for the original sin ?

Post by Dontaskme »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:44 am QED You are scared.
What am I scared of?

Sculptor wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:56 pm
They impact on the weak minded.
How so?
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2711
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Who was responsible for the original sin ?

Post by Greatest I am »

Age wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:31 am
Greatest I am wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:43 pm
Age wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:09 pm Would you like to become a bit MORE OPEN?
These things have been debated forever without any kind of consensus, especially given that sin is to be avoided, so Christians say, yet they also say that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to Yahweh's plan.
OF COURSE it was NECESSARY to God's plan.

This will become OBVIOUS and CRYSTAL CLEAR as human beings keep EVOLVING and being CREATED.

Just because ANY 'thing' can NOT YET be SEEN NOR UNDERSTOOD by ANY 'generation' of 'you', human beings, this does NOT mean that the next nor following generations can NOT and will NOT SEE and UNDERSTOOD by what was PREVIOUSLY NOT.
Greatest I am wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:43 pm
Age wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:09 pmWhen I say, 'agree upon', WHY do you ASSUME what I mean, and jump to a CONCLUSION, BEFORE you ask for CLARIFICATION?

What I mean when I say, 'agreed upon, will most likely be NOT what you are thinking or believing here now, ANYWAY.
Ok. Agreements are reached without conclusions. Fail.
You are SO FAR OFF TRACK here now I find this will NOT get back ON TRACK until you START seeking CLARIFICATION FIRST, once again, BEFORE you START making MORE ABSURD and RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTIONS, like you are obviously here now.
Greatest I am wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:43 pm
Age wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:09 pmBy the way, I would LOVE to 'have a go'. But, from the way you write, it appears that you have ALREADY CONCLUDED what the outcome WILL BE, correct?
I spoke and opined on what I have seen of the opposite.

Prove me wrong if you like.
But ALL you have do is just say the two words, "I disagree", to PROVE 'you' RIGHT and 'me' WRONG.

Also, you have NO idea about what the 'agreed upon' ACTUALLY MEANS from my point of view and perspective.

What you are ASSUMING here is what just about ALL of 'you', adult human beings, ASSUME, and is WHY 'you', human beings, hitherto when these writings
are written, are still in CONFLICT with one another and even with "your" OWN 'selves'.

Greatest I am wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:43 pm
Age wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:09 pmAs I asked earlier, what does the word 'sin' even mean, to 'you'?
It is certainly not a sin for one to seek knowledge and wisdom and to not want to stay too stupid to even know about reproduction.
I do NOT care what the word 'sin' does NOT mean to 'you' nor what 'sin' is NOT, to 'you'. So, I will ask again, what does the word 'sin' even mean, to 'you'?
Greatest I am wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:43 pm Scriptures define sin as missing the mark, yet Christians think it ok for Yahweh to miss the creation mark by miles to where he had to use genocide to reboot the system.
WHERE and WHEN did God, LOL, "use" 'genocide'?

Also, if you now say some 'thing' defines the word 'sin' as missing the mark, then WHERE did this conception or interpretation that 'sin' is defined as 'evil', 'wrong', or 'bad' behavior? Or, is 'missing the mark' an ACTUAL 'evil', 'wrong', or 'bad' behavior in and of itself?

And, if 'sin' is thought of 'that', which is best avoided, then I would say that 'missing the mark' would be the BEST 'thing' to AVOID, COMPLETELY.
Greatest I am wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:43 pm When I have my legal secular hat on, the larger sins are crimes.
I suggest removing that "hat" and just replacing with the LOOKING AT 'things' with your Truly Honest, Open, and Wanting to change, for the better, "hat" on.

That way 'you' are able to LOOK from ALL perspectives, and thus be able to SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth of ALL 'things' IS.
If sin is part of the plan, then our condemnation for doing what we were created to do is unjust. Right?

As to the rest you put.

You are talking to yourself, rewriting what I put, ignoring what I write, and deflecting all over the map.

Thanks for the experience.

Regards
DL
gaffo
Posts: 3953
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Who was responsible for the original sin ?

Post by gaffo »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:28 pm
gaffo wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:15 am
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 5:12 pm

What a fuckwit.
why be a dick Donseke posted his view and did not insult you.

you had no call to insult him.
My pov is not worthy of insult his is.

POVs are never worthy of insulting others for thier POV.


only one's character is worthy of insult.


To me i find it foreign tin insult another'POV. I'm fine with insulting one character.

--- so you place one's beliefs/POV over that same persons character? odd.

what does that say about your character? since i care more about that that your POV.
gaffo
Posts: 3953
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Who was responsible for the original sin ?

Post by gaffo »

DPMartin wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:42 pm
gaffo wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:50 am smart post BTW.

DPMartin wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:37 pm

the "original sin" theology of Catholicism is one thing and and why man is born into the state of sin in the case of man and man's Creator might have differences.

first, what did God give man in His own likeness and image (note not getting religious on you just using references)

Luk 3:38  Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God

and that life Adam had before he ate of the tree is what Adam and Eve died from that day. and God left them with the life in the flesh dust to dust like any other flesh God created.

thing is God gave man His place in the earth, to execute God's Judgements according to God. and Adam went with his own judgement and died of the Life God gave man originally. because God's Judgement is Life any other is not. Adam and or Eve trusted and or believed something other then the Word of God which is the Truth, meaning the Word of God is the Truth. hence faith where does one place their faith.


you or Luke confused? the ToK was not the ToL/

YHWH removed the latter and why man dies like all other animals/plants/

no other animal outside of man "sinned" - i.e. the rest of the animals never ate from the ToK - and yets still die. animals are affirmed as sinless, yet they dies like man.

and since man dies like animals - neather having ten from teh Tree of Life - and only man eting from the Three of knowledge - death is not tied to the eating fro teh Tok - since animals never ate from it and though without sin, still die - they like you and me die because we never ate from the Tree of life. - the other tre in the garden of eden.


DPMartin wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:37 pm
so after God let man live the life of the flesh we receive that same life that was to be with God but now is separate from God's Presence. and the NT is about the restoration of that life man originally had. one of the writers refers to Jesus as the second Adam for example. so the original sin is simply a state of man's separation from God's Presence, actually for man's sake.

anyway, you receive the life your fathers had when you come into the world.
yes per Genesis man after eating of one of the two - became separated from God (AND the animals) - and that corruption changed the animals somehow - where carniforse were born - prior the lion eat strwqw and slpt with the lambs.

in othrwords man was changed from being just another animal and communing with them, to becoming separate and in a way both masters over the animlas and in war with.

i.e. eating meat - carnivore - man and some animals changed via the "Fall" of amn, prior all were vegitarians.

-------------

I'm an athiest - though have knowledge of religion - and my take is accurate oon the issue


good post Sir.
see, if you're talking biblically of which I presume you are, you may have missed something here. I said "and that life Adam had before he ate of the tree is what Adam and Eve died from that day. and God left them with the life in the flesh dust to dust like any other flesh God created."
so men live in sin because of the covenant the Lord God made with Adam. God made the man then the garden and then put the man in the garden and told the man the conditions thereof. this is the life God gave man in that man has to be in an agreement (covenant) with God in God's creation. the animals are not required to be in covenant with God and are free to be and do without guilt or offence. so man being left with the life of the flesh, as animals have, losing the Life God originally gave man still are under covenant. the Lord God never brakes covenant another part of the place God gave man in the earth. It was ether removing Adam and Eve from His creation and making a new man, or having mercy and permitting man and the sons of man to continue in separation from God's Presence until the new Adam (Christ) came into the world via a son of man, that the faithful sons of man to the covenant may be restored to the Life God originally gave A&E.
that is a good and smart post - with knowledge of the Christian dogma.

my post was per my view as an Athiest of the Judiac dogma 800 yr prior to Christianity - i.e. a rading of Gensis with a Polytheistic/Summarian understanding.


DPMartin wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:42 pm
also your vegetarian comment is inaccurate vegetarian was the basic provision with A&E and the children thereof is true, but the Lord God made a new covenant with Noah and his children meaning all of us, that men could eat flesh, but flesh without the blood therein. so burgers and stakes have no religious or social or biblical guilt.
THank you for schooling me on this - you know I'd had forgotten about the above with Noah, thanks for correcting me.!!!

I always welcome correction and folks that know their bible, even if i may not agree with their views - as long as they know what they are talking about i value discourse.
Age
Posts: 6685
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Who was responsible for the original sin ?

Post by Age »

Greatest I am wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 7:17 pm
Age wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:31 am
Greatest I am wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:43 pm

These things have been debated forever without any kind of consensus, especially given that sin is to be avoided, so Christians say, yet they also say that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to Yahweh's plan.
OF COURSE it was NECESSARY to God's plan.

This will become OBVIOUS and CRYSTAL CLEAR as human beings keep EVOLVING and being CREATED.

Just because ANY 'thing' can NOT YET be SEEN NOR UNDERSTOOD by ANY 'generation' of 'you', human beings, this does NOT mean that the next nor following generations can NOT and will NOT SEE and UNDERSTOOD by what was PREVIOUSLY NOT.
Greatest I am wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:43 pm

Ok. Agreements are reached without conclusions. Fail.
You are SO FAR OFF TRACK here now I find this will NOT get back ON TRACK until you START seeking CLARIFICATION FIRST, once again, BEFORE you START making MORE ABSURD and RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTIONS, like you are obviously here now.
Greatest I am wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:43 pm

I spoke and opined on what I have seen of the opposite.

Prove me wrong if you like.
But ALL you have do is just say the two words, "I disagree", to PROVE 'you' RIGHT and 'me' WRONG.

Also, you have NO idea about what the 'agreed upon' ACTUALLY MEANS from my point of view and perspective.

What you are ASSUMING here is what just about ALL of 'you', adult human beings, ASSUME, and is WHY 'you', human beings, hitherto when these writings
are written, are still in CONFLICT with one another and even with "your" OWN 'selves'.

Greatest I am wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:43 pm

It is certainly not a sin for one to seek knowledge and wisdom and to not want to stay too stupid to even know about reproduction.
I do NOT care what the word 'sin' does NOT mean to 'you' nor what 'sin' is NOT, to 'you'. So, I will ask again, what does the word 'sin' even mean, to 'you'?
Greatest I am wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:43 pm Scriptures define sin as missing the mark, yet Christians think it ok for Yahweh to miss the creation mark by miles to where he had to use genocide to reboot the system.
WHERE and WHEN did God, LOL, "use" 'genocide'?

Also, if you now say some 'thing' defines the word 'sin' as missing the mark, then WHERE did this conception or interpretation that 'sin' is defined as 'evil', 'wrong', or 'bad' behavior? Or, is 'missing the mark' an ACTUAL 'evil', 'wrong', or 'bad' behavior in and of itself?

And, if 'sin' is thought of 'that', which is best avoided, then I would say that 'missing the mark' would be the BEST 'thing' to AVOID, COMPLETELY.
Greatest I am wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:43 pm When I have my legal secular hat on, the larger sins are crimes.
I suggest removing that "hat" and just replacing with the LOOKING AT 'things' with your Truly Honest, Open, and Wanting to change, for the better, "hat" on.

That way 'you' are able to LOOK from ALL perspectives, and thus be able to SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth of ALL 'things' IS.
If sin is part of the plan, then our condemnation for doing what we were created to do is unjust. Right?
What definition of the word 'sin' here are you referring to EXACTLY?

If 'sin' here is referring to missing the mark, then 'missing the mark' is part of the plan.

Now, if you want to use 'the plan' to argue FOR your point of view and/or argue against ANY thing like God or ANY thing else, then, if we SAY that there is 'a plan', and we want to LOOK AT 'that plan', then we will just HAVE TO 'accept' that EVERY 'thing' that happens and occurs is a part of the plan. Do you want to agree with and accept this?

If yes, then 'your' 'condemnation for doing what you were "created" to do' is just a part of 'your' FREE WILL. I do NOT 'condemn ANY one for ANY thing they do' BECAUSE I KNOW EXACTLY WHY 'you' ALL do what you do. So, if you SEE 'you condemning you or ANY one else for what you or they do', then that is 'your' FREE choice. You are FREELY ABLE to do this. And, if you SEE and SAY that you ' condemning "others" for what you say, "they were created to do" ' is 'UNJUST', then you are FREE to SEE 'things' that way.

Also, EVERY thing was 'created'. But this is BECAUSE of 'evolution', itself. So, if you were 'trying to' portray a sense of 'you', human beings, were 'created' to do some 'things' by ANY other source other than thee Universe, Itself, through an evolutionary process, itself, then you will ALWAYS FAIL.

SEE, 'you', human beings, for some duration are 'MEANT TO' do what 'you', human beings, call "bad", "evil", or "wrong". This is because of the way 'you', human beings, are made up. The BEST way 'you', human beings, LEARN what is Good and Right, is by and through your OWN 'mistakes'. See, you will have ALWAYS ALL eventually have 'made mistakes'. Although Life, Existence, the Universe, themselves are PERFECT in their OWN RIGHT. 'Things' like evolving intellectual and intelligent beings are NOT "made/began" perfect. They are "made" to 'learn, understand, and reason'. So, the earlier the species human being LEARN by and from their 'mistakes', then the quicker they can and WILL evolve into being more perfect or God-like beings ALL THE TIME.

But to LEARN from one's 'mistakes' is BEST, easiest, simplest, and quickest, done through and by Honesty, and Wanting to CHANGE, for the better. That is Honestly admitting the WRONG that 'you' each do individually and ALL do collectively, and then by LEARNING from those MISTAKES in order to CHANGE for the BETTER. And, NOT for the 'better' of one personally but the BETTER of ALL. You ALL, after all, do HAVE TO SHARE this One and ONLY Life, Existence, and Universe, with EACH OTHER.

So, if you KNOW what you are doing is UNJUST, then NO one ELSE 'needs' to TELL 'you' what NEEDS to be CHANGED.
Greatest I am wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 7:17 pm As to the rest you put.

You are talking to yourself, rewriting what I put, ignoring what I write, and deflecting all over the map.

Thanks for the experience.

Regards
DL
If you would like to provide EXAMPLES of what you think or BELIEVE I am doing here, then GREAT. Please provide those EXAMPLES. Then 'we' at least have to some 'thing' to LOOK AT and DISCUSS. Until you do that what you are CLAIMING here I am doing is just from your OWN perspective ONLY.

Until you actual EXAMPLES of WHERE I have supposedly and allegedly, "talked to myself", "rewrote what you put", "ignored what you write", and/or "deflected all of the map", then NONE of 'us' readers here KNOW what you are talking about and referring to.

Unless OF COURSE someone "else" will provide 'some further light on this'. Until then 'you' are on YOUR OWN.
Age
Posts: 6685
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Who was responsible for the original sin ?

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:39 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:56 pm
Belief is the death of reason.
It's what people do when they are scared of the truth.
My reason is that there is no story without the belief in the story. I'm personally not scared of the truth, but I know there are some that are scared. Belief is part and parcel of truth anyway, for how would one be convinced of a truth is they had no belief to back up the truth claim as being true or not. All we are doing here is making an interpretation of truths using our reasoning skills. Some truths are barmier than others, but it's always about what we personally want to believe that matters, we all create our own little ego tunnels of vision.
NOT ALL of 'us' have BELIEFS, so NOT 'ALL' of 'us' do what you CLAIM here.

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:39 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:56 pmYou have zero reason to think that way. It's pathetic. Through sheer ignorance you even pretend to know the word of god. In this you combine utter ignorance with utter arrogance.
All I've said is that words impact us emotionally, whether they are gods words or not, matters not where the words originate from, they impact us.

As I've said to you previously, god is just another word for nothing, in my mind. I'm a nondualist, so there is no literal god in my world, although i use the word god sometimes, because it's unavoidable to discuss topics without using words.
But it is actually AVOIDABLE to discuss topics without using words, which one can NOT back up and support with ACTUAL EVIDENCE and/or PROOF.

SEE, if ANY one wants to discuss ANY 'thing', create a 'story', or paint a 'picture', WITH WORDS, then it is ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to do this USING WORDS which together form One actual Truth, which could NOT be refuted by the way.

BUT, what is ACTUALLY MEANT by each and EVERY one of those words NEEDS to be CLARIFIED and FULLY UNDERSTOOD, FIRST. Although this would OBVIOUSLY be a lengthy process it is still a VERY POSSIBLE PROCESS.

And, if ANY one would like to CHALLENGE me on this, then please feel FREE to do so.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3238
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Who was responsible for the original sin ?

Post by Sculptor »

gaffo wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:24 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:28 pm
gaffo wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:15 am

why be a dick Donseke posted his view and did not insult you.

you had no call to insult him.
My pov is not worthy of insult his is.

POVs are never worthy of insulting others for thier POV.
That is patently false.
Think about it.


only one's character is worthy of insult.
In effect the character develops the POV. So you are just confusing yourself.

To me i find it foreign tin insult another'POV. I'm fine with insulting one character.

--- so you place one's beliefs/POV over that same persons character? odd.

what does that say about your character? since i care more about that that your POV.
So you would be happy to insult Hitler's strenth and determination, but his pov that Jews were evil should be respected.

Think!
gaffo
Posts: 3953
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Who was responsible for the original sin ?

Post by gaffo »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 12:24 pm
gaffo wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:24 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:28 pm
My pov is not worthy of insult his is.

POVs are never worthy of insulting others for thier POV.
That is patently false.
Think about it.


only one's character is worthy of insult.
In effect the character develops the POV. So you are just confusing yourself.

To me i find it foreign tin insult another'POV. I'm fine with insulting one character.

--- so you place one's beliefs/POV over that same persons character? odd.

what does that say about your character? since i care more about that that your POV.
So you would be happy to insult Hitler's strenth and determination, but his pov that Jews were evil should be respected.

Think!
there is a diff bet one's charater and one's belieif.


one can have beliefs akin to hitler, but when tested do not shove the body into the oven - so they ahd Hiters beleifs but had a higher character when the metel was to the petel.


what one is is far deaper than what one beleives.
Last edited by gaffo on Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
gaffo
Posts: 3953
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Who was responsible for the original sin ?

Post by gaffo »

your are full of shit, i know folks that are liberals and share my pol stanc, but lack character. inverswise i know folks of high charater that are near full bore trumpists.



their are full bore liberal assholes - phonies - phonies/


as there are trumpists fools that bought in to his bullshit - but have a higher character that the liberal i speak of.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3238
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Who was responsible for the original sin ?

Post by Sculptor »

gaffo wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:04 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 12:24 pm
gaffo wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:24 pm


POVs are never worthy of insulting others for thier POV.
That is patently false.
Think about it.


only one's character is worthy of insult.
In effect the character develops the POV. So you are just confusing yourself.

To me i find it foreign tin insult another'POV. I'm fine with insulting one character.

--- so you place one's beliefs/POV over that same persons character? odd.

what does that say about your character? since i care more about that that your POV.
So you would be happy to insult Hitler's strenth and determination, but his pov that Jews were evil should be respected.

Think!
there is a diff bet one's charater and one's belieif.


one can have beliefs akin to hitler, but when tested do not shove the body into the oven - so they ahd Hiters beleifs but had a higher character when the metel was to the petel.


what one is is far deaper than what one beleives.
Are you on drugs?
If your typing reflects your thinking, it explains your confusion.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3238
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Who was responsible for the original sin ?

Post by Sculptor »

gaffo wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:10 am your are full of shit, i know folks that are liberals and share my pol stanc, but lack character. inverswise i know folks of high charater that are near full bore trumpists.



their are full bore liberal assholes - phonies - phonies/


as there are trumpists fools that bought in to his bullshit - but have a higher character that the liberal i speak of.
You must be on drugs.
You read back that shit. Why should I have to decipher it?
Post Reply