Reply With Quote
Who's brian?
Go back and read my response to him.
Who's brian?
There I fixed my typo.
I think tim knew what you meant, but was just effing with you.
I know. He's a . Maybe I should go around and look for all his typos.I think tim knew what you meant, but was just effing with you.
The whole quote has the same meaning of the extract I chose.
Ask the others on here that were actually involved in the conversation and heard what I said IN CONTEXT now that I explained?
No need to ask anybody anything. Just say you made a mistake saying that was Manu said was stupid. Or do you still believe he sadi soomething stupid? (please answer the question)
Oh wait, you won't do that because you are a sheep.
I'm not a sheep. I simply read a bunch of stupid posts written by you and I responded to them.
No need to ask anybody anything. Just say you made a mistake saying that was Manu said was stupid. Or do you still believe he sadi soomething stupid? (please answer the question)
I did not say what he thought nor said was stupid. I still do not think it was stupid. The only thing I referenced as stupid was opening yourself up to people you do not know in the context of the other questions. I said I am shocked he was so honest and open because most people are not, especially famous people.
How come you did not respond to the later post where things were clarified and explained once the sheep dispersed? Oh wait you did, you said it was back peddling. Clarification is not back peddling.I'm not a sheep. I simply read a bunch of stupid posts written by you and I responded to them.
WTF is wrong with you? How hard is it to say "I made a mistake".
This is post # 34, from page 2 of this thread. What you said is that by saying he does not believe in God, Manu is given the "fans" an inflammatory answer.
This post is wrong in so many levels.
I said I am shocked he was so honest and open because most people are not, especially famous people.
Does shocked = stupid?
No.
So you did not say "shocked". You said "stupid".
Stop going in ing circles.
How come you did not respond to the later post where things were clarified and explained once the sheep dispersed? Oh wait you did, you said it was back peddling. Clarification is not back peddling.
Why should I? Unless your later posts said, "I made a mistake" or "My word choice was extremely poor", to which I would've responded with a
Until then, I will keep pounding your earlier posts, because of the level of stupidity in them.
Ouch. I guess its hard to keep track of what you say in 150+ posts.
Yes. Unlike some people here I can admit that I don't know everything and that I'm wrong sometimes.
Another thing manu and I have in common
It says exactly what I said it did. I did not call Manu stupid. I said it was stupid to post an answer like that and be so open to people. That is all. I have already said I should of done a better job of communicating what I meant, and people should of done a better job of comprehending or asking for clarification. But since it is such a sensitive subject people read into things so much.
Why the would I have to apologize to you? Who the are you? You were not even a part of the original conversation. I have already explained myself to you, I do not have to apologize. You keep saying I said stupid, I said it ONE ING TIME. I said surprised and shocked much more so obviously that is my real take.WTF is wrong with you? How hard is it to say "I made a mistake".
This is post # 34, from page 2 of this thread. What you said is that by saying he does not believe in God, Manu is given the "fans" an inflammatory answer.
This post is wrong in so many levels.
Does shocked = stupid?
No.
So you did not say "shocked". You said "stupid".
Stop going in ing circles.
Why should I? Unless your later posts said, "I made a mistake" or "My word choice was extremely poor", to which I would've responded with a
Until then, I will keep pounding your earlier posts, because of the level of stupidity in them.
Its funny how you tell another guy that making fun of your blog and guitar picture is not really an insult and act like your little comments about something of mine that is similar to a blog (an online forum) is such an awesome ownage. Very lame.
I wasn't making fun of you for the number of posts but rather smeagol pretty much owning you with your own words. Its ok Killer, calm down. Just admit you were wrong. Its not a difficult thing to do.
Hypocrisy is a trait of bagius maximus.
BTW are you sure you want to lecture people on comprehension problems if you want to equate someone saying "you have a blog" as an insult to someone proving you're wrong about what your own words say? Just asking.
I was not wrong as much as I was inefficient in explaining what I meant. I already admitted that, what more do you want? He did not own me with my own words. He pointed out one post where I said the word stupid and ignored the 50 where I said shocked and surprised.
You can say whatever you wish... The use of that phrase however (regardless of the profanity) is a direct attack on my person. You basically implied that I was lying. If you disagreed with my statement, all you had to do was ask for examples that would support my claim."beligerence"?"bull " is simply a party game, and "calling bull " is simply a way of expressing skepticism of your claim. If it makes you happier, I can edit the post to say "bullpuckey" or something less vulgar.
What you did was call me out by saying, "Liar... proove it!"
There is a tactful difference between the two approaches. One elicits genuine discussion, the other an annoyed sigh.
Very well then....Nope. I try to evaluate each claim on its face.
I don't believe this statement applies.
First I should clarify that to me, persecution comes in all shapes, forms and colors... it can be subtle or overt. In the U.S. persecution of the church has progressed in a subtle manner...
Anyways, I stated my case (as I was finishing my lunch break no less). I brought up two examples of secularist movements in our society that are trying to marginalize believers through legal means... There is no 'victim' label attached... I simply highlighted that their motives were anti-religious.
Don't worry though, one day you and everyone in your camp will be happy when churches are pushed underground. When the mere mention of spirituality elicits ridicule and scorn... or further still, imprisonment. --- How's that for extreme assumptions... I guess we all can make them.
What's ironic is that athiest lobbyists are usually the first ones to complain when evangelicals lobby our government. They can't have it both ways. Personally I'm of the camp that believes Americans have the Cons utional right to shape the laws that govern the land... Democracy should win out. Wishing that this right be denied to another sector in society simply because they happen to disagree with you is a faschist concept.
More like, "You're not a Christian, as such you don't value the same ideals or understand the subtleties of their impact on our lives".
You may feel you've read just about everything there is to know about "Christians" and their belief system; but until you profess your faith in Christ, and are tranformed by His presence your perspective will forever remain limited/incomplete/skewed. The proverbial, "you're on the outside looking in" applies. And no...it's not elitist to suggest that... 'tis simply the nature of the concept.
You think California lawmakers/lobbyists weren't aware of this disproportionality?
The Hebrew/Jewish culture was built on homeschooling. Mothers were responsible for teaching their children the law and their heritage. Fathers then took their sons and taught them their trade. Besides, it's a rather anachronistic expectation to request that the word "homeschool" be found anywhere in Scripture.
Having said that, one of the fundamental parenting responsibilities found in GOD's Word is that parents instruct their children to have appropriate "fear of the LORD" - Bible-speak for "respect and reverence towards GOD". Homeschooling allows for that respect and that relationship to be instilled. But that's just it, this very dynamic is what so enrages secularists everywhere... particularly the atheistic brand. All of a sudden, they become concerned over the curricula of homeschooled children and imply that these children need to be removed from their 'oppressive', 'academically unsatisfactory' environments (they would like to equate the homeschooling process with 'brainwashing' tactics... and so create more bias against it).
While defficiencies exist for a minority of households, parents that homeschool are inherently, by definition, very interested in the development of their children. Oddly enough, the same homeschooling detractors who express "genuine" concern towards these children conveniently lose it when it involves the lives of the unborn in wombs across the world. Go figure...
Not to be lost in the discussion, homeschooled children eventually grow up into adulthood (like everyone else) and adopt whatever philosophy suits their fancy. That's right... ultimately their life choices are up to them. I guess the other camp would like to pretend that this eventuality fails to arrive for homeschoolers too... they merely take the lazy approach and arbitrarily label them brainwashed "sheeple".
Believe it or not, it is our Christian belief in free will, and the understanding of its cosmic implications that permits us to accept another's choices. We may disagree with what someone else chooses to do, but we inherently understand that the choice is theirs... as well as the consequences of their actions. Many Christian children end up learning life's difficult lessons through varying degrees of rebelion against the wishes of their parents. A loving parent, hence, will allow them to suffer through some of the consequences of their actions as part of the maturation process... though, I admit, this tactic is not exclusive to the Christian worldview.
Anyways, the agendas I mentioned earlier want to nip this bud at the stem - i.e. homeschooling - particularly because most homeschool households are Christian... Doing so, would hurt a significant back-bone of America's Christian sector. But then again, that's the point - their goal...
Is standardized education all that better?
The basic premise outlined by the concept of "Separation of Church and State" one which I happen to believe in, and a view I mentioned was endorsed by the Bible.
Standards and accountability are needed, yes... I agree. Let's not forget that homeschooled children still have to pass state exams, college entrance exams etc... Furthermore, homeschooled children fair as good as or better than their public school peers on academic tests (as far as I know, through personal experience, articles etc...). Court cases assessing this very dynamic are on record. It's in the state's interest to know and assess the academic development of every child, because it has a bearing on the future posterity and functioning of our society; our nation.
Forcing parents to obtain accredited teaching certificates however (at an expense of roughly $6,500 for 5 years in California - at least in the area where my sister lives) is economically harsh. Such a law is meant to dissuade people from considering homeschooling as a practical option... meant to tip the scales.
Depends on the motives for such laws.
Edit: Oh and none of this addresses the not-so-subtle, more overt movement that wishes to label certain biblical passages as "hate speech".
A third example I failed to mention earlier was Ohio's dismissal of a highly successful religious-based prison program that effectively reduced the state's recidivism rate. The grounds of its dismissal? It was a religious based program - not a secular one (the type that haven't effectively worked for over a century). Activist judges at work for everyone, YAY!!!
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-15-2008 at 03:33 PM.
Do you still feel this way? Do you still think it was stupid of him answering the "WHat does God mean in your life" question with the truth? (I'm asking because there seems to be two DPGs: One for the first 5 pages and another one for the rest of the thread).
You still have not done a good job. So I ask again: Do you think Manu was stupid for addressing with the truth his belief in God in his own forum?I have already said I should of done a better job of communicating what I meant,
Huh? People shoul've done a better job comprehending? Who do you think you are, you pompous ?and people should of done a better job of comprehending or asking for clarification
You say a ing stupid comment about Manu's truthful answer to a simple question and it is the people reading your posts who have to do a better job at understanding you?
You are a ing piece of work . . .
But since it is such a sensitive subject people read into things so much.
People read what you wrote and reacted. Plain and simple.
I said you should say "I made a mistake". That is not a true appology. So no, you don't have to appologize.
The guy who points out how stupid you are when you say a re ed comment such as the one that deviated this thread from a simple translation of a Manu set of questions and answers session into a debate about the existance of God.Who the are you?
You were not even a part of the original conversation.
I'm sorry I got to this thread so late. Nevertheless, not sure why this disqualifies my opinion.
I have already explained myself to you, I do not have to apologize.
You did a piss poor job explaining yourself and as long as you maintain that Manu was stupid for answering truthfully a question about his beliefs, I guess there will be room to debate the issue.
You keep saying I said stupid, I said it ONE ING TIME.
Once is enough.
I said surprised and shocked much more so obviously that is my real take.
But you said stupid before saying surpirsed or shocked.
I don't want to open another can of worms, but someone recently posted this in his forum. It's from an interview last year, after the championship.
http://www.gente.com.ar/nota.php?ID=13522¿Creés en Dios?
–Creo que algo hay, que algo existe. Pero no sé cómo opera… En realidad, no rezo ni me aferro a cábalas.
Will someone translate it please?
You can private message it to me, if you don't want to re open a whole new discussion on here.
Thanks.
this getting worse. Manu is equating Christianism to pure supers ions
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions