CitizenX Posted September 30, 2011 Report Posted September 30, 2011 Now you mention 'ignore', my view is, it's better not to put anyone on the ignore list. One thing you will learn from this forum if you survive is how to deal with others who seek purely to be antagonists. How not to get upset over them, not to take things personally. I put him on my ignore list for two reasons. He contributes nothing It cleans up the pages I don't get upset with him, I just no longer reply to his comments. It does upset me a little when people waste their time responding to his Literary Diarrhea, and allow the topic to go off the rail. As a troll this is his goal. Quote "The rich people have their lobbyists and the poor people have their feet." The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato
ToadBrother Posted September 30, 2011 Report Posted September 30, 2011 I find it very hypocritical when "secularists" will go the great length to try and remove any mention of religion in the public realm but refuse to come out and condemn Jihadist Islam. I'm a secularist, if you will, and I condemn Jihadist Islam. Quote
CitizenX Posted September 30, 2011 Report Posted September 30, 2011 I'm a secularist, if you will, and I condemn Jihadist Islam. I agree with you. I don't know where this idea of refusal to "come out and condemn Jihadist Islam" comes from. And as far as the "remove any mention of religion in the public realm". I think I would require some examples. Quote "The rich people have their lobbyists and the poor people have their feet." The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato
Oleg Bach Posted October 1, 2011 Report Posted October 1, 2011 Islam is totally hypocritial...do the math - GOD is almighty - all powerful - generates life and generates death through natural means. YET - there are Islamics that go out of their way to KILL others in the name of God --------------------This is the height of hypocracy....If they really believe that GOD is all powerful -----------then WHY to they insist at the same time that God is to weak to do his own bidding - that he needs help...to kill.........................................it's very simple - Islam does not respect GOD. Quote
eyeball Posted October 1, 2011 Report Posted October 1, 2011 I find it very hypocritical when "secularists" will go the great length to try and remove any mention of religion in the public realm but refuse to come out and condemn Jihadist Islam. WTF are you talking about? Islam is every bit as nuts as Christianity and Judaism. Similar people will call Israel an apartheid state but pretty much ignore the racism, sexism, homophobia and intolerance of minorities in much of the Arab world. That may not be hypocritical but it shows that the anti-Israeli crowd don't have consistent opinions. Try taking the shit out of your ears and then listen to their opinions for awhile. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Oleg Bach Posted October 1, 2011 Report Posted October 1, 2011 The tolerance of everything is hypocracy - no person on earth likes and eccepts everything - Those who talk about tolerance if you dig deep enough will find a skeleton or two...myself if I find something unsavroy or unpleasant - I will in the best tradtion an in spirit of political correctness PRETEND to tolerate - so I am a hypocrate...just like the rest of us..who wallow in the pride of our sophisticated liberalism.....BUT like everyone - I keep my dislikes and intolerance to myself, which I suppose is true tolerance...not speaking your mind. Quote
Jack Weber Posted October 1, 2011 Report Posted October 1, 2011 Hello Jack Weber and or any one that feels like responding. I was thinking last night about our discussion, and something came to me. All though I am agnostic I have a great deal of respect for the philosophy of Jesus. Spirituality and philosophy is a personal thing, and by personal I mean for him/her to develope. I don't agree with organized religions and dogmas, just like I don't believe in political parties and Ideologies. These things close minds and allow people to separate themselves from the rest of humanity, and are the source of some of the greatest evils in the world. Anyways back to my thoughts. I see a great deal of similarities between what Jesus taught and what Buddha taught. The difference is the rewards of following those teachings. The reward that Jesus talked about was the kingdom of heaven. The reward Buddha talked about was the diminishment of suffering, and greater happiness in the life you are currently living. My question to you is wouldn't Christianity be better off if it focused on the benefits of living your life as was taught by Jesus in this life? Or does it? P.S. another similarity Jesus and Buddha shared from my understanding is that they both had to battle what I would describe as the ego. Jesus took on Satan, and Buddha took on Māra. Any thoughts on this? Interesting... Frankly,no I don't think Christianity would be better off following Buddhist teaching... Remember,Buddhism is essentially following the teachings of a man.It is therefore,inherently failed.The whole point of Christian teaching is to get through this life to get to the other one.Remember,The Bible teaches us that Satan is in control of this world.It deos us no good as Gods creations to settle for the "Devils Den" (Gettysburg reference)... Your PS does'nt fully grasp what happened to Jesus when Satan tempted Him.Your statment assumes that Satan is'nt a real entity...That's an incorrect assumption and The Bible is full of descriptions of the physical Satan.Perhaps Buddha,being the ultimate humanist,had to battle himself.But Jesus,being the physical embodiment of God on Earth had to battle the actual Satan,and overcome him,to actually defeat him... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Oleg Bach Posted October 1, 2011 Report Posted October 1, 2011 That's a huge lie - Christianity was about realizing that we are in heaven as we speak - that we are to be filled with endless joy and bliss..making this life span last an eternity - It is religion that spun this stupid story about..."you work for me like a slave and I will live like a god - and YOU will get your reward when you are dead" - that is the great lie - YOU get fuck all when you are dead. That is why they call it dead.............."on earth as it is in heaven" -simple. Truth. Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted October 1, 2011 Report Posted October 1, 2011 Your statment assumes that Satan is'nt a real entity...That's an incorrect assumption and The Bible is full of descriptions of the physical Satan.Perhaps Buddha,being the ultimate humanist,had to battle himself.But Jesus,being the physical embodiment of God on Earth had to battle the actual Satan,and overcome him,to actually defeat him... "In a way, all of us has an El Guapo to face. For some, shyness might be their El Guapo. For others, a lack of education might be their El Guapo. For us, El Guapo is a big, dangerous man who wants to kill us. But as sure as my name is Lucky Day, the people of Santa Poco can conquer their own personal El Guapo, who also happens to be *the actual* El Guapo!" Satan was his 'El Guapo'... Quote
CitizenX Posted October 1, 2011 Report Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) Frankly,no I don't think Christianity would be better off following Buddhist teaching... In no way did I mean to imply this. I was simply pointing out that the Philosophy of Jesus closely resembles the philosophy of Siddhārtha Gautama (Buddha). My point was how the reward for following these teachings were obtained. In the Buddhist Philosophy the reward is to be obtained in this life, And according to Jesus the reward is access to the Kingdom of heaven after this life. My question to you was does Christianity promote the benefits of living by the Philosophy of Jesus in this life time? And if not wouldn't it be better and more effective for creating better human beings on earth? Remember,Buddhism is essentially following the teachings of a man.It is therefore,inherently failed.The whole point of Christian teaching is to get through this life to get to the other one. It is true that Siddhārtha Gautama claimed to be nothing more than a regular man, and was not to be worshiped. But I don't think that this equates with any sort of failure. In fact it was/is an inspiration to regular human beings, that they too can find enlightenment by walking in his path. And 376 million followers is not a failure. Remember,The Bible teaches us that Satan is in control of this world.It does us no good as Gods creations to settle for the "Devils Den" (Gettysburg reference)... For me this statement really equates to the human ego. "The Bible teaches us that Satan EGO is in control of this world." Your PS doesn't fully grasp what happened to Jesus when Satan tempted Him. I'm not an expert So I am open to your understanding of this meeting. Your statement assumes that Satan isn't a real entity...That's an incorrect assumption and The Bible is full of descriptions of the physical Satan.Perhaps Buddha,being the ultimate humanist,had to battle himself.But Jesus,being the physical embodiment of God on Earth had to battle the actual Satan,and overcome him,to actually defeat him... Again I'm not an expert on this, but I don't remember Jesus physically doing battle. He battled the temptations did he not? I just equate Satan with the embodiment of the Ego in each of us, and the Christian God with the embodiment of the Empathy and Altruism in each of us. Therefore both God and Satan live within us. But we can agree to disagree on this. Edited October 1, 2011 by CitizenX Quote "The rich people have their lobbyists and the poor people have their feet." The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato
Oleg Bach Posted October 1, 2011 Report Posted October 1, 2011 Nothing is more laden with hypocrisy than the phrase "God Bless" - this deferment of good will passed over to a second party is a gross ignorance of human duty -----------only people are capable of blessing other people...and those that utter God Bless are just plain cheap! Quote
punked Posted October 2, 2011 Report Posted October 2, 2011 Where is my boy Lukin to respond to the fact his lies were called out? Hmmmmm. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted October 2, 2011 Report Posted October 2, 2011 Where is my boy Lukin to respond to the fact his lies were called out? Hmmmmm. Lukin means well - I have not in my private interaction found him to be deceptive. I guess Lukin is taking care of buisness - in the real world - after all he is a very responsible family man - the guy is no kid.. He just wants to know who is a liar and who is not...kind of like an old Christian trying to embrace reality in a not so honest world....nothing wrong with going on a quest...only the most brave dare to enter the realm of reality - of truth. Quote
lukin Posted October 2, 2011 Report Posted October 2, 2011 Yah but that is a lie you see. They actually lived in something called co-op housing where some who can afford will pay a higher price then market value and some who has pay less will pay less then can pay less and still live in a mixed income neighborhood. They actually paid more then market value so those who earn less could pay less. The lie you spread was a rumor started by Tom Jakobek a political enemy and bought into by people who hate facts. Check it out, maybe next time you wont listen to the lies of a blog. OR maybe you knew the truth and chose to lie because you are a lair. I have no idea what you are trying to say, as your English is terrible. Read your above quote and see if it makes sense. So Layton and Chow took a housing spot that could have been used by someone needy? The hypocrisy of it all. Quote
punked Posted October 2, 2011 Report Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) I have no idea what you are trying to say, as your English is terrible. Read your above quote and see if it makes sense. So Layton and Chow took a housing spot that could have been used by someone needy? The hypocrisy of it all. No they didn't. They joined a housing Co-Op and Paid more then they would have otherwise so someone needy could live in decent housing. You clearly have no idea what a housing Co-Op is, which is why you look so mis-informed a dumb. Let me spell it out for you, they paid an Extra 350 dollars a month above what THEIR housing was worth to subsidize Housing in the same Co-Op for others who could not afford Toronto Prices. Make enough sense for you now? You want to keep spreading this lie that was debunked in 1990 because you are so out of touch with reality that your opinions clearly mean nothing thought right? Seriously! Edited October 2, 2011 by punked Quote
Oleg Bach Posted October 2, 2011 Report Posted October 2, 2011 All socialist leaders want to live in luxury - it`s about money - and more of it for them..They are no different than anyone else. Socialism is not a spiritual movement - it is a material one - the post man that delivers mail in Forest Hill dreams of ousting the rich and living in their house - but sad to say in a year the place would turn to shit. Quote
lukin Posted October 2, 2011 Report Posted October 2, 2011 No they didn't. They joined a housing Co-Op and Paid more then they would have otherwise so someone needy could live in decent housing. You clearly have no idea what a housing Co-Op is, which is why you look so mis-informed a dumb. Let me spell it out for you, they paid an Extra 350 dollars a month above what THEIR housing was worth to subsidize Housing in the same Co-Op for others who could not afford Toronto Prices. Make enough sense for you now? You want to keep spreading this lie that was debunked in 1990 because you are so out of touch with reality that your opinions clearly mean nothing thought right? Seriously! Wow, socialists sure do get crusty when they play defense. Quote
punked Posted October 2, 2011 Report Posted October 2, 2011 Wow, socialists sure do get crusty when they play defense. This isn't a game. You are out spreading blatant lies and stick to it even when it is pointed out to be a lie. So now you are a liar and I will be sure to bring that up every time we speak. Unless you want to retract your lie. So here is my question do you stick by your false lie about Mr. Layton living in Co-Op housing and paying more then market rate for it? Please repeat it for all to see even after you have been informed other wise. Quote
lukin Posted October 2, 2011 Report Posted October 2, 2011 This isn't a game. You are out spreading blatant lies and stick to it even when it is pointed out to be a lie. So now you are a liar and I will be sure to bring that up every time we speak. Unless you want to retract your lie. So here is my question do you stick by your false lie about Mr. Layton living in Co-Op housing and paying more then market rate for it? Please repeat it for all to see even after you have been informed other wise. Layton and Chow racked had the very high expense accounts as MPs. Typical left-wing socialists, who find it easy to spend other people's cash. The hypocrisy never ends with the NDP. Quote
jacee Posted October 2, 2011 Report Posted October 2, 2011 This isn't a game. You are out spreading blatant lies and stick to it even when it is pointed out to be a lie. So now you are a liar and I will be sure to bring that up every time we speak. Unless you want to retract your lie. So here is my question do you stick by your false lie about Mr. Layton living in Co-Op housing and paying more then market rate for it? Please repeat it for all to see even after you have been informed other wise. Man I can't believe people still don't get that! The concept is simple: People who can pay market rate (for non-profit housing) do so and that helps subsidize (eg) disabled people in the same building/complex who cannot afford market rates. The man is dead! Can people put this to rest please! Quote
punked Posted October 2, 2011 Report Posted October 2, 2011 Layton and Chow racked had the very high expense accounts as MPs. Typical left-wing socialists, who find it easy to spend other people's cash. The hypocrisy never ends with the NDP. NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. We are speaking of your lie about Layton and Co-op housing. Quote
jacee Posted October 2, 2011 Report Posted October 2, 2011 My hypocrisy beef is with people who dis public housing for the poor and disabled without understanding even elementary fact about how it works and has for the past 30 years. In the 60's we built many huge public housing complexes for the (baby boom) poor and disabled. It was a mistake and they turned into crime and vermin infested horrors where nobody, esp kids, could live safely. They were money pits consuming mega taxpayer dollars. The new concept, in place for several decades now, is mixed housing with some market-rate units and some subsidized. The higher market-rate income helps pay for the subsidies. Smart concept, provides safer housing for kids and consumes less taxpayer dollars. So let's not be dissing anyone, including Jack and Olivia, who live in 'public housing' and pay market rent. They are saving you tax dollars. Quote
lukin Posted October 3, 2011 Report Posted October 3, 2011 NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. We are speaking of your lie about Layton and Co-op housing. Facts are facts punked. You are wrong again. Give it a rest already. Quote
capricorn Posted October 3, 2011 Report Posted October 3, 2011 The man is dead! Not dead enough. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Jack Weber Posted October 3, 2011 Report Posted October 3, 2011 Not dead enough. Stop talkin' about Elvis that way!!!! Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.