Page 48 of 48

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 3:07 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote:my points remain consistent. WW2 was not about values, Japanese camps were not about values, they were about necessity.

I guess you'll say you were being sarcastic again. :roflmao:


I already said that. What does the word YEAH mean in the context I used it?? It means sarcasm, stupid dummy. Don't you even have one shred of common sense??

The Cat wrote:Tell me how democracies fighting Nazism weren't about basic social values?


They didn't even know the true horrors of Nazism until after the war. Churchill made a strategic plea to Roosevelt. Many Americans didn't even want to get involved. Do your homework.

The Cat wrote:
And why do the Japanese camps were really that much about necessity?


First you doubt whether I was being sarcastic when I mentioned values and the camps, now you ask me about necessity. So now, you must have realized that I WAS being sarcastic. It's a war time decision. What else need be said??

The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote:up to proposing an ego witch-hunt, while I justly pointed out that:
''You'll keep idolizing de Mello and dream on about a mystic Heaven in which a false-self must be
obliterated to 'reach' some true-self. A mystic witch-hunt unto holy conformity! Allah Akbar...''

That stuff is simply way over your head. I'm not even going to get into it with you, which is why I stopped replying. You can't even handle tangible subjects, let alone completely abstract ones.

Tangible subject is your answering a previous -Yes- contradicting what you've said later about Ajah Chah.


I don't even remember saying anything about Ajah Chah and I don't even care if i did. As I said, if you can't even handle tangible topics, how am I supposed to think you can handle abstract philosophical and mystical concepts? That conversation was clearly pointless which is why I left it. I'm not discussing something at that level with a lunatic.


The Cat wrote:
Tangible subject is finally getting my introduction just to state that then it was me who got back to the topic.


Whatever.


The Cat wrote:
Tangible subject is that your bordering idolatry towards De Mello is the exact contrary to anything spiritual.
viewtopic.php?p=117697#p117697


How much do you know about DeMello or Krishnamurti? You never even read one of their books. Read "Awareness" and "The Cloud of Unknowing" and then come back and talk to me. Sophist :lol: Actually, don't even bother because your attitude would be so polluted that you would never grasp their message.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:24 pm
by The Cat
MbL wrote:What does the word YEAH mean in the context I used it?? It means sarcasm, stupid dummy.

Answered: viewtopic.php?p=127885#p127885

The context where you used it was to hit at the American liberal values, relating them to the Japanese camps.

Liberals and liberalism were the values you were attacking, mentioning Roosevelt's attitude and the Japanese camps.
That's were you came up with: ''We fought World War II over American values?? What frickin planet are you from?
Where do you get these stupid ideas from? Yeah, let's restore the values of sticking American Japanese in camps.''


Obviously, you weren't being sarcastic, liar.

MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote:Tell me how democracies fighting Nazism weren't about basic social values?

They didn't even know the true horrors of Nazism until after the war.

They didn't know where Nazism was leading to? Their racism and hatred for the Jews?

Winston Churchill, 1 October 1939:
''You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength
that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of
human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs,
victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
''

Tell me again how democracies fighting Nazism weren't about basic societal values (for eluding isn't answering)?

MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote:And why do the Japanese camps were really that much about necessity?

First you doubt whether I was being sarcastic when I mentioned values and the camps, now you ask me about necessity. So now, you must have realized that I WAS being sarcastic. It's a war time decision. What else need be said??

The sarcasm is you not answering the question, then stealing MY line of arguments about Pearl Harbor and the American awe.

But was it truly a necessity, to intern them, as YOU uphold?

MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote:Tangible subject is your answering a previous -Yes- contradicting what you've said later about Ajah Chah.

I don't even remember saying anything about Ajah Chah and I don't even care if i did. As I said, if you can't even handle tangible topics

Incredible how you always end up contradicting yourself (as if Ajah Chah wasn't a tangible topic, wherein you've... contradicted yourself)!

MbL wrote: How much do you know about DeMello or Krishnamurti? You never even read one of their books. Read "Awareness" and "The Cloud of Unknowing" and then come back and talk to me... Actually, don't even bother because your attitude would be so polluted that you would never grasp their message.

What a guru you'd make...

All this because, skipping my intro, you late realized that I was talking about pseudo-mystics
viewtopic.php?p=117254#p117254
viewtopic.php?p=117382#p117382

viewtopic.php?p=117697#p117697
If you take him, de Mello or Buddha as models then you are still staring at their fingers and not experimenting what they described. They
act as a screen between you and reality, a hindrance turning enlightenment into a distant ideal. It's because you're into semantic mazes
-like an illusory ego compared to a 'true-self'- that you haven't ever lived mysticism one bit. I've talked about integration of the different
selves, being amphibious, while your distinction of the ego is segregationist. Your very clinging to de Mello or Buddha is bordering idolatry.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:48 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote:
The context where you used it was to hit at the American liberal values, relating them to the Japanese camps.

Liberals and liberalism were the values you were attacking, mentioning Roosevelt's attitude and the Japanese camps.
That's were you came up with: ''We fought World War II over American values?? What frickin planet are you from?
Where do you get these stupid ideas from? Yeah, let's restore the values of sticking American Japanese in camps.''


Obviously, you weren't being sarcastic, liar.


Quote it, don't just give a link and then misinterpret what was said in the link. Whenever you are asked to be specific, your story always falls apart.

The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote:Tell me how democracies fighting Nazism weren't about basic social values?

They didn't even know the true horrors of Nazism until after the war.

They didn't know where Nazism was leading to? Their racism and hatred for the Jews?


No, they did not have any idea of the full extent of the horror being done to the Jews.


The Cat wrote:Winston Churchill, 1 October 1939:
''You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength
that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of
human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs,
victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
''


That would be said about anybody who attacked England. Nice try.

The Cat wrote:Tell me again how democracies fighting Nazism weren't about basic societal values (for eluding isn't answering)?


They didn't fight Nazism before Germany went on the attack. In fact, Chamberlain made a peace agreement with Hitler. They didn't fight Nazism or else they would have fought it from the beginning. They fought Germany because Germany was trying to conquer them. So again, it comes right back down to necessity rather than values. Again, you are wrong. How many times can you continue to be wrong?


The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote:And why do the Japanese camps were really that much about necessity?

First you doubt whether I was being sarcastic when I mentioned values and the camps, now you ask me about necessity. So now, you must have realized that I WAS being sarcastic. It's a war time decision. What else need be said??

The sarcasm is you not answering the question, then stealing MY line of arguments about Pearl Harbor and the American awe.


I didn't steal anything you nut job. First you accuse me of making up Shakir translations, then you accuse me of Stealing Arnold's arguments. I AM ARNOLD you simple retard. Then you accuse me of stealing from your arguments. Why in God's name would I ever want to do that?? You're the last person I would ever steal arguments from if I ever even stole arguments. Why would I steal arguments from a confused, desperate lunatic??

The Cat wrote:But was it truly a necessity, to intern them, as YOU uphold?


WTF are you talking about?????? :crazy:

The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote:Tangible subject is your answering a previous -Yes- contradicting what you've said later about Ajah Chah.

I don't even remember saying anything about Ajah Chah and I don't even care if i did. As I said, if you can't even handle tangible topics

Incredible how you always end up contradicting yourself (as if Ajah Chah wasn't a tangible topic, wherein you've... contradicted yourself)!


I didn't say whether that particular part was tangible or untangible, i said I don't even remember commenting on that at all. Again, what is the matter with you?

The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote: How much do you know about DeMello or Krishnamurti? You never even read one of their books. Read "Awareness" and "The Cloud of Unknowing" and then come back and talk to me... Actually, don't even bother because your attitude would be so polluted that you would never grasp their message.

What a guru you'd make...


I told you this before. You falsely claimed that I claimed to be a guru and I said I never did nor would I ever. When challenged to quote where I did, you fell silent. Quit making empty points that you can't back up. This is getting disgusting.

The Cat wrote:All this because, skipping my intro, you late realized that I was talking about pseudo-mystics
viewtopic.php?p=117254#p117254
viewtopic.php?p=117382#p117382


I don't care what you think about mystics because I have no respect for your opinion on the matter. Why do you think I eventually stopped commenting on what was merely your opinion??

The Cat wrote:viewtopic.php?p=117697#p117697
If you take him, de Mello or Buddha as models then you are still staring at their fingers and not experimenting what they described.


I don't take them as models. You have not read DeMello. In fact, he explicitly tells you not to take him as such.
""You are only a disciple because your eyes are closed. The day you open them you will see there is nothing you can learn from me or anyone."
"What then is a Master for?"
"To make you see the uselessness of having one."

Why don't you first try to understand what you are commenting about.

The Cat wrote: They act as a screen between you and reality,


:crazy: :lol: :tease: :lotpot:

The Cat wrote:
a hindrance turning enlightenment into a distant ideal. It's because you're into semantic mazes


Is that what your doctor told you??


The Cat wrote:
-like an illusory ego compared to a 'true-self'- that you haven't ever lived mysticism one bit. I've talked about integration of the different
selves, being amphibious, while your distinction of the ego is segregationist. Your very clinging to de Mello or Buddha is bordering idolatry.


Oh, so people are supposed to cling to what YOU say instead??? :lol: Nutjob.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:01 am
by The Cat
MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote:The context where you used it was to hit at the American liberal values, relating them to the Japanese camps.

Liberals and liberalism were the values you were attacking, mentioning Roosevelt's attitude and the Japanese camps.
That's were you came up with: ''We fought World War II over American values?? What frickin planet are you from?
Where do you get these stupid ideas from? Yeah, let's restore the values of sticking American Japanese in camps.''

Obviously, you weren't being sarcastic, liar.

Quote it, don't just give a link and then misinterpret what was said in the link.

Anything to elude your wrongs, deceiver. I did quote it right. It's there for all to see...
viewtopic.php?p=54774#p54774
viewtopic.php?p=56010#p56010

MbL wrote:--they did not have any idea of the full extent of the horror being done to the Jews.
--That would be said about anybody who attacked England. Nice try.
--They fought Germany because Germany was trying to conquer them. So again, it comes right back down to necessity rather than values.

--You mean that nobody knew about what happened to the Jews in Warsaw and Krakow?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ghe ... ied_Poland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krak%C3%B3w_Ghetto

--Democracies are much slower to launch war than dictators. They do have very active oppositions at all levels, thank God!
To Chamberlain, Churchill replied:
''Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war.'' (7 nov.1938).

--Only if the necessity is to defend democratic, liberal, values as the people living in the free world.

16 October 1938...
''People say we ought not to allow ourselves to be drawn into a theoretical antagonism between Nazidom and democracy; but the antagonism
is here now. It is this very conflict of spiritual and moral ideas which gives the free countries a great part of their strength. You see these
dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police....

They are afraid of words and thoughts; words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home — all the more powerful because forbidden — terrify them.''


That's the values they were fighting for. :clap: :hi:

MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote:But was it truly a necessity, to intern them, as YOU uphold?

WTF are you talking about???

You wrote: ''we fought World War 2 over necessity, not values....I was dismissing the entire idea of values being part of any of it.''

So was there such a necessity to intern American Japanese?

MbL wrote:I didn't steal anything you nut job. First you accuse me of making up Shakir translations, then you accuse me of Stealing Arnold's arguments. I AM ARNOLD you simple retard. Then you accuse me of stealing from your arguments.

--You did use a spurious translation, without references, then quit away...
--Now, you're Arnold just to safe your face. You still skipped the proper references yet again.
--And yes, you have stolen my arguments about America having reasons to be stiff ever since Pearl Harbor and Fascism.

MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote: Incredible how you always end up contradicting yourself (as if Ajah Chah wasn't a tangible topic, wherein you've... contradicted yourself)!

I didn't say whether that particular part was tangible or untangible, i said I don't even remember commenting on that at all.

So who's unable to deal with tangible subjects?

MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote:All this because, skipping my intro, you late realized that I was talking about pseudo-mystics

I don't care what you think about mystics because I have no respect for your opinion on the matter.

What an excuse for skipping away my intro and then make up your wrongly premised arguments!

MbL wrote:I don't take them as models. You have not read DeMello. In fact, he explicitly tells you not to take him as such.

You can't stop quoting him instead of producing your own thoughts about spirituality: It says create. You imitate.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:16 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote:Obviously, you weren't being sarcastic, liar.
Quote it, don't just give a link and then misinterpret what was said in the link.

Anything to elude your wrongs, deceiver. I did quote it right. It's there for all to see...
viewtopic.php?p=54774#p54774
viewtopic.php?p=56010#p56010


You keep quoting the link. Quote the part of the link you are talking about on the post where you are bringing it back up again (i.e. your post that I am currently responding to). I always try to, so why can't you?

The Cat wrote:--they did not have any idea of the full extent of the horror being done to the Jews.
--That would be said about anybody who attacked England. Nice try.
--They fought Germany because Germany was trying to conquer them. So again, it comes right back down to necessity rather than values.
--You mean that nobody knew about what happened to the Jews in Warsaw and Krakow?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ghe ... ied_Poland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krak%C3%B3w_Ghetto


Yeah, and England made a peace treaty with them rather than try to correct these situations. Also, when I said they didn't know about the horrors, i was talking about the horrors that were actually going on in the concentration camps.

The Cat wrote:--Democracies are much slower to launch war than dictators. They do have very active oppositions at all levels, thank God!


Britain did not fight until they were given the edict to let Germany rule them and Germany won't attack them or else they would declare war on them.

The Cat wrote:To Chamberlain, Churchill replied:
''Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war.'' (7 nov.1938).


Well, Chamberlain obviously did not agree, and it could be said that neither did the British people. You keep grasping at straws.

The Cat wrote:--Only if the necessity is to defend democratic, liberal, values as the people living in the free world.


How about the simple necessity of not being ruled by someone else?? Britain made it's decision to appease Hitler, until he turned his sights on them. So much for fighting for values. Where was Britain after Poland fell?? Why didn't they immediately act to liberate Poland??

The Cat wrote:16 October 1938...
''People say we ought not to allow ourselves to be drawn into a theoretical antagonism between Nazidom and democracy; but the antagonism
is here now. It is this very conflict of spiritual and moral ideas which gives the free countries a great part of their strength. You see these
dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police....

They are afraid of words and thoughts; words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home — all the more powerful because forbidden — terrify them.''


That's the values they were fighting for. :clap: :hi:


Who said that?? Chamberlain?? The British people???

The Cat wrote:But was it truly a necessity, to intern them, as YOU uphold?
WTF are you talking about???


The majority of Americans obviously found it a necessity as evidenced by the lack of any significant complaints.

The Cat wrote:You wrote: ''we fought World War 2 over necessity, not values....I was dismissing the entire idea of values being part of any of it.''

So was there such a necessity to intern American Japanese?


The majority of Americans obviously found it a necessity as evidenced by the lack of any significant complaints.

The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote:I didn't steal anything you nut job. First you accuse me of making up Shakir translations, then you accuse me of Stealing Arnold's arguments. I AM ARNOLD you simple retard. Then you accuse me of stealing from your arguments.

--You did use a spurious translation, without references, then quit away...


You accused me of making it up, and now, you're not going to admit that. So who's really the dishonest one??

The Cat wrote:--Now, you're Arnold just to safe your face. You still skipped the proper references yet again.


I am Arnold you retard and that was all my own words on 2007 and they were all my own words recently. Why do you think they are so similar and yet not the same? I was writing off the cuff, as I always do, in both cases. So here's yet another instance where you refuse to acknowledge your mistake. Who's honest?? Who is dishonest??

The Cat wrote:--And yes, you have stolen my arguments about America having reasons to be stiff ever since Pearl Harbor and Fascism.


Just quote what you are talking about. Don't link it, quote the specifics and put it together and let's take a look. Every time I ask you to be specific, your story falls apart and you count on people not asking for specifics because you know this. I'm not the only one who observes this about you. It makes me wonder why you keep attempting it. We already have that ploy figured out about you.

The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote:I didn't say whether that particular part was tangible or untangible, i said I don't even remember commenting on that at all.

So who's unable to deal with tangible subjects?


I just didn't bother to go back and look. I'm sick of it. If you want to make a point, then quote the specifics from the links, not just the link.

The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote:All this because, skipping my intro, you late realized that I was talking about pseudo-mystics

I don't care what you think about mystics because I have no respect for your opinion on the matter.

What an excuse for skipping away my intro and then make up your wrongly premised arguments!


It wasn't part of our argument. Show me where you specifically made it a part. I'm patient with evasive vagueness and other ploys. I'll stick with it and keep asking you to be specific

The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote:I don't take them as models. You have not read DeMello. In fact, he explicitly tells you not to take him as such.

You can't stop quoting him instead of producing your own thoughts about spirituality: It says create. You imitate.


Quoting someone is not imitating them. Otherwise, you could be accused of imitating Churchill, right?? RIGHT??? And I only quoted him to explain why I do not idolize him as he even explicitly says one should not. You see, he had integrity like that, whereas you do not.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:02 am
by The Cat
MbL wrote:You keep quoting the link. Quote the part of the link you are talking about

What is it that you don't understand in your own sentence?
''We fought World War II over American values?? (...) Yeah, let's restore the values of sticking American Japanese in camps.''

Yes we did fight WWII over the American values of liberalism, those of the Free World, against tyranny.
But these values certainly weren't part of the American Japanese in camps, as you so wrongly mixed...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Your constant eluding is dishonest, for you are shown a deceiver. Every one can see that. Try again...
viewtopic.php?p=54774#p54774
viewtopic.php?p=56010#p56010

MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote:You wrote: ''we fought World War 2 over necessity, not values....I was dismissing the entire idea of values being part of any of it.''

So was there such a necessity to intern American Japanese?

The majority of Americans obviously found it a necessity as evidenced by the lack of any significant complaints.

Where was the necessity to intern 120,000 American Japanese, including infants, elders and mentally ill persons?

MbL wrote:How about the simple necessity of not being ruled by someone else?? Britain made it's decision to appease Hitler, until he turned his sights on them. So much for fighting for values. Where was Britain after Poland fell?? Why didn't they immediately act to liberate Poland??

The invasion of Poland was on the 1st of september. France and Britain declared war on Germany on the 3rd. But they simply weren't able
to provide much aid, Russia attacking Poland the 17. Then Belgium, Holland and France were fast conquered, leaving England in isolation.

MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote:16 October 1938...
''People say we ought not to allow ourselves to be drawn into a theoretical antagonism between Nazidom and democracy; but the
antagonism is here now.
It is this very conflict of spiritual and moral ideas which gives the free countries a great part of their
strength. You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their
police.... They are afraid of words and thoughts; words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home — all the more powerful because
forbidden — terrify them.
''

That's the values they were fighting for. :clap: :hi:

Who said that?? Chamberlain?? The British people???

Churchill. But the war declaration was signed by Chamberlain (3/9/39). Winston replaced him soon after (10/5/40).

MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote:--You did use a spurious translation, without references, then quit away...
--Now, you're Arnold just to safe your face. You still skipped the proper references yet again.
--And yes, you have stolen my arguments about America having reasons to be stiff ever since Pearl Harbor and Fascism.

--You accused me of making it up, and now, you're not going to admit that. So who's really the dishonest one??
--I am Arnold you retard and that was all my own words on 2007
--Just quote what you are talking about. Don't link it, quote the specifics

--You. Using a spurious translation without proper references and leaving the thread away when challenged.
--Now you're Arnold, a very bold assertion no one can check. You didn't say so in due time.
--See the specific links above and stop your tap dance.

MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote: So who's unable to deal with tangible subjects?

I just didn't bother to go back and look. I'm sick of it.

Thanks for admitting you're unable to deal with tangible subjects out of laziness.
With such an attitude you're in fact admitting yourself unfit to any serious debate.

MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote: What an excuse for skipping away my intro and then make up your wrongly premised arguments!

It wasn't part of our argument. Show me where you specifically made it a part.

It wasn't part of our argument? You're an insult to the proper way of debating!
See the intro, just a page back. Work out your brain, it'll do you much good.
viewtopic.php?p=117382#p117382

A little later, you've contradicted yourself AGAIN (same link)
--I don't see any enlightenment in the Ajah Chah sentence you posted and I never said I did.
--Oh, so now you're only talking about the bad mystics, not mystics in general. I see.


To which I've answered: Never?
viewtopic.php?p=117323#p117323
The Cat: Now I ask, is this enlightenment? --MbL: YES.....

--What was I arguing for from the first? But the article was brought to pinpoint how a fundamentalist mystic approach is contradicted
by its own segregation towards the ego. You failed to understand and got confused all over and back again. How enlightening!


MbL wrote: Quoting someone is not imitating them. Otherwise, you could be accused of imitating Churchill, right?? RIGHT??? And I only quoted him to explain why I do not idolize him as he even explicitly says one should not. You see, he had integrity like that, whereas you do not.

Integrity? That's a word very close to integral, integralism. As such any fundamentalist have much integrity.
The world is loaded with people, with much integrity, ready to trash you away if not adhering to their creed.

Now you constantly quote him, much like Muslims reciting the Koran even when they don't even speak Arabic!
You never formulated anything on spirituality of your own, just repeating De Mello. This I call imitating...

To get out of this you relate that to... my Churchill quotes. How spiritual! What a pitiful fellow you truly are.

Get a life, love someone. I don't know... walk a dog, feed a cat... they know better than De Mello.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 4:09 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote:You keep quoting the link. Quote the part of the link you are talking about

What is it that you don't understand in your own sentence?
''We fought World War II over American values?? (...) Yeah, let's restore the values of sticking American Japanese in camps.''


Thank you for quoting the specific part you are talking about.

The Cat wrote:Yes we did fight WWII over the American values of liberalism, those of the Free World, against tyranny.
But these values certainly weren't part of the American Japanese in camps, as you so wrongly mixed...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism


That's why I made the sarcastic comment about American values and the Japanese camps. Do you get it now, finally??

The Cat wrote:Your constant eluding is dishonest,


It's not my eluding, it's your mentally imbalanced, cross eyed misunderstanding.

The Cat wrote: for you are shown a deceiver. Every one can see that. Try again...
viewtopic.php?p=54774#p54774
viewtopic.php?p=56010#p56010


I told you before, if you want an answer, quote the specific part of the link you are talking about.

The Cat wrote:You wrote: ''we fought World War 2 over necessity, not values


Correct

The Cat wrote:....I was dismissing the entire idea of values being part of any of it.''


And then later you say it was about values.
:crazy: You really are a lunatic aren't you. SNB was right about you.

The Cat wrote:Where was the necessity to intern 120,000 American Japanese, including infants, elders and mentally ill persons?


Ask the people who decided it was necessary.

The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote:How about the simple necessity of not being ruled by someone else?? Britain made it's decision to appease Hitler, until he turned his sights on them. So much for fighting for values. Where was Britain after Poland fell?? Why didn't they immediately act to liberate Poland??

The invasion of Poland was on the 1st of september. France and Britain declared war on Germany on the 3rd. But they simply weren't able
to provide much aid, Russia attacking Poland the 17. Then Belgium, Holland and France were fast conquered, leaving England in isolation.


And that's when England finally decided to actually fight. A declaration of war is completely hollow without an attack.

The Cat wrote:
MBL wrote:Who said that?? Chamberlain?? The British people???

Churchill. But the war declaration was signed by Chamberlain (3/9/39). Winston replaced him soon after (10/5/40).


And Chamberlain nor Britain ever attacked until they had to. Their posture was completely self defensive out of necessity.

The Cat wrote:--You did use a spurious translation, without references, then quit away...
--Now, you're Arnold just to safe your face. You still skipped the proper references yet again.


Didn't you get the joke the first time when i said Arnold is a really smart person?? My God, what an absolute idiot you are. Still waiting for that apology for you accusing me of lying and making up my own translation, but we both know, you're not capable of that. Your bitter pride prevents you. That's why I'm hard on you. I can smell the bitter, arrogant pride in you, and quite frankly, I don't see the justification for your puffed up self opinion.

The Cat wrote:--And yes, you have stolen my arguments about America having reasons to be stiff ever since Pearl Harbor and Fascism.


Again, why would I steal anything from a mental patient such as yourself??

The Cat wrote:
Mbl wrote:--You accused me of making it up, and now, you're not going to admit that. So who's really the dishonest one??


Well....where's the answer??? Why did you re-quote this without answering it?

The Cat wrote:
Mbl wrote:--I am Arnold you retard and that was all my own words on 2007


Why would you re-quote something that references a stupid, false accusation you made? Again, what is the matter with your head?

The Cat wrote:
Mbl wrote:
--Just quote what you are talking about. Don't link it, quote the specifics


Why did you re-quote this?? What kind of an idiot are you?

The Cat wrote:--You. Using a spurious translation without proper references and leaving the thread away when challenged.


I haven't left anything, and you falsely accused me of being a liar and stealing another posters points who is actually me, and you refuse to apologize. You can't stand being wrong, can you. Momma never taught you how to admit when you are wrong. Oh well, that's your crutch, not mine.

The Cat wrote:--Now you're Arnold, a very bold assertion no one can check.


Oh please, it's pretty obvious. My style of writing is very clear and distinctive. It's not my fault that you're such a moron. And to think that you went as far back as 2007 in your anger and desperation is simply mind boggling. That's pathetic.

The Cat wrote: You didn't say so in due time.


You didn't get the sarcastic joke in my immediate response when I said how much i admire Arnold and then gave a big smile. I thought that surely you would have pieced it together, but you're even more oblivious than I previously imagined. Now you want to blame ME for YOUR idiocy?? This just keeps getting worse and worse.

The Cat wrote:--See the specific links above and stop your tap dance.


I told you before, I'm not answering anything unless you get off your lazy arss and quote the specific part of the link you would like me to answer. If you want an answer then YOU do the work. I'm not doing it. Do you think I'm as stupid as you are?

The Cat wrote:
I just didn't bother to go back and look. I'm sick of it.

Thanks for admitting you're unable to deal with tangible subjects out of laziness.


If you want an answer, then YOU do the work. You're too lazy to quote the actual specific part of the link you are talking about. Have you noticed yet that I never just link an entire post but rather re-quote a specific part of it?? What part don't you understand?

The Cat wrote:With such an attitude you're in fact admitting yourself unfit to any serious debate.


You're the one with the bad attitude that is too lazy to quote the specific part of the link you are talking about. If you want an answer, then do the work. Don't ask me to do it for you. You are the one that doesn't understand how to properly debate. When you just quote a link, I have to interrupt my response as I am typing it and launch another window and then search the entire post to see what you could possibly be talking about. That ain't gunna happen anymore. Momma didn't raise no fool;.

The Cat wrote:
It wasn't part of our argument. Show me where you specifically made it a part.

It wasn't part of our argument? You're an insult to the proper way of debating!


I respond to a specific post you made and you respond to my response. That's how it works. There's no hard coded rule that says I have to respond to the first post of a topic.


The Cat wrote:See the intro, just a page back. Work out your brain, it'll do you much good.
viewtopic.php?p=117382#p117382


See above.


The Cat wrote:A little later, you've contradicted yourself AGAIN (same link)
--I don't see any enlightenment in the Ajah Chah sentence you posted and I never said I did.
--Oh, so now you're only talking about the bad mystics, not mystics in general. I see.


I meant exactly what I said nutjob. What is honestly so hard for you to understand?

The Cat wrote:To which I've answered: Never?
viewtopic.php?p=117323#p117323
The Cat: Now I ask, is this enlightenment? --MbL: YES.....


You didn't quote the specific part. I've already told you about that many times. Quote the specific part and I'll answer it.

The Cat wrote:--What was I arguing for from the first? But the article was brought to pinpoint how a fundamentalist mystic approach is contradicted
by its own segregation towards the ego. You failed to understand and got confused all over and back again. How enlightening!


And I told you that I disagree and I told you why.

The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote: Quoting someone is not imitating them. Otherwise, you could be accused of imitating Churchill, right?? RIGHT??? And I only quoted him to explain why I do not idolize him as he even explicitly says one should not. You see, he had integrity like that, whereas you do not.

Integrity? That's a word very close to integral, integralism.


Yeah, so what??

The Cat wrote: As such any fundamentalist have much integrity.


Well then that would be one of their positive traits, right? At least they're honest and consistent.

The Cat wrote:
The world is loaded with people, with much integrity, ready to trash you away if not adhering to their creed.


If they are consistent rather than self contradictory, then they have integrity, regardless of what negative things their integrity can cause. Honestly, what is so difficult for you to understand? I knew you were loony, but i didn't think you were stupid on top of that.

The Cat wrote:
Now you constantly quote him, much like Muslims reciting the Koran even when they don't even speak Arabic!


He spends his time quoting other mystics and even says he's not saying anything that mystics haven't been screaming for thousands of years. He just has a talent for putting abstract ideas into as tangible of a fashion as possible. So it's good to quote him, rather than confusing things with my lesser abilities of explanation.

The Cat wrote:You never formulated anything on spirituality of your own, just repeating De Mello. This I call imitating...


If you actually read "awareness", you would see that this is not the case, but don't even bother because your mind is too polluted to grasp it. After discussing things with you, I couldn't be more certain that you would misunderstand it.

The Cat wrote:To get out of this you relate that to... my Churchill quotes. How spiritual! What a pitiful fellow you truly are.


You accused me of quoting others and yet everybody quotes others. Quit grasping at stupid straws trying to find a problem any way that you can.

The Cat wrote:Get a life, love someone. I don't know... walk a dog, feed a cat... they know better than De Mello.


Actually, I did home hospice care for my dad before he died, I volunteer at a homeless shelter, and I help elders through the "meals on wheels" program, but I don't arrogantly pat myself on the back and think I'm such a great person for doing so like you probably would. What do YOU do? What a lousy hypocrite you are.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:48 pm
by The Cat
MbL wrote: Thank you for quoting the specific part you are talking about.

That's how lunatic you truly are for I did quote it time again, even underlying it...
viewtopic.php?p=163351#p163351
viewtopic.php?p=163326#p163326

While you kept asking for the specific part.... :tease: :lotpot:

As for the rest of your 'answers' they follow the same lunatic mind. I may answer still if and when
you learn to quote properly instead of spreading my answers to better fit your sophistry. Out of 8
items, you came out with 32 answers! And answering the first was enough to prove your silliness.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 1:27 am
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote: Thank you for quoting the specific part you are talking about.

That's how lunatic you truly are for I did quote it time again, even underlying it...
viewtopic.php?p=163351#p163351
viewtopic.php?p=163326#p163326

While you kept asking for the specific part.... :tease: :lotpot:

As for the rest of your 'answers' they follow the same lunatic mind. I may answer still if and when
you learn to quote properly instead of spreading my answers to better fit your sophistry. Out of 8
items, you came out with 32 answers! And answering the first was enough to prove your silliness.


Don't even bother. Anybody can see what's going on. It's not even fun beating you anymore.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:37 am
by The Cat
MbL wrote: Don't even bother. Anybody can see what's going on.

Yeah, Anyone can see that... you don't publish decent answers, spreading them out of context into a ton of smokescreen sophistry.

About a year ago you've published a photoshoped picture of AB's kid implying pedophilia and AB went, quite rightly, mad.
Then he was imposed a one week ban and really never came back at FFI. Now that was mean and I don't think that anyone
with a sense of moral would have done so. The thread is now in the Garbage and so are you in my mind.

Herein, you kept on digging your hole...
--You used a spurious translation of Shakir without proper references then left the thread when challenged.

--Being Arnold is a very bold assertion no one can check. Prove it, I ain't no diviner...

--Keeping on asking 'specific quotes' just to elude proper answers when the fact is that you've related the Japanese camps to the
American values. The context where you used it was to hit at the American liberal values, relating them to the Japanese camps.

That's were you came up with: ''We fought World War II over American values?? What frickin planet are you from?
Where do you get these stupid ideas from? Yeah, let's restore the values of sticking American Japanese in camps.
''

Obviously, you weren't being sarcastic, liar. And you've waited... 19 months for that!
viewtopic.php?p=111636#p111636

And I gave the links for everyone to properly check...
5 months later: viewtopic.php?p=127885#p127885
14 months later: viewtopic.php?p=163187#p163187

viewtopic.php?p=54445#p54445
The prosecution over tortures will rehabilitate and reinstate true American basic values... Those we, Democrats and Republicans, fought for in WWII.

That's where you got in with:
''We fought World War II over American values??... Yeah, let's restore the values of sticking American Japanese in camps.''

viewtopic.php?p=56010#p56010
I thought basic American values were freedom and liberty. Not MacDonald or Coca-cola. Again, Pearl Harbor was an open declaration of war
coming without warning or due procedures. America had reasons to be stiff. Btw, Michael Savage suggested we should so intern Muslims...

A post you didn't dare to answer and left away... as always when cornered.

As I've said you stole, 19 months later, my line of arguments... dishonest to the core, truly disgusting.

Same thing with that Ajah Chah thing
viewtopic.php?p=117254#p117254
I'll open a sub-topic on mysticism versus Free Will and choose this article to illustrate the hardcore stands of the mystic fundamentalists....
Now I ask, is this 'enlightenment'? (quoting about Ajahn Chah)

To which you've answered YES ! Misunderstanding that I was talking about mystic fundamentalists
viewtopic.php?p=117323#p117323

Later, you came to negate you never acknowledged this
viewtopic.php?p=117443#p117443
Where did I say that the sentence represented true enlightenment?? I don't think it did.

To which I've answered: Never? And referenced the blunder...
viewtopic.php?p=117697#p117697

That's when you came back, 5 months later, not on this yet still pinpointing your constant contradictions.

Such a contradiction you've been repeating right above...
viewtopic.php?p=163626#p163626
That's how lunatic you truly are for I did quote it time again, even underlying it.... While you kept asking for the specific part....:tease: :lotpot:


I know you can't face your own ugliness and so must resort to sophistry like asking for 'specific quotes', while it was already there!
Or to answer via multiplying exponentially my quotes, then out of context, to fit your sophist's goal.
Or else leaving a disputed thread blank and coming back many weeks/months later, like herein...

When one find himself in a hole... he should stop digging...
But you keep on, go figure... That's what everyone can see!

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:19 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote: Don't even bother. Anybody can see what's going on.

Yeah, Anyone can see that... you don't publish decent answers, spreading them out of context into a ton of smokescreen sophistry.

About a year ago you've published a photoshoped picture of AB's kid implying pedophilia and AB went, quite rightly, mad.
Then he was imposed a one week ban and really never came back at FFI. Now that was mean and I don't think that anyone
with a sense of moral would have done so. The thread is now in the Garbage and so are you in my mind.


Oh please, shut up, OK? I'm glad it's in the garbage. You're a lunatic.

The Cat wrote:Herein, you kept on digging your hole...
--You used a spurious translation of Shakir without proper references then left the thread when challenged.


After accusing me of fabricating them and not apologizing when you found out I didn't. If you want to talk, you can start by apologizing, but we both know that your arrogant, puffed up pride prevents you from being able to do that. I'm glad I spanked you the way I did. You deserve it and I'm not the only one in FFI that notices your lunacy and snottiness.

The Cat wrote:--Being Arnold is a very bold assertion no one can check. Prove it, I ain't no diviner...


Why don't you go back and read a lot of his posts. ALL of those points about many topics have been repeated by me under my new username. What, do you think i went back and stole everything from him?? It's me you moron, you just can't stand being a fool and being wrong. That's your crutch, not mine.

Let's use one of your snotty remarks. Bye. Recognize that? Snot.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:02 am
by The Cat
MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote:Anyone can see that... you don't publish decent answers, spreading them out of context into a ton of smokescreen sophistry.

About a year ago you've published a photoshoped picture of AB's kid implying pedophilia and AB went, quite rightly, mad.
Then he was imposed a one week ban and really never came back at FFI. Now that was mean and I don't think that anyone
with a sense of moral would have done so. The thread is now in the Garbage and so are you in my mind.

Oh please, shut up, OK? I'm glad it's in the garbage. You're a lunatic.

Did anyone notice some 'remorse' about one of the filthiest thing that ever happened at FFI? :shock:

MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote:Herein, you kept on digging your hole...
--You used a spurious translation of Shakir without proper references then left the thread when challenged.

After accusing me of fabricating them and not apologizing when you found out I didn't. If you want to talk, you can start by apologizing, but we both know that your arrogant, puffed up pride prevents you from being able to do that. I'm glad I spanked you the way I did.

Everyone can check how you left the thread... deceiver:
viewtopic.php?p=158787#p158787
Even among the parsimonious few who used 'apostle' your wording isn't found anywhere.
So you either forged the line or quoted a bad translation....

It happened that you quoted a felonious translation, not truly reliable, leaving when challenged.

(Note aside: I don't know why Muslims like to refer to Muhammad as Allah's apostle instead of Allah's messenger as the semitic 'rasul' clearly
indicates and correctly translated by all big three translators. The terms aren't synonymous: anyone can state to be an apostle of God, not
many pretend to carry direct messages from Him. I've checked and found the difference between the terms (apostle = disciple):
viewtopic.php?p=158703#p158703

http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/qur ... 24-qmt.php -024.056
YUSUFALI: and obey the Messenger; that ye may receive mercy.
PICKTHAL: and obey the messenger, that haply ye may find mercy.
SHAKIR: and obey the Messenger, so that mercy may be shown to you.

http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/24/56/default.htm
Shakir: and obey the Messenger, so that mercy may be shown to you.

Had you check your source, as I did, you would have find out...
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/
... Like all the versions of this text derived from the Online Book Initiative, it is not free from errors

MbL is picky in choosing Shakir... but managed to bring a spurious translation of him, that's picky alright!! :wacko:

MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote:--Being Arnold is a very bold assertion no one can check. Prove it, I ain't no diviner...

Why don't you go back and read a lot of his posts. ALL of those points about many topics have been repeated by me under my new username. What, do you think i went back and stole everything from him?? It's me you moron

After all the above why should I or anyone trust anything from you?

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 6:43 pm
by brooqdes
God bless you

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 7:59 pm
by manfred
brooqdes wrote:God bless you

Hello. I wonder if I could ask you to say hello to everyone in an introductory post. Also, it would be nice if you engage in discussions rather than post one line responses to seemingly random threads.... You can of course also start your own thread!

Thanks in advance.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Sun Dec 25, 2016 10:17 am
by Ariel
manfred wrote:
brooqdes wrote:God bless you

Hello. I wonder if I could ask you to say hello to everyone in an introductory post. Also, it would be nice if you engage in discussions rather than post one line responses to seemingly random threads.... You can of course also start your own thread!

Thanks in advance.


brooqdes is a spammer. He will never engage in a discussion.

Look at his profile. he is here to promote his website. I have to leave now, but if you are ok with it, I shall delete his account when I come back. Or I leave it to you.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Sun Dec 25, 2016 12:14 pm
by manfred
Oh I am quite aware of that... it is simply I thought I first tell him how to do things here, and if he ignores that then that will be it.