The golden rule

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 61
#31
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
I did see the distinction. It's far too narrow for my preference. I'm choosing to disagree with that distinction. I think you said negativity is about refraining to punch someone and I believe you've missed the persistent influence of pessimism in my life.

I think there's a new way in which you can harness negativity in your life. One, that you can use the "hopeless" aspect of it as a motivation. Two, that you can cherish your loved ones knowing full-well that they might permanently disappear the next second. On the other hand, positivity merely inflates the illusion of life and masks the inadequacies of it. I'm not convinced, I still think all religions have essentially the same golden rule. 
Topic's author
#32
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@MarkWebberFan
I did see the distinction. It's far too narrow for my preference. I'm choosing to disagree with that distinction. I think you said negativity is about refraining to punch someone and I believe you've missed the persistent influence of pessimism in my life.
The negative position on this so called golden rule can only be used to stop yourself from doing harm to others. The positive view forces you to do good to others. Not punching someone is quite different to shaking their hand. If you think the distinction is too narrow that is your prerogative but for me it is significant enough to warrant an unique perspective and teaching. I am not saying it is better or worse. Yet it’s applications in my view are mind blowing. It is the difference between not going to war against someone and building bridges with them. 


I think there's a new way in which you can harness negativity in your life. One, that you can use the "hopeless" aspect of it as a motivation. Two, that you can cherish your loved ones knowing full-well that they might permanently disappear the next second. On the other hand, positivity merely inflates the illusion of life and masks the inadequacies of it. I'm not convinced, I still think all religions have essentially the same golden rule. 
Again I’m not saying we should not harness negativity. Although it does sound like you are trying to put a positive spin on negativity- which is truly ironic. Nor am I trying to rain on your parade. If it works for you, and you are content with that position great. For me I am merely pointing out that Jesus’ view on the golden rule is unique. It is in my view very different to most of the statements of a similar kind. 

In other words, although others would say they are the same, I would reject that position. Jesus has brought something significantly different  and part of that is that very distinct nuance between positive and negative and specific applications that flow from this distinction. Thanks for the chat. I appreciate your transparency. 
Topic's author
#33
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Nevertheless I pointed out that Jesus’ take was unique

 So now you have been made to realise that the sermon on the mount isn't quite as "unique" to Jesus  as you first  proclaimed it to be. You have now shifted the/YOUR meaning to that it was only Jesus' "take " that you were talking about.

Ok, how do you know what a mans "take " was during the time and place and society of the ancients from two thousand years ago?
Or are you know simply going to put words into the mouth of the Christ himself and the mouths of the bible authors?
Can you even read and comprehend?  I have not changed my position here at all.  I said Jesus statement of the golden rule was unique. I’ve said that from the beginning. It is unique. You have not refuted it. Stating your opinion is not a refutation. 

Stop lying all if the time. Join the discussion if you want but stop assuming everyone is revolving around you. They are not.  Now if you would like to contribute a unique response that would be refreshing. 
#34
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Well, I guess the syntax structure of the rule is different than other religions. It is syntactically unique. Though, your only illustration for its uniqueness is that negative golden rules affirm constraint over construction. That's the only assumption you have for the negative vs positive golden rule. Why should it not include a more expansive set of properties? Is there a reason why you're believing in such a narrow distinction?

I'll be a devil's advocate. An optimist could include the fact that negative sentences lack clarity. The sentence "it isn't raining" tells me nothing about the weather. I won't know whether it's sunny or foggy beyond the mere fact that the sentence affirms that the weather isn't raining.

Whats wrong with adding more properties to both the positive and negative rule? 
#35
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Join the discussion if you want 

  Have and you should make up the mind about where it is that YOU are coming from. 

First you say that the sermon on the mount is "unique! to Jesus & Christianity", and you were shown to be wrong:;

so significantly different that Jesus’ golden rule is unique. #1Tradesecret

The golden rule in the context of the sermon on the mount is prefaced with love God #10Tradesecret

And then you changed your position to say that what you meant was that it was only Jesus'  "take" on it !? 

 I have asked you simply to explain what Jesus' "take" was:

Here>>Ok, how do you know what a mans "take " was during the time and place and society of the ancients from two thousand years ago? here#30



You have not refuted it. Stating your opinion is not a refutation. 

Well I cannot "refute" that which you won't explain, now can I Reverend.   I, as have others on the thread,  have refuted the fact the JESUS' sermon on the mount is not unique to Jesus.. I am unable to refute what you have called only his "take" on it or version of the golden rule and what it meant to him?  Or how you even  know?

 If you don't know or cannot explain just say so. 


Its a simple enough question especially for a one claiming to be a Pastor and a Chaplain to his countries armed services? Here>.



Tradesecrete wrote: But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care.  And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation.  I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications.  #20



Topic's author
#36
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I never said the sermon on the mount was unique. I said in third sentence in my opening post that the golden rule was unique.  And if you read my initial post - the rule was in the positive manner. 

I further stated in the original post that other statements such as Confucius and Buddha’s were in the negative hence why Jesus was unique. 

My third post addressed to fauxlaw clarified I was not saying there were not similarities but rather that I was highlighting the uniqueness. 

Your first post Which came in post no. 9  attempted to go down the path of distraction. Turning my point which indicated Jesus’ golden rule also was premised in Gods love into a mocking session. 

 I rightly called you out for red herrings. Then in your post no. 2 at 12 again attempted to derail the topic. You introduced more red herrings - more irrelevant non sequiters in an attempt attack the topic. A little bit of discussion on the topic would have been nice. 

Then you immediately followed up in no 13 with an attempt to look at chapter 7. And what did you contribute? Well let’s see. 

V 1 - you dumbly suggest no mention of golden rule. Why? I never said it was in verse 1.  Then you throw stones ironically. 

V 3 - another red herring. Nothing to do with the golden rule. V 6 - again just Stephen attempting to clever but revealing he is a dog and a swine. The irony was delightful. And yet pathetic. 

Then a couple more comments entirely irrelevant and then you -with all of your 40 years of learning and reading the bible MISSED the golden rule in v. 12. LOL. 

“There is not a single mention of it” says Stephen. And then once you have reread it and noticed your stupid error you have come back and edited the post to try and protect yourself. No mention of “Golden Rule”. Lol.  Talk about a dogs breakfast. Still given your initial blindness you had nothing to add. 

Even rosend our resident Jew in post 19 picked up in which verse the golden rule is. 

I saw no reason to respond to such an obvious error as yours.  But then come back in 30 and say I shifted my position. You really are desperate aren’t you? I have not changed my position. It is exactly the same as the original post. But you would need to read my initial post to know that. And then you would have to comprehend it as well. That of course  - no one is going to hold their breath. 

And now in post no. 35 you just lie again. I never said the sermon in the mount was unique in this thread. For the record I do think it is unique but that is totally irrelevant for this thread. You never link to where I said it. Please do or stop telling lies. I predict you will simply ignore this request.  Also show where I was shown to be wrong for that lie that you said. Wow talk about making stuff up. Surprise there is no link to your lies. 

Of course I am talking about the golden rule in the context of the Sermon. But that is quite different to saying the sermon was unique. Jesus’ golden rule is contextually in the sermon.  7:12 is the natural conclusion to what he started in 5:17. Surely someone who boasts that they know the bible better than everyone in history would understand how language works? 

Jesus’ take or Jesus’ position or Jesus’ golden rule which is positive and based on loving God is unique. You still nowhere have shown otherwise. Your attempts at red herring and distractions have gone nowhere. 

What more is there to explain? I can’t help your inability to comprehend ordinary English. 


#37
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Ok. So is all that you are saying, after all of your word salad is that, Jesus' "take" about the sermon or any of his sermons and including in the golden rule,   is that we should love god first and above all else? <<<<<<<<<<<that is a question I would like you to answer. That only requires a  yes or no answer and shouldn't be too difficult to you, a man of the cloth.


 


13 days later

Topic's author
#38
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Ok. So is all that you are saying, after all of your word salad is that, Jesus' "take" about the sermon or any of his sermons and including in the golden rule,   is that we should love god first and above all else? <<<<<<<<<<<that is a question I would like you to answer. That only requires a  yes or no answer and shouldn't be too difficult to you, a man of the cloth.
Assuming your question is : 

Did Jesus understand the Golden Rule to be grounded in the truth that we should love God first and above all else - but to treat other people (positively) in the way we would (positively) want to be treated? 

Then my answer is Yes. 

 
#39
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Did Jesus understand the Golden Rule to be grounded in the truth that we should love God first and above all else - but to treat other people (positively) in the way we would (positively) want to be treated? 

and this is the positivity that Jesus taught  is it Reverend ethang?

Treadesecret wrote; Stupid man. Dumb as fuck. Just continue to repeat your ignorance. 

Get well soon Reverend, whoever you choose to be today.🤣
Topic's author
#40
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
As I indicated at the time, I ought not have written that.  I do regret saying it. I own it of course because I said it.  I also apologized at the time. And I would choose not to do it again in the future.  

Yes I swore. I ought not have done so and therefore apologise. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6165/post-links/271016
For me - this is the end of the matter though.  You don't have to forgive me - entirely up to you. Yet, for me, it is the end of it.  I actually don't need your forgiveness or your understanding.  

But since it appears your MO is to dig up dirt and throw it - I expect you will do so again and again. 

By the way - the above only demonstrates that I have a long way to go in my sanctification. I have never said I was perfect. I don't pretend to have all of the answers. I don't think I can read the bible better than everyone else. I don't think I alone have the power to understand the secret messages in the Bible. In fact I don't think there are any hidden or secret messages in the Bible. I, unlike you, are not a conspiracist. 

I admit it when I stuff up. As I did above - and as I have right now. Nevertheless, there is no reason to continue to feel sorry - when I have apologized. I don't feel bad about it.  I said what I said at the time - but that was then and now is now.  I answered your question with a yes. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6407/post-links/280183

So have a good old day dear Stephen, or is that Brother or is it perhaps even dimtim. You two seem to have something going on.  But please refrain from calling me Ethang.  


#41
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
As I indicated at the time, I ought not have written that

Indeed Reverend "tradey". There is a lot you shouldn't have written, isn't there? a word cannot be unspoken, Reverend "Tradey"


the above only demonstrates that I have a long way to go in my sanctification.

Don't make me laugh Reverend bullsitter.

You are an ordained and "accredited" minster of Christ, are you now trying to tell us that not a single one of those "academics, scholars, and priests and fathers of Church"  that you claim to have been "tutored under", and not a single one of those that bestowed your "accreditations" on you didn't really see you for what you really are at the time of your ordination? 

You are too stupid to be ANY of the things that you have tried to convince the members of this forum that you are.  Your'e just simply a bare faced liar.


But since it appears your MO is to dig up dirt and throw it - I expect you will do so again and again. 

Dirt? Is that what all of your alleged accreditations and qualifications are, dirt?

I will "dig up" when the need arises and OR I have been given cause to do so, Reverend three persons, as I have been given cause to do so here, #106
just minutes ago.😁

I used to detest these imojis but know I am reconsidering their worth. 

Get well soon Reverend three persons. 🤣

Topic's author
#42
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
As I indicated at the time, I ought not have written that

Indeed Reverend "tradey". There is a lot you shouldn't have written, isn't there? a word cannot be unspoken, Reverend "Tradey"

And there is a lot you should not have written.  


the above only demonstrates that I have a long way to go in my sanctification.

Don't make me laugh Reverend bullsitter.
Not trying to make you laugh. But your response demonstrates you know nothing of Christianity.  

You are an ordained and "accredited" minster of Christ, are you now trying to tell us that not a single one of those "academics, scholars, and priests and fathers of Church"  that you claim to have been "tutored under", and not a single one of those that bestowed your "accreditations" on you didn't really see you for what you really are at the time of your ordination? 
When did I say I was ordained? I am an open book to my colleagues.  I have nothing to hide.  Unlike you. 

You are too stupid to be ANY of the things that you have tried to convince the members of this forum that you are.  Your'e just simply a bare faced liar.

LOL! and the best part of your statement is no matter how stupid I am, you are still more stupid.  And proven on many occasions.  I don't tell lies. I might say things I regret. But lying is not one of them.  I don't lie.  


But since it appears your MO is to dig up dirt and throw it - I expect you will do so again and again. 

Dirt? Is that what all of your alleged accreditations and qualifications are, dirt?

LOL! - oh the spin.  We gotta love it.  


I will "dig up" when the need arises

You do - what you feel you need to do.  I do believe in free speech.  

And referring to me as the Trinity, well, flattering, but incorrect. 

I have one personality.  And unless you have REAL proof, not speculation, then well- keep to the thread.  




#43
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
I have one personality. 

Well you can keep telling yourselves that Reverend, but it is wasted on me. You are  cretin that cannot keep up with what your other personas are saying or doing, not to mention which country the are from. 

The  hole that you have dug is way too deep now and you may as well pull the ground back in..... all  over the three of you.

You will never get well soon Reverend three personas. 

Good bye😂


Topic's author
#44
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
So did you find the place I said I was ordained? Or will we just write that up as more speculation, lies  and misinformation you put out?

I challenge in respect of finding any evidence whatsoever that I might be Ethang.  You won't and you can't. But hey - whatever your little brain wants to do. 

Not like you and Brother and dimtim.  Now there is an unholy trinity of personalities.  Frauds the lot of you.  Brother is obviously a facade. You are a theist who does not believe in the supernatural. And dimtim - a nontheist.  Whatever!!

Do you really think your little tricks get past the rest of us? I wonder sometimes if Willows was another one of your personas. 

now, how about this for a thought?  If I have never said I was ordained and at the same time I said I am not a reverend, I wonder what that might mean? 

But you know what Stevie Blunder, you guess, you speculate, you make stuff up, and most of the time you are WRONG.  This happens when people who are dumb think they are smart or intelligent.  They presume - and they assume - and they end up making well - you fill in the words. 

You have absolutely no idea, do you? How is your Secret Gospel of Fraud going?  
#45
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
So did you find the place I said I was ordained? 

Ok. Lets get this correct, are you now denying that you are not an ordained minister of the faith?  
Topic's author
#46
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
So did you find the place I said I was ordained? 

Ok. Lets get this correct, are you now denying that you are not an ordained minister of the faith?  
Can you find anywhere where I said I was? 
#47
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
So did you find the place I said I was ordained? 

Ok. Lets get this correct, are you now denying that you are not an ordained minister of the faith?  
Can you find anywhere where I said I was? 

You are simply backpedaling here Reverend. You have claimed to be a chaplain that ministers to your countries defence forces. 

You have attempted this backpedalling  shite before by claiming one one hand that you are a "Pastor" and a "Chaplain" while  on the other denying that you are a "Reverend"until I pointed out to you that "Reverend" is YOUR  title and you persisted in this bullishit until I proved it to you.

So lets try this one more time, just so I have this right in front of the whole of this forum:


Are you now denying that you are a ordained minister of the faith?


Topic's author
#48
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
You are simply backpedaling here Reverend. You have claimed to be a chaplain that ministers to your countries defence forces. 
Sorry old chap. I am not backpedaling.  You just ASSUMED many things.  Duh! Being a chaplain does not require ordination. (or does it?) 

You have attempted this backpedalling  shite before by claiming one one hand that you are a "Pastor" and a "Chaplain" while  on the other denying that you are a "Reverend"until I pointed out to you that "Reverend" is YOUR  title and you persisted in this bullishit until I proved it to you.
Being a pastor in a church does not require ordination.  (or does it?)  I don't have to deny or affirm. I am simply asking you - where have I ever said I was ordained? 


So lets try this one more time, just so I have this right in front of the whole of this forum:


Are you now denying that you are a ordained minister of the faith?
Dear Stevie Blunder, it is your assertion. It is not mine to deny or affirm.  Please show where I have ever said that I was an ordained minister of faith. 

I know you won't find it. I never said it.  But you  - wait - wait - wait - ASSUME and PRESUME.  Oh such a rock solid researcher. LOL! 

until I proved it to you.
No.  You only proved it to you.  I never EVER agreed or conceded the point. LOL!  I just gave you up as a hopeless idiot. 
#49
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret


Tradesecrete wrote: "But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care.  And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation.  I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications."   #20


Are you simply NOW denying that you, a church minister, is not ordained? And are simply claiming now to be nothing more than lay pastor and preacher?

When you are ready, Reverend Ethang.







Topic's author
#50
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
radesecrete wrote: "But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care.  And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation.  I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications."   #20


Are you simply NOW denying that you, a church minister, is not ordained? And are simply claiming now to be nothing more than lay pastor and preacher?

When you are ready, Reverend Ethang.
Stevie Blunder, just answer the question.  OR CAN"T YOU????????

You are hopeless.  A fraud. Where did I ever say I was an ordained minister? You have been going on and on and on about this - and NOW you can't even find it. Why not? Because you JUST MADE IT UP.

You have no idea. LOLL!  

You should just pack it in and QUIT. You and the Brother and Dimtim.  FRAUD ! FRAUD ! FRAUD ! The unholy Trinity. Why is it that Brother and Dimtim are so silent? 



#51
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Tradesecrete wrote: "But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care.  And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation.  I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications."   #20


Are you simply NOW denying that you, a church minister, is not ordained? And are simply claiming now to be nothing more than lay pastor and preacher?

Pull the ground  over yourself Reverend, you really fkd up on this one haven't you. 

 For one that ministers to his countries defence forces as you say  could not do so " without proper qualifications. and accreditations"   #20 which includes being fkn ordained , you clown. 

 Your'e just a compulsive lair, and caught in your own trap.  This will be all to do with your own lack of research before opening that big black vile hole of yours.

My, I really have invoked and resurrected the Ethang 5 in you haven't ? 😂




Topic's author
#52
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Tradesecrete wrote: "But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care.  And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation.  I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications."   #20

Are you simply NOW denying that you, a church minister, is not ordained? And are simply claiming now to be nothing more than lay pastor and preacher?

Pull the ground  over yourself Reverend, you really fkd up on this one haven't you. 

 For one that ministers to his countries defence forces as you say  could not do so " without proper qualifications. and accreditations"   #20 which includes being fkn ordained , you clown. 

 Your'e just a compulsive lair, and caught in your own trap.  This will be all to do with your own lack of research before opening that big black vile hole of yours.

My, I really have invoked and resurrected the Ethang 5 in you haven't ? 😂

So I guess that is a NO!.  No Mr Tradesecret I cannot find anywhere where you said you were an ordained minister. I am so sorry I made such a huge mistake and error and I ASSUMED all of these things about you. 

Having proper accreditation and qualifications DOES NOT mean ordination. It might mean that but it does not need to mean it.  You assume to much squire.  And yet you over and over and over again called me reverend. I told you - that you were wrong at the time.  but that did not stop you. You arrogant piece of pompous sausage.  

Again I am not denying or confirming anything.  But you - LOL! say much - and prove NOTHING.  

Again dear Stevie Blunder, I am not Ethang. Please talk to the moderators if you don't believe me. but you Brother - and you DimTim, why are you so quiet?  


#53
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
@BrotherDThomas
Stephen wrote: You have attempted this backpedalling  shite before by claiming one one hand that you are a "Pastor" and a "Chaplain" while  on the other denying that you are a "Reverend"until I pointed out to you that "Reverend" is YOUR  title and you persisted in this bullishit until I proved it to you.

Tradesecret wrote:No.  You only proved it to you.  I never EVER agreed or conceded the point. LOL!  I just gave you up as a hopeless idiot. 

It matters not what you decide to accept or to "concede" as true. THA FACTS that I presented proved me to be correct and that YOU didn't even know your own fkn title🤣.. 

#29
Tradesecret
LOL! - I certainly don't understand the bible in the way you distort them. This is true. You don't have a proper methodology. You just choose passages out of context and run with it. But hey - don't let the facts stand in the way of playing your game.  And I am not a reverend. 


WHAAAAAAAAAAAT!!!!  you didn't know that either!!!!????? did you?  you absolute clown🤣.

How to address a Pastor:

Write “The Reverend” followed by the pastor's full name on the exterior envelope. This formal title is appropriate for both Protestant and Catholic denominations of Christianity. This would be the most typical way of addressing the pastor, if you were inviting them to an event or sending a formal request, for example.https://www.wikihow.com/Address-a-Pastor-and-His-Wife

 I don't fkn care that you  do "not concede" to that facts.  The facts CLEARLY speak for themselves. And you have no choice in that matter.



This is how fkn dumb you are and now you are trying to tell us that you are not an ordained minister! One  that has studied under and was tutored by " academics, scholars, and priests and fathers of your the church" and that "ministers to your countries Defence Force".

So you are not a Reverend [anymore] then and you are now also claiming not to be an ordained minister. Which makes you a total arse not to mention a simple fake
fly- by- night, ten-a- penny preacher.  😂
Topic's author
#54
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I don't have to admit or deny anything in this context. you have shown historically that you like to gather information about people's personal lives in order to troll them and bully them. 

I just hope that you don't collect people's information in order to commit criminal offences. Perhaps you are not white like you claim but a Nigerian.  Perhaps you are Harikrish as well as Brother. 

This might well provide lots of interesting material for anyone who ever investigates anything.  Remember it is you who gathers information about me and then posts it back. 

And it also seems that Brother does it - and so does Harikrish and also interestingly enough your other alto ego - dimtim. 

I don't gather stuff about people.  I have only posted stuff about you - that someone else sent to me by email or pm. And if a moderator ever did check my pms then they would see I received it from someone.  As I have said - I have nothing to hide. 
#55
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,897
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@RationalMadman
@Tradesecret
Molecular rule: Share not with your cousins what you would not have them share with you.

Ex CoV-2, or herpes, or any number of bacterial or viral organisms.

Embracing contractive { mass-attractive }, cohesion love is symbolised by  /\     enclosure i.e. stabilizing integrity of  a whole set

Radiational { dispersive } love is symbolized by Y i.e. open triangular set, that, radiates love until it hurts,  at cost of self stabilizing integrity.






#56
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
you have shown historically that you like to gather information about people's personal lives 

Nope, just your own.

And because I had you down as a liar from day one. And lets not forget eh, that this "PERSONAL" information was freely given BY YOU in many posts to this  forum on the WWW!

Get well soon all three of you,  no more a Reverend "Tradey" Tradesecret.
Topic's author
#57
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
And because I had you down as a liar from day one. And lets not forget eh, that this "PERSONAL" information was freely given BY YOU in many posts to this  forum on the WWW!
Well - yes and no.    The only one here who has been shown to be a liar is you Stephen. I have not lied even once on this site.  Yes, I did provide personal information. But not over many posts. In fact I only ever shared such things once. You on the other hand have repeated them over and over again.  I  am who I am. I am not ashamed of that either. 

Unlike you. Who gets upset and then attempts to ban people.  I have never once attempted to get you banned.  In fact I have even suggested that your bans should be shortened.  I like having someone around here to stir up and learn stuff.  And you dear Stephen have learned lots from me.  I am your master and teacher and you are my delightful student.  And each day - you learn a little lit more and become a little bit wiser.  

And that is ok. So please don't get yourself banned for telling lies and making stuff up.  

But the thing is - again you let us distracted from the thread.  Please try and keep up Stephen.  I know it is hard for you. But I promise you - it only gets easier.  Practice practice practice. 
#58
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
  Yes, I did provide personal information. But not over many posts. In fact I only ever shared such things once.

What you are too stupid to realise is that you shared freely on a forum of the www much about yourself and over many posts. You shared so much that even my 8 year old grandchild would be able to work out that there are simply not enough hours in the day for you to practice all those things you claim.   How you have time to hang around a forum is baffling to even to Bill the un-baffable in a baffling competition , never mind even bothering yourself with some like me that is in total opposition to  you and that which you believe in.

And ALL your alleged qualificators in ALL of the fields that you claim to hold have not impressed me Revered "Tradey" Tradesecret. 

You are simply no good at this (your specialist subject) so I suggest that you do not post in reply to me any longer. I don't care what you believe about me, it is all irrelevant, to me and my threads  <<<< and you should get this through the dense mass that lord has given you.

 Now go away........ all three of you🤣.



382 days later

#59
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tradesecret
In Matthew 7 Jesus gives the golden rule. Treat others as you would like to be treated. This of course is UNIQUE to Christianity and perhaps some other religions who have been privy to the bible. 

Sometimes people suggest other religions and person such as Confucius  and Buddha said the same thing but this would be confusing apples with oranges. 

Other statements are mostly put in the negative not in the positive. The difference is profound. The first chooses not to punch their enemy in the face. The latter chooses to build their enemy a hospital. Positive and negative are important to consider.  

The other aspect about Jesus’ golden rule that is conveniently forgotten is that it is prefaced with another item which the others do not even contemplate. Love God with all of you heart and soul and mind and then - love others. Omitting this preface distorts entirely the meaning of the second commandment. It is impossible to love others in the way Jesus indicated without first loving God. 

Hence it is clear that while other religions and cultures had a similar rule, the two are so significantly different that Jesus’ golden rule is unique. 

Do you agree or disagree? Please explain why. 
The Golden rule in Matthew 7:12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

It is ironic the Golden Rule was preached to the Jews who suffered 3000 years of antisemitism.

Another winner!

Luke 6:29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them.

Jesus was bound by the Golden Rule and let the Romans crucify him, destroy the temple, Jerusalem and replace Judaism with the Roman Catholic Church.

This is why the Golden Rule is Unique to Christianity. Christianity was the only beneficiary of the Golden Rule.
#60
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
This is why the Golden Rule is Unique to Christianity. Christianity was the only beneficiary of the Golden Rule.

So are you saying that Christians have never fought one another?