It gives me something better to shoot for, than just live, take what you want, and die.
So instead you live, do what you have to do to secure your eternal reward and die? Both approaches seem amazingly selfish to me. There are other options.
I qualified my initial response to jazzspazz, making a point to say that if he weren't making a general statement, I had no problem with it (while also taking a dig at him). Just because you can't read, doesn't mean I've said something hypocritical.
I don't care about what he believes, I care about ignorant blanket statements he makes that seem to imply something about me. Where did I say he was less of a person? You're reaching, big time (not unlike a certain Conan you've alluded to).
I think both you and JazzSpazz are just so defensive about your beliefs, you failed to actually read what I wrote. Like anyone, I have plenty of anger, but very little (if any) of it is directed at the church. Some of it is directed at people who make ignorant statements that seem to imply that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus is a hopeless hedonistic *** hole. I don't think anger is a terribly inappropriate reaction (albeit not the best reaction) to statements like that.
In the future, read my post. Before reacting to it, pause for a second and think about it. I know that's hard for you. Then go ahead and respond.
Thank you.
This is the part of my original post you took exception to enough to quote.
This has your direct response to my post, and your last post directed to Troutbum but including me.
My statement, if you had taken your own advice and "Before reacting to it, pause for a second and think about it. I know that's hard for you. Then go ahead and respond. Thank you."...... you
may have noticed that the quoted sentence uses the word "me" in it. If you read hard, you will notice that I am saying without my belief in the things I believe
I would probably have a "live, take what you want, and die" approach to things. There is a huge lack of "general statement", or "ignorant blanket statement" that you have imagined up.
You have had quite a few hypocritical "arguments" in our posts back and forth that I addressed and let drop. I think it's hypocritical to take exception to something you think someone else is doing, and yet you do the same thing you think is happening but from the opposite side. I don't care enough to dig them up.
As to the "where did I say he was less of a person?" question, I will just give one example. It should be sufficient for most rational people.
Your first post directed at my first post you assume you know what I am living for by stating what you think I am living for, and then state that either of those options are "amazingly selfish". Even if you were completely right in your assumption, which you are only partially correct, am I to understand that in you referring to me as an "amazingly selfish" person, that you were not "saying" I am less of a person?
I agree that I have been defensive in this instance, I would rather defend myself, my statements, and my beliefs than let you state, and imply the things you were stating as if it were true. You were/are way off base. I would not have to defend if you chose not to attack.
I read everything you posted, more than once to make sure I did not overreact. You could probably see a couple of times I actually agreed, or partially agreed with some statement you made. If I was as defensive as you think I probably would not have allowed myself to agree with you on anything. I still think you need to let go of the anger, it's not healthy.
Please don't take offense to this, I'm not trying to be rude, but did you ever graduate from High School?