godly, for the most part, and from my perspective includes extremists you chose to concentrate on the religious. i did not.
I actually agree with you that "godly" includes extremeists in that there are a number or religous or "godly" extremists", but not all extremists are in any way godly. Godly is either defined as "divine" (a definition it is clear you are not using) or pius and devout. Many pious people might also be extremists but not all extremists are pius or devout. I concentrated on the religious meaning of the word because that is the meaning of the word.
. long ago i have hinted, meant to, expressly said, that: "you and i disagree". you keep harping on my posts with your religious message.
i am willing to live with our disagreement, it does not bother me. you on the other hand, keep repeating TO ME, your particular view. it seems that my difference of opinion bothers you like hell. i do not what else to tell you .... you keep on coming back, and i guess there is nothing else i can tell you ... other than....
1 - I am not posintg a religous message. I did not before and I am even further away from it now. I never said anything about God or supporting any particular religon or religous viewpoint in any post to you in our recent discussion. Here I am not even talking about the subject of the acts of religions or religious people. But rather the definition of the word Godly. Before we were talking about issues like "should religons pay reperations". We each had an opinion about this. Now the issue is that of the definition of a word. This is a simpler matter. Assuming we are talking about the English language, rather then a new language that you just made up, then goldy and extremists are not synonyms. (Even if the groups that can be defined by the words overlap).
2 - I'm willing to live with the fact that we disagree as well. (And if I wasn't what could I do about it anyway?). But that doesn't mean I just shut up about my own opinions. I replied to posts by you because I am replying to a post in a public discussion board that says somthing. If it was a repeat of what was said before by you I would probably not respond, but I am replying to different things. Most recently to a specific listing of the unabomber as "godly". That isn't the same arguement we had before (which was mostly "should religions pay reperations". I would be unlikely to bring up that issue again with you any time soon because we have all ready gone around it again and again, but then if I reply to some other issue or idea you mention that doesn't mean I am harping on the same thing again and again. Esp. in the case of my resent post (reply #1706) which was merly a matter of a specific fact, the definition of a word.
now... on top of all this, i recall you saying that YOU are NOT even religious, yet every time i read your posts, my mind visualizes you as a crazy monk. why ? because you keep harping on the religious part of my posts.. projection ? infatuation?
now... to me not only is that the belief of an extremist, you are a lunatic in my opinion.
I didn't say I was not religious, more like not vvery religious.
But I suppose I am a crazy monk because my pointing out that you are using a word incorrectly is somehow a religious issue rather then a semantic one. Somehow if I reply to any part of any post in which you mention religion or religous ideas, figures or groups (which you have done a lot lately) I am "harping on the religious part of your posts", showing myself to be a lunatic. That seems to me to be the least logical idea I have seen from you here yet but if you really believe it is true I suggest you just put me on ignore.
Tim |
