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.
ROFLMA
well, how strange... evidently you can't make up your mind.
i have come to the end of my words, therefore, i will let other people's words respond as you deserve to your insistence. i already told you "i do not know what else to say" and i was not kiding
so here goes the responses of more verbose people than me. indeed some of them even reach your level. but not quite
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.
Message 6818239
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
Message 7440088
1 - I am not posintg a religous message.
Message 6832883
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.
Message 6816885
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).
{actually, goldy has to do with gold} and it can also be grouped with the extremists. but that is just a small detail (and i am not nick picking).
however...
Message 6834431
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.
Message 6852223
. 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
Message 10915657
I didn't say I was not religious, more like not vvery religious.
Message 11834471
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.
Message 12127317
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.
Message 6822664
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.
Message 11227131
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.
Message 6816953
circle, circle, circle, blah, blah...
Message 13991684
p.s. just in case you still have questions and want further explanations... address them here, since they are not my words please submit your questions to THAT thread and its authors, (in triplicate please).
this shall help
Subject 24258
una collezzione impressiva ! |
