"I would and have and I find your definition self serving and circular. You only call religionists religionists but you have made up the definition to coincide with anyone who disagrees with your own dogmatic religious position.
False (1): I didn't make up the definition, nor have I used it in an unconventional manner.
"That's why you are just as guilty as those whom you denounce."
You've provided no evidence of that, just your usual 'nuh uh, but you are,' childish retort.
"The ONLY difference being that you refuse to identify your religious faith with a larger group or formal system."
I've provided answers to your questions about my faith and shown willingness to clarify further, you only demonstrate more frustration, and have stomped around and thrown up barriers to any such inquiry because you couldn't attach it to any attackable world dogma, somewhere down from the hierarchy you see your self on. We've been over all this before so it's not even an innocent false allegation, it's just an attempt to bash with fore knowledge. It doesn't even work though, I'm not sure why you think that is a bad thing unless you are having self-doubts.
"The ONLY difference being that you refuse to identify your religious faith with a larger group or formal system."
I refuse because such an exclusive association would be a false representation, based on the delusions of frustrated egocentric people like you. Why would I want to perpetuate such a falsehood or incriminate myself with involvement in such speciousness. I would not and do not. I am a lucid individual, not a larger system. I am further not accountable to or responsible for larger systems, except perhaps to some degree in the legal sense.
"You label people who disagree with you and question their motives."
False (2): I don't question your motives they are transparent. I'm just not easily suckered by such pretense. That labeling of people into illusory groupings is all yours. I have labeled your miscreant behavior, which is a far different matter and as far as I can see, I've been spot on. Lots of people disagree with me who have my total respect, I've not met anyone who agrees with me about everything all the time. However, continually casting false allegations, insisting on associations that have no basis, spinning an ego based meaning out of every statement, and bold faced lies are not the fodder upon which respect is grown.
"In short, you are your own worst enemy. You hate the haters which means you hate yourself."
False (3)... projection.
"There is one difference between us, What I don't do is call you a liar and then run away."
I don't lie so it is really an empty gloat for you to declare you don't call me a liar. I've given you no cause to call me a liar. As unnerving as it may be for you, I have no hesitation in calling deliberate falsehoods, 'lies,' and see no benefit to anyone in proceeding under such precondition. I have always pointed out the issue I consider to be a falsehood, qualified my reason for tagging it, and given you an opportunity to make corrections so that a topical discussion could proceed with honor. I have no problem discussing most controversial issues with honorable human beings who hold a counter viewpoint, provided they are willing to remain on topic and within reason and with honor. You have shown neither the inclination nor the ability to proceed on those terms.
Looks like you've hit the 3 strike standard. You are out ... again. I see absolutely no beneficial purpose in indulging you further along this, your usual trail of despair. |
