CAMPBELL34 VS. LIBERTINE :The War To Settle The Score...

Well like Libertine, you are more worried about rules, than substance. The existance of God, and simple truth, must take a back seat to intellectual snobbery. The only rule I came here with, was the truth. Libertine needs Parilmentary rules, so he will have something to hide behind. I did not come here to hide anything, I came here to tell the truth. Libertine does not want to hear that truth, thats why we are now talking about Parilamentary Style rules. In this fourm, where anything and everything goes, now all of a sudden we need Parilamenrary rules. Give me a break.

 

campbell the simple fact that your argument cant be carried out in a correct manner shows the flaws of your argument

 

what was the whole point of this long debate if you are just going to post the things you usually post?

 

there is none, didnt you realise that at the first post? lol just libertine taking the opportunity to throw out his oppinion at the born again christian campbell who ALWAYS spits out the same shit caus he forgot that he had a personality before engrossing himself in finding ways in which prophecies have come true.

 

Well they have sent men to the electric chair with less evidence than that. And it proves that the men who wrote the story, were telling the truth. And it was a truth few believed. And I Believe they spoke the truth, when they said God desended on the Mountain like a furnance of fire. I have no reason to believe they are telling a lie, based on the evidence they have found. How do you explain that Granit Mountain being burnt charcoal black on top? And why is it only this Mountain?

 

Post things I usually post? You mean like varifiable evidence. Things that you could see with your own eyes, and personal expercinces I have had with God. Your right, who would want to talk about things like that, when you can talk purly in philosophical terms, and frame endless arguements that have no clear answers. That way we can all remain in a cloud, and never come to any conclusion. Yea, thats a great debate.

 

good question campbell ..........man cos this is a discusion between campbell and libertine ..........can i suggest that the judges YOURSELVES AND I .......give a scoring of points (1 t0 10) to each question campbell and libertine ask each other ..........and say like whoever gets to a 23 zillion points wins the dicussion ..........otherwise god only knows this fucken thread could go on forever man ...........................peace

 

Well you really need to expand your horizons. The same prophecies that I talk about have been spoken about by many others, from Jew to Gentile. It appears you first heard of them from me, and are giving me the credit. There's a whole world out there kid, you might try checking other sources, other than me.

 

WHAAT? Are you discrediting the value of rules and regulations? Mr. Campbell, there are rules and laws and such to keep things orderly. Frankly, the Bible is mostly a book of "rules" in a sense. If we were talking about breaking one of the Biblical rules, I'm sure you'd have a different opinion.

Mr. Campbell, you cannot ascertain an absolute truth value on something you cannot produce concrete evidence for. There are ways to debate ethics, but unfortunately, rather than doing your homework, you blindly agreed to have a debate without even knowing the rules on how to do so. If you and Libby were having an *actual debate* being judged by professionals at a local university, you would have been disqualified for improper form. I'm really sorry to be the one who has to let you in on that. In a respect, I can understand how you feel, but we can't construct a sound argument built upon feelings alone.

If one wants to participate in activities such as these with others, one must adhere to the rules of the game. There's a reason for the rules to be in place, to set a standard and keep everything fair. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? I'm not trying to be a bitch right now. I really want you to understand that there's a rhyme and reason for these rules, just like there are for rules of anything else.

*sighs* I really just can't, at this point, Mr. Campbell. Let me remind you about the End of Times thread. I respectfully interjected why I disagreed with you, and was respectful up until the point you decided to bash my character and imply that I was lying about my previous knowledge of these historical finds.

Almost everybody on this board knows I'm from a Jewish background. I don't think I can properly explain how insulting it is to have somebody who is probably a Gentile explain your own culture to you like you were born yesterday.

In short, just because you don't see eye to eye with somebody doesn't give you the right to imply a lack of character or allege that they are lying about having knowledge of the culture they were raised in. It was the straw that broke this old camel's back, so to speak.

So please... Next time you think about tearing into somebody like that, you just remember how you feel right now and consider giving them a break.

 

The real falw is that evidence must be surpressed, just like the Theory of Evolution. Evidence that would knock The theory on it's face, is supressed.
It is not the Christians, who are banning the truth. It is not the Christians who are saying, "oh no, you can't talk about that." It's your side.

 

Like I said, I came here to speak the truth, this is Hip Fourms, not a University. I know who Jesus Christ is, and there is no doubt in my mind, that an open debate will be difficult because my personal experiences with Him must be excluded from this debate. This debate was never about the truth, it was more about, how to suppress it. Any rules that would bar one's personal experience with God, cannot be fair. We are still living in the United States of America, and the last time I looked, we still had freedom to speak our mind. And can you tell me which post stated that my personal experience must be banned from this debate? Anytime you surpress information, you do everyone a disservice. Censorship, should not be allowed in an open debate. Yet perhaps, that is my opponents best weapon.

 

pssst......HippieLngstckng, SSSSSHHHHHHH...don't tell, but I'm not really anti-christian. I have been one all my life and thats not to easy to cast asside.

I however am VERY tired of 95% of "their" arguements and hipocrocies. I know EVERYONE is a hiprocrate in one way or another, but I'm sick of watching my family and 1/2 of this nation spend all their energy worrying about unborn babies and the "furthur degridation of marrage" by "the gays".
There is a whole world out there full of pain, hunger, torture, genocide, child abuse, child labor, slavery etc. and thats just the start. The babies and marrage have legions of advocates, I'm going to worry about other things.

Cambell keeps saying that the unbelievers are just trying to avoid doing the right thing and living a clean life. I say this, people who believe everything the church tells them are just avoiding thinking for themselves, and examining the world around them with eyes not colored by religon.

That may sound like so much hippie bullsh-t, but try it once. I've consciously and with much effort tried to unlearn (temporarily) all the lessons I've been taught through my life. I got to a point in my life when I needed to rethink my place in the world. I needed to decide for myself what I believed in, and how I felt about the world. Some of the things I discovered about myself supprised me more that anyone else. One thing I'll say though is the self discovery thing is NOT a walk in the park. It can be very uplifting and liberating, but it also can be hard. without a "Gods Word" there to tell you what to do, you will make mistakes. Hopefully we learn from them, thats about the best thing I can hope for from myself.

The reason I can agree to disagree is because I firmly believe that there are not two people in the world who believe exactly the same way. I believe that if there are 6 billion people on earth than there are 6 billion different religions.

NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE!!!

DON'T GIVE ANYONE THE POWER TO CHANGE YOUR MIND BUT YOU!

 

Well let me point out one thing here. I don't go to church. The job I have keeps me from that. And I don't follow any ministers or priests. I follow the Bible, which God reveals to me. And the greatest child abuse that you say you are concerned about, is abortion. Abortion I believe, is the reason Scripture states, that America and all her cities will burn, and be destroyed in one hours time. And it states, that this will be a sneak attack by northern nations that will surround her. How coud the Bible of known 2,000 years ago, that an entire nation, and all of her cities could be destroyed in one hours time. And if you don't believe God authored the Bible, that is because you have not taken the time to observe the evidence they are now finding. I think the real non thinkers are the one's who will refuse to consider the evidence, and for many, they don't even know it exist, and could care less.

 

If you read the bible so much then you would know
there is no hell
you would show christ-like love to all being while letting them know that you have turth
you would back up your arguments with profecices, logic, and facts not "personal exprence" (athesits just dont like to listen to that)
you would actually respect pepole
but you dont

peace

 

But Mr. Campbell, others will not recognize your truth as "THE TRUTH" if you don't have a strong argument in support of it. The rules and guidelines put in place by our higher education systems give a consistant format for us to follow. It's a universal kind of format, kind of like how there's a right way to format a business letter and a wrong way. This isn't just something to reserve for a University debate.

A strong argument *can be formed in support of things like ethics (what religion breaks down to anyways),* but ethical value systems cannot be proven as an absolute value. Please try to understand what I am saying here. You can make a good argument in support of your claim, but you can't expect to prove it as an absolute.

Mr. Campbell, I too know Jesus. I get angry when people misrepresent Christ's love and, in doing that, discourage other people from attaining "spiritual truth." That's why I've been on your case... Your attitude leaves a lot to be desired. As I said earlier, I voiced a difference of opinion respectfully (if you disagree that I was respectful in my first two posts on there, you just let me know what I said, and I will apologize, because that wasn't my intent), and you reverted to attacks on my character and even went as far as to call me a liar. After that, I *did* lose my temper, for which I apologize. Let me help you remember...

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1811684#post1811684

But there's a difference between an absolute truth and a spiritual truth. Just like ethical systems cannot be proven, spiritual systems (which are very much the same thing) cannot either. That's unfortunately just the way it is, sir.

Listen. I know it doesn't seem like it, but my heart does go out to you. I know it seems unfair. But here's the thing about personal experience... It can't be applied to a debate because it's personal, and thus, cannot be proven to those who have *not* had that experience.

I could tell you a fantastic story about the time I went to pray out in the woods and met Jesus walking along that same path in His Glorified Body. I could say that He and I sat down, shared a sandwich, and talked for a while. I could say that He revealed my purpose to me and fortified me with His wisdom. I could tell you it changed my life.... I could make it very convincing. But that whole story I just relayed to you is both untrue and farcical. But you wouldn't know any better had I not told you so.

When we all get together and give witness, it gives more credibility to our story, but then it's still hard to prove ourselves without a shred of conclusive evidence. We must subject our findings to the objective test of validity. Sometimes our hearts are just so attached to the subject that we're blinded by our feelings. So we are unfairly prejudiced in favor of our desired outcome when that's really not the case.

I know I was kind of a smart ass yesterday when I said it, but in a certain respect, I was serious when I said that we wouldn't be here having this discussion if you had absolute evidence of G-d's existance. You'd be a millionaire touring the world with your evidence, and no one could debate these things any longer, because they would have been proven. Do you see what I'm getting at, sir? Not that I wouldn't be utterly thrilled if you did, and overjoyed for your good fortune.

 

Campbell,

This thread, at this point, is "wild" and I have certainly participated in this thread. Each person here has something to learn about what we are discussing, each and every person. And all of the lessons are different; Libertine's lessons are not your lessons are not my lessons, etc.

Campbell, as an analogy, if we all decided to drive though stop signs there would be big problems; just as there are rules to a debate. But given this you are correct about the existence of surpression of information and argument, this exists in some intellectual circles and some of the greatest insights with associated good argument have fallen onto the "handling" of foolish and destructive groups. The worldly manifestation of some of our greatest minds have been destroyed by those who are inbalanced in the approach to dealing with what they feel and or how they disagree.

Considering your some of your claims, considering the intensity and number (of posts) in which they are expressed, and considering the intensity and the number (of posts) of the responses to your claims, all specifically regarding "end of times," interpreted or "relayed" judgements about peoples souls "going to hell and repression of 'free speech';" I see considering and addressing your claims as very important especially as this connects with recent greater trends in 'our society.' You, Libertine, Hippielngstckng, Hikaru and many others chiming in, "on the many sides of this big table," are bringing up very good and important points. I have such as strong feeling of appreciation for, and I will say "a love" of, your tenacity and endurance but your claims must be addressed especially as they represent an influence on others who would otherwise benefit from being exposed to other points of view; and in and of this type of exposure our society will benefit.

Many here including yourself have mentioned the many killings, and great destructions, that have taken place in the name of Chirstainity and in name of religion in general - your claims must be addressed in an orderly, patient, compassionate and, yet, steadfast manner. You may be absolutely correct in your claims, each parsed as possible, or you may have more to learn. 'Winning' a debate does not necessarily signify that the 'losing' side does not have correct and valid insight. It is understood or would be beneficial if one understood, that in a regulated discussion such as a debate that there are limitations in the nature of expression that are partly rooted in the fact the words and 'logic' impose limitations in dealing with information that is not orginally expressed in words.

Another poster had a very good suggestion that we investigate the possibility of having a particular type of thread limited to two debators and assigned judges. But I feel that you simply want to have a relaxed non-regulated dicussion 'from, and to, the heart.' Expect, however, because of the great variety of spiritual, religious and related beliefs in our world, that condemnations and expressions promoting concepts of religious supremacy will be met with flurries of response. Campbell I have grown to like you, I will say "I Love you brother" and I respect your right to express your beliefs but I must say that I sometimes find your expressions replusive in that they, for example, "relay" condemnation of, or "functionally curse," some of the most wonderful, good, giving and kind human beings that exist or have existed. As you have been made fun of and cursed, think of those to whom you "relay" condemnation.

Campbell following I have added two links about "debate,"

"a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides"

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=debate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate


David




.

 

what evidence? Theres no evidence AGAINST evolution.

 

'keep holy the sabbath'. You choose to throw out completely one of the commandments, yet you preach to us that we need to be saved?

 

Remember all the times Christ went out, asking people, "Do you believe it is pious to heal on the sabbath?" and them, saying yes, were healed?

Oops, sorry, forgot this was Cambell's thread!

 

no, i dont remember any of those times