Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 2137
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Nick_A » Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:06 am

Greta
Your accusations of superficiality are in themselves shallow, and that was my point. You focus on weak abstract superficialities seemingly largely for competitive purposes rather than investigating them further. Yes, we know. It's not easy to be the person you want to/should be.
As I said, as of now you don’t distinguish between the iner and outer man. Since you don’t, how could you be open to Christianity? You will only recognize the Pharisee or outer man
Matthew 23:27-28
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. "So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

2 Corinthians 4:16
Verse Concepts
Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day.
Where is the curiosity? Where is the respect for science? You never seem much interested in what others say or think - it's either you preaching down on high to your occasional rapt fan or it's an argument.
Why would I who admire Simone Weil, have anything against science? I know it is abused for political gain but this doesn’t affect my admiration for the intent of science. The reality of the world is the foundation of facts and is a product of the intellect. Becoming able to experience higher values enters us from above through “feelings.” I believe objective facts and objective values are complimentary and Man is capable of such understanding. This isn’t preaching. It is just logical.

I just don’t see how arguing about Trump has anything to do with opening to objective human meaning and purpose or striving to become the cosmic Man as Einstein described.

Nick_A
Posts: 2137
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Nick_A » Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:17 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:37 am
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:41 am
When we compare St. Paul’s description of himself with that of the modern educated Paul it becomes obvious why why the essence of religion devolves into secularism. ...
Are you mental? St.Paul created the 'secular religion' you deplore, his sect was the winner in the West.
Christianity is part of a perennial philosophy and this philosophy always was. The essence of Christianity didn't begin with Jesus: he actualized it.
The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception if the human race until the coming if Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion which was already in existence began to be called Christian. -ST. AUGUSTINE, Retractiones

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2823
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Greta » Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:08 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:06 am
Greta
Your accusations of superficiality are in themselves shallow, and that was my point. You focus on weak abstract superficialities seemingly largely for competitive purposes rather than investigating them further. Yes, we know. It's not easy to be the person you want to/should be.
As I said, as of now you don’t distinguish between the iner and outer man. Since you don’t, how could you be open to Christianity?
I am not open to believing mythology is real, no. That has nothing to do with our layers of being. Nix. Zip.
Nick_A wrote:The reality of the world is the foundation of facts and is a product of the intellect. Becoming able to experience higher values enters us from above through “feelings.”
Are you trying to tell me that one can not only think but also emote about that which we think as well? How does it feel to be first to recognise that people can be emotional?
Nick_A wrote:I just don’t see how arguing about Trump has anything to do with opening to objective human meaning and purpose or striving to become the cosmic Man as Einstein described.
If I claimed to be an ethical champion and then spoke about OJ Simpson in glowing terms, would that harm the credibility of my claims?

You claim to be in touch with humanity's inner layers yet you seemingly cannot see the unprecedented corruption of Trump, and that doesn't do much for your claims either.

Nick_A
Posts: 2137
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Nick_A » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:49 pm

Greta
I am not open to believing mythology is real, no. That has nothing to do with our layers of being. Nix. Zip.
You are closed to conscious contemplation. You either believe or deny at a superficial level. That attitude denies your ability to be open to higher knowledge. You don’t know how to use mythology which is why you must remain closed to its value
“Mythology is not a lie, mythology is poetry, it is metaphorical. It has been well said that mythology is the penultimate truth--penultimate because the ultimate cannot be put into words. It is beyond words. Beyond images, beyond that bounding rim of the Buddhist Wheel of Becoming. Mythology pitches the mind beyond that rim, to what can be known but not told.”
― Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth
Are you trying to tell me that one can not only think but also emote about that which we think as well? How does it feel to be first to recognise that people can be emotional?
People are expressing negative emotions all the time but how many are capable or even willing to experience the higher emotions which reflect conscience and sacred scripture awakens us to?
If I claimed to be an ethical champion and then spoke about OJ Simpson in glowing terms, would that harm the credibility of my claims?

You claim to be in touch with humanity's inner layers yet you seemingly cannot see the unprecedented corruption of Trump, and that doesn't do much for your claims either.
We live by the fallen human condition and are all hypocrites. For some reason you are compelled to use Trump as a scapegoat. Good politics but lousy philosophy for those who define philosophy as the love of wisdom.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 998
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:02 pm

Greta wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:50 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:23 am
So...you do no wrong? Or is there no wrong?
Everyone wrongs someone else to some extent in every moment of every day, even if it means occupying a space that others could use.

Some wrongs are greater than others, but it's surprising how much people's views vary as to what constitutes a grievous wrong, what constitutes a misdemeanour and what constitutes good.
I believe Buddhism, along with Christianity, made the observation that under the a universe without "flaw" one single wrong/sin would in fact completely alter it. Wrongs may be "wronger than other wrongs" when observing wrongs as a relative measuring point. Relative to a universe that has not wrong, however, a wrong is not only still a wrong but in itself is the greatest of wrongs.

We can observe that wrongs are always wrong as a constant, while relativistically some wrongs may be greater than others. In the terms of morality, we can understand the morality itself is simultaneously constant and relativistic in different respects.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2823
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Greta » Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:18 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:49 pm
Greta
I am not open to believing mythology is real, no. That has nothing to do with our layers of being. Nix. Zip.
You are closed to conscious contemplation. You either believe or deny at a superficial level. That attitude denies your ability to be open to higher knowledge. You don’t know how to use mythology which is why you must remain closed to its value
Wrong again. I have enjoyed observing the metaphors of mythology other fiction since the 1960s. You are good at being wrong, Mr Trump fan.

Most people accept that the problem of other minds is simply due to the opacity of other minds. However you, like Dwayne Hoover, seem to interpret this as a lack of consciousness per se, as though you are the only person alive who is not a black-minded philosophical zombie. This is why you are such a chronic forum bully - because you do not believe that your victims are sentient.

Nick, you need to understand that ancient people recorded what they thought would be important to the next generations. This cultural transmission is a large part of what makes us human. You can deny this if you wish, imagining that just your Bible is the lone valuable artefact to be handed down, but that won't make it true.

It seems to me that you know a little mythology but don't understand what you are reading, tending to take literally that which is metaphorical.

Nick_A wrote:For some reason you are compelled to use Trump as a scapegoat. Good politics but lousy philosophy for those who define philosophy as the love of wisdom.
No, I am pointing out that you were a HUGE Trump fan - now seemingly distancing yourself from this.

I am pointing out that, for one who claims to see more deeply than others, you displayed a level of shallowness in your judgements that renders your boasts absurd. If I were you I'd be focusing on empathy and comprehending that most humans are not the mindless beasts you paint them to be.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2823
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Greta » Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:28 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:02 pm
Greta wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:50 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:23 am
So...you do no wrong? Or is there no wrong?
Everyone wrongs someone else to some extent in every moment of every day, even if it means occupying a space that others could use.

Some wrongs are greater than others, but it's surprising how much people's views vary as to what constitutes a grievous wrong, what constitutes a misdemeanour and what constitutes good.
I believe Buddhism, along with Christianity, made the observation that under the a universe without "flaw" one single wrong/sin would in fact completely alter it. Wrongs may be "wronger than other wrongs" when observing wrongs as a relative measuring point. Relative to a universe that has not wrong, however, a wrong is not only still a wrong but in itself is the greatest of wrongs.

We can observe that wrongs are always wrong as a constant, while relativistically some wrongs may be greater than others. In the terms of morality, we can understand the morality itself is simultaneously constant and relativistic in different respects.
A universe without flaw can only be one of two things - nothingness (or what we perceive as nothingness) or a singularity (which most likely do not exist). Thus, a universe without flaw is one that cannot do anything - until a "flaw" appears. Note that there are some who would claim that first flaw to be God - the prime mover.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 998
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:46 pm

Greta wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:28 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:02 pm
Greta wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:50 am

Everyone wrongs someone else to some extent in every moment of every day, even if it means occupying a space that others could use.

Some wrongs are greater than others, but it's surprising how much people's views vary as to what constitutes a grievous wrong, what constitutes a misdemeanour and what constitutes good.
I believe Buddhism, along with Christianity, made the observation that under the a universe without "flaw" one single wrong/sin would in fact completely alter it. Wrongs may be "wronger than other wrongs" when observing wrongs as a relative measuring point. Relative to a universe that has not wrong, however, a wrong is not only still a wrong but in itself is the greatest of wrongs.

We can observe that wrongs are always wrong as a constant, while relativistically some wrongs may be greater than others. In the terms of morality, we can understand the morality itself is simultaneously constant and relativistic in different respects.
A universe without flaw can only be one of two things - nothingness (or what we perceive as nothingness)
Under nothingness, there is either no universe, or an absence of universe relative to another universe.


or a singularity (which most likely do not exist).
The question of singularity is fundamentally a question of time, as any temporal event is strictly an approximation of that very same singularity. Observing point "A" moving to point "B" moving to point "C" in reality is strictly a gradation of potential unity as:

___1___
(A,B,C)

A strictly relativistic understanding of the universe, resulting in the temporality and movement we observe, cannot exist on its own terms as relativity is merely the relation of units-particulates that exist if and only if they relate.

Take for example a 1d line in 0d space. The line cannot go anywhere as 0d space is "nothing". Considering the 1d line is extradimensional, as in projecting past its origins, it must always move past itself. Hence it folds in upon itself, through the zero dimensional point, to form an angle within in turn forms and infinite number of lines and angles (particle-waves). As the line only exists, this process of continual individuation observes change and size only as the relation of lines and nothing more...yet it is the same 1d line in 0d space.

The problem occurs as to where the line originates from, as it exists extradimensionally only as perpetual movement. The problem of perpetual movement, that while is "movement", it is also a "constant" (hence "perpetual")

In these respects, its extradimensional nature is a cause for movement. So the solution? An intradimensional unified space as "point" from which the act of "center through center" provides an understanding of space as "no-limit" while its "dimensional nature as direction" provides the dual understanding of space as "limit".

The point is the median between space as "limit" and "no-limit", while being a foundational "unity" through intradimensional mirroring.

To skip some portions of the argument, for brevity (which I can come back later to if you wish), the 1d line through which we observe both physical reality and abstract consciousness, is merely a grade of the 1d point. Or in simpler terms, multiplicity is the limit of unity through approximation. Hence there really is no "nothingness" but rather multiplicity through the 0d point.

Now I don't want to get to far into the example, but to observe your point, their must be a "unity" and what we understand of it is merely an approximation through the observation of movement as multiplicity. In these regards, all wrongs are merely a deficiency of existence, or separation as 0d or "nothingness". Hence, evil is "irrational". What is "Good" existed, exists and will exist through the 1d space with evil merley being an absence of Good or the "limit of it". However since Good as unity must be unity, it must be perpetual, hence evil is merely nothingness on its own terms as the limit of "infinity"...if you can understand this point at all...it can appear confusing.


Thus, a universe without flaw is one that cannot do anything - until a "flaw" appears. Note that there are some who would claim that first flaw to be God - the prime mover.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2823
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Greta » Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:27 am

Eod, my point was mainly that perfection is purely theoretical - the existence of anything is inherently a fluctuation, an imperfection.

Your dimensional talk recalled Rob Bryanton's YouuTube video, Imagining the 10th Dimension. I'm a bit of a dimensions fan myself, though clearly less so than you :)

It's true that relativistic reality appears to be everything, but is not. So, yes, in relativistic terms only near-singularities could exist, not an actual singularity. In terms of QM I can't say. Probably. Maybe. :lol:

Time does appear to be the odd one out and, while it's reasonably held to be synonymous with change, not much is said in that context about the nature of that change. Time is not actually just change but a certain kind of change - turning inside out. One life span is one iteration of turning inside out, of inversion.

We start as a cell - a biological point filled with information, the genetic blueprint. Gradually the point grows - expanding like a sphere running through a 2D plane - through childhood and adolescence to maturity, and then we decline (shrink) and finally we dissipate. Technically, when the last remaining cell with your DNA is consumed - the final "point" - then you have fully turned inside out, with all of your prior content drawn into the environment.

Ditto the Sun, the Earth, the galaxy, the universe, each filled with subsidiary systems, also undergoing inversion and eversion. This would make any (relative) singularity potentially the first point of an intrusion into another dimension ...??

Nick_A
Posts: 2137
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Nick_A » Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:43 am

Greta
Most people accept that the problem of other minds is simply due to the opacity of other minds. However you, like Dwayne Hoover, seem to interpret this as a lack of consciousness per se, as though you are the only person alive who is not a black-minded philosophical zombie. This is why you are such a chronic forum bully - because you do not believe that your victims are sentient.
A fine example of the arrogance of the secular mind. It must be revolted by the ideas within Plato's Cave allegory since it suggests a quality of conscious experience that questions the secular world is the limit of human meaning and purpose humanity is called to experience

From the Cave allegory:
[Socrates] This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.

Now, coming out of the sun and not fully accustomed again to living in darkness, a person having experienced the light wants to share even though unsteady but is confronted with experts that at best only confuse everything and at worst kill him. It reminds me of what a person asserting the world is round with people believing it was flat. He would be condemned.
[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
Greta would be with the mob seeking to catch the offender and would join in the stoning. Welcome to the secular progressive world of reason. It has become closed to the third dimension of thought so is restricted to living in duality and fighting over its opinions. Those who suggest something else are considered bullies for discussing essential philosophy.

Consider how long it took for the educated to finally conclude that the world is round. How long will it take the secular progressives if ever to become open to the vertical third dimension of thought? Maybe Oprah will lead the way. :) God help us.

Dubious
Posts: 1453
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Dubious » Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:32 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:43 am
Welcome to the secular progressive world of reason. It has become closed to the third dimension of thought so is restricted to living in duality and fighting over its opinions. Those who suggest something else are considered bullies for discussing essential philosophy.
So when are you going to start discussing it? Not least, if we're so confused "living in duality" imagine how utterly confounded we would be in the 3rd dimension of thought! You being an example of that, I'm staying put!

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2823
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Greta » Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:28 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:43 am
Most people accept that the problem of other minds is simply due to the opacity of other minds. However you, like Dwayne Hoover, seem to interpret this as a lack of consciousness per se, as though you are the only person alive who is not a black-minded philosophical zombie. This is why you are such a chronic forum bully - because you do not believe that your victims are sentient.
A fine example of the arrogance of the secular mind. It must be revolted by the ideas within Plato's Cave allegory since it suggests a quality of conscious experience that questions the secular world is the limit of human meaning and purpose humanity is called to experience
How is it arrogant of me to note that you treat others as unthinking sub humans for the crime of being "secular"?

Do you notice that it is arrogant of you to dismiss most people here as secular thinkers? It's no different to how Afrikaners would dismiss South African "blecks" during apartheid. It is simply prejudice, and arrogant.

As noted by uwot earlier, you routinely project your own issues on to others.

You appear not to have empathy, to believe that people are as you see them, rather than the mysterious "icebergs" that are human beings - all of us, even two-dimensional "secular" cardboard cutouts. We are actually sentient, Nick. We feel. We think. We Love. We are actually fully and completely human. This includes having fully human minds - and most of the content of those other minds you don't understand and cannot understand, even though to claim to.

I have this problem with others, who think that women aren't fully human, or blacks or Asians. For you, the prejudice is against "secularists".

Nick_A
Posts: 2137
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Nick_A » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:53 am

If Plato is right that we live in imagination and Einstein is right that Man can evolve into the cosmic man, why make it negative? Why consider it insulting? If we are asleep to reality isn't it better to experience what this means? Suppose Simone Weil is right and some people are yet to experience the supernatural part of their being, you can deny with righteous indignation or be open to the possibility.
Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 998
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:08 pm

Greta wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:27 am
Eod, my point was mainly that perfection is purely theoretical - the existence of anything is inherently a fluctuation, an imperfection.

Imperfection exists as a gradation of perfection if and only if there is perfection. Movement (or change) follows the same course as a gradation of stability.

Your dimensional talk recalled Rob Bryanton's YouuTube video, Imagining the 10th Dimension. I'm a bit of a dimensions fan myself, though clearly less so than you :)

It's true that relativistic reality appears to be everything, but is not. So, yes, in relativistic terms only near-singularities could exist, not an actual singularity. In terms of QM I can't say. Probably. Maybe. :lol:

Time does appear to be the odd one out and, while it's reasonably held to be synonymous with change, not much is said in that context about the nature of that change. Time is not actually just change but a certain kind of change - turning inside out. One life span is one iteration of turning inside out, of inversion.

You made a solid point I have observed before, not on this forum however: inversion. Time is the inversion of unified stability through relativistic (moving) multiplicity. What we understand as time is merely an approximation of a universal 1d "dimension". This dimension, as 1, contains all reality in one moment and could be argued as synonymous to the "ether".

If we look at time, as movement, it is based in frequencies of alternating/circulating linear dimensions. The process of inversion through inherent polarity, of 1d linear space and 0d point-field space, forms the foundation for not only movement but contains a nature of multiplicity. This nature of multiplicity is founded in the inherent extradimensionality of the 1d line. What we understand as movement is rooted in an extradimensional nature. And this is an important point, reflective of morality, in the respect that change is a projection outwards. Yet the foundation of all moral systems requires a form of consistency or integrity that is not subject to time. Immorality implies an absence of structure, and using the aforementioned example of extradimensionality and invert it, we can observe that morality lies in a process of self-reflection (or intradimensionality) in which we maintain both ourselves and corresponding actions through a practice of reflection. This corresponds further to the golden rule.


We start as a cell - a biological point filled with information, the genetic blueprint. Gradually the point grows - expanding like a sphere running through a 2D plane - through childhood and adolescence to maturity, and then we decline (shrink) and finally we dissipate. Technically, when the last remaining cell with your DNA is consumed - the final "point" - then you have fully turned inside out, with all of your prior content drawn into the environment.

Ditto the Sun, the Earth, the galaxy, the universe, each filled with subsidiary systems, also undergoing inversion and eversion. This would make any (relative) singularity potentially the first point of an intrusion into another dimension ...??
My point, to get back on topic, is that morality is constant and relative at the same time in different respects. Their are inherent moral codes that are constants in themselves, such as the golden rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not only a self-reflective morality but a morality in which we form our own decisions...even morality in a minor degree. It is a moral system based upon a geometric circle, and maintains itself as a median point for all actions and judgements. Morality, in these respects, has a dual empirical/transcendental nature found in reason itself.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2823
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Greta » Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:43 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:53 am
If Plato is right that we live in imagination and Einstein is right that Man can evolve into It is negative to rant about how dreadful we all are in just about every post. Over and over and over. the cosmic man, why make it negative? Why consider it insulting?
It is negative to rant about how dreadful we all are in just about every post. Over and over and over. If you treat others as if they are sub-human, which you routinely do, then that would be insulting if we weren't all so accustomed to your prejudice.

If you had actually learned something real that you wanted to share, you would be taking a more patient, grounded and temperate approach. One who has "the answer" should ideally present an uncommon level of wisdom. People judge another's metaphysical claims firstly by who they are. Do they have poise, calm and equanimity, self control, logic, a general sense of goodwill and so on? Do they have these markers of mature and grounded human beings?

If you sincerely want to teach rather than to dominate and impose, then you would use the kind of language (not Biblical) that "sleeping" secularists would relate to. You would make a real effort to cut through rather than making uncompromising pronouncements, full of hostility and divisiveness, then followed by patronising sneers when anyone one dares to disagree.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests