The meek shall inherit the earth

[Iwannaplato]

WHY NOT?

What makes the human being known as "bill gates" different from EVERY "other" human being?

I didn't say he was different from every other human being.

No, you did NOT. However, you did say and write, "but that sure don't include Bill Gates."

Right, I said that, so there was no reason to assume, as you did, that I said the other thing. And since I clearly had spoken about Bill Gates as a kind of person, with qualities that many other humans have, I did not think he was different from all other humans.

Unless you are trying to say that all human beings are meek and the Bible was saying everyone would inherit the earth.

All children, in a sense, are 'meek', but they (if they live long enough) are the ones that finally end up having responsibility of caretaking for the earth. Thus, in that sense, they end up 'inheriting' the earth.

So, when Jesus said that the meek will inherit the earth he meant everyone who survives childhood? Ridiculous. And since some of the meek don't live to adulthood, it is not all the meek who inherit the earth.

Where, EXACTLY, do you see ANY confusion here, or there?

Because there is no need to use a specific adjective, meek, if it means all humans, when they grow up. And the confusion I see is in your interpretation not what he said.

If you look at the context...

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account."

You can see that SPECIFIC qualities are said to lead to lead to future good things or are sign of good things now. THOSE people are blessed. Not others. If all those sentences really meant everyone, the whole passage would be a joke. He could have said Everybody is blessed. We KNOW for example that not everyone is a peacemaker. Not everyone is reviled and persecuted for any reason, let alone the specific reason he mentions. We know that there are people who are not merciful. Every meet a narcissist? A psychopath? They are not merciful.

This is a guide to what qualities are considered good and connect on to God and future good states of being. It is suggesting what attitudes are proper.

It would be silly to replace those categories with every body or any one of them.

[Age]

I didn't say he was different from every other human being.

No, you did NOT. However, you did say and write, "but that sure don't include Bill Gates."

Right, I said that, so there was no reason to assume, as you did, that I said the other thing.

What was the "other thing", which you are ASSUMING I ASSUMED?

I think we will find that I NEVER ASSUMED ANY 'such thing'.

And since I clearly had spoken about Bill Gates as a kind of person, with qualities that many other humans have, I did not think he was different from all other humans..

Maybe not. But what the word 'meek' means in relation to 'inheriting the earth' is EVERY child, as long as they live for long enough. The one known as "bill gates" was absolutely NO different on this regard. And, it was you who CLEARLY stated: "Could be, but that sure don't include Bill Gates", in reply to my comment about; 'ALL of those who are afflicted by, or bearing, a heavy burden DO 'inherit the earth', that is; the 'meek, if they live long enough.'

As can be SEEN here now, I was CLEARLY referring to ALL children, which OBVIOUSLY DOES INCLUDE the one known as "bill gates".

Unless you are trying to say that all human beings are meek and the Bible was saying everyone would inherit the earth.

All children, in a sense, are 'meek', but they (if they live long enough) are the ones that finally end up having responsibility of caretaking for the earth. Thus, in that sense, they end up 'inheriting' the earth.

So, when Jesus said that the meek will inherit the earth he meant everyone who survives childhood? Ridiculous.

And WHY SO, EXACTLY?

As an adult did you NOT take over to the 'inheritance of the earth'?

Have you NOT YET taken 'responsibilty' for what you are doing, causing, and creating in relation to the earth, and its environment?

And since some of the meek don't live to adulthood, it is not all the meek who inherit the earth.

Which is EXACTLY what I SAID above. As can be CLEARLY SEEN, in the words that I ACTUALLY used, there.

Where, EXACTLY, do you see ANY confusion here, or there?

Because there is no need to use a specific adjective, meek, if it means all humans, when they grow up.

There is absolutely NO need AT ALL for a LOT of what 'you', human beings, SAY and DO.

The human being known as "jesus christ" was NO different in this regard also.

Furthermore, "jesus christ" also MISINTERPRETED things and/or used wrong or incorrect words, or usage of words, just like EVERY older human being does, which then gets passed on down through the generations but told and spread as though 'it' was ACTUALLY the right and only true and correct INTERPRETATION.

And the confusion I see is in your interpretation not what he said.

So, what IS the only true, right, and correct INTERPRETATION of what " jesus“ said here regarding this discussion?

If you look at the context...

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

In that context I see it is children who are being talked about and referred to here, or there.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account."

Children, AGAIN. Well to me anyway.

WHO, EXACTLY, do you think or BELIEVE is being referred to here, or there?

You can see that SPECIFIC qualities are said to lead to lead to future good things or are sign of good things now. THOSE people are blessed. Not others. If all those sentences really meant everyone, the whole passage would be a joke.

But children are NOT EVERY one. 'you', adult human beings, are CERTAINLY NOT included.

1. 'you' have ALREADY 'inherited' the earth.
2. Those qualities have usually been completely drained out of each of 'you' by the time 'you' have reached adulthood.
3.'you' are CERTAINLY NOT 'children', in age way, although 'you' CERTAINLY DO act VERY immature, and NATURALLY will ALWAYS just be 'children in Life''; that is; ALWAYS LEARNING, and GROWING.

He could have said Everybody is blessed.

But it was NOT SAID. For very specific reasons, ACTUALLY.

We KNOW for example that not everyone is a peacemaker. Not everyone is reviled and persecuted for any reason, let alone the specific reason he mentions. We know that there are people who are not merciful. Every meet a narcissist? A psychopath? They are not merciful.

And here lays the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between children and adults. Children "ARE" those "things". Adults ARE NOT.

This is a guide to what qualities are considered good and connect on to God and future good states of being. It is suggesting what attitudes are proper.

Did 'you', adult human beings, REALLY NEED suggestions of what are good and bad qualities?

Do ' you' STILL NEED suggestions of what IS Right and Wrong, in Life?

It would be silly to replace those categories with every body or any one of them.

I AGREE, WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

For a couple of reasons.

[Iwannaplato]

What was the "other thing", which you are ASSUMING I ASSUMED?
I think we will find that I NEVER ASSUMED ANY 'such thing'.

I have no idea what you will find, but it's right there in previous posts for all to read. You said I said that Bill Gates was not meek. You asked me

What makes the human being known as "bill gates" different from EVERY "other" human being?

I pointed out that I did not say that. You made some assumption about what I meant, but did not say. I pointed this out.

And since I clearly had spoken about Bill Gates as a kind of person, with qualities that many other humans have, I did not think he was different from all other humans..

Maybe not. But what the word 'meek' means in relation to 'inheriting the earth' is EVERY child, as long as they live for long enough. The one known as "bill gates" was absolutely NO different on this regard. And, it was you who CLEARLY stated: "Could be, but that sure don't include Bill Gates", in reply to my comment about; 'ALL of those who are afflicted by, or bearing, a heavy burden DO 'inherit the earth', that is; the 'meek, if they live long enough.'

Repeating your position adds nothing.

As can be SEEN here now, I was CLEARLY referring to ALL children, which OBVIOUSLY DOES INCLUDE the one known as "bill gates".

Yeah, I got that, and nothing I said indicates or implies otherwise. In fact I understood you meant that. And my response does not make sense otherwise.

And WHY SO, EXACTLY?

As an adult did you NOT take over to the 'inheritance of the earth'?

That's not the ridiculous part.

And since some of the meek don't live to adulthood, it is not all the meek who inherit the earth.

Which is EXACTLY what I SAID above. As can be CLEARLY SEEN, in the words that I ACTUALLY used, there.

You said that, yes. The problem I am pointing out is then, if you were correct, it is NOT THE MEEK, but some of the meek who inherit the earth. Which would make the sermon poor communication in yet another way.

But children are NOT EVERY one. 'you', adult human beings, are CERTAINLY NOT included.

Is English your first language?

1. 'you' have ALREADY 'inherited' the earth.
2. Those qualities have usually been completely drained out of each of 'you' by the time 'you' have reached adulthood.
3.'you' are CERTAINLY NOT 'children', in age way, although 'you' CERTAINLY DO act VERY immature, and NATURALLY will ALWAYS just be 'children in Life''; that is; ALWAYS LEARNING, and GROWING.

He could have said Everybody is blessed.

But it was NOT SAID.

Obviously

For very specific reasons, ACTUALLY.

Yeah, because he was talking about some people and not others and also indicating attitudes that are good. I notice you do not address that part of my post.

We KNOW for example that not everyone is a peacemaker. Not everyone is reviled and persecuted for any reason, let alone the specific reason he mentions. We know that there are people who are not merciful. Every meet a narcissist? A psychopath? They are not merciful.

And here lays the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between children and adults. Children "ARE" those "things". Adults ARE NOT.

This is a guide to what qualities are considered good and connect on to God and future good states of being. It is suggesting what attitudes are proper.

Did 'you', adult human beings, REALLY NEED suggestions of what are good and bad qualities?

Actually adult humans have all sorts of ideas regarding what is good and bad and I disagree with some ideas on that list. So, he was expressing a particular view on what are good attitudes and ways of being.

Do ' you' STILL NEED suggestions of what IS Right and Wrong, in Life?

Sure, I am still learning. Loved ones can make me aware of things, others also. I am still developing.

It would be silly to replace those categories with every body or any one of them.

I AGREE, WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

For a couple of reasons.

But for some reason you think that is what it means. That everyone is meek and everyone who survives to adulthood is meek and shall inherit the earth. I says nothing about the particular kind of people who will do this. You opted not to respond to, for example, the part about the merciful. Do you think everyone is merciful?

[Age]

What was the "other thing", which you are ASSUMING I ASSUMED?
I think we will find that I NEVER ASSUMED ANY 'such thing'.

I have no idea what you will find,

If you do NOT inform us of what 'it' IS that you are ASSUMING here, then we will NEVER find out.

but it's right there in previous posts for all to read. You said I said that Bill Gates was not meek. You asked me

What makes the human being known as "bill gates" different from EVERY "other" human being?

As can be CLEARLY SEEN I asked you what I DID. NOTHING MORE and NOTHING LESS. ANY OTHER PRESUMPTION is OBVIOUSLY YOU ASSUMING.

I pointed out that I did not say that. You made some assumption about what I meant, but did not say.

You have here MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD what I have SAID, and MEANT here.

If you EVER want to KNOW, then you WILL ask the right CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

I pointed this out.

And since I clearly had spoken about Bill Gates as a kind of person, with qualities that many other humans have, I did not think he was different from all other humans..

You MISSED the point.

Maybe not. But what the word 'meek' means in relation to 'inheriting the earth' is EVERY child, as long as they live for long enough. The one known as "bill gates" was absolutely NO different on this regard. And, it was you who CLEARLY stated: "Could be, but that sure don't include Bill Gates", in reply to my comment about; 'ALL of those who are afflicted by, or bearing, a heavy burden DO 'inherit the earth', that is; the 'meek, if they live long enough.'

Repeating your position adds nothing.

You are STILL MISSING the point.

As can be SEEN here now, I was CLEARLY referring to ALL children, which OBVIOUSLY DOES INCLUDE the one known as "bill gates".

Yeah, I got that, and nothing I said indicates or implies otherwise.

WHAT?

You CLEARLY SAID and WROTE:
"Could be, but that sure don't include Bill Gates",

The words, "that sure don't include Bill Gates", MEANS, unless of course I am MISTAKEN, that 'that' does NOT include the one known as "bill gates". So, if I am MISTAKEN, then will you correct this?

If no, then WHY NOT?

In fact I understood you meant that. And my response does not make sense otherwise.

And WHY SO, EXACTLY?

As an adult did you NOT take over to the 'inheritance of the earth'?

That's not the ridiculous part.

I AGREE.

And since some of the meek don't live to adulthood, it is not all the meek who inherit the earth.

Which is EXACTLY what I SAID above. As can be CLEARLY SEEN, in the words that I ACTUALLY used, there.

You said that, yes. The problem I am pointing out is then, if you were correct, it is NOT THE MEEK, but some of the meek who inherit the earth. Which would make the sermon poor communication in yet another way.

Ah okay. It sounds like you NEED "others" to write in VERY SPECIFIC ways BEFORE you can FULLY UNDERSTAND what is being SAID and MEANT.

So, do the words, 'Those, of the 'meek', who are still alive into adult, maturity, or responsible age, shall inherit the earth', better communication, for you?

But children are NOT EVERY one. 'you', adult human beings, are CERTAINLY NOT included.

Is English your first language?

WHY?

Are you ALSO NOT ABLE to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND that 'adults' are NOT 'children', and, 'children' are NOT 'adults'?

1. 'you' have ALREADY 'inherited' the earth.
2. Those qualities have usually been completely drained out of each of 'you' by the time 'you' have reached adulthood.
3.'you' are CERTAINLY NOT 'children', in age way, although 'you' CERTAINLY DO act VERY immature, and NATURALLY will ALWAYS just be 'children in Life''; that is; ALWAYS LEARNING, and GROWING.

He could have said Everybody is blessed.

But it was NOT SAID.

Obviously

For very specific reasons, ACTUALLY.

Yeah, because he was talking about some people and not others and also indicating attitudes that are good. I notice you do not address that part of my post.

I WILL ADDRESS 'it' now then.

ALL 'children'' are born WITH and HAVE those 'good qualities'. Just about EVERY 'child' has LOSTjuat about EVERY one of those 'good qualities', by the time they reach 'adulthood'.

Have I ADDRESSED 'that part' enough, for you this time?

If no, then just let me know. I will address 'it' further for you.

We KNOW for example that not everyone is a peacemaker. Not everyone is reviled and persecuted for any reason, let alone the specific reason he mentions. We know that there are people who are not merciful. Every meet a narcissist? A psychopath? They are not merciful.

And here lays the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between children and adults. Children "ARE" those "things". Adults ARE NOT.

This is a guide to what qualities are considered good and connect on to God and future good states of being. It is suggesting what attitudes are proper.

Did 'you', adult human beings, REALLY NEED suggestions of what are good and bad qualities?

Actually adult humans have all sorts of ideas regarding what is good and bad and I disagree with some ideas on that list. So, he was expressing a particular view on what are good attitudes and ways of being.

Sounds like 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written STILL could NOT AGREE ON what is ACTUALLY Right, or good, and what is ACTUALLY Wrong, or bad, in Life, correct?

Do ' you' STILL NEED suggestions of what IS Right and Wrong, in Life?

Sure, I am still learning. Loved ones can make me aware of things, others also. I am still developing.

Okay.

When you say, "loved ones", who are you referring to, EXACTLY?

What is the reason 'you' only love and like SOME, and NOT ALL?

It would be silly to replace those categories with every body or any one of them.

I AGREE, WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

For a couple of reasons.

But for some reason you think that is what it means.

DO I?

What led you to ASSUME such a 'thing'?

That everyone is meek and everyone who survives to adulthood is meek and shall inherit the earth.

Talk about STILL MISSING, MISUNDERSTANDING, and CONFLATING things here.

I says nothing about the particular kind of people who will do this. You opted not to respond to, for example, the part about the merciful. Do you think everyone is merciful?

ONCE AGAIN, ALL 'children' HAVE the 'qualities' of those who SHALL inherit the earth.

[Iwannaplato]

I have no idea what you will find.

If you do NOT inform us of what 'it' IS that you are ASSUMING here, then we will NEVER find out.

I have, a couple of times.

but it's right there in previous posts for all to read. You said I said that Bill Gates was not meek. You asked me

What makes the human being known as "bill gates" different from EVERY "other" human being?

As can be CLEARLY SEEN I asked you what I DID. NOTHING MORE and NOTHING LESS. ANY OTHER PRESUMPTION is OBVIOUSLY YOU ASSUMING.

You assumed I thought he was different from everyone. I did not. Nor did I say that. I quoted above what you wrote. You wrote that. It is something you did. But maybe you don't take responsibility for past acts. I don't know.

I pointed out that I did not say that. You made some assumption about what I meant, but did not say.

You have here MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD what I have SAID, and MEANT here.

If you EVER want to KNOW, then you WILL ask the right CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

Yeah, you'll never actually respond including what you wrote. It's cool move, if people are fairly naive. OK, you can't take responsibility for your assumption. No worries.

You MISSED the point.

Again the easy way out. Never explain. Just see if you can get the other person to say more things you can deny without explaining.

You are STILL MISSING the point.

Ibid.

As can be SEEN here now, I was CLEARLY referring to ALL children, which OBVIOUSLY DOES INCLUDE the one known as "bill gates".

Yeah, I got that, and nothing I said indicates or implies otherwise.

WHAT?

You CLEARLY SAID and WROTE:
"Could be, but that sure don't include Bill Gates",

I'm sorry. Maybe you're dumb not cagey. I understood what you meant. I disagree.

The words, "that sure don't include Bill Gates", MEANS, unless of course I am MISTAKEN, that 'that' does NOT include the one known as "bill gates". So, if I am MISTAKEN, then will you correct this?

Obviously, duh. I think stupidity is becoming the more likely cause of your inability to communicate. I should have been more charitable. Well, on second thought I am not sure which is more charitable, thinking you are stupid or thinking
you are being intentionally evasive and dishonest.

Ah okay. It sounds like you NEED "others" to write in VERY SPECIFIC ways BEFORE you can FULLY UNDERSTAND what is being SAID and MEANT.

Yeah, I'm sure other people, and no small number, have not reacted similarly to your shit.

So, do the words, 'Those, of the 'meek', who are still alive into adult, maturity, or responsible age, shall inherit the earth', better communication, for you?

No, moron. I understood that is what you meant. On the other hand your explanation does not fit the Bible well at all.

I WILL ADDRESS 'it' now then.

Oh, joy.

ALL 'children'' are born WITH and HAVE those 'good qualities'. Just about EVERY 'child' has LOSTjuat about EVERY one of those 'good qualities', by the time they reach 'adulthood'.

Have I ADDRESSED 'that part' enough, for you this time?

If no, then just let me know. I will address 'it' further for you.

I actually responded earlier to you trying on that explanation. I asked about it. That doesn't however address my objection. You seem to be one of those people who thinks restating or rewording their original position is an actual response to criticism of that position.

And here lays the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between children and adults. Children "ARE" those "things". Adults ARE NOT.

Oh, yeah, right, all children are peacemakers. Well, you've never been a teacher or parent, perhaps you live in a cave. I am sorry. I assumed, incorrectly that you had experience of the world. You are an experience-virgin. And I have reacted harshly to the sloppily worded and generally implicit idealism of yours. I should be expressing empathy. Given your alck of experience you are doing sort of OK here.
[

Sounds like 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written STILL could NOT AGREE ON what is ACTUALLY Right, or good, and what is ACTUALLY Wrong, or bad, in Life, correct?

They Couldn't then and they can't now. But again, you'd know about this stuff if you had experience of the world. You're doing the best you can.

Do ' you' STILL NEED suggestions of what IS Right and Wrong, in Life?

Sure, I am still learning. Loved ones can make me aware of things, others also. I am still developing.[/quote]

Okay.

When you say, "loved ones", who are you referring to, EXACTLY?

What is the reason 'you' only love and like SOME, and NOT ALL?

And as usual, instead of responding to the point made, you give me more hoops to go through. I mean, you could say, Oh, I am past all that Iwannaplato. You still need help. YOu are one of them. Or
that's not what I meant, of course we all learn but in the foundation you know....
or any other response that actually shows you understood what I mean and that it led you to concede something or did not lead to that becuase of X. But what you do, because you instinctively feel it I would guess, is avoid doing those kinds of things. If you can get the other person to write more, you can distract them again and again by never actually dealing with their responses to you, but you keep responding to and generally misinterpreting what they say.

ONCE AGAIN, ALL 'children' HAVE the 'qualities' of those who SHALL inherit the earth.

It might hold if they did. But they don't you have an idealized and quite incorrect view of children. Children are often not merciful and further this is especially true of a subset of children, who can be intentionally cruel. Nor are they all, remotely peacemaker. And even a fairly dumb person can see that the last part of Jesus' speech is not directed at children. I'd go into a deeper discussion with you about the other points and how they do not fit you model, but...well...my sense of you mentioned already leads to me doubting that would lead anywhere. You don't really respond. You insult, express great surprise, and implicitly insult and ask a lot of questions instead of actually dealing with responses. Perhaps you need the comfort.

But Age, I now understand why people react to you the way they do. You are a terrible interlocutor. I mean, it's trash waste of time shit. I would guess you will ignore this, but when you get this feedback from enough people, perhaps you will learn. I wish you luck but I won't be reading anything you write any more.

[Age]

I have no idea what you will find.

If you do NOT inform us of what 'it' IS that you are ASSUMING here, then we will NEVER find out.

I have, a couple of times.

but it's right there in previous posts for all to read. You said I said that Bill Gates was not meek. You asked me

What makes the human being known as "bill gates" different from EVERY "other" human being?

As can be CLEARLY SEEN I asked you what I DID. NOTHING MORE and NOTHING LESS. ANY OTHER PRESUMPTION is OBVIOUSLY YOU ASSUMING.

You assumed I thought he was different from everyone.

I did NOT assume this AT ALL.

You SAID it, so I did NOT need to ASSUME it.

I have said that the word 'meek', in relation to 'inheriting the earth', is a word that is just referring to EVERY child. I added, as long as they live for long enough. I said that it is children who have the heavy, and who are the meek'.

You said, "Could be, but that sure don't include Bill Gates".

I noted that the one known as "bill gates" was NO different.

SO, there was NOTHING to ASSUME here. It was YOU who said that.

I did not. Nor did I say that. I quoted above what you wrote. You wrote that. It is something you did. But maybe you don't take responsibility for past acts. I don't know.

IT was YOU who WROTE: That that does NOT include "bill gates", in relation to my remark that the work 'mee' refers to ALL children.

Either "bill gates" was a child or was NOT.

Now, if "bill gates" was a child, then that DOES include "bill gates". But, if "bill gates" was NEVER a child, then you are RIGHT, as that does NOT include "bill gates".

I pointed out that I did not say that. You made some assumption about what I meant, but did not say.

You have here MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD what I have SAID, and MEANT here.

If you EVER want to KNOW, then you WILL ask the right CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

Yeah, you'll never actually respond including what you wrote. It's cool move, if people are fairly naive. OK, you can't take responsibility for your assumption. No worries.

LOL but it was NOT me who ASSUMED ANY thing here.

I even ASKED you to CLARIFY what 'it' is that you were ASSUMING I ASSUMED, but you NEVER answered this question.

So, we could talk about NOT taking responsibility here.

You MISSED the point.

Again the easy way out. Never explain. Just see if you can get the other person to say more things you can deny without explaining.

If you REALLY WANTED some 'thing' EXPLAINED,then just ask the Right CLARIFYING QUESTION. SIMPLE, REALLY.

You are STILL MISSING the point.

Ibid.

As can be SEEN here now, I was CLEARLY referring to ALL children, which OBVIOUSLY DOES INCLUDE the one known as "bill gates".

Yeah, I got that, and nothing I said indicates or implies otherwise.

WHAT?

You CLEARLY SAID and WROTE:
"Could be, but that sure don't include Bill Gates",

I'm sorry. Maybe you're dumb not cagey. I understood what you meant. I disagree.

WHO CARES IF YOU DISAGREED?

THE point now has been you are refusing to ADMIT that you wrote "bill gates" is NOT included in, with WHO I was saying the work 'meek' refers to.

I was just POINTING OUT and SHOWING just how Wrong YOUR CLAIM here was and STILL IS.

The words, "that sure don't include Bill Gates", MEANS, unless of course I am MISTAKEN, that 'that' does NOT include the one known as "bill gates". So, if I am MISTAKEN, then will you correct this?

Obviously, duh. I think stupidity is becoming the more likely cause of your inability to communicate. I should have been more charitable. Well, on second thought I am not sure which is more charitable, thinking you are stupid or thinking
you are being intentionally evasive and dishonest.

And here we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of an ATTEMPT at DECEPTION and Dishonesty, in the highest degree, while at the same time 'trying to' RIDICULE and DISCREDIT the "other" AS WELL.

Ah okay. It sounds like you NEED "others" to write in VERY SPECIFIC ways BEFORE you can FULLY UNDERSTAND what is being SAID and MEANT.

Yeah, I'm sure other people, and no small number, have not reacted similarly to your shit.

So, do the words, 'Those, of the 'meek', who are still alive into adult, maturity, or responsible age, shall inherit the earth', better communication, for you?

No, moron. I understood that is what you meant. On the other hand your explanation does not fit the Bible well at all.

1. IF you DID UNDERSTAND this PREVIOUSLY, then WHY write, "but that sure does NOT include Bill Gates"?

2. WHY, EXACTLY, does my explanation NOT "fit the Bible well AT ALL"?

3. WHAT EXPLANATION DOES "fit the Bible WELL"?

I WILL ADDRESS 'it' now then.

Oh, joy.

ALL 'children'' are born WITH and HAVE those 'good qualities'. Just about EVERY 'child' has LOSTjuat about EVERY one of those 'good qualities', by the time they reach 'adulthood'.

Have I ADDRESSED 'that part' enough, for you this time?

If no, then just let me know. I will address 'it' further for you.

I actually responded earlier to you trying on that explanation. I asked about it.

You made the CLAIM that I had NOT addressed 'it', BUT now you CLAIM that I had ALREADY responded to 'it'. So, which one is it?

That doesn't however address my objection. You seem to be one of those people who thinks restating or rewording their original position is an actual response to criticism of that position.

You can criticize ANY thing for as long as you like, but that does NOT mean that you are right AT ALL.

In fact you have said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL YET that ACTUALLY 'critiques' ABSOLUTELY ANY thing I have said here.

In fact you have SHOWN to say some thing that was OBVIOUSLY NOT true AT ALL.

Now, you want to make a CLAIM here that you have made a criticism to my position. Do you have the courage to SAY and WRITE "again" that 'critiscism'?

If you do, then I WILL RESPOND to 'it'. But if you do NOT, then this SAYS and REVEALS MORE about 'you'.

And here lays the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between children and adults. Children "ARE" those "things". Adults ARE NOT.

Oh, yeah, right, all children are peacemakers. Well, you've never been a teacher or parent, perhaps you live in a cave.

AND just like a TYPICAL ADULT you have MADE an ASSUMPTION and have JUMPED to a CONCLUSION BEFORE you even BEGAN to seek ANY CLARIFICATION, AT ALL.

I am sorry. I assumed, incorrectly that you had experience of the world. You are an experience-virgin. And I have reacted harshly to the sloppily worded and generally implicit idealism of yours. I should be expressing empathy. Given your alck of experience you are doing sort of OK here.

And 'you', adults', are SO EASY to MANIPULATE.

Sounds like 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written STILL could NOT AGREE ON what is ACTUALLY Right, or good, and what is ACTUALLY Wrong, or bad, in Life, correct?

They Couldn't then and they can't now.

WHEN was 'then', and WHEN is 'now'?

But again, you'd know about this stuff if you had experience of the world. You're doing the best you can.

But 'you', human beings, once did KNOW what was Right and good in Life. 'you' have just LOST 'your way', as some might say

Do ' you' STILL NEED suggestions of what IS Right and Wrong, in Life?

Sure, I am still learning. Loved ones can make me aware of things, others also. I am still developing.

Okay.

When you say, "loved ones", who are you referring to, EXACTLY?

What is the reason 'you' only love and like SOME, and NOT ALL?

And as usual, instead of responding to the point made, you give me more hoops to go through.

The so-called "point" you made was just ANOTHER ABSURD and Wrong ASSUMPTION, anyway. So, it was just ANOTHER 'thing' NOT WORTH responding to.

I mean, you could say, Oh, I am past all that Iwannaplato. You still need help. YOu are one of them. Or
that's not what I meant, of course we all learn but in the foundation you know....
or any other response that actually shows you understood what I mean and that it led you to concede something or did not lead to that becuase of X. But what you do, because you instinctively feel it I would guess, is avoid doing those kinds of things.

LOL

I have NOT heard such STUPID and IDIOTIC EXPECTATIONS for a while now.

ONCE AGAIN, YOUR "points" are ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, Wrong, or just plain False, so NOT worth responding to.

If you can get the other person to write more, you can distract them again and again by never actually dealing with their responses to you, but you keep responding to and generally misinterpreting what they say.

Talk about PROJECTION.

I AM THE ONLY ONE here who has offered up an EXPLANATION of WHOnthe 'meek' refers to, in relation to the topic title.

Now, IF ANY one has an issue or problem with that EXPLANATION, then continue on.

Who it IS who has been MISINTERPRETING, DISTRACTING, and NOT ACTUALLY dealing with that response of mine can be CLEARLY SEEN here

ONCE AGAIN, ALL 'children' HAVE the 'qualities' of those who SHALL inherit the earth.

It might hold if they did. But they don't you have an idealized and quite incorrect view of children.

And you have a VERY NARROWED and SHORT SIGHTED view of things here. Which explains WHY you keep MISSING and MISUNDERSTANDING what I am ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING here. Which, by the way, is just PLAIN OBVIOUS as well as being IRREFUTABLE.

Children are often not merciful and further this is especially true of a subset of children, who can be intentionally cruel. Nor are they all, remotely peacemaker.

MORE PROOF of Wrong ASSUMING and CONCLUDING, based upon NEVER FIRST CLARIFYING, in the beginning, and a VERY SHORT SIGHTED and NARROWED WAY of LOOKING AT and SEEING things.

And even a fairly dumb person can see that the last part of Jesus' speech is not directed at children.

WHY NOT?

And what has not having the ability to speak got to do with ANY of this here?

WHO is the last part of "jesus's" directed at, EXACTLY?

YOUR REFUSAL to answer and CLARIFY proves just how LITTLE you stand behind YOUR CLAIMS here.

I'd go into a deeper discussion with you about the other points and how they do not fit you model, but...well...my sense of you mentioned already leads to me doubting that would lead anywhere.

The REAL REASON you do NOT go into FURTHER DISCUSSION with me is because you are AFRAID I WILL PROVE you Wrong AGAIN.

You ALSO have NO other ACTUAL points in regards to how they do NOT fit my model ANYWAY

You don't really respond. You insult, express great surprise, and implicitly insult and ask a lot of questions instead of actually dealing with responses. Perhaps you need the comfort.

Perhaps you could STOP MAKING these Wrong ASSUMPTIONS and JUMPING to these Wrong CONCLUSIONS. But then again maybe you can NOT. We will just have to WAIT and SEE.

But Age, I now understand why people react to you the way they do. You are a terrible interlocutor. I mean, it's trash waste of time shit. I would guess you will ignore this, but when you get this feedback from enough people, perhaps you will learn. I wish you luck but I won't be reading anything you write any more.

BECAUSE you are WEAK, and can NOT back up and support your PREVIOUS CLAIMS.

You just do NOT like the Fact that I PROVED YOUR first CLAIM Wrong and False and that you were NOT able to refute MY CLAIM here.

So, RUN AWAY, like you WANT TO.

[Philosphicalous]

What was the "other thing", which you are ASSUMING I ASSUMED?
I think we will find that I NEVER ASSUMED ANY 'such thing'.

I have no idea what you will find,

If you do NOT inform us of what 'it' IS that you are ASSUMING here, then we will NEVER find out.

but it's right there in previous posts for all to read. You said I said that Bill Gates was not meek. You asked me

What makes the human being known as "bill gates" different from EVERY "other" human being?

As can be CLEARLY SEEN I asked you what I DID. NOTHING MORE and NOTHING LESS. ANY OTHER PRESUMPTION is OBVIOUSLY YOU ASSUMING.

I pointed out that I did not say that. You made some assumption about what I meant, but did not say.

You have here MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD what I have SAID, and MEANT here.

If you EVER want to KNOW, then you WILL ask the right CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

I pointed this out.

And since I clearly had spoken about Bill Gates as a kind of person, with qualities that many other humans have, I did not think he was different from all other humans..

You MISSED the point.

Maybe not. But what the word 'meek' means in relation to 'inheriting the earth' is EVERY child, as long as they live for long enough. The one known as "bill gates" was absolutely NO different on this regard. And, it was you who CLEARLY stated: "Could be, but that sure don't include Bill Gates", in reply to my comment about; 'ALL of those who are afflicted by, or bearing, a heavy burden DO 'inherit the earth', that is; the 'meek, if they live long enough.'

Repeating your position adds nothing.

You are STILL MISSING the point.

As can be SEEN here now, I was CLEARLY referring to ALL children, which OBVIOUSLY DOES INCLUDE the one known as "bill gates".

Yeah, I got that, and nothing I said indicates or implies otherwise.

WHAT?

You CLEARLY SAID and WROTE:
"Could be, but that sure don't include Bill Gates",

The words, "that sure don't include Bill Gates", MEANS, unless of course I am MISTAKEN, that 'that' does NOT include the one known as "bill gates". So, if I am MISTAKEN, then will you correct this?

If no, then WHY NOT?

In fact I understood you meant that. And my response does not make sense otherwise.

And WHY SO, EXACTLY?

As an adult did you NOT take over to the 'inheritance of the earth'?

That's not the ridiculous part.

I AGREE.

And since some of the meek don't live to adulthood, it is not all the meek who inherit the earth.

Which is EXACTLY what I SAID above. As can be CLEARLY SEEN, in the words that I ACTUALLY used, there.

You said that, yes. The problem I am pointing out is then, if you were correct, it is NOT THE MEEK, but some of the meek who inherit the earth. Which would make the sermon poor communication in yet another way.

Ah okay. It sounds like you NEED "others" to write in VERY SPECIFIC ways BEFORE you can FULLY UNDERSTAND what is being SAID and MEANT.

So, do the words, 'Those, of the 'meek', who are still alive into adult, maturity, or responsible age, shall inherit the earth', better communication, for you?

But children are NOT EVERY one. 'you', adult human beings, are CERTAINLY NOT included.

Is English your first language?

WHY?

Are you ALSO NOT ABLE to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND that 'adults' are NOT 'children', and, 'children' are NOT 'adults'?

1. 'you' have ALREADY 'inherited' the earth.
2. Those qualities have usually been completely drained out of each of 'you' by the time 'you' have reached adulthood.
3.'you' are CERTAINLY NOT 'children', in age way, although 'you' CERTAINLY DO act VERY immature, and NATURALLY will ALWAYS just be 'children in Life''; that is; ALWAYS LEARNING, and GROWING.

He could have said Everybody is blessed.

But it was NOT SAID.

Obviously

For very specific reasons, ACTUALLY.

Yeah, because he was talking about some people and not others and also indicating attitudes that are good. I notice you do not address that part of my post.

I WILL ADDRESS 'it' now then.

ALL 'children'' are born WITH and HAVE those 'good qualities'. Just about EVERY 'child' has LOSTjuat about EVERY one of those 'good qualities', by the time they reach 'adulthood'.

Have I ADDRESSED 'that part' enough, for you this time?

If no, then just let me know. I will address 'it' further for you.

We KNOW for example that not everyone is a peacemaker. Not everyone is reviled and persecuted for any reason, let alone the specific reason he mentions. We know that there are people who are not merciful. Every meet a narcissist? A psychopath? They are not merciful.

And here lays the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between children and adults. Children "ARE" those "things". Adults ARE NOT.

This is a guide to what qualities are considered good and connect on to God and future good states of being. It is suggesting what attitudes are proper.

Did 'you', adult human beings, REALLY NEED suggestions of what are good and bad qualities?

Actually adult humans have all sorts of ideas regarding what is good and bad and I disagree with some ideas on that list. So, he was expressing a particular view on what are good attitudes and ways of being.

Sounds like 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written STILL could NOT AGREE ON what is ACTUALLY Right, or good, and what is ACTUALLY Wrong, or bad, in Life, correct?

Do ' you' STILL NEED suggestions of what IS Right and Wrong, in Life?

Sure, I am still learning. Loved ones can make me aware of things, others also. I am still developing.

Okay.

When you say, "loved ones", who are you referring to, EXACTLY?

What is the reason 'you' only love and like SOME, and NOT ALL?

It would be silly to replace those categories with every body or any one of them.

I AGREE, WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

For a couple of reasons.

But for some reason you think that is what it means.

DO I?

What led you to ASSUME such a 'thing'?

That everyone is meek and everyone who survives to adulthood is meek and shall inherit the earth.

Talk about STILL MISSING, MISUNDERSTANDING, and CONFLATING things here.

I says nothing about the particular kind of people who will do this. You opted not to respond to, for example, the part about the merciful. Do you think everyone is merciful?

ONCE AGAIN, ALL 'children' HAVE the 'qualities' of those who SHALL inherit the earth.

This snide idiotic question doesn’t belong in a philosophy forum
Are you ALSO NOT ABLE to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND that 'adults' are NOT 'children', and, 'children' are NOT 'adults'?

[Age]

I have no idea what you will find,

If you do NOT inform us of what 'it' IS that you are ASSUMING here, then we will NEVER find out.

but it's right there in previous posts for all to read. You said I said that Bill Gates was not meek. You asked me

What makes the human being known as "bill gates" different from EVERY "other" human being?

As can be CLEARLY SEEN I asked you what I DID. NOTHING MORE and NOTHING LESS. ANY OTHER PRESUMPTION is OBVIOUSLY YOU ASSUMING.

I pointed out that I did not say that. You made some assumption about what I meant, but did not say.

You have here MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD what I have SAID, and MEANT here.

If you EVER want to KNOW, then you WILL ask the right CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

I pointed this out.

You MISSED the point.

Repeating your position adds nothing.

You are STILL MISSING the point.

Yeah, I got that, and nothing I said indicates or implies otherwise.

WHAT?

You CLEARLY SAID and WROTE:
"Could be, but that sure don't include Bill Gates",

The words, "that sure don't include Bill Gates", MEANS, unless of course I am MISTAKEN, that 'that' does NOT include the one known as "bill gates". So, if I am MISTAKEN, then will you correct this?

If no, then WHY NOT?

In fact I understood you meant that. And my response does not make sense otherwise.
That's not the ridiculous part.

I AGREE.

You said that, yes. The problem I am pointing out is then, if you were correct, it is NOT THE MEEK, but some of the meek who inherit the earth. Which would make the sermon poor communication in yet another way.

Ah okay. It sounds like you NEED "others" to write in VERY SPECIFIC ways BEFORE you can FULLY UNDERSTAND what is being SAID and MEANT.

So, do the words, 'Those, of the 'meek', who are still alive into adult, maturity, or responsible age, shall inherit the earth', better communication, for you?

Is English your first language?

WHY?

Are you ALSO NOT ABLE to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND that 'adults' are NOT 'children', and, 'children' are NOT 'adults'?

Obviously Yeah, because he was talking about some people and not others and also indicating attitudes that are good. I notice you do not address that part of my post.

I WILL ADDRESS 'it' now then.

ALL 'children'' are born WITH and HAVE those 'good qualities'. Just about EVERY 'child' has LOSTjuat about EVERY one of those 'good qualities', by the time they reach 'adulthood'.

Have I ADDRESSED 'that part' enough, for you this time?

If no, then just let me know. I will address 'it' further for you.

And here lays the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between children and adults. Children "ARE" those "things". Adults ARE NOT.


Actually adult humans have all sorts of ideas regarding what is good and bad and I disagree with some ideas on that list. So, he was expressing a particular view on what are good attitudes and ways of being.

Sounds like 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written STILL could NOT AGREE ON what is ACTUALLY Right, or good, and what is ACTUALLY Wrong, or bad, in Life, correct?

Sure, I am still learning. Loved ones can make me aware of things, others also. I am still developing.

Okay.

When you say, "loved ones", who are you referring to, EXACTLY?

What is the reason 'you' only love and like SOME, and NOT ALL?

But for some reason you think that is what it means.

DO I?

What led you to ASSUME such a 'thing'?

That everyone is meek and everyone who survives to adulthood is meek and shall inherit the earth.

Talk about STILL MISSING, MISUNDERSTANDING, and CONFLATING things here.

I says nothing about the particular kind of people who will do this. You opted not to respond to, for example, the part about the merciful. Do you think everyone is merciful?

ONCE AGAIN, ALL 'children' HAVE the 'qualities' of those who SHALL inherit the earth.

This snide idiotic question doesn’t belong in a philosophy forum

Which so-called 'snide' alleged IDIOTIC QUESTION does NOT supposedly belong in a philosophy forum?

And, WHY, EXACTLY, did 'you' call that QUESTION/S 'snide'?

Are you ALSO NOT ABLE to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND that 'adults' are NOT 'children', and, 'children' are NOT 'adults'?

What, EXACTLY, MADE 'you' ASK 'me' 'this QUESTION?

And, WHO ELSE IS, supposedly, NOT ABLE to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND that 'adults' are NOT 'children', and, 'children' are NOT 'adults'?

[godelian]

ALL of those who are afflicted by, or bearing, a heavy burden DO 'inherit the earth', that is; the 'meek, if they live long enough.

Could be, but that sure don't include Bill Gates.

I think that my example of Bill Gates was misunderstood. I did not mean that he would be meek.

I used him as the prototype for a man who:

- is very successful and very wealthy;

- is not handsome in any shape or fashion;

- does not understand female nature and is ridiculously blue-pilled, i.e. naive and overly romantic, and who believes in fairy tales of unconditional love;

- has the ability and skills to solve very complex problem but does not apply them in his private life;

- does not or refuses to understand that the game is completely rigged against him.

Jeff Bezos is also like that. I am sure that half of the top 0.1% of their age group is like that.

These men are proverbial simps. They end up losing half of their wealth to a relatively unattractive woman who spectacularly outsmarts them.

This breed of men is dying out, though. It is the last generation of wealthy men that can be ambushed by exploiting the marriage scam. You will barely find that kind of men in the age group that is twenty years younger.

[Age]

ALL of those who are afflicted by, or bearing, a heavy burden DO 'inherit the earth', that is; the 'meek, if they live long enough.

Could be, but that sure don't include Bill Gates.

I think that my example of Bill Gates was misunderstood. I did not mean that he would be meek.

I used him as the prototype for a man who:

- is very successful and very wealthy;

- is not handsome in any shape or fashion;

- does not understand female nature and is ridiculously blue-pilled, i.e. naive and overly romantic, and who believes in fairy tales of unconditional love;

- has the ability and skills to solve very complex problem but does not apply them in his private life;

- does not or refuses to understand that the game is completely rigged against him.

Jeff Bezos is also like that. I am sure that half of the top 0.1% of their age group is like that.

These men are proverbial simps. They end up losing half of their wealth to a relatively unattractive woman who spectacularly outsmarts them.

This breed of men is dying out, though. It is the last generation of wealthy men that can be ambushed by exploiting the marriage scam. You will barely find that kind of men in the age group that is twenty years younger.

you have, clearly, misunderstood me here.

[Age]

The meek shall and do inherit the earth. This cannot be refuted.

[godelian]

you have, clearly, misunderstood me here.

I wasn't paraphrasing what you wrote. You misunderstood that. I was clarifying why I chose Bill Gates as an example. I could have chosen Jeff Bezos instead.They are good examples of what not to do and how not to do it, when you are very wealthy. These guys are cautionary tales of what will happen if you believe in the marriage scam and the fairy tale of unconditional love. You can build a gigantic multi-billion dollar company and then lose half of it to an unattractive woman that runs off with her gym teacher.

[Age]

you have, clearly, misunderstood me here.

I wasn't paraphrasing what you wrote. You misunderstood that.

But I never thought that you were paraphrasing what I wrote.

I was clarifying why I chose Bill Gates as an example. I could have chosen Jeff Bezos instead.They are good examples of what not to do and how not to do it, when you are very wealthy.

So, do you believe you have the 'know-how' to inform 'others' of what 'not to do', and, of 'how not to do it', if and when 'they' are so-called 'very wealthy', right?

By the way, what is 'very wealthy', to you anyway?

These guys are cautionary tales of what will happen if you believe in the marriage scam and the fairy tale of unconditional love. You can build a gigantic multi-billion dollar company and then lose half of it to an unattractive woman that runs off with her gym teacher.

When you use the 'you' word here, are you directing these sentences 'to me', or 'to someone else'?

By the way, if one so-call 'loses' half of 'multi billions of dollars', then that one still has 'multi billions of dollars'.

Now, would I be right in asking you, 'you are nowhere near close to having 'multi billions of dollars', right?

And, if life and living was about money, then you are a long way off from learning and knowing about 'life', and 'living'.

Also, what do these two human beings, or what you have been talking about here, have to do with the title of this thread.

The meek inherit the earth. Full stop. There is absolutely nothing to refute, dispute, nor challenge here.

[godelian]

So, do you believe you have the 'know-how' to inform 'others' of what 'not to do', and, of 'how not to do it', if and when 'they' are so-called 'very wealthy', right?

Yes, the problem already occurs at my own level of wealth. It only gets worse when adding digits.

By the way, what is 'very wealthy', to you anyway?

12 digits.

By the way, if one so-call 'loses' half of 'multi billions of dollars', then that one still has 'multi billions of dollars'.

It's a matter of principle.

Now, would I be right in asking you, 'you are nowhere near close to having 'multi billions of dollars', right?

My own net worth is less than 12 digits at the moment. Take off a few digits.

And, if life and living was about money, then you are a long way off from learning and knowing about 'life', and 'living'.

Only people with money have the privilege to claim that money does not matter.

[Age]

So, do you believe you have the 'know-how' to inform 'others' of what 'not to do', and, of 'how not to do it', if and when 'they' are so-called 'very wealthy', right?

Yes, the problem already occurs at my own level of wealth.

What so-called 'problem', exactly?

And, what even is your so-called 'level of wealth'?

It only gets worse when adding digits.

What makes 'your know-how' better than everyone else's 'know-how'?

And, if you did not answer and clarify already, then what, supposedly, only gets worse when more digits of 'monetary wealth' are added?

By the way, what is 'very wealthy', to you anyway?

12 digits.

So, to you, if one person has 99 billion dollars, then they are not very wealthy.

Again, absolutely every thing is relative, to the observer.

By the way, if one so-call 'loses' half of 'multi billions of dollars', then that one still has 'multi billions of dollars'.

It's a matter of principle.

And, what 'principle' are you talking about and referring to here, exactly?

If a woman gives away half of her 'multi billion of dollars' to her husband that divorced her, then what exactly is the 'matter of principle' here, exactly?

Just out of curiosity, do you think or believe that what 'matters' to you 'matters' to absolutely every one or any one else?

Now, would I be right in asking you, 'you are nowhere near close to having 'multi billions of dollars', right?

My own net worth is less than 12 digits at the moment. Take off a few digits.

So, this could range from you having $0 to something else.

And, if life and living was about money, then you are a long way off from learning and knowing about 'life', and 'living'.

Only people with money have the privilege to claim that money does not matter.
[/quote]

But money never ever 'matter' at all to multiple billions upon billions of people, and absolutely every one of them had absolutely no money at all.

Money only so-called 'mattered' when money came into existence, and that was, relatively, only a tiny snippet of a 'moment ago'.

you people, in the days when this is being written, have been deceived, tricked, and fooled into believing that money does matter. And, obviously, the people with money, like "yourself", who you believe are the only people who have the privilege to claim that money does not matter, are the only real ones who believe that actually 'money does matter'. That you believe this, and even absolutely, is shown and proven by the way you talk 'about money. Exactly like you are doing here.

The meek, by the way, do inherit the earth, and this cannot be refuted.