Islam Means Peace?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 758
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Sculptor » Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:02 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:06 am
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:07 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:11 am

It is a net-positive for theists in the benefits they gain from religion over the subliminal terror of the existential crisis.
Theistic religions are like a just-good-enough-branch for the believer to cling on to keep the near-drowning-man from being drowned in the middle of a sea.
I disagree entirely.
Atheists have more fun.
And die without worry.
My point here it, it is a net-positive for theists to theists at the present circumstances when there is no fool-proof alternative to deal with the existential crisis.
You are not making any sort of case.
What "crisis"? Exactly?

How can you generalize 'atheists have more fun' when you don't have the stats?
Note the fallacy of hasty generalization.
Religion has declined in the last 100 years. This means that we don't have some black robed git to tell us what to do, where and how we can live, who to sleep with, and who not to. And if being in control of your life were not enough, they insist on being in control of your death too.
Islam is still in the grip of the Imam. They will soon follow suit and become as secular as christendom.
You've only to look at Catholicism where the black robed devils still hold sway over the lives of their sheep. When they are not buggering the children they are dishing out shame and damnation.
Now you are just being silly.
That is more like a silly argument.
You provided no sound argument.
I stated those without religions including those who are not seriously devoted to their religions are likely to turn to drugs [painkillers, cocaine, heroin, etc.] to deal with the inevitable subtle pains from the innate, inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.
Drug abuse is not attributable to a lack of religion.
This is just part of your dream world-view
I stated 'likely'.
Non-theists has nothing to hold them back when there is an impulse to cling to drugs to relieve their existential Angst.
Not ALL but the majority of theists who are zealous would fear committing a sin if they were to take drugs and end up with punishment from their God.
Note:
  • Prescription painkiller abuse is on the rise in the United States. In 2007, 2.5 million people in the United States tried abusing prescription painkillers for the first time. That same year, 2.1 million used marijuana for the first time.
Most of them believe in god
Those who are drug addicts could be Christians but they are not the zealous ones. Many Christians are born into a Christian family and are not born again Christians and are not serious with Christianity.
In 2007, the non-medical use of prescription painkillers rose to 12%, with one in every ten high school students admitting to using prescription painkillers for non-medical purposes. Frighteningly, individuals in the US who abuse prescription painkillers are 19 times more likely than others in the same age bracket to begin abusing heroin.
https://www.therefuge-ahealingplace.com ... s-effects/[/list]

From the abuse of over the counter pain-killer, this has lead to stronger and stronger pain-killers, i.e. the opioids like fentanyl;
  • Ten-Fold Rise in Deaths from Fentanyl, Other Synthetic Opioids
    US deaths from synthetic opioids, especially fentanyl, rose more than 10-fold in 5 years, new research shows.
    A report from the Rand Corporation, a research and analysis nonprofit organization that consults on public policy worldwide, notes that deaths in the United States involving synthetic opioids increased from approximately 3000 in 2013 to more than 30,000 in 2018. In addition, this type of drug is now involved in twice as many deaths as heroin.
The above abuse is not from dealing with a headache, but they feel something uncomfortable which they cannot trace specifically to the source -its something like a psyche pain - and the taking of pain-killers soothe those subliminal pains.

I suggest you research the rise in the abuse of pain killers and other drugs and note what are the root cause that drive its addiction. The answer is the inherent existential crisis.


Everytime you accused me of talking nonsense is because you are ignorant of the related knowledge.
You have not offered a scrap of evidence
What?? no evidence?
Note the links I provided above which you need not critique at all.
They are not the full evidence but the clues to what I am pointing out.
It is not practical for me to compile and provide the full evidence in this forum.
If you are well read and informed the above clues support the tons of evidence out there.
There are 1.8 Billion Muslims. Use your brain please.
You have a confused view point and want to attribute any bad thing you can think of to a lack of religion.
That is not my point.
I stated in the present circumstances and psychological state, religions are a critical necessity to the majority of people.
The belief in a religion is a net-positive contribution to the individual believer at present.
Note my emphasis on the present state [till the next 75 years], not the future.

However there exists a religion, i.e. whose ideology is inherently malignant, evil and violent which catalyze a large percentile of the 1.8 billion Muslims who are evil prone to commit terrible evil and violent acts. [this is very evident].
In this case, the ideology is a threat to humanity and must be weaned off as soon as possible.

To resolve this issue of Islamic driven evil and violent, it is very rational to replace this evil ideology with a religion with a '100%' pacifist ideology.
The most likely pacifist religion for ex-Muslims to move to is Christianity-proper and some can move to other pacifist religion.

Christianity is an effective replacement for Islam but only at present [till 75 years]. Because Christianity itself has its cons and not fool proof, humanity must strive to seek and establish fool proof alternatives to religion to deal with the inherent existential crisis.

I hope you could provide rational counter to the above instead of merely brushing them off.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3604
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:10 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
What is critical is because there is a natural 20 per cent pool of evil prone people in any large group
I have asked you once before to provide evidence for this figure but you failed to provide any
So I will ask you again - where is the evidence that 20 per cent of the adult population is evil

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Dec 03, 2019 3:38 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:36 am
How can that be kinder to Islam
Because despite being high, it doesn't include some of the people we know they harmed, such as the Yazidis and Armenians. So we're being more than fair to them, despite the high count.
If the encyclopedia did include some of the people we know they [Islam] harmed, such as the Yazidis and Armenians, then the encyclopedia is not reflecting history and reality.

Note the point of the OP is Islam is not peaceful because it killed appx 270 million [regardless of the methods] throughout its 1400 years history.

Your bringing in of the Encyclopedia of War is a red-herring.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:15 am

Sculptor wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:02 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:06 am
My point here it, it is a net-positive for theists to theists at the present circumstances when there is no fool-proof alternative to deal with the existential crisis.
You are not making any sort of case.
What "crisis"? Exactly?
I have explained what is the inherent existential crisis, but you did not take note nor counter.

Here again [edited];
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:37 am
Here is how the existential crisis emerged within the psyche of a person.

The following is obvious from evidences.
  • 1. DNA/RNA wise mortality is a fact and certainty [99.99999.......9%].

    2. DNA/RNA wise all humans are "programmed" to survive at all cost at least till the inevitable.
The self-conscious human is imputed within his psyche, a cognitive dissonance from the contradicting forces of 1 and 2, knowing the fact of certain death but driven to survive with an unconscious fears of death. This is the existential crisis generated within the subconscious mind that manifest terrible psyche pains.
This cognitive dissonance generate terrible impulses of terror and unease subliminally to push the person to seek consonance.
Religions are the most effective approach to provide consonance, thus its staying power since <10,000 years to the present.
Point is the majority has very little conscious control over the above existential crisis except clinging on the promise of eternal life from theistic religions.

Note the neural circuits that enable the existential crisis in humans are inherited form our ancestors via evolution since billion to million to 100 of thousands years ago.
How can you generalize 'atheists have more fun' when you don't have the stats?
Note the fallacy of hasty generalization.
Religion has declined in the last 100 years. This means that we don't have some black robed git to tell us what to do, where and how we can live, who to sleep with, and who not to. And if being in control of your life were not enough, they insist on being in control of your death too.
Islam is still in the grip of the Imam. They will soon follow suit and become as secular as christendom.
You've only to look at Catholicism where the black robed devils still hold sway over the lives of their sheep. When they are not buggering the children they are dishing out shame and damnation.
Yes, it appears religion is on the decline, e.g. less attendance in church, churches closing/sold, etc. However, note the emergence of Mega-Churches that can hold 1 to 10 thousands of Protestants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ted_States
There is a rise of rationality over blind faith, but the quantum is insignificant relative the the majority 6+ billion of the religious.

There is still a significant quantum of religious people, i.e. more than >90% of people are still religious, that is 6+ billion which is a very large quantum.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... opulations [this is not very accurate].

It is true, some of the religious are not very religious but I believe 90% are basically religious due to the inherent existential crisis I explained above.
Religion will not disappear until humanity come up with fool proofs alternatives to replace religion in dealing with the existential crisis.

Note, the inherent existential crisis is so forceful that it compelled the world once most notable atheist, i.e. Anthony Flew in his later years to cling to a God, in this case, deism.
  • However, in 2004 [age 79] he changed his position, and stated that he now believed in the existence of an Intelligent Creator of the universe, shocking colleagues and fellow atheists.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
While younger Flew would have a stronger rational brain to rationalize away and suppressed [via inhibitors] the existential pull towards a God.
But the fact is neurons in the brain atrophized significantly and got worse as one grows older. The other fact is neurons in the deeper brain [those that enable the existential crisis] atrophize slower than those in the higher brain [cortex].
In the case of Flew, his relevant inhibitors weakened greatly during his late 70s and the very powerful inherent forces of the existential crisis surge forward to his consciousness and he was then compelled to cling to a God.

So don't be too arrogant with your atheism, you may end up like Anthony Flew and other atheists who has no choice but to covert to theism when they are older [65 -70 -80s] or had the relevant inhibitors weakened or damaged.

I would not dare to claim I am 100% immune to the above, but I had taken serious steps to strengthen my rational neurons so that I will not be infected with the theistic-virus when I get older - hopefully.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:46 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:10 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
What is critical is because there is a natural 20 per cent pool of evil prone people in any large group
I have asked you once before to provide evidence for this figure but you failed to provide any
So I will ask you again - where is the evidence that 20 per cent of the adult population is evil
I have explained this MANY TIMES to many [maybe not you directly].

I defined Evil as relating to any human act and thought that is net-negative to the well being of the individual. others and therefrom to humanity.
Evil comes in degrees from 1/100 to 99/100.
Evil of 1/100 would be those of low negative impact to others, e.g. white lies, not serious lying, petty crimes, stealing etc.
Evil of 99/100 would be those have the highest negative impact to others and humanity, e.g. serial killers, mass rapes, mass murder, genocides and the worst evil acts one can come across or think of.
Evil of 20/100 to 80/100 would be those in between the above extremes.

Note this research,
AMHERST, Mass. - Most people lie in everyday conversation when they are trying to appear likable and competent, according to a study conducted by University of Massachusetts psychologist Robert S. Feldman and published in the most recent Journal of Basic and Applied Social Psychology.
The study, published in the journal's June issue, found that 60 percent of people lied at least once during a 10-minute conversation and told an average of two to three lies.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 061002.php
From the above that
  • 1. 60% of people lied commonly.
    2. Lying is an evil act.
    3. Therefore 60% of people are evil.
But in the above case, we have to qualify the 60% of people lying are committing low-negative-impact evil acts.
I don't have statistics of the % of people who steal or cheat [petty], but intuitive I guess that would be 60%.

Now what about the more serious evil acts, like higher-negative-impact evil acts e.g. stealing, corruption, bullying, lying, torturing, aggression-violence, killing, murder, rape, etc.
I believe a figure of 20% are evil to have the tendency to commit the above is very conservative.

That is how I hypothesize,
20% of people are born with the tendency to commit evil acts that has higher-negative-impact to humanity.

Agree with the above?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3604
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:46 am

That very broad definition of evil that you are using here is entirely subjective and is not evil as commonly understood
Evil should be limited to specific offences such as mass murder or rape and extreme physical or psychological violence
that is perpetrated either by the state or by an individual such as a serial killer or psychopath

It should definitely not include ordinary everyday offences such as lying and stealing for no one would class them as evil
Your figure of 20 per cent is therefore a gross exaggeration and so any arguments based upon it are by default fallacious
And it is not a figure that has any empirical evidence for it as you have chosen it based on presumption and nothing else

surreptitious57
Posts: 3604
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:05 am

Furthermore there is no such thing as a low level impact evil act because evil by definition can never be that at all
For it is both the most extreme act that can be perpetrated and the most immoral state a human being can occupy
Therefore nothing from either a criminal or moral perspective with specific regard to it can be classed as low level

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:06 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 3:38 am
If the encyclopedia did include...
It includes wars...rather like the title says. Nothing else.

We, however, may justly include all people murdered, maimed, tortured, sold, dispossessed, forcibly circumcised, abducted, enslaved, raped, oppressed and brutalized in the name of that religion, since that particular religion itself not only does not prohibit such actions but actively and expressly encourages them as religious duty. The wars are only a part of the total horrendous story there.

We cannot say the same about other religions, since some of them expressly and positively prohibit the very actions Islamic dogma condones.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:39 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:05 am
Furthermore there is no such thing as a low level impact evil act because evil by definition can never be that at all
For it is both the most extreme act that can be perpetrated and the most immoral state a human being can occupy
Therefore nothing from either a criminal or moral perspective with specific regard to it can be classed as low level
You are just complaining because that is not your personal preference but do not provide sound counter arguments.

I don't see any issue as long as the definition is appropriate.
Note I had defined 'evil' above which is not the typical way 'evil' has been presented from the theological perspective.

I believe there is now an increasing use of the term 'evil' within the secular sense which is very popular within the philosophical community.
Note,
The Concept of Evil
This interest has been partly motivated by ascriptions of ‘evil’ by laymen, social scientists, journalists, and politicians as they try to understand and respond to various atrocities and horrors, such as genocides, terrorist attacks, mass murders, and tortures and killing sprees by psychopathic serial killers. It seems that we cannot capture the moral significance of these actions and their perpetrators by calling them ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ or even ‘very very wrong’ or ‘very very bad.’ We need the concept of evil.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/
IF genocides, terrorist attacks, mass murders, and tortures and killing sprees by psychopathic serial killers are of the highest degree of evil say at >90/100, petty crimes, lying, stealing are relatively lower degree of evil.

Note the concept of good and evil.
What is evil is not good.
Lying is not a good act, thus evil.
But we cannot simply all not-good acts as evil.
Thus we have to assign the "degrees" of its negative impact to the individual, the others and humanity.

Surely the evil petty crimes of housebreaking and stealing cannot be compared to genocides, mass murders and the likes.
Thus we have to assign degrees to the range of evil acts.

From the above ranking in terms of degree of evil, we can manage evil acts by various evil prone more efficiently.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 758
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Sculptor » Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:49 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:15 am
Here is how the existential crisis emerged within the psyche of a person.
FFS.
You talk lots of bollocks.
What you mean is that you are scared of dying.
And that weak minded theists cling to the idea of god in the hope of extending their lives.
The point I am making is that we are all going to die.
So why sign away your life to the beasts in black robes and waste what little life you have by complying with their moral code when you know that there are dozens of religions all telling you different stories, and expecting you to behave differently? They can't all be right, and there is absolutely nothing to say that ANY of them are right.
We are then faced with a choice. Do we pick the easiest one in the hope of some happiness before the inevitable death - would that not be so obviously cheating? Do we pick the most demanding religious regime in the hope that god likes people to suffer and struggle to get a reward?
Or do we simply reject religion and live our lives honestly relying on our own personal moral compass; be honest at least with ourselves and get on and enjoy life while we have it?

There is no existential crisis when you boil it down.
Death is the answer to everything. All ambitions gone, all problems solved; a final rest.

As for "EVIL".
There is no force of nature; evil. Evil is just what you don't like, and most of our "good", does evil to others.
All religion is evil. It is the greatest evil.

Dubious
Posts: 2210
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Dubious » Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:20 am

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:15 am
Here is how the existential crisis emerged within the psyche of a person.
FFS.
You talk lots of bollocks.
What you mean is that you are scared of dying.
And that weak minded theists cling to the idea of god in the hope of extending their lives.
The point I am making is that we are all going to die.
So why sign away your life to the beasts in black robes and waste what little life you have by complying with their moral code when you know that there are dozens of religions all telling you different stories, and expecting you to behave differently? They can't all be right, and there is absolutely nothing to say that ANY of them are right.
We are then faced with a choice. Do we pick the easiest one in the hope of some happiness before the inevitable death - would that not be so obviously cheating? Do we pick the most demanding religious regime in the hope that god likes people to suffer and struggle to get a reward?
Or do we simply reject religion and live our lives honestly relying on our own personal moral compass; be honest at least with ourselves and get on and enjoy life while we have it?

There is no existential crisis when you boil it down.
Death is the answer to everything. All ambitions gone, all problems solved; a final rest.

As for "EVIL".
There is no force of nature; evil. Evil is just what you don't like, and most of our "good", does evil to others.
All religion is evil. It is the greatest evil.
Amen to that!

surreptitious57
Posts: 3604
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:35 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Furthermore there is no such thing as a low level impact evil act because evil by definition can never be that at all
For it is both the most extreme act that can be perpetrated and the most immoral state a human being can occupy
Therefore nothing from either a criminal or moral perspective with specific regard to it can be classed as low level
You are just complaining because that is not your personal preference but do not provide sound counter arguments
I would class evil as being a sub set of immoral which is to say that all evil acts are immoral but not all immoral acts are evil
For it is easier to define evil the more exclusive it is than to have the grading system you have where any immoral act is evil

So it is only those acts that are perpetrated with extreme psychological and / or physical violence
For example multiple or mass murder or rape or torture or abuse by either a state or an individual

By keeping it as exclusive as possible it is easier to discuss

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5383
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:34 pm

Age wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:17 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:08 am
No religion 'means' peace, only the accepting of all, can possibly lead to peace.
Obviously, the accepting of all, will NOT lead to peace. However, in saying that, the accepting by all, can possibly lead to peace.
It all depends on how you look at it. And you're free to word it however you feel.

And, probably would lead to peace. IF ALL are accepting of some thing, then who/what would be disagreeing and NOT in peace and harmony anyway?
It would seem that you don't understand the problem.

If there is NO one disagreeing and NOT in harmony, then what else could there but be Peace?
You seem to be a bit confused!
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:08 am
The Spheres must Balance!
By the way, how many 'spheres' are there actually?
Larger than a googolplex.


To me, the Universe is thee One and only "sphere", which is in PERFECT balance AND harmony ALWAYS, anyway?
It's certain that you have no idea what my 'spheres' represent.

Age
Posts: 3555
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Age » Tue Dec 03, 2019 3:30 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:34 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:17 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:08 am
No religion 'means' peace, only the accepting of all, can possibly lead to peace.
Obviously, the accepting of all, will NOT lead to peace. However, in saying that, the accepting by all, can possibly lead to peace.
It all depends on how you look at it. And you're free to word it however you feel.


And 'you' are FREE to agree or disagree.

"Accepting of all" means accepting of all that is good as well as that is bad, and obviously this would NOT lead to peace. However, the accepting of 'that', which would lead to peace, by all, human beings, then this could possibly be what leads to peace.

And, probably would lead to peace. IF ALL are accepting of some thing, then who/what would be disagreeing and NOT in peace and harmony anyway?
It would seem that you don't understand the problem.

And one NOT expressing the supposed "problem" by HIGHLIGHTING and SHOWING IT, and then also NOT explaining just HOW I MIGHT be NOT understanding this supposed "problem" can be SEEN as just 'trying' any thing to NOT LOOK AT what thee actual Truth IS here.

I could ALSO say, "It would seem that you do NOT understand the problem", But when this is EXPOSED like this, the Truth of HOW it REALLY is NOT saying any thing at all gets to well EXPOSED.

If there is NO one disagreeing and NOT in harmony, then what else could there but be Peace?
You seem to be a bit confused!

About WHAT exactly?

Again, just saying some thing very OBVIOUS RANDOM comment, without ABSOLUTELY ANY thing to back it up and support is once again REALLY saying NOTHING at all.

Tell US ALL What am I supposed confused ABOUT, EXACTLY?

Or, maybe 'you' might prefer to tell us just HOW IF absolutely EVERY one is in AGREEMENT, then there would NOT be Peace?

If EVERY one is AGREEING, then HOW could there POSSIBLY be any other than Peace?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:08 am
The Spheres must Balance!
By the way, how many 'spheres' are there actually?
Larger than a googolplex.


To me, the Universe is thee One and only "sphere", which is in PERFECT balance AND harmony ALWAYS, anyway?
It's certain that you have no idea what my 'spheres' represent.
And just as CERTAIN IS, you are NOT going to EXPLAIN what 'spheres' represent.

If 'you' NEVER tell us things, then is it any WONDER that 'we' have absolutely NO idea of what 'things' represent, to YOU?

Are 'you' AWARE that 'spheres' like 'things' represent different things to different "people"?

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5383
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:57 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 3:30 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:34 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:17 pm


Obviously, the accepting of all, will NOT lead to peace. However, in saying that, the accepting by all, can possibly lead to peace.
It all depends on how you look at it. And you're free to word it however you feel.


And 'you' are FREE to agree or disagree.

"Accepting of all" means accepting of all that is good as well as that is bad, and obviously this would NOT lead to peace. However, the accepting of 'that', which would lead to peace, by all, human beings, then this could possibly be what leads to peace.

And, probably would lead to peace. IF ALL are accepting of some thing, then who/what would be disagreeing and NOT in peace and harmony anyway?
It would seem that you don't understand the problem.

And one NOT expressing the supposed "problem" by HIGHLIGHTING and SHOWING IT, and then also NOT explaining just HOW I MIGHT be NOT understanding this supposed "problem" can be SEEN as just 'trying' any thing to NOT LOOK AT what thee actual Truth IS here.

I could ALSO say, "It would seem that you do NOT understand the problem", But when this is EXPOSED like this, the Truth of HOW it REALLY is NOT saying any thing at all gets to well EXPOSED.

If there is NO one disagreeing and NOT in harmony, then what else could there but be Peace?
You seem to be a bit confused!

About WHAT exactly?

Again, just saying some thing very OBVIOUS RANDOM comment, without ABSOLUTELY ANY thing to back it up and support is once again REALLY saying NOTHING at all.

Tell US ALL What am I supposed confused ABOUT, EXACTLY?

Or, maybe 'you' might prefer to tell us just HOW IF absolutely EVERY one is in AGREEMENT, then there would NOT be Peace?

If EVERY one is AGREEING, then HOW could there POSSIBLY be any other than Peace?



By the way, how many 'spheres' are there actually?
Larger than a googolplex.


To me, the Universe is thee One and only "sphere", which is in PERFECT balance AND harmony ALWAYS, anyway?
It's certain that you have no idea what my 'spheres' represent.
And just as CERTAIN IS, you are NOT going to EXPLAIN what 'spheres' represent.

If 'you' NEVER tell us things, then is it any WONDER that 'we' have absolutely NO idea of what 'things' represent, to YOU?

Are 'you' AWARE that 'spheres' like 'things' represent different things to different "people"?
You're lucky I give you the amount of time I do. Sometimes it's not about knowledge that one doesn't say more, rather it's about not wasting too much time on one that appears to be an immature child. You know, just here to make waves. Take what I give you and think real hard.

We went around several times on your statement about the proof of god being the universe itself, and you failed miserably to provide any sort of clear justification for your previous statement. Instead you avoided the issue at every turn. Now it seems that you're simply attempting to find anything you can, out of the need for retribution. Like I said, you're lucky I give you any time at all...

Sometimes it may be best to simply ignore someone that acts childish... We'll see...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests