How God could fail to convey His message?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2512
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:24 pm

I thought I made a post however it did not show up...well anyhow:
-1- wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:16 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:53 pm


What is number (quantity), but a quality of spatial dimensions?
Not a statement. Ergo, not an argument.
Since when were arguments not formed from questions?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:53 pm


A career only makes weak men. Real men are not categorized by a career.
True Scotsman fallacy.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Yeah now we are getting off topic.

Actual not really but an argument about "modalities":

"A career only makes weakness". "Reality is not categorized by a career."

The true scotsman fallacy is an informal fallacy, and arbitrary by you standards. With that being said to generalize an argument as fallacious because a fallacy says so is in itself fallacious.

Besides I argued that reality cannot be "categorized" by a career or generalized.

It is striclty a fallacy based upon ambiguity and in this respect is entirely subjective.




The influence of this work on medieval scholarship and literature has revealed traces of its ideas among the works of Jean de Meung, Dante, Meister Eckhart, Nicholas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno, Robert Fludd, Pascal, Leibniz.[1]
*****Leibniz was one of the men who was involved in developing some of the calculus we "quantify" the world with today.
Ad hominem fallacy.


"An ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized."
https://www.bing.com/search?q=ad+homine ... =QBRE&sp=1

In simpler terms, you claimed noone used the 24 Philosophers script I provided evidence to the contrary by listing examples.


If you have nothing to add to the discussion, then why do you keep talking, Johndoe7? This is not an argument, but a genuine question. Please answer it if you feel like it. But don't waste my time please, and that of the other readers, by posting meaningless illogical statements. This practice is not worthy of you or of the site, and it insults the intelligence of your readers.
I didn't know I had readers, thanks for the compliment. With that being said, if you don't like what I have to say then don't read it or post. You don't owe me or anyone anything.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Viveka » Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:01 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:56 pm
-1- wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:45 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:33 am
1. Considering God is not defined, it would be to equivalent to negate negativity, if one where to argue that God does not exist.

2. Considering God is defined through everything it would be equivalent to argues that nothing exists if one where to argue God does not exists.

3. If one where to Argue that God is both everything and nothing, or the Alpha and Omega, and then claim God does not exist it would be equivalent to argue that "beginning" and "end" do not exist.
1. God is defined by philosophers. He/She/It is described by the religious. HSI is to be discovered by scientists.


If one is both a philosopher and religious, then one is to believe in god, not define god.
If one is both a philosopher and a scientist, then it could go either way.
If one is both religious and a scientist, then the faith goes by description, not by discovery.

We are all philsophers, scientists, and religious as we all think, observe, and believe to some degree or another. To seperate them into categories (other than in the professional sense) is to divide not not only the human being but the human condition.

Ergo, lack of definition does not make arguments invalid which state that god does not exist.

Argument is the synthesis of definition and any failure in definition is fai[ure in argument./color]



2. Considering that God is not defined through everything, makes your argument fail.

3. Deus est totus in quolibet sui.

God is all in any of his.




The book of the 24 philosophers:

The 24 definitions

1. Deus est monas monadem gignens, in se unum reflectens ardorem.

God is a monad generating a monad, which in the heat (of love) reflects to himself alone.


2. Deus est sphaera infinita cuius centrum est ubique, circumferentia nusquam.

God is an infinite sphere, whose center is everywhere (and) circumference is nowhere.


3. Deus est totus in quolibet sui.

God is all in any of his.


4. Deus est mens orationem generans, continuationem perseuerans.

God is mind generating a word (with) enduring continuity.


5. Deus est quo nihil melius excogitari potest.

God is that where nothing better can be devised.


6. Deus est cuius comparatione substantia est accidens, et accidens nihil.

God is that, in which comparison substance (or essence) is an attribute (or feature), and attribute (or feature) being nothing.


7. Deus est principium sine principio, processus sine variatione, finis sine fine.

God is beginning without beginning, process without variation, end without end.


8. Deus est amor qui plus habitus magis latet.

God is love, which the more is hidden the more we (believe to) have it.


9. Deus est cui soli praesens est quidquid cuius temporis est.

God is that, to whom all is present related to (all what belongs to) time.


10. Deus est cuius posse non numeratur, cuius esse non clauditur, cuius bonitas non terminatur.

God is that, whose ability (or competence) is not numbered, whose being is not limited, whose goodness is not terminated.


11. Deus est super ens, necesse, solus sibi abundanter, sufficienter.

God is above (or beyond) being, (is) necessary and by oneself being sufficient unto himself in abundance.


12. Deus est cuius voluntas deificae et potentiae et sapientiae adaequatur.

God is that, whose will equals (or is according) his divine power and wisdom.


13. Deus est sempiternitas agens in se, semper divisione et habitu.

God is working eternity by himself without division and (without having or gaining) an attribute (or feature).


14. Deus est oppositio nihil mediatione entis.

God is the opposition of nothing by means of being.


15. Deus est vita cuius via in formam est, in unitatem bonitas.

God is life, whose way into form is truth, (and whose way) into unity is goodness.


16. Deus est quod solum voces non significant propter excellentiam, nec mentes intelligunt propter dissimilitudinem.

God (is the) only one because of his excellence, who is not signed by words, and mind (creatures) do not recognise (him) caused by (their) dissimilarity.


17. Deus est intellectus sui solum, praedicationem non recipiens.

God is the concept (or notion) (derived) from himself alone not suffering (or tolerating) a(ny) predicate.


18. Deus est sphaera cuius tot sunt circumferentiae quod puncta.

God is the sphere having as much circumferences as points.


19. Deus est semper movens immobilis.

God is the immobile (but always) moved (one).


20. Deus est qui solus suo intellectu vivit.

God is (the only one) alone living from his self knowledge (or self - awareness).


21. Deus est tenebra in anima post omnem lucem relicta.

God is the darkness in the soul being left after all light.


22. Deus est ex quo est quicquid est non partitione, per quem est non variatione, in quo est quod est non commixtione.

God is (that), from which all is (or exists) that is (or exists) without (him) being divided (or splited); through him (all) is without (him) getting (or being) changed; in him (all) is without him getting (or being) mixed with it.


23. Deus est qui sola ignorantia mente cognoscitur.

God is that, which the mind only knows in ignorance (or in the state of not knowing).


24. Deus est lux quae fractione non clarescit, transit, sed sola deiformitas in re.

God is light, appearing as shine without refraction, permeating, but only (being) a divine formation in the things.






3You argue a bit like Socrates in this sense.

Thanks for the compliment.





Is that a Catholic Catechism or a pondering of your own? It's some pretty amazing stuff.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2029
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by -1- » Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:47 am

Viveka wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:01 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:56 pm
-1- wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:45 pm

1. God is defined by philosophers. He/She/It is described by the religious. HSI is to be discovered by scientists.


If one is both a philosopher and religious, then one is to believe in god, not define god.
If one is both a philosopher and a scientist, then it could go either way.
If one is both religious and a scientist, then the faith goes by description, not by discovery.

We are all philsophers, scientists, and religious as we all think, observe, and believe to some degree or another. To seperate them into categories (other than in the professional sense) is to divide not not only the human being but the human condition.

Ergo, lack of definition does not make arguments invalid which state that god does not exist.

Argument is the synthesis of definition and any failure in definition is fai[ure in argument./color]



2. Considering that God is not defined through everything, makes your argument fail.

3. Deus est totus in quolibet sui.

God is all in any of his.




The book of the 24 philosophers:

The 24 definitions

1. Deus est monas monadem gignens, in se unum reflectens ardorem.

God is a monad generating a monad, which in the heat (of love) reflects to himself alone.


2. Deus est sphaera infinita cuius centrum est ubique, circumferentia nusquam.

God is an infinite sphere, whose center is everywhere (and) circumference is nowhere.


3. Deus est totus in quolibet sui.

God is all in any of his.


4. Deus est mens orationem generans, continuationem perseuerans.

God is mind generating a word (with) enduring continuity.


5. Deus est quo nihil melius excogitari potest.

God is that where nothing better can be devised.


6. Deus est cuius comparatione substantia est accidens, et accidens nihil.

God is that, in which comparison substance (or essence) is an attribute (or feature), and attribute (or feature) being nothing.


7. Deus est principium sine principio, processus sine variatione, finis sine fine.

God is beginning without beginning, process without variation, end without end.


8. Deus est amor qui plus habitus magis latet.

God is love, which the more is hidden the more we (believe to) have it.


9. Deus est cui soli praesens est quidquid cuius temporis est.

God is that, to whom all is present related to (all what belongs to) time.


10. Deus est cuius posse non numeratur, cuius esse non clauditur, cuius bonitas non terminatur.

God is that, whose ability (or competence) is not numbered, whose being is not limited, whose goodness is not terminated.


11. Deus est super ens, necesse, solus sibi abundanter, sufficienter.

God is above (or beyond) being, (is) necessary and by oneself being sufficient unto himself in abundance.


12. Deus est cuius voluntas deificae et potentiae et sapientiae adaequatur.

God is that, whose will equals (or is according) his divine power and wisdom.


13. Deus est sempiternitas agens in se, semper divisione et habitu.

God is working eternity by himself without division and (without having or gaining) an attribute (or feature).


14. Deus est oppositio nihil mediatione entis.

God is the opposition of nothing by means of being.


15. Deus est vita cuius via in formam est, in unitatem bonitas.

God is life, whose way into form is truth, (and whose way) into unity is goodness.


16. Deus est quod solum voces non significant propter excellentiam, nec mentes intelligunt propter dissimilitudinem.

God (is the) only one because of his excellence, who is not signed by words, and mind (creatures) do not recognise (him) caused by (their) dissimilarity.


17. Deus est intellectus sui solum, praedicationem non recipiens.

God is the concept (or notion) (derived) from himself alone not suffering (or tolerating) a(ny) predicate.


18. Deus est sphaera cuius tot sunt circumferentiae quod puncta.

God is the sphere having as much circumferences as points.


19. Deus est semper movens immobilis.

God is the immobile (but always) moved (one).


20. Deus est qui solus suo intellectu vivit.

God is (the only one) alone living from his self knowledge (or self - awareness).


21. Deus est tenebra in anima post omnem lucem relicta.

God is the darkness in the soul being left after all light.


22. Deus est ex quo est quicquid est non partitione, per quem est non variatione, in quo est quod est non commixtione.

God is (that), from which all is (or exists) that is (or exists) without (him) being divided (or splited); through him (all) is without (him) getting (or being) changed; in him (all) is without him getting (or being) mixed with it.


23. Deus est qui sola ignorantia mente cognoscitur.

God is that, which the mind only knows in ignorance (or in the state of not knowing).


24. Deus est lux quae fractione non clarescit, transit, sed sola deiformitas in re.

God is light, appearing as shine without refraction, permeating, but only (being) a divine formation in the things.






3You argue a bit like Socrates in this sense.

Thanks for the compliment.





Is that a Catholic Catechism or a pondering of your own? It's some pretty amazing stuff.

Apparently it may have been taken from the 24 book of philosophers, or was it the book of 24 philosophers.

It sounds like the communist manifesto to me. In its tone, not by its meaning. Okay, maybe not exactly like the Communist Manifesto, but more like the "Little Red Book: Quotations by the Chairman Mao-Tse Tung".

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5239
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:36 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:46 pm
One is only required to produce evidence when one rejects a position
WRONG! Aliens, trolls, hobbits, dragons, faeries, pixies, pots O' gold at the end of a leprechauns rainbow exist! Now you only have to prove it's not true, as by your assertion I don't have to; RUBBISH! You're obviously mental!

not when one is merely skeptical of one
INCORRECT!!! Proof is required by anyone that is seemingly incapable of providing it. Empirical evidence is in fact REQUIRED, for any seemingly half baked idea that is seemingly only contained in ones fanciful mind. Anything less, is pure hogwash!

And therefore I do not say God does not exist but I do not think God exists. A subtle and important distinction
Equally one can only say, "Humans have, first and foremost, feared death for millennia, as such, they 'want' god to exist, so as to save them from the inevitable" not, "god exists!" Anything less, is uneducated! History, philosophy, psychology, anthropology, biology, anatomy, sociology, cosmology, astrophysics, epigenetics, physics, quantum mechanics, etc! Understand? Once one understands these things, many of which, are factual data as to an understanding of what it is to be human, it's clear as day! Not steeped in an imaginary cloud of mysticism as god fearing peoples would have everyone believe! Fools them all! Which doesn't mean that I don't believe their might be a mindful creator of all that is, it's just obviously not mankind's gods, up until now. Our youth precludes a great many things, especially that ultimate question, our origin, universally speaking of course!

As the first is a truth claim that requires evidence while the second is not a truth claim that requires evidence
Understood, but science understands and heeds probabilities, versus simply, possibilities!
Edit: Typo
Last edited by SpheresOfBalance on Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5239
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:43 pm

Vendetta wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:51 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:42 pm
Vendetta wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 2:14 pm

I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of people that you've never met, but if you were to say that because of that, they don't exist, does that make them not exist?
No, but then 1 person in 7 billion can definitely be lost in the CROWD of equally small people. Your false god is supposed to be, just one, that's larger than life, the universe for that matter, he can't get lost in the crowd, or so you say, yet I can't see him, with my eyes and mind fully open.
The key right there is "with my eyes and mind fully open." It seems to me as if you are doing anything you possibly can to disprove any semblance of evidence towards God.
Yet you can't show anyone, one shred of evidence that is necessarily exclusive to anything/anyone other than your GOD!

Perhaps if God did attempt to reveal himself to you, you would find some way to prove otherwise to yourself as well.
Actually this argument is loaded, devoid of factual data!

If you were to, even for a second, put aside your ardent disbelief and open your mind to the possibility, I'm sure you'd get a lot closer to some sort of response.
A common ploy, loaded simply with belief due to the ultimate human fear, death, never factual data!

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5239
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:54 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:47 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:24 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:30 am


I've always found it interesting how the less intelligent posters enjoy using emoticons.
Oh yeah, well how does your words add up to god, seen any godly pictures lately, tell me, what does this ink blot represent to you?

I rest my case! :-P
It's also interesting how they get their nickers in a twist over things they don't under.stand.
No, it's all about crazies that see things they want to see anywhere they look, in numbers, pictures, nut cases I tell you, nut cases. They are simply projecting their wants, due to the ultimate human fear, upon those things they cannot have dominion. Then they can cope with those ultimate fears. I call it a, "mind fuck!" Understand the basis of human biological autonomic functions? The fear of death my friend, is intrinsic to the animal! Watch the gazelle run for it's life!

But like Elton's "Rocket Man," '...and all this science, you don't understand, it's not your job, five days a week...'

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2865
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by attofishpi » Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:09 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:54 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:47 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:24 pm

Oh yeah, well how does your words add up to god, seen any godly pictures lately, tell me, what does this ink blot represent to you?

I rest my case! :-P
It's also interesting how they get their nickers in a twist over things they don't under.stand.
No, it's all about crazies that see things they want to see anywhere they look, in numbers, pictures, nut cases I tell you, nut cases. They are simply projecting their wants, due to the ultimate human fear, upon those things they cannot have dominion. Then they can cope with those ultimate fears. I call it a, "mind fuck!" Understand the basis of human biological autonomic functions? The fear of death my friend, is intrinsic to the animal! Watch the gazelle run for it's life!

But like Elton's "Rocket Man," '...and all this science, you don't understand, it's not your job, five days a week...'
You are a simple minded idiot. I know for a fact that God\'God' exists - not for any need. This entity drove me to suicide on more than one occasion over the 20 yrs I have known it to exist - the reason - crossing a certain line in consideration of past indiscretions in my youth where I 'took' human life.

Fuck you and your simple shortsighted approach to the nature of reality.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2811
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Lacewing » Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:35 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:09 pm
I know for a fact that God\'God' exists
Okay, so that's great and it works for you, whatever the reasons.

So, in consideration of all the other people in the world who "know" and experience differently than you do, would it be reasonable for us to conclude that a vast range of realities must exist, such that each person's "knowing" is personal and true for their experience?

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5239
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:51 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:09 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:54 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:47 am


It's also interesting how they get their nickers in a twist over things they don't under.stand.
No, it's all about crazies that see things they want to see anywhere they look, in numbers, pictures, nut cases I tell you, nut cases. They are simply projecting their wants, due to the ultimate human fear, upon those things they cannot have dominion. Then they can cope with those ultimate fears. I call it a, "mind fuck!" Understand the basis of human biological autonomic functions? The fear of death my friend, is intrinsic to the animal! Watch the gazelle run for it's life!

But like Elton's "Rocket Man," '...and all this science, you don't understand, it's not your job, five days a week...'
You are a simple minded idiot.
No, you're the simple minded idiot that sees imaginary things!

I know for a fact that God\'God' exists
No way, you psycho!

- not for any need.
NO! Want! And you're about to reveal it in your next lines of text, fool!

This entity drove me to suicide on more than one occasion over the 20 yrs
No, you drove yourself to suicide on more than one occasion because you finally found guilt! Your own death started to sink in! You finally understood what you did. A kind of reciprocity set in!

I have known it to exist
No! you only "want" it to exist to give you the strength that you believe you don't have. You'll have it up until the point that you die, if you embrace nothing but the truth, you need no man made gods!

- the reason - crossing a certain line in consideration of past indiscretions in my youth where I 'took' human life.
Like I said, you found guilt, after the realization of your own death became much more real. We all believe we're immortal when we're young. And Mr. fishy, I can VERY HONESTLY say that I'm sorry that you had to learn such a thing is such a VERY HARD WAY! My heart CERTAINLY goes out to you and your victim! I wish I had the power to turn back time and erase that event from both your lives, but I can't, unfortunately! :'-( So I cry for you both!

Fuck you and your simple shortsighted approach to the nature of reality.
Fuck you and your guilt driven unfounded rationalizations that you seem to need to cure yourself, only because you just tried to fuck me. Of course you didn't, because I know much about the current human condition. As I've studied it for a very long time, 60 years now! ;-)
PEACE be with you, your victim, and especially their loved ones, my friend. I hope you all eventually find it in your hearts! :-*

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5239
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:00 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:35 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:09 pm
I know for a fact that God\'God' exists
Okay, so that's great and it works for you, whatever the reasons.

So, in consideration of all the other people in the world who "know" and experience differently than you do, would it be reasonable for us to conclude that a vast range of realities must exist, such that each person's "knowing" is personal and true for their experience?
I do hope you "know" the difference between "knowing" and simply "belief." We are in a philosophy forum after all. You know:

"Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom"[1][2][3][4])" --Wikipedia--

"wisdom [wiz-duh m]
noun
1. the quality or state of being wise; knowledge of what is
"true" or right coupled with just judgment as to action; sagacity, discernment, or insight.
2. scholarly knowledge or learning: the wisdom of the schools." --Dictionary.com--

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2811
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Lacewing » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:08 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:00 pm
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:35 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:09 pm
I know for a fact that God\'God' exists
Okay, so that's great and it works for you, whatever the reasons.

So, in consideration of all the other people in the world who "know" and experience differently than you do, would it be reasonable for us to conclude that a vast range of realities must exist, such that each person's "knowing" is personal and true for their experience?
I do hope you "know" the difference between "knowing" and simply "belief." We are in a philosophy forum after all.
My question is for atto... using the wording he uses. Please don't disrupt the flow of this questioning with your usual aggravated style. :) I'm hopeful that atto will engage in this friendly and thoughtful exploration.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5239
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:47 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:08 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:00 pm
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:35 pm

Okay, so that's great and it works for you, whatever the reasons.

So, in consideration of all the other people in the world who "know" and experience differently than you do, would it be reasonable for us to conclude that a vast range of realities must exist, such that each person's "knowing" is personal and true for their experience?
I do hope you "know" the difference between "knowing" and simply "belief." We are in a philosophy forum after all.
My question is for atto... using the wording he uses.
Yes, and my rhetoric was for you. So as to certainly ascertain your usage of quotation marks.

Please don't disrupt the flow of this questioning with your usual aggravated style.
My disruption, your disruption, whom is to say, you? Riiiight! Seemingly you fear my brilliance. Old scars not fading away? ;-)

:) I'm hopeful that atto will engage in this friendly and thoughtful exploration.
You have your characterizations, and I have mine. Again whom is to say? Wounds still bleeding? ;-)

Pride is funny that way, huh? :-* xoxoxoxox Is it only I, that still loves you?

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2811
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Lacewing » Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:27 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:47 pm
Seemingly you fear my brilliance.
That's not possible.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:47 pm
Old scars not fading away?
There are no scars.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:47 pm
Wounds still bleeding?
There are no wounds.

There are only more laugh lines on the face. :)

Do YOU have scars and wounds? I'm sorry!
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:47 pm
:-* xoxoxoxox Is it only I, that still loves you?
Here, on this forum... perhaps.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5239
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:30 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:27 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:47 pm
Seemingly you fear my brilliance.
That's not possible.
Oh, but it is! ;-)
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:47 pm
Old scars not fading away?
There are no scars.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:47 pm
Wounds still bleeding?
There are no wounds.

There are only more laugh lines on the face. :)

Do YOU have scars and wounds? I'm sorry!
Sure I gained them with my sixteen year self sacrifice to protect you and all that you love (your family?) as well as all Americans and all her allies, from the nuclear threat. Of course I've paid for that self sacrifice, but at least I saved all the, so called, free people of the world. You didn't know I was a sixteen year veteran? You don't have to be thankful for my service, I realize that some are ungrateful. Those that believe themselves superior and shall waste anyone so as to serve their selfish needs. You know, those that want to exclude some, seeing them as unfit to be near them, maybe in the same forum. Of course I feel sorry for all the fools! As I'm sure most old veterans do, as that's the nature of their self sacrifice. Of course it's a shame that everyone doesn't feel the same way!
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:47 pm
:-* xoxoxoxox Is it only I, that still loves you?
Here, on this forum... perhaps.
Well have no worries, as no matter how much abuse, through words, I've gotten from anyone, I've always continued to love them, as I understand why they do so. Namely, fear!

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2811
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Lacewing » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:08 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:30 pm
Seemingly you fear my brilliance.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:27 pm
That's not possible.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:30 pm
Oh, but it is!
Well, I haven't seen it... and even if you showed it to me... I'm not fearful.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:27 pm
Do YOU have scars and wounds? I'm sorry!
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:30 pm
Sure I gained them with my sixteen year self sacrifice to protect you and all that you love
Well gee, that was awfully selfless of you. And now I have to put up with your crappy resentment because of it. :D
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:47 pm
Of course I've paid for that self sacrifice, but at least I saved all the, so called, free people of the world.
Was it worth it?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:47 pm
You didn't know I was a sixteen year veteran?
No, but that helps explain your bitterness and attacking nature.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:47 pm
You don't have to be thankful for my service, I realize that some are ungrateful.
Hey, I'm thankful for everything that everyone does with the right intentions.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:47 pm
You know, those that want to exclude some, seeing them as unfit to be near them, maybe in the same forum.
Oh, you're still overreacting and harping on this.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:47 pm
Of course I feel sorry for all the fools! As I'm sure most old veterans do, as that's the nature of their self sacrifice.
Just because you choose to champion Ding-dong posters on forums doesn't mean they aren't actually gaining value by having some truths about their behavior pointed out to them. You can't take this stuff too seriously. If people come here, they have to be ready to take it... or step away. This is not a support group.

How about the people you didn't even know, who you were willing to kill? Hmmm? Enough of the self-righteous crap, SOB. We all try to do things that we think are helpful for one noble purpose or another. There's no definitive way to go about it.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:47 pm
Of course it's a shame that everyone doesn't feel the same way!
Is it? I bet you think you know what that should be.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:47 pm

Well have no worries, as no matter how much abuse, through words, I've gotten from anyone, I've always continued to love them, as I understand why they do so. Namely, fear!
Fear? No, I just think some things are really stupid, and I feel obliged to point that out.

Seriously, why can't we do that? If the person knows an alternative truth for themselves, it's not going to matter what other people say. People accuse me of stuff all the time (you have too), and I know it's typically because they don't understand and/or know me... AND people like to project stuff and act righteous when they hear something that challenges their ideas and foundations.

Why do you think your "tough love" is appropriate, and my "tough love" isn't?

(P.S. I'm not going to go down this path very far with you, because I don't see any point in arguing to the degree that you seem to like to.)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests