How God could fail to convey His message?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2844
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by attofishpi » Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:52 am

Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:36 am
attofishpi wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:14 am
Yes, from my 20yrs of experience of this entity, I would not be surprised if we are in a simulation and 'God' is an A.I.
Interesting! Can you say a bit more about this?
Sure, I already did, here:- viewtopic.php?f=11&t=16459

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4588
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:29 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:37 am
The ideas themselves shouldn't be worshipped and lorded over other people.
But you've forgotten something.

Not all ideas are equal. Some reflect reality, and some simply do not. There are good ideas, and there are bad ideas. To say that an idea is 'good,' or even if we were just to say it's 'good enough' to merit respect, just because some person has it would be very foolish, would it not?

That would put the ideas of a radical racial suprematist on the same value level of the ideas held by, say, a humanitarian doctor. And we wouldn't do that, would we?

So some ideas should be cherished, and some should be challenged; and it's the quality of the ideas, not the identities of the particular people, that we ought to be challenging.
There is more truth from a greater collective vision. Don't you think?
No. The masses have often been quite wrong. The "collective vision" of the Third Reich was not a good one, even though many people had it. The Soviet "collective vision" killed even more people than that. And probably, the Maoist "collective vision" killed more than them all.

Again, it's the quality of the ideas that counts, not the number of people enchanted with them.
What would typically be your criteria for establishing someone/something as being "physically" present? Does your god meet that criteria?
Yes. But being transcendent, God is not a subject for our physical tests. You cannot put Him in a beaker, or pinch Him in vernier callipers, or measure Him a graduated cylinder -- and if you could subject Him to physical tests at your will, then how would He really be God at all?

Instead, I'll take these sorts of tests. Is what He says true? Has He spoken? Has He revealed Himself? Is Jesus Christ who He has said He is? Are there evidences of the effects of God's creatorial activities? Does this world look more accidental in origin, or more a product of deliberate intent and design? What does mathematical calculation tell us about the probabilities of natural processes alone producing the universe, or about the possibility of infinite regresses of causes? All these things, and a great deal more (such as, say, the human self, morality, history, etc.) would count for me as evidences one way or the other.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:59 am
I must assume you mean more than to say that you just want not to believe in these real things
Look at the dishonesty in your statement. You are accusing me of not wanting to believe in "real things".
Incorrect, I'm afraid. I was presuming you did NOT want to say that. Read again carefully, and you'll see.

Let me simplify it, if I may.

At present, your argument is as follows, it seems (correct me if I'm wrong):

LW says no idea is objectively wrong.
And LW says IC is objectively wrong for thinking anybody's idea is objectively wrong.


Do you see the problem now? :shock:
So...are you saying that I'm objectively wrong for doing that?
I'm pointing out your behavior of disrespect (which you accused me of).
No, I did not, actually. I never accused you of "disrespect." Quite the contrary: I would argue you have the right to disrespect disrespectable ideas, regardless of the fact that some person cherishes them.

But from your perspective, it cannot be objectively wrong for me to "disrespect" anything. Remember? No ideas are objectively wrong, according to you. They all deserve respect. So then, why are you not respecting my "disrespectful" idea? :shock:
I think it's inaccurate and foolish of you to do so.
You mean it's objectively so? :shock: If so, you've just destroyed your own argument again. But if it's not objectively wrong, then about what do you have any reason to complain? For then, subjectively, I believe it; and then you owe me that respect of which you speak...that is, unless you didn't really mean it.

...the theists here (and mainly you) seem to commonly accuse non-theists of having no values or morals...
I have repeatedly refuted this mistake. You're simply wrong about that.

Firstly, "non-Theists" as a category, includes agnostics; and I say different things about their position than about that of the Atheists. But about Atheists, I say the following.

I don't say Atheists are not capable of moral action; quite the opposite -- I've said repeatedly that some of my Atheist friends, of whom I have several, are very nice people. But what I have said -- and this much is quite true -- is that they have no rational basis for believing in morality at all. I say that when they practice it, they practice it gratuitously, according to the lights of their own ideology; for no Atheist NEEDS to be moral, or has a rational basis for preferring good behaviour if it turns out in some circumstance that less-good, or even bad behaviour is more advantageous that doing the right thing.

And many of the Atheists on this forum have themselves agreed with that. They say that Atheism contains no moral information at all. So since I and they agree on that, what's your problem?
Because, as I've explained, I experienced being a complete totality with no separation in the oneness. If there's no "self"... and nothing separate... if all is oneness... then there is no separate god.

Odd...you don't appear to me to have achieved complete totality with cosmic Oneness. Rather, you seem very much like an individual. If you achieved the point of "no-self," then why did you return to physical existence?

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 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:40 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:29 pm
But you've forgotten something.

Not all ideas are equal.
It's difficult for me to even respond to you considering the way you frame things. As I've said, it's so slimy.

So I'm going to keep this shorter than I might otherwise. There are reasons for looking at ideas from different angles. Up close... far away... from one perspective... and another. You should try it. You appear to want to rule one particular realm by pulling every down into the confines of that, which is not broad or honest. It is manipulative, and skewed for your self-serving purposes.

If we're talking about the confines of the world of being human, then that contains certain qualities and limitations. If we're talking about bringing in spiritual nature and broader connectedness, then that can expand the focus and the capability. It is dishonest to transpose spiritual focus and capability with the limitations and desires of being human.

IF you want to dispute my claim that your god is non-physical, then look up the word "physical", and show that your god is that. You cannot dispute it by changing the parameters.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:29 pm
Because, as I've explained, I experienced being a complete totality with no separation in the oneness. If there's no "self"... and nothing separate... if all is oneness... then there is no separate god.
Odd...you don't appear to me to have achieved complete totality with cosmic Oneness. Rather, you seem very much like an individual.
How would you possibly know? Were you there during the occurrence? Of course I'm an individual in this physical world.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:29 pm
If you achieved the point of "no-self," then why did you return to physical existence?
Because the doctors saved this body -- and that's what it seemed to be dependent on, as there was no judgment or desire in the "no-self" state. I could take it or leave it. Didn't matter one way or another. Not because I didn't care in the human sense, but because the concept of "care" didn't exist in the "no-self" state. Apparently because of having experienced that state (knowing what's possible), I've flashed on much broader insights/understanding at critical times, as well as seemingly being plugged into something more day-to-day, as if some sort of permanent transformation took place. I'm not glorifying it -- it feels natural -- and I see no separation. I am fully living this life as an individual while I'm here -- I just don't take things as seriously, and I don't worry/wonder about what happens after the body dies. All is complete.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4588
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:27 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:40 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:29 pm
But you've forgotten something.

Not all ideas are equal.
It's difficult for me to even respond to you considering the way you frame things. As I've said, it's so slimy.
Ah, the ad hominem...the first refuge of someone with nothing more substantive to offer... :D

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 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:24 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:27 pm
Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:40 pm
It's difficult for me to even respond to you considering the way you frame things. As I've said, it's so slimy.
Ah, the ad hominem...the first refuge of someone with nothing more substantive to offer... :D
Ah, more redirection, avoidance, and dishonesty. :lol: Yep, I'd say I categorized it accurately.

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 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:33 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:52 am
Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:36 am
attofishpi wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:14 am
Yes, from my 20yrs of experience of this entity, I would not be surprised if we are in a simulation and 'God' is an A.I.
Interesting! Can you say a bit more about this?
Sure, I already did, here:- viewtopic.php?f=11&t=16459
Thanks for that. It's from over 2 years ago, though... do you have any more current description/ideas at this stage of your being, to supplement what you wrote then about the thought above?

thedoc
Posts: 6442
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by thedoc » Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:58 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:56 pm
thedoc wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:38 pm
Since I do not know what other people's reality and truths are there is no way for me to determine if they are the same as mine or different. It is very possible that another person's reality and truths could be exactly the same as mine or quite different, descriptions with words don't exclude either. Other people may be seeing the same thing from a different perspective, or they could be lying about what they see.
I always wonder what the heck people intend when they say "people have their own truths." Do they actually mean that the empirical facts of a given case are verifiably different for different people, purely premised on their differences of "perception"? :shock:

If so, that's plainly ridiculous. My wishing to make the world flat will not squish it flat for me, while it remains spherical for you. Nor will my belief (based on my ingestion of LSD, presumably) prevent me from hitting the earth like a hefty bag full of Campbell's soup if I jump off a building.

So whatever the real facts are, they remain real for everyone, regardless of perception.
Perhaps I should have said I don't know what other people "believe" is reality or truth. You are correct that reality and truth do not depend on what people believe it to be, it is what it is, whether we believe it or not.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4588
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:46 am

thedoc wrote:
Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:58 am
Perhaps I should have said I don't know what other people "believe" is reality or truth. You are correct that reality and truth do not depend on what people believe it to be, it is what it is, whether we believe it or not.
Oh, don't worry...I wasn't criticizing something you'd said. I was just backing up your skepticism regarding LW's relativism. I was pretty much sure you'd be inclined to take a similar view.

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 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:28 pm

Lacewing wrote:
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.
You confuse your blindness with my lack of brilliance, it's common amongst the selfish!

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
Of course your benefit from it, blinds your understanding of it, all selfish people are that way! Blinded by their ignorance!
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?
Sure it was! It gives one the moral high ground! At least relative to those that are thankless for its gift.

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.
No it doesn't, your blindness of what it is in being human has fooled you. My being suffocated by my father at age 3.5-4, thus subsequent PTSD, and everything else that I've learned of mankind since then, has allowed me to hate what mankind has become, it's just that you're one of the clueless ones that doesn't understand selflessness, only ever selfishness do you know! Or so your surely seem to convey. Is it you that's bitter, and thus have an attacking nature, that you know it so well?
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.
Then you should love me, as I smack you, to turn your head around so you can see selflessness for a change, as your rhetoric seems to indicate otherwise!
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.
No, it's obviously something that escapes you, it's lesson has left you dumbfounded, or so it surely still seems.
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.
Of course, same thing goes for you! From my perspective it's you that are the ding dong! ;-)

How about the people you didn't even know, who you were willing to kill? Hmmm?
I've never killed anyone. My platform was to protect you and your family from being killed, it was purely defense, 100%!

Enough of the self-righteous crap, SOB.
Crap only due to your ignorance, selfishness, and bitterness!

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.
Yes there is! By being sympathetic of those that are different, by accepting them, because you have no idea why they are as they are, so by understanding the differences between us, and at least accepting their voice, their inclusion!
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.
I know what 'all' '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.
No it's fear, which proves that you're young, whether physically, or educationally, (specifically psychologically).

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.
You have never said anything that has remotely challenged me, I've always seen your rhetoric as immature, relative to my understanding, which is all inclusive of everyone! You see I largely understand the current human condition, at least a lot better than many here at this forum. It's a life long study!

Why do you think your "tough love" is appropriate, and my "tough love" isn't?
Because it's you that is so obviously the 'young' one here, not some of those that you have brow beat! The only reason I spend time with you, is because I love all women, and I always want them to be the nurturing type, as it serves their sex so very well, it is the epitome of human understanding! Anything that can remotely be called humane was born of it! ;-)


(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.)
Your choice, but always know that I shall always have your best interests at heart, regardless.

Happy Holidays to ALL!

If you don't celebrate any upcoming holidays, relax, breath deep and celebrate the diversity of life, as it is indeed a gift!

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 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:21 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:11 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:27 pm
Lacewing wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:17 pm

The realities and truths that have nothing at all to do with your God.
Please provide examples and I will be certain to address them.
This forum is FULL of people providing examples of realities and truths that have nothing to do with your god. Whether or not you share those realities and truths, is not the issue. They don't need your approval. If you are refusing, however, to even acknowledge their existence, that is a willfully blinded condition to all that surrounds you.

So, is this true: You are either unwilling or actually unable to fathom realities and truths significantly different than your own?

Is your reality and truth the only valid one?
There is no such thing as variable truths or realities, only variable beliefs, and beliefs are not necessarily truths or reality. What is true and real is true and real for everyone. So says the universe!

A serial killer believes it's true and a reality that he should murder you, is he correct? Does he have the only copy of the users guide to the universe? I think not. He's a fucking whack job! And so is anyone that believes in faeries, pixies, trolls, pots o' gold at the end of a leprechaun's rainbow or gods. Unless of course one can provide empirical data as to their existence, no empirical evidence as to a gods existence, no existence of gods can be certain. All this "signs" crap is just fear based wishful belief due to fear! It's simply psychology 101!


Happy Holidays to those that celebrate, and a happy life to those that don't!

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 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:27 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:03 am
-1- wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:14 am
thedoc wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:01 am


A fallacy is not necessarily wrong, it's just not a valid argument.
And whoever says what you said on a philosophy website is an idiot. Pardon me.
Actually, thedoc is technically quite correct.

If one creates an invalid syllogism, that neither indicates whether the ensuing conclusion is false or true. It could be either. The only caveat is that if it is true, it will not be true on the basis of reasons provided in a fallacious form, but for some additional reason.

So you could create a syllogism like:

P1: All elephants have wings.
P2: Wings are members of Paul McCartney's band.
C: Therefore, Paul McCartney is an ex-Beatle.

The one premise is false, and one is true. There is an informal fallacy of equivocation, and also a formal fallacy of syllogistic structure (validity) evident in the example, so multiple failures of logic are here evident.

And in spite of all this, the conclusion just happens to be true.
Your illogical bombast knows no bounds, and does nothing to prove your case, you my friend are a fool that can't see past his own nose, and a liar to boot! A very bad combination when it comes to the love of wisdom!

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 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:39 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:52 am
Lacewing wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:11 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:27 pm

Please provide examples and I will be certain to address them.
This forum is FULL of people providing examples of realities and truths that have nothing to do with your god. Whether or not you share those realities and truths, is not the issue. They don't need your approval. If you are refusing, however, to even acknowledge their existence, that is a willfully blinded condition to all that surrounds you.

So, is this true: You are either unwilling or actually unable to fathom realities and truths significantly different than your own?

Is your reality and truth the only valid one?
I simply don't understand what you mean by other "realities" and "truths", please provide examples if you wish further dialogue.
Atto, you're a whack job that sees things in smoke, pictures, words and numbers, a mere reflection of your fear based wants and desires. But that said, I truly feel for you, if what you said about killing someone is true. And I'm sorry that you had to learn your life's worth after the realization that you had became that which you feared, that you killed that which you cherish. That in that moment, you feared you more than anything else!!! But the answer in not in the clouds, words, numbers, smoke or mirrors, instead it's only to be found in psychology. The psychology of the human mind bears all fanciful beliefs bare and naked for all to see. I would say that fanciful belief is what caused you to lose your grip in the first place. Science is the only thing that can truly allow one to keep their grip on reality/truth and to have moral superiority!

thedoc
Posts: 6442
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by thedoc » Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:24 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:27 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:03 am
-1- wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:14 am


And whoever says what you said on a philosophy website is an idiot. Pardon me.
Actually, thedoc is technically quite correct.

If one creates an invalid syllogism, that neither indicates whether the ensuing conclusion is false or true. It could be either. The only caveat is that if it is true, it will not be true on the basis of reasons provided in a fallacious form, but for some additional reason.

So you could create a syllogism like:

P1: All elephants have wings.
P2: Wings are members of Paul McCartney's band.
C: Therefore, Paul McCartney is an ex-Beatle.

The one premise is false, and one is true. There is an informal fallacy of equivocation, and also a formal fallacy of syllogistic structure (validity) evident in the example, so multiple failures of logic are here evident.

And in spite of all this, the conclusion just happens to be true.
Your illogical bombast knows no bounds, and does nothing to prove your case, you my friend are a fool that can't see past his own nose, and a liar to boot! A very bad combination when it comes to the love of wisdom!
So you don't like IC's post, is that because you don't like IC, or is it because he supported my statement, or is it because he demonstrates more knowledge of logic than you will ever understand?

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 » Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:46 am

thedoc wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:24 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:27 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:03 am


Actually, thedoc is technically quite correct.

If one creates an invalid syllogism, that neither indicates whether the ensuing conclusion is false or true. It could be either. The only caveat is that if it is true, it will not be true on the basis of reasons provided in a fallacious form, but for some additional reason.

So you could create a syllogism like:

P1: All elephants have wings.
P2: Wings are members of Paul McCartney's band.
C: Therefore, Paul McCartney is an ex-Beatle.

The one premise is false, and one is true. There is an informal fallacy of equivocation, and also a formal fallacy of syllogistic structure (validity) evident in the example, so multiple failures of logic are here evident.

And in spite of all this, the conclusion just happens to be true.
Your illogical bombast knows no bounds, and does nothing to prove your case, you my friend are a fool that can't see past his own nose, and a liar to boot! A very bad combination when it comes to the love of wisdom!
So you don't like IC's post, is that because you don't like IC, or is it because he supported my statement, or is it because he demonstrates more knowledge of logic than you will ever understand?
Hey Doc, how you doing? Happy Holidays! Do you still listen to any of those Winter Solstice musicians? How's your piano playing going? I hope your family is healthy, happy and wise. My best to you and yours! ;-)

As far as IC goes, what I said to him only pertains to him. I'm sure you know me by now. I never fear engaging people here on this forum, if I so choose. If I decided to engage your rhetoric, you should know by now, that I surely would. IC, I see as a liar, and I hate liars. You, I'm inclined to believe, actually believe what you say. And you're as honest as you can be in your approach. Do I think you're correct in your belief? NO!! Do I believe you have the right to believe anything you so choose? Yes! Do I like you better than IC, sure! I've actually called you friend once, remember? Do I love to argue those things that I honestly believe are true, oh most definitely! Is is necessarily personal? No, not anymore.

Of course I'll always feel sorry for fools that have bought into a swampland community. It's in my nature! And I'll always try and cause them to think clearly, so they can finally sue the swampland developers.

Peace, my friend!

P.S. I really did believe that it was brave of you to share that experience.

Happy Holidays!

P.P.S. And by the way, IC's logic couldn't be more invalid, false or flawed.

thedoc
Posts: 6442
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by thedoc » Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:56 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:46 am
thedoc wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:24 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:27 pm

Your illogical bombast knows no bounds, and does nothing to prove your case, you my friend are a fool that can't see past his own nose, and a liar to boot! A very bad combination when it comes to the love of wisdom!
So you don't like IC's post, is that because you don't like IC, or is it because he supported my statement, or is it because he demonstrates more knowledge of logic than you will ever understand?
Hey Doc, how you doing? Happy Holidays! Do you still listen to any of those Winter Solstice musicians? How's your piano playing going? I hope your family is healthy, happy and wise. My best to you and yours! ;-)

As far as IC goes, what I said to him only pertains to him. I'm sure you know me by now. I never fear engaging people here on this forum, if I so choose. If I decided to engage your rhetoric, you should know by now, that I surely would. IC, I see as a liar, and I hate liars. You, I'm inclined to believe, actually believe what you say. And you're as honest as you can be in your approach. Do I think you're correct in your belief? NO!! Do I believe you have the right to believe anything you so choose? Yes! Do I like you better than IC, sure! I've actually called you friend once, remember? Do I love to argue those things that I honestly believe are true, oh most definitely! Is is necessarily personal? No, not anymore.

Of course I'll always feel sorry for fools that have bought into a swampland community. It's in my nature! And I'll always try and cause them to think clearly, so they can finally sue the swampland developers.

Peace, my friend!

P.S. I really did believe that it was brave of you to share that experience.

Happy Holidays!

P.P.S. And by the way, IC's logic couldn't be more invalid, false or flawed.
Hello SOB, as long as your OK with my having friends that you don't agree with, everything's OK. I had a good Holiday, My whole family was here on Sat. and it was quite noisy, I like it quiet. I try to be honest even when others don't agree with me in the nosiest way possible. I like most classical music and many other genera, my piano is good even though I am late coming back to it and only know a few pieces. FYI my grandson is using my old cornet to learn to play, and I was getting the itch to pick it up again, so I bought a trumpet and am relearning to play, but it's a slow process, not sure I'll ever get back to where I was.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests