reply to post by notsofunnyguy
Welllllll, in terms of this thread topic--being annoyed may be a common reaction. Repetitious brief things tend to be annoying to many of us.
However, strong beliefs about ultimate issues are not likely to go away any time soon.
As long as individuals have the freedom to think for themselves, they will likely make choices about such issues with VERY STRONG emotional
associations connected to those choices.
It is reasonable and natural that they will want to assert their beliefs--as is their right in a free society and a reasonably free context, forum.
Like beauty--to some degree, annoyance is in the eye of the beholder.
There is also the tendency to have a POLARITY RESPONSE when we are confronted with information 180 degrees opposite from a very strong conviction that
we have a lot of intense emotions about.
And, many people have a POLARITY RESPONSE merely because of insecurities arising out of a significant degree of ATTACHMENT DISORDER.
I don't know that there's a solution to the request/demand of the OP.
One can quickly jump past such phrases/assertions.
I don't think it would be fitting or reasonable to try and censor such assertions out of all posts--either voluntarily or by software.
I found my own responses to the OP, below, flooding out with fairly strong energy behind them.
The OP felt quite comfortable asserting his/her perspective on the matter . . . why shouldn't I feel just as strong and it just as fitting to respond
The text of The Book indicates that
THE FOOL HAS SAID IN HIS HEART, THAT THERE IS NO GOD.
I think God's perspective is more reliable. His Book has reliably taught me for most of my 64 years, very accurately about myself and about mankind .
. . as well as about the world I find myself in.
He has proven HIMSELF far beyond imaginary--more real and tangible in key respects than my body parts or the sun 'rising' daily. That's probably not
explainable to someone who's not had such a RELATIONSHIP with HIM.
The GREEK manner of KNOWING what we think we KNOW is NOT the only reliable one.
The HEBREW phenomenological method is also reliable and productive.
A husband seeking to KNOW his wife by the GREEK method would likely not be greeted warmly as he set about to dissect his wife with a scalpel.
Much better and more fun to KNOW his wife in the HEBREW SENSE, manner of KNOWING 'AS Adam KNEW Eve and produced children thereby.
HEAVEN IS FOR REAL by Todd Burpo about 4 year old Colton Burpo's visit to Heaven during his surgery for a mis-diagnosed life threatening burst
appendix is impossible to explain by a super rationalist perspective.
His not recognizing his unknown Grandfather's older pic but recognizing the younger pic close to the physical age he met him at--IN HEAVEN--is
unexplainable, otherwise. So is his telling his mother that he had another sister. He had never been told of the daughter his mother had lost as a
still-born baby. I don't think the mother even knew the lost child was a girl. She certainly didn't know that said Heaven residing daughter atypically
had mother's hair color and looks.
Further, Colton recognized Akiana's painting of Jesus from her 4 year old Heavenly visitations as the only accurate one.
The same is true for PIPER's 90 MINUTES IN HEAVEN.
A super rationalist perspective lopps off rather arbitrarily a huge amount of data--rather irrationally, at that.
It declares rather arbitrarily that any data outside narrowly defined boundaries is inadmissable.
That's not very reasonable. That does not include massive amounts of data and reality.
That is an addiction to avoiding a TYPE I ERROR [believing something is there, when there is nothing there] to such a degree that it MAKES CERTAIN
being victimized by a TYPE II ERROR [believing nothing is there, when there is something there].
BOTH types of error can be equally deadly.
That's not reasonable nor rational. That's not even scientific, in the strictest sense of the word.
THEREFORE, I think it is unreasonable, unfitting and BEING SEDUCED BY ignorance to avoid allowing phenomenological data into the discussion . . .
I think it is UNREASONABLE AND UNFITTING to try and excise out of any discussions data, assertions and feelings like the above--which relate to deeply
held convictions and perspectives gathered and honed from extensive experiences as individuals and massive experience data from various cultures.
edit on 25/4/2011 by BO XIAN because: to add a ref related to topic
edit on 25/4/2011 by BO XIAN because: goofed--not familiar
enough with this change in software . . . same reason as above.