It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proof: For the belief in G_D.

page: 9
5
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
The god myth in the bibile fails in the early books of the old testament. It's simple enough to see.

It is supposed to be omnipotent, not constraints of time of space, all seeing, all knowing, all powerfull. The problem is lucifer who became satan in this myth. It is stated several time that god hates sin yet he had an oversight, he didn't see the fall (or rise) of satan. How can this be? Was it a true oversight? How could the creator of this sub being not see this and how/why did he not simply stike him down? It seems he was caught off guard and it seems he made an even bigger mistake with the rest of his angelic servants because lucifer was able to convince 1/3 of them to follow him! How can this be? Then this supreme creator god had to war with his own creation that was created to serve him? After some time he finally gets controll of the situation and somehow decides to punish lucifer by condeming him to good old planet earth. Not only casting him down here but also giving him power over the very planet where he has been planning to create his beloved race of humans.
Your god is incapable of destroying or controlling the very thing he hates not only that but he cruely gives him rule of earth??? I could stop here but it gets better.

The jesus person was present at the creation of man. This is the only way theologins can explain the "us" in the " Let us create man in our own image". The trinity were present at creation full well knowing that satan was in charge of earth. This god couldn't have cast satan to pluto, or even another galaxy why not extinguish him? Seems his power isn't all that we were told by the jewish mytholgy. Seems he made a HUGE oversight. Seems he also didn't care about mankind. You honestly think mankind had a chance to avoid sin as a ignorant new species. Lucifer was smart enough to convince gods created servants and war against him.

Mankind sinned and god condemed all of us for that sin. This seems fair? God couldn't watch another failure so he left us to wallow in our own crap untill thousands of years later after he decides to get involved with mankind again we are given impossible laws to follow. This didn't work so he had to come up with another plan? He sent his son to rewrite the law into a spiritual "grace" Why the long wait?

I have much more but am running out of time. If this isn't enough then nothing will be.

excuse the spelling and grammar im in a time crunch.




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by YHWH2
 


Considering you wrote a question to me......

Quote: ["Am I still delusional?"]

.....after you'd switched your faith-bais to a reality-basis (on the same subject), there's nothing strange in my anwering your own question with a: "Yes, you're delusional".

Delusions are to claim that subjective speculations are universal objective absolutes.

Quote: ["How can I understand that you are going to be fair and proper and respectful in the engagement, when you are so readily willing to lower the discussion at the earliest instance? What do you gain by it, really?"]

I have a background on the present subject, which should give a sufficiently high degree of quality. This is ofcourse on the condition, that you recognize the actual systematic methodology of science/philosophy. Having to explain the difference between subjective - objective, agnostic - gnostic positions and faith vs science SHOULD be un-necessary regarding OP.

Quote: ["Could you not have used a more valid example, when the rest of what you were saying was of such a high standard, or top-shelf?"]

I'm not aware of which example of mine, you refer to. A guess would be my reference to genesis 1.

Quote: ["You raised some good points, and I was excited to see you come back for this exploration when everyone has likely left, and interested to see what we could continue bringing to the debating table"]

I'm fairly convinced, that those leaving did it, because your original position was confused on the point of faith vs objectivity.

Quote: ["-- but I am torn by your immature handling,......"]

Hmmm...... I'm 65 +, but maybe some of us never loose the naivity of childhood.

Quote continued: ["........and I don't want to put the effort in with you, when you will turn around and say something, perhaps nearer conclusion of the thread, something more appropriate to well... an audience at a comic book conference -- then a thread about such important matters as belief in G_D and delusion, and all the other notes included within this broad subject matter."]

You can hardly expect me to predictable on your terms. In any case is the FSM argument a rather sound example of misapplied science/logic, which is why it's so popular. (As is the Spiderman ditto. There are christians claiming the bible to be true in all ways, because Jericho is found. In two thousand years New York will maybe be found, and 'spiderman believers' will claim this as 'proof'' of something).


edit on 21-6-2011 by bogomil because: addition of 'regarding OP'



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Munfett
 


You wrote:

["Lucifer was smart enough to convince gods created servants and war against him."]


Imo opinion you hit the nail on the head.

Unravelling all the elaborate and self-confirming christian mythology and the doctrines created to make patchwork support, it's eventually all about authority, submission and worship.

So for me Lucifer (not to be mixed with Satan and other adversaries) is the good guy. Bringer of light, liberal and anti-authoritarian.

There may have been a 'war in heaven' (or just in cosmos), and rather than beeing caught up in the propaganda of various holy manuals, I decide on what side to choose, from what I actually KNOW, instead of what some try to push on me.

A quote from OP will maybe put the above in thread context:

Quote from OP: ["To make sense of the debate, from the philosophical approach, the correspondence theory of truth and the coherence test for truth or its explanation, is central to answer the question: Is Christianity true?"]

The most common extremist positions ('gnostic' positions) are FOR a trans-cosmic divine entity called Jahveh or AGAINST any metaphysical claims at all. The middle positions, hyperdimensional beings or the 'ancient astronaut' model is usually ignored in the above black/white context. But maybe such middle-positions have something speaking for them. At least they are closer to what can be observed than what the gnostic positions offer.

Adding another level of answer to: "Is christianity true?".

Maybe christianity is 'true' as an event in cosmic history, but not as an expression of trans-cosmic existence.

Maybe it's an expression of some deep existential principle-speculations (being opposed by mainly asian or gnosticism principles).

Or maybe it's all just pure orchestrated myth.




edit on 21-6-2011 by bogomil because: spelling and addition



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Munfett
The god myth in the bibile fails in the early books of the old testament. It's simple enough to see.

It is supposed to be omnipotent, not constraints of time of space, all seeing, all knowing, all powerfull. The problem is lucifer who became satan in this myth. It is stated several time that god hates sin yet he had an oversight, he didn't see the fall (or rise) of satan. How can this be? Was it a true oversight? How could the creator of this sub being not see this and how/why did he not simply stike him down? It seems he was caught off guard and it seems he made an even bigger mistake with the rest of his angelic servants because lucifer was able to convince 1/3 of them to follow him! How can this be? Then this supreme creator god had to war with his own creation that was created to serve him? After some time he finally gets controll of the situation and somehow decides to punish lucifer by condeming him to good old planet earth. Not only casting him down here but also giving him power over the very planet where he has been planning to create his beloved race of humans.
Your god is incapable of destroying or controlling the very thing he hates not only that but he cruely gives him rule of earth??? I could stop here but it gets better.

The jesus person was present at the creation of man. This is the only way theologins can explain the "us" in the " Let us create man in our own image". The trinity were present at creation full well knowing that satan was in charge of earth. This god couldn't have cast satan to pluto, or even another galaxy why not extinguish him? Seems his power isn't all that we were told by the jewish mytholgy. Seems he made a HUGE oversight. Seems he also didn't care about mankind. You honestly think mankind had a chance to avoid sin as a ignorant new species. Lucifer was smart enough to convince gods created servants and war against him.

Mankind sinned and god condemed all of us for that sin. This seems fair? God couldn't watch another failure so he left us to wallow in our own crap untill thousands of years later after he decides to get involved with mankind again we are given impossible laws to follow. This didn't work so he had to come up with another plan? He sent his son to rewrite the law into a spiritual "grace" Why the long wait?

I have much more but am running out of time. If this isn't enough then nothing will be.

excuse the spelling and grammar im in a time crunch.


I think you're saying that it's not just about G_D. That it's also about a particular understanding of G_D.

But okay, so let's get rid of G_D. He doesn't exist. The Universe is without G_D.

So the problem with knowledge has been solved. However, suffering still exists, and we have no hope since because we have removed G_D we have removed hope.

So how about this: Death is the end! Is there an end to morality?

For me their is justice in the form of the final judgement, meaning that the victims of the Holocaust, for instance, get their justice. Otherwise, if death is the end and there is an end to morality than you can do what you want and you're going to get away with it, if you get away from not being caught by the Law. How FAIR is that on you if are the victim of crime - G_D forbid - and the police are left powerless?

The majority of the other questions you have posed I find to be nonsense, as if you had already left the keyboard and your mind was elsewhere.

Peace be with you,
YHWH2
edit on 21-6-2011 by YHWH2 because: Spelling error rectified.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Munfett
 


You wrote:

["Lucifer was smart enough to convince gods created servants and war against him."]


Imo opinion you hit the nail on the head.

Unravelling all the elaborate and self-confirming christian mythology and the doctrines created to make patchwork support, it's eventually all about authority, submission and worship.

So for me Lucifer (not to be mixed with Satan and other adversaries) is the good guy. Bringer of light, liberal and anti-authoritarian.

There may have been a 'war in heaven' (or just in cosmos), and rather than beeing caught up in the propaganda of various holy manuals, I decide on what side to choose, from what I actually KNOW, instead of what some try to push on me.

A quote from OP will maybe put the above in thread context:

Quote from OP: ["To make sense of the debate, from the philosophical approach, the correspondence theory of truth and the coherence test for truth or its explanation, is central to answer the question: Is Christianity true?"]

The most common extremist positions ('gnostic' positions) are FOR a trans-cosmic divine entity called Jahveh or AGAINST any metaphysical claims at all. The middle positions, hyperdimensional beings or the 'ancient astronaut' model is usually ignored in the above black/white context. But maybe such middle-positions have something speaking for them. At least they are closer to what can be observed than what the gnostic positions offer.

Adding another level of answer to: "Is christianity true?".

Maybe christianity is 'true' as an event in cosmic history, but not as an expression of trans-cosmic existence.

Maybe it's an expression of some deep existential principle-speculations (being opposed by mainly asian or gnosticism principles).

Or maybe it's all just pure orchestrated myth.


edit on 21-6-2011 by bogomil because: spelling and addition


WOW! I mean, WOW!

I'm glad I had called-off any further engagement with you, the New Atheists would be ashamed, or in the least embarassed, by this by you.

Thanks for sticking by, and thanks for showing your worth.

Sadly, I consider that you have become unstuck.

Cheers,
YHWH2
edit on 21-6-2011 by YHWH2 because: Penultimate sentence inserted into the penultimate position.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Actually, I think there are a few of us still here reading the progression of this thread. I see stars going up on posts, so we are watching to see who can Tic for Tac on this debate. Very interesting points being brought up on both sides.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ellieN



Actually, I think there are a few of us still here reading the progression of this thread. I see stars going up on posts, so we are watching to see who can Tic for Tac on this debate. Very interesting points being brought up on both sides.


Thank you for saying so, but I think you're just being considerate and nice.

I think I have been a little elusive on some of the context, and vague on some premises. I thought that for those of us who aren't professors, but enjoy good-natured and robust discussion, this would have been an ideal thread to become involved in, or follow actively. I thought it had begun organically enough, but perhaps my failures in some of the things which have been highlighted about my discussion, are true, and I have polluted the landscape by failing to more clearly highlight the discussion points and positions.

Coming from the Christian perspective since I'm Christian, I was really staggered by the power of the Debate from both sides at the location already mentioned, and wanted to - perhaps a little too eagerly - show that I was on the winning side, that is to say on the side of Prof. Lennox, which was the perception I got from all the material I studied. Nevertheless, Prof. Lennox is a far greater intellect than I and he is still ahead in the debate, in my opinion.

I'll take some satisfaction from the knowledge that I didn't waste any more time with bogomil though, but that satisfaction is nothing compared to the satisfaction I would have gained had I found something in the Debate not previously found by the great Prof. Lennox. But actually I have been inspired to find something which I'll be exploring sans forum.

In a thread this advanced, in terms of sophistication and duration, it's unlikely someone will come along to refresh the landscape and move the discussion forward properly, however.

Again, thanks for sticking by, and may peace be with you,
YHWH2
edit on 21-6-2011 by YHWH2 because: Paragraph removed because it was illogical for it to have remained.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by YHWH2

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Munfett
 


You wrote:

["Lucifer was smart enough to convince gods created servants and war against him."]


Imo opinion you hit the nail on the head.

Unravelling all the elaborate and self-confirming christian mythology and the doctrines created to make patchwork support, it's eventually all about authority, submission and worship.

So for me Lucifer (not to be mixed with Satan and other adversaries) is the good guy. Bringer of light, liberal and anti-authoritarian.

There may have been a 'war in heaven' (or just in cosmos), and rather than beeing caught up in the propaganda of various holy manuals, I decide on what side to choose, from what I actually KNOW, instead of what some try to push on me.

A quote from OP will maybe put the above in thread context:

Quote from OP: ["To make sense of the debate, from the philosophical approach, the correspondence theory of truth and the coherence test for truth or its explanation, is central to answer the question: Is Christianity true?"]

The most common extremist positions ('gnostic' positions) are FOR a trans-cosmic divine entity called Jahveh or AGAINST any metaphysical claims at all. The middle positions, hyperdimensional beings or the 'ancient astronaut' model is usually ignored in the above black/white context. But maybe such middle-positions have something speaking for them. At least they are closer to what can be observed than what the gnostic positions offer.

Adding another level of answer to: "Is christianity true?".

Maybe christianity is 'true' as an event in cosmic history, but not as an expression of trans-cosmic existence.

Maybe it's an expression of some deep existential principle-speculations (being opposed by mainly asian or gnosticism principles).

Or maybe it's all just pure orchestrated myth.


edit on 21-6-2011 by bogomil because: spelling and addition


WOW! I mean, WOW!

I'm glad I had called-off any further engagement with you, the New Atheists would be ashamed, or in the least embarassed, by this by you.

Thanks for sticking by, and thanks for showing your worth.

Sadly, I consider that you have become unstuck.

Cheers,
YHWH2
edit on 21-6-2011 by YHWH2 because: Penultimate sentence inserted into the penultimate position.


Why should I care about what 'new atheists' think about me? I'm not an atheist, neither do I need any approval for my thoughts.

If you had related more to the factual content of my posts (e.g. on positions, subjectivity/objectivity, genesis 1 having a reality-check), you could have saved yourself the embarrassment of having to resort to condescension of opposition.

As you later mention my name derogatively in a post to Ellie, I feel it relevant to consider that post also. This thread isn't actually a 'deep' one. You have made some of the regular mistakes of christians here (not clarifying your own position until pressed hard, overrating your knowledge of science/logic, relying on authority and getting personal, when completely legitimate questions (or opposition) are presented).

Finally .....almost.... arriving at the standard debate of validation of christianity. It's all been done on a weekly basis on ATS, the time I've been around here.

PS Would you have demonstrated the same religious elitist-attitude, if I had used buddhistic concepts instead of expressing sympathy for what the character Lucifer stands for?
edit on 21-6-2011 by bogomil because: minor text-change for precision



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by YHWH2
 


I think in the end for you, it is your faith that will carry you thru. Whether or not that is enough, only you can decide that. If you are having doubts about it, then you have a lot of company out here.
The more science we learn, the more we see that the Ancients were very limited in that knowledge. and remember if God exist, the science we gather is His and was always there to discover. To say Science is the blame for people turning away from God is like blaming God Himself for He is the Science.
I think you have seen in my posts that I am not totally with you on everything, but neither am I totally against you either.
I really do hate to say this, and some are not going to like me at all for saying it and I'm certain that you are not either. In my opinion, if the Old Testament wasn't part of the Bible, then I think the New Testament would have a much better chance of keeping people in the good graces with God.
The violence, (and violence has many names in it) of the Old Testament has turned more people off than anything else.
I truly wish you the very best in your Faith.

Ellie
edit on 21-6-2011 by ellieN because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ellieN
 


I think you are partly right, because whilst I have doubts, these doubts aren't so strong that they make me doubt my belief in G_D -- but which turn me toward investigating the foundation upon which my belief in G_D sits. I don't want my faith to be blind, in that case. So, my belief in G_D will carry me through - as you say - if the answers I find are truthful. So far they are.

I agree with you that the science we have is His, I have mentioned this as a reply on this thread more than once, and I do find this point quite powerful. Because, of course, this is evidence of a scientific kind. Every scientist has a faith, and scientists who maintain that they are telling us how the world indisputably is, are really asking for our faith in their subjective certainty of their own objectivity. Allow me to include what Prof. Lennox says, talking about Einstein, 'He couldn't imagine a scientist without his faith', in his 'rational intelligibility of the universe.'

So scientists are telling us many things, one of which is that there is just matter and energy. I've been targeted by some on this thread, concerning the matter that I don't know what the word validity means, but let me put that out with this: Where does the validity of thinking come from?

John D. Barrow, astronomer and mathematician, has written, 'We live in the between world...betwixt the "devil" of the quantum world and the "deep blue sea" of curved space.' Science hardly ever, never actually, refers back to us. Science is restless, ambitious, and intolerant, and whilst it supplants religions, it does not replace the needs once answered by those same religions. Instead it tries to remove our souls from our body. But let us remember that it was the world which chose science over magic because it was thought it was true and it worked. Its effectiveness is unquestionable, and people who turn away from G_D are turning away also perhaps, because they miss the point that - as you say - He is the science, or - in the way I would word it - He is the one who gave us science to use.

I have read over your posts again, and found that you first spoke about maths mainly, then went on to ask me a question which only G_D could answer. Overall, I have identified that you are as you say, neither with or against my positions, and so therefore I can agree with you on this.

I think, whilst you make a valid point about the Old Testament, you may be also neglecting to find certain sophisticated things in the Book of Genesis or lacking - like me - the inspiration of scripture, and what it can deliver. You might think I'm holding on by a thin thread in saying thus, but let's explore what Prof. Lennox has to say about this Book, and specifically about the passage: '"In the beginning G_D created the heaven and the earth". The text doesn't even say that that was on Day 1.' The beginning being to him, 'uncertain in the past'. So if Genesis was not to have talked about those days, there would have been nothing to believe until the 1960s, when science found - beginning.

So I will go back a bit: Remove G_D and you have modern existential uncertainty. And the New Atheists - as I have inferred in an earlier reply to Munfett - are much worse off than those of us who believe in G_D.

And just on a further point I addressed to you concerning bogomil, in order to reinforce what I said. On a thread he authored titled: 'Epistemological and psycho-social considerations on mainly christian fanatism' -- he opens by straining for an acronym he sees as convenient to use for "fanatic fundamentalist christians" in finding "ffuchs". Even though to shorten the words for convenience most effectively as he asserts - and which therefore isn't simply a pseudo-intellectual's idea of a stab at Christians - would be for him to just find ffc, instead. One of the posters who replies, kallisti36, instead uses "fundies" which bogomil could have found, but didn't, confirming my opinion that he was always going to be a waste of time, because of his immaturity, and jump-to-conclusions methodology of absurd attack and absurdist parry.

In conclusion; I take your wish in the spirit it was offered, and likewise wish the same for you. My belief in G_D is faith in a real person, so I have found the very best inference - if not evidence in the general understanding - that G_D exists, thanks to the literature Prof. Lennox has put forward for me to study.

Thank you, Ellie, for presenting me with the opportunity to draw a line under some of my points.

Peace be with you,
YHWH2
edit on 22-6-2011 by YHWH2 because: Minor text change for *extra* precision. Spelling error rectified from alien to EllieN to Ellie.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by YHWH2
 


You wrote:

["and scientists who maintain that they are telling us how the world indisputably is, are really asking for our faith in their subjective certainty of their own objectivity."]

Imo this direction of your thoughts is a step forward. It's both legitimate and worthwhile to ask a 'philosophy of science' question on the ultimate value of science itself. But take care to start from the start and ARRIVE to an answer instead of starting with an answer fitting you, and then 'prove' that.

Quote: ["Allow me to include what Prof. Lennox says, talking about Einstein, 'He couldn't imagine a scientist without his faith', in his 'rational intelligibility of the universe.'"]

Don't draw too far-reaching conclusions from this. Einstein had his own problems in that direction, and eventually had to accept a 'defeat' concerning 'god's hand' in cosmos.

Quote: ["Where does the validity of thinking come from?"]

Do you mean the process of thinking per se, or do you mean intellectual reasoning chains?

Quote: [" John D. Barrow, astronomer and mathematician, has written, 'We live in the between world...betwixt the "devil" of the quantum world and the "deep blue sea" of curved space.'"]

The lacking TOE (theory of everthing) is a fascinating challenge for those who are not afraid of questions. For those who desperately need answers to feel safe, it's ofcourse easier to invent some answers.

Quote: ["Science hardly ever, never actually, refers back to us."]

Not 'hard' science. But that's not what it concerns itself with. We have the 'soft' sciences on mankind.

Quote: ["Science is restless, ambitious, and intolerant........]

Not even getting close to some of the extremist religious manifestations.

Quote continued: ["and whilst it supplants religions, it does not replace the needs once answered by those same religions."]

Mankind chooses science, because it can give them a lot of benefits. It's not as if science has an ideological crusade going on with soap-box orators in streetcorners.

Quote: ["Instead it tries to remove our souls from our body."]

In western democracies we have freedom of religion. Those wanting to have a soul can keep that idea. Science is taking an agnostic attitude: "Show us the evidence for this extra-ordinary claim of a 'soul' ".
There's no actual 'proof' for the non-existence of a soul to make it a gnostic position.

Quote: ["......and people who turn away from G_D are turning away also perhaps, because they miss the point that - as you say - He is the science, or - in the way I would word it - He is the one who gave us science to use."]

That 'god' gave us science is a completely unsubstantiated postulate, resting on circular argumentation. You set out to 'prove god'. Now you take his alleged existence for granted and use it in further assumptions.

Quote: [" I have read over your posts again, and found that you first spoke about maths mainly, then went on to ask me a question which only G_D could answer. Overall, I have identified that you are as you say, neither with or against my positions, and so therefore I can agree with you on this."]

It doesn't come as a surprise, but you are saying, that you can only communicate with yes-sayers or at best neutrals.

Quote: ["You might think I'm holding on by a thin thread in saying thus, but let's explore what Prof. Lennox has to say about this Book, and specifically about the passage: '"In the beginning G_D created the heaven and the earth". The text doesn't even say that that was on Day 1.' The beginning being to him, 'uncertain in the past'."]

That's the least of genesis 1's problems. The actual creation process as told is bosh.

Quote: ["So if Genesis was not to have talked about those days, there would have been nothing to believe until the 1960s, when science found - beginning."]

Science is not about speculations of endless regressions of causes. It takes one step at a time, when evidence turns up.

Quote: [" So I will go back a bit: Remove G_D and you have modern existential uncertainty."]

a/ Philosophical uncertainty: We have considerably more REAL knowledge how, than in the 'god-is-reality' period.

b/ Psychological uncertainty: Speak for yourself.

Quote: ["And the New Atheists - as I have inferred in an earlier reply to Munfett - are much worse off than those of us who believe in G_D."]

Worse off...from not beliving in myths? You are projecting your own mindset on other people. We don't all need a sky-daddy.

Quote: ["And just on a further point I addressed to you concerning bogomil, in order to reinforce what I said. On a thread he authored titled: 'Epistemological and psycho-social considerations on mainly christian fanatism' -- he opens by straining for an acronym he sees as convenient to use for "fanatic fundamentalist christians" in finding "ffuchs". Even though to shorten the words for convenience most effectively as he asserts - and which therefore isn't simply a pseudo-intellectual's idea of a stab at Christians - would be for him to just find ffc, instead."]

I would have formulated that thread differently today, but the basic tenet still holds: Christian missionaries are TACTICAL rather than using rational arguments.

Quote: ["One of the posters who replies, kallisti36, instead uses "fundies" which bogomil could have found, but didn't, confirming my opinion that he was always going to be a waste of time, because of his immaturity, and jump-to-conclusions methodology of absurd attack and absurdist parry."]

Tactical......As demonstrated here. There's nothing wrong with my rational arguments and instead of adressing those arguments, a character defamation is presented.

Quote: [" My belief in G_D is faith in a real person, so I have found the very best inference - if not evidence in the general understanding - that G_D exists, thanks to the literature Prof. Lennox has put forward for me to study."]

If you've found a guru (Lennox), who can give you the existential safety you need, good for you. Though this doesn't make any of it 'true'.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


In the spirit of fairness and politeness, I wish to let you know that I have read your post, however, I won't be engaging with you on this discussion as you have proven to be immature and mean-spirited, on this thread for the former and on the latter in the thread you authored and to which I referred in my reply to ellieN.

I will not enter into a discussion with you on the details of my decision. You will just have to accept that this is the case. You will likely offer a gibe or something similar to attempt to discredit my decision to not respond, but I will just ignore it like I ignored your earlier subterfuge.

Thanks for furnishing this thread with your opinions, you may obviously continue, but I won't become involved with you, on principle.

Peace be with you,
YHWH2


edit on 23-6-2011 by YHWH2 because: To do the right thing, which would be considered by some as correct.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by YHWH2
 


You are ofcourse free to terminate communication with me.

Just as you have been free to concentrate more on imagined character deficiences in me than on the factual content of the thread you started.

Did you seriously expect to come to a public forum with claims like yours and not meet opposition? This is not a church, where you can preach or lecture on the assumption, that everyone agrees with you.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
If anyone should happen upon this thread and rest upon this page, please know that I always seek to take a fair character assessment when arguing with a person. Respect begets respect with me.

Moreover, in a public forum we all post to find opposition in order to test our theories or foundations of belief, and if anyone doubts that that is not the case with me, and are resisting the urge to make a post, then please take my word that I will accept your point-of-view for making it, whatever it may be, so long as it's delivered with respect and articulated well. You may bring something to the debate which may inspire me or someone else to ask more questions of you, or the position you hold.

Clearly, we all know how this process works.

Peace be with you all,
YHWH2



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join