They are either 3 thoughts or 3 conclusions. You called them 2 thoughts. Your comment shows you continue to be deceitful It is deceitful of you to alter words and meaning , then try to accuse by that same fraudulent act.. If you are looking for an essence, why don't you try being truthful . In essence I criticized your religion. How is "Your religion won't let you think." .... in essence ... "to the man?" and not in essence to the religion which the phrase is targeted? Your statements have been called out and found wanting in so many ways now , is. playing at semantics all you got left? Why don't you try addressing the real problems that exist with your statements. You know, like the ones you made containing all those contradictions and logical fallacies. Let me guess. You do that and then blame everyone else for being illogical. It helps you feel you are right. Right? If you can misconstrue what is actually written and the context which it is written in to such degree as that, you don't stand a chance of understanding anything past the confusion you make for yourself. You yourself set down the requirement which is " from observation" . You yourself then later ignored that.and then later again called it meaningless. You should stop the deceit. It doesn't make your worthless argument any better, but does make you appear dishonest. As I said... once you stop your deceit , I could give it a try for you.
Nothing is changed by you saying, "it ain't so." The deceit is obviously yours. It remains 2 thoughts, and a derived conclusion as item #3. To argue this is DEFINITELY willful misleading. (I assume youâve had training in law.) Quote from trainr: You said, âYour religion won't let you think.â How is "You can't think" -- the essence of your statement -- not "to the man?" What is the answer to my question? Are you saying that telling someone they can't think isn't a personal attack (as long as you say it's caused by something)? Even your friends won't buy that one.
But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially his family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (1Ti 5:8) Which is it -- give everything away or provide for my family?
well lets see. jesus said this when asked: Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, " `Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and `love your neighbor as yourself.'" "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?" Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." and this:Jesus says to his disciples in Luke 14:26 âIf anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters â yes, even his own life â he cannot be my disciple.â Paul is credited with writing this: But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially his family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (1Ti 5:8) exactly who are you worshiping?
stu Registered: Mar 2002 Posts: 1766 02-22-06 07:02 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from rcj: Mercy !!! Wont be long before this all ends in "Ignore Hell" !! ... rj -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I gotta get myself together, cuz i got someplace to go And i'm praying when i get there, i see everyone i know I wanna go to ignore hell, because i hear that's it's ok , i said i wanna go to ignore hell, let's... go with rcj ................................................................................ Damn!!!! Ahh ha ha .... choke...choke ... Gufawhh ...!!! Too good!! ... Stu, hope you dont mind if I send a copy of this to other ppl. ... rj
1- *plonk*-ed and yet you just can't avoid coming and vociferating your monologue. 2-You never responded to any of my questions except firing your self-boasted ...My IQ "is up there" left and right like a mad Jekil. 3-Prove where I said "christians are aberrant." You can't. You are both Jekil talking to Hyde.
I assume that scripture means to you that all christians are supposed to give everything away. First, the man being addressed by Jesus wasn't a christian. Second, Jesus didn't address his remarks to all people. Third, the end result was "treasure in heaven," not salvation. Does this mean you believe the bible, since you are using it as the basis of an argument?
Were that the case, then #1 #2 and #3 are derived conclusions also. 1. A God you imagine (conceive) "thought" isnât a universe-creating God. "derived conclusion" 2. If the universe-creating God exists and reveals himself, "thought" he isnât imaginary, "derived conclusion" he is real. "derived conclusion" I no longer have to imagine him; "derived conclusion" I can know him by his impartation of knowledge. "derived conclusion" 3. We can imagine all kinds of Gods, or we can know a real God.. "thoughts" or "derived conclusions" ... take your pick! By what you are now saying, your list shows there are in fact anywhere between 3 thoughts and 6 conclusions, or 0 thoughts and many conclusions? Why turn your own arguments into such a pathetic display of your own deceitfulness. Why not just be honest and say something like [paraphrasing:] To make my point more clear ...... There are 2 thoughts expressed here: it rymes even!! 1. A God you imagine (conceive) isnât a universe-creating God. 2. If the universe-creating God exists and reveals himself, he isnât imaginary, he is real. I no longer have to imagine him; I can know him by his impartation of knowledge. and so my derived conclusion is 3. We can imagine all kinds of Gods, or we can know a real God. It's still bullshit. But at least you would have shown some degree of honesty . However, on top of all that , there still remains the non apparent and non mistaken contradictions you made, along with the numerous tautology and faulty reasoning your - 2 which are not 2 - "thoughts" created. My answer is clear and has already been given. Obviously you are unable to grasp simple concepts such as, truth for instance. I should not be surprised you do not really understand what a personal attack is and what one is not, just so long as you think all you have to do is cry foul by anything you decide is one . But before you can begin adopting an honest approach to debate, you will have to stop being deceitful. It has already been made clear... "You can't think" ... are your words .You are the only one to have used them. Trying to infer they are what I meant is just you being deceitful and dishonest. And btw.. saying to a one legged man -your one legedness won't let you arse kick- is not a personal attack. It is knowledgeable remark made "by observation". Remember the standard you set?. Mind you, one leged and however many "thoughts" you had, do seem to have a proportionate symmetry with each other. Your problem as I see it has shown itself, is an intentional dishonesty in your debate. I would say the only concern you have is to do with what you can claim, not what is true. I think your religion has convinced you to believe you are free to say anything you want in its defence, without needing to hold any regard whatsoever to the concept of truth. This thread is testimony for the utter disregard you have shown for the most basic standards of honest discourse and how your arguments have dribbled away to mean nothing, as they betray a position of belief which does not give a moments thought for the consideration of any truth value.