An Old Argument.... does it hold water?

by AK - Jeff 1495 Replies latest jw experiences

  • AGuest
    AGuest
    Because one day - I would love to be proven wrong

    Oh, please, dear Q (again, peace to you!). Let's at least try and stick to being truthful with one another. If THAT were true... that you WOULD love to be proven wrong... YOU would start looking for such truth with YOURSELF, not others. AND... you would look for the TRUTH in what is shared with you... and not continue hanging onto the lies... while denying that it is the LIES that make you angry.

    to be shown by action not words, by evidence not anecdote that there is something more than delusion in the claims of the supernaturalist.

    Again, no truth. You do NOT want to be shown ANYTHING. How do I know? Because I responded to that "desire" and PM'd you my phone number. Said, "Hey, call me!" Yet, I haven't seen your name pop up on my caller ID. Instead, I received some lame "excuse" as to why you wouldn't pursue any further. So, okay, you don't believe me; fine. But PLEASE don't try to convince anyone HERE that you "would love" to be proven wrong. Because that is a lie; you are only interested in others, including folks like me, acknowledging that YOU are "right." Isn't going to happen, dear one... at least, not with me. However, my number is still in your PM...

    The stranger and more absurd the claim the more likely I am to critique it and even at times mock.

    Yeah, but why this? I mean, there are all kinds of strange and absurd things out there. Are you critiqueing, even mocking them all? Why this one? I think your next comments gives a clue (however, I want to stop here and ask you to take my CAPS as italics. It's just easier for me to show emphasis through caps... because I type so fast. But I am not raising my "voice", not at all).

    You stand as an outlier

    And that bothers you... why? I mean, its not like you have great regard for the... ummmmm... "norm." I think that bothers you... because your usual arguments, rebuttals, disagreements, etc., don't suffice. What you keep MISSING... is that they don't APPLY.

    by claiming to be a mystic and your claims are about as far out as it gets here.

    Another error. I make NO such claim. I don't even know what a "mystic" IS. And my claims are NO different... not at ALL... than others who've come before me (or others who make them now). So, "far out there", how? What is SO different... that YOU consider it "as far out there as it gets." Name ONE thing... that I have claimed... that is beyond what others before/like me have claimed. ONE.

    The onus - whether you like it or not - is therefore upon you to back up your assertions or choose to be seen as a dotty individual.

    Please. Neither suffice for you. Again, I gave you my personal phone number. YOU refuse to go the next step. And as far as how you see me... you're the only one upset about that. I don't agree with... or receive... how you "see" me. And that bugs the HELL out of you. WHY?? The only thing that will appease someone like you is for me to say either (1) "Yep, Q, you are/were right... I was/am wrong; or (2) "I'm dotty." Because neither has occurred... and you realize they're not likely... you cannot handle it. But, again, I must ask WHY? Why is what some little lady thousands of miles away from you thinks/believes/says/claims... such a weighty issue on YOU?

    Heck, the Pope claims that he's the "vicar of Rome" and next in line after Peter. The GB claim to be part of the "FDS." Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggert, James Robeson, Billy Graham, the Dali Lama, and a plethora of others are out there... vocal... in the media... on TV... leading millions. I am just a lady posting stuff from a laptop computer in a small room of her house... on one internet forum. No TV show. No magazines. No church. No cathedral. No council. No cardinal college. No monks or monestaries. No priests, elders, deacons, nuns... Haven't endorsed any politicians or policies, no world leaders consulting with me. Haven't blessed any wars, war implements, sports teams, race cars, or celebrity performances.

    What are you AFRAID of??

    I used to teach a guy who knew where satan lived. It was real in his head but I knew that "the back of Tesco's in a cardboard box" was not likely to be Lucifer's hideout.

    I would tend to agree with you. So what... he's not me, nor am I he...

    Still he believed it.

    Again... SO WHAT?? Why does what HE believed... or I believe... bother YOU? What is it to YOU?

    I've seen madness and it can wear the most harmless and pleasant of smiles. He never backed up any of his claims with anything solid.

    I've seen madness, too. And it comes in all sorts of garments. Including totally harmless. Not all who are mad are harmful. Not all are even capable of harm. AND... some who are NOT mad... are VERY harmful, capable of GREAT harm. SO... what??? I mean, if you're SO concerned about madness... and particularly among those who profess a union with Christ... why aren't you expending your energies exposing the Pope? Or the GB? Or Pat Robertson? Billy Graham? Creflo Dollar? You know... those folks who use such claims to entice MILLIONS to follow THEM... and even sometimes to wage war and/or harm/kill their fellow man? I mean, if you are SO concerned? Why are you wasting your time with me... and some guys who thinks Satan lives in a paper box behind a store? We're small beans, man! Why waste your time with us?

    And please... PLEASE... don't tell me it's because you're "concerned" about the "danger" I could/might cause to others. Because (1) I haven't caused ANY, and (2) there are way more folks out there causing danger... and you don't seem to be concerned with THEM...

    You may not realise this but your responses are quite often as rude and aggressive as anything else seen here. Your tone is often very condesecending

    First, I think you may be confusing assertiveness with rude/aggressive. Second, you haven't ever heard anyone else speak as I do... and so you take offense. Third, this is a INTERNET board... and for you to assume "tones" that I don't INTEND... is foolish. Fourth, you don't know me, not at all, personally or otherwise... because if you DID... you would "perceive" an entirely different tone that I believe you do.

    hence why I'm much quicker to match your tone than I am with most others here.

    But see, that's the problem, dear one: you THINK you're matching my "tone"... when you have no idea what my tone IS. You're reading words... and because of how YOU perceive... are implying things that truly aren't there. Let me give you an example: I once had to reprimand an employee. Why? Because she had removed the furniture from the lobby of one of the properties I oversaw... yes, all of it... to furnish her empty house during an "open house". She was selling it but her stuff was shabby. Residents called me complaining that someone had wandered in off the street and taken the lobby furniture. When I went to check, however, the furniture was there. When I told this employee about the calls I received, she feigned ignorance, had "absolutely no idea" what the residents were talking about.

    Unfortunately, her RE agent made... wait for it... FLYERS... which showed the furniture! So, she and I had to have a talk. And we did. I told her that I was going to write her up, that I would write up ANY employee who removed company property without permission, and that she would be put on probation. I told her that what she did was absolutely unacceptable, under no uncertain terms, and no such conduct would be tolerated again. Now... the TRUTH is that I should have fired her. ANY other supervisor in my position would have fired their employee. But... she begged me not to (because her housing was tied to the property). So, I gave in... and let her keep her job and housing (yes, what she did was a serious violation of company policy, but I didn't think the punishment should be homelessness).

    She signed the discipline form... and we went on from there. Until I noticed, one day, that some mutual friends were treating me... "strange." When I asked if something was wrong, they denied it. But I finally got it out of one person (who was more loyal to me than to her). I was told by this person that this employee was going around telling everyone that I had been "cruel" to her... because I had "yelled" at her... for nothing! Now, of course, I can't tell these others what actually took place (and this employee KNEW this!)... because I would be in breach of employee confidentiality. So, I endured many months of people thinking I had actually BEEN cruel... and yelled (which, if you knew me, was absurd).

    But let me tell YOU, dear Q... I have never... EVER... raised my voice... OR spoken to ANYONE... cruelly... in my entire life. Not once. Not ever. Other than about 5 weeks ago... when my beloved Li-Li got off her leash and ran into the street in front of truck! I did yell, then... but even so, it was a hoarse yell. You see, I sing... and so my voice WON'T yell! Never has.

    I eventually did discuss the matter with people that I COULD talk about it with... because I wanted the lies to STOP. So, they spoke to HER. And what did they come back and tell me? That she admitted that I had not yelled at her at ALL... nor had I been cruel... at ALL... but that she was mad... AT HERSELF... for doing what she did, getting caught, and having to HAVE me even speak to her. BUT... she didn't know how to deal with what SHE felt... HER chagrin... and SHAME... and so she blamed me.

    Why did I tell you this? Because I believe that that is exactly what's happening here: rather than looking at YOURSELF as to why what I share "bothers" YOU... you want to turn it into being about "how" I state it. Versus... your inability to RECEIVE it... AS it's stated. But I would have to ask you to look at yourself... and ask yourself... why YOU are offended?

    Better yet, at WHAT are you offended? Because you've given sort of conflicting things: either it's WHAT I state... or how I state it. If it's WHAT I state, I must again ask you... why does it bother YOU? If it's HOW I state it, I would apologize... and say please don't read negative "stuff" into my tone, for there really is none there... as well as perhaps you might consider asking yourself why in the world anything I... someone you've never met and don't even know... have to say... and how I say it... offends YOU.

    Normally I just enjoy reading people's contributions and don't feel too moved to stick my oar in.

    Yes, but when it's from "AGuest", you simply cannot help yourself. Right? Again, I don't think that has as much to do with ME... as it does with YOU. I mean, if I irritate you THAT much... why address me, at all? Why BOTHER?

    This topic however, is at the heart of the philosophical and religious question - why do we suffer? This is so important a topic that all faith hangs on it

    In YOUR opinion, okay... Why, though, does that have to be MY opinion?

    - if god did not offer a way to escape suffering I suspect only the irrational or insane would be tempted to add to their burden by taking up the cross as well.

    As with your opinions, you're also entitled to state what you suspect. Must I agree (I don't, but I had to ask)?

    It cannot be answered simply by saying that your special relationship with god answers it -

    For YOU perhaps not... but that's YOU, dear Q. Some would say the same thing about evolution (how we got here, etc., cannot simply be answered by saying that we evolved). Right? So, how can YOU say the question cannot be answered in such a way for others/everyone?? I mean, so long as it suffices for one ASKING...

    you must realise most of us here do not have any such relationship so an appeal to your subjectve experience is of academic interest but not of any practical use

    I DO realize that... which is why I endeavor not only share all that I receive, but from WHOM I receive it! I hold virtually NOTHING back. Why? So that if you are WISHING you, too, can know the POSSIBILITY... which is the same for YOU as it is for ME. But you don't truly CARE about my subjective experience... not at ALL... because if you DID... you would have called. You didn't. I didn't hide from you. I don't hide here.

    As for practicality, I think that would depend on the person: perhaps not for YOU... and those who think/believe/disbelieve like YOU. But for those who think/believe differently... is it not up to them as to the practicality? Are you, though, not doing the EXACT same thing as you accuse religion: trying to CONTROL and DICTATE what others can/do/should/should not... think/believe/disbelieve?

    - as you've made clear before - your god is only there for those select few who meet his criteria and the rest of us are toast.

    The rest don't have to BE toast, though, dear one. It is their CHOICE... as it is YOURS. Don't want to be toast? Then...

    Any answers you have that square your conscience with Jah while innocent and unlearned billions bleed and die in agony ground into a merciless earth by natural and man made disasters are quite rightly to be derided as of no use to them.

    Yet, those are the very ones that look for, often put faith in, and embrace such answers, aren't they? Let me ask you, dear one: what "disasters" have YOU undergone? On the other hand... okay, let's say there's no God (which, again, blows me away because you MUST believe there is one... else, why be so ANGRY with "Him"): what are YOU doing about these "innocent and unlearned"? Because, see, MY God... has told ME to "do something" as best I can for as many as I can. And so... I do. And so, whether "He" exists or not... if I am compelled TO do something... ME... personally... to ease the "suffering" of such ones... the best I can... why do you still find fault?

    Part of my ire is in the glib discussion that is used to excuse our mental gods and by extension ourselves as slaves of said gods and downplay the real tragedy and evil that requires countless deaths as part of a divine plan.

    I have the same ire, dear one... at those who believe in no God... and so find it completely acceptable to, say, wipe out entire tribes/villages, etc., in the name of oil, gold, diamonds, power, authority, military might, etc... or for whatever reasons... because they don't "believe" they have anyone to answer to. They are "atheists", openly and admittedly.

    Yet, I don't blame YOU for what THEY do... nor do I attack YOU when you try to explain that atheists "don't" do such. When we all know they do. I don't care that you don't believe... and I don't care about your response to questions such as this enough to take issue with you, personally.

    Unlike you... and many "bible-thumpers", as some are called... I don't see the difference between the two. Truly. There are some religious people who are evil... and there are some who try to do good. There are some atheists who are evil... and some who try to do good. MY faith is not contingent upon belonging to either of these groups. I am not a "democrat" or "republican"... or one who buys into the notion that one must be of one group or the other. Because just as with my FAITH... my politics are NOT defined by the two groups that "most" acknowledge, the popular camps.

    Perhaps I walk to the beat of my own "drum," dear Q. Again, I must ask you: SO WHAT??

    Again, I bid you peace, truly... and I remain YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

    SA

  • N.drew
    N.drew

    You never cease to amaze me AGuest. A very well written essay. You did not waste your time by me. But I know that there are people who will not read posts of those who disagree with them. One forum I know has a black out feature, which "god fearing" men and women did use for my posts because I strongly disagreed with them. They were JWs. Funny that the "preachers" have become them who won't listen. You, Shelby, are an excellent listener it sure seems, and a first-class essayist.

  • jay88
    jay88

    Hats off to:

    Tammy and Psac

    It is not beneath you both to say "I don't know".

    Much respect,..

    .........

    Qmbc: Alway a honor to read your writings

    PSOC

  • tec
    tec

    Thank you, Shelby. I was trying to understand the point of this conversation, and of course that had to be it. (from the point the page before, in case you're reading this with ?? eyes, lol)

    I will say that it is very difficult to carry on a conversation with someone(s), who is not really talking to you, but rather talking above you to whomever they have pegged you as being (perhaps who they used to be, or as someone they know is). I get that from Q sometimes (such as the stuff with the war-god... that has nothing to do with Shelby's faith for certain, nor for me and mine). So it is hard to respond to something that has nothing to do with you, continuously, and it takes the discussion off-track.

    Jay - I appreciate that. I do, and thank you.

    I would like to say to all, that if I did know something and I was asked about it... I would speak of it. Even though that meant others would not like me, would reject that knowledge that I shared, and perhaps even attack me for my 'arrogance', simply because I could not in all honestly say, 'I don't know'.

    AK - I feel kind of invisible to you. No biggee... I'm grinning. But I just thought I'd share.

    Peace,

    Tammy

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    I realize that I should really leave off this discussion entirely, but... ah, well... may you all have peace!

    if you were all transported back in time and place to ancient Greece or ancient Egypt, you would believe precisely what those people believed! Your belief systems are the result of culture - Not fact!

    I have to disagree, dear Jeff (again, peace to you!), on the grounds that Greece did not accept what Socrates (who claimed to have been sent by "the God") believed... nor did all of Egypt believe, say, what the Hebrews did. Personally, I would have sided with Socrates against the Grecian senate... and Moses against Pharaoh. In each instance, these (Socrates and Moses) were the minority, not the majority. And both were alone in what they believed... for a time. So...

    Now - 3000 years later - you are all atheists when it comes to the Greek and Egyptian gods - aren't you?

    When it comes to such gods, well, yes, if we're going with a [very] loose definition of "atheism." But for some of us, it is the same today as to "Jehovah", "Yahweh", "Allah", "Krishna", "Vishnu,"... and, for me, "Jesus." However, the God that I belong to was known and recognize not only in ancient Greece... or ancient Egypt... or even 3,000 years ago... but much, much longer before. That MAN'S knowledge, understanding, and teachings have changed in no way says that HE has changed.

    The difference is that myself and a few others here, have rejected one god more than you have.

    Yes.

    That's all.

    Oh, how I TRULY wish it WERE that simple with you folks...

    We have seen that the delusion is the same, just the name of the god and/or the time period has changed.

    Please see my penultimate response: man, what he believes, and who he believes in, has changed, yes. The Most Holy One of Israel has not. He really IS the same... yesterday... today... and tomorrow. "You" only THINK He has changed... because prior to recent times no one told you the truth about Him (well, no one YOU knew or associated with). But just because you have recently begun to have the truth shared with you... doesn't mean it didn't exist BEFORE that time. YOU just didn't know about... just as I didn't some years ago.

    But I must say that I do find it interesting that you have the POV you do... given the progress of "knowledge" that we receive/uncover in other areas all the time. Every day someone opines and theorizes about what "occurred" some 2-3 millenia ago. You want us to believe, however, that such opinions/theories are pure bunk until proven empirically. But you know better, as we do: someone "reknowned" and "respected" says "the ancient so-and-so peoples 'must have' such and so" and whadya know: folks start SAYING "the ancient so-and-so people DID such and so." It becomes "fact" simply because "someone" said so. Happens all the time.

    Then someone comes along and says, "Well, yeah, something like that occurred... but we've more information/detail NOW and so can say that it occurred THIS way." Yet, not a one of them was there but only dedeuce based on what they THINK the "evidence" shows. BUT... it's okay to buy it. No reason not to.

    In contrast, someone comes along and says "I don't know, personally, but I can tell you what someone WHO WAS THERE said occurred." Oh, wait, uh-uh... nope. Can't be. We would much rather put our faith and belief in ones who weren't there... but THINK they know what happened... than in One who was... and actually DOES know what happened.

    Okay... choose for yourselves. I mean, that's always been the "deal" anyway...

    But your god is only true in your mind because of time and place and circumstance.

    And you know this... how? Because what occurs with us does not occur with YOU... and so it must not be occurring, at all. Because SURELY if it WAS occurring... it would do so with YOU... or others YOU think it should. Right? Same "argument" I got from the WTBTS ("Surely, if God was going to anoint someone, it would be Sister Such-and-So, because, well, SHE'S spiritual! She's been pioneering for 30 years! Why would God choose to anoint someone who's not even a pioneer!?"). Same argument: "Why doesn't God speak to/show Himself to... one of those scientists who've been "looking" for Him for 30 years? Or me, because I've been challenging Him to show Himself to ME for some time, now?"

    I'm telling you, dear one... I see absolutely NO difference between your questionings as I do those of the WTBTS. Exactly the same to me. That you can't SEE that gives ME the same "vision" of YOU... that you seem to have of me.

    I doubt many of you will allow yourself the freedom of thought that it takes to understand that. You are already atheists toward many gods of our very time. You likely reject Allah or Buddha if you are Christian.

    Actually, I don't, dear one, not in the way you believe. My understanding is that the god Islamists THINK they are calling upon when they call "Allah"... is the God of Abraham, the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies. Unfortunately, they don't know His true name, anymore than JWs, et al., do. The name "Allah" is merely the result of ancient writings which were fragmented, so that the phrase "Hallel u Jah" was misunderstood to be HALLEL UJAH. (Oh, yes, I absolutely asked about that!) Someone found some fragmented writings, pieced them together (inaccurately, as when misplacing pieces in a jigsaw puzzle)... and came to a conclusion regarding God's name. Just as they did with "JeHoVaH"... and "Yahweh"... bot of which are inaccurate (it's JaHVeH).

    You think they are no-gods. Yet if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would believe in Allah - you would proclaim him the ONLY TRUE GOD!

    For a time, perhaps. I mean, I was born in a country were "God", "the Lord," "Jesus," and "Jehovah" are ALL worshipped as the true God. And I did declare at least one of these as "the only true God." Until I came to actually KNOW... the only True God. Which I have NO doubt would have occurred with me had I been born in Saudi Arabia because, please note, (1) not all Saudis are Muslims, (2) there are "christians" in Saudi Arabia, some even born there, and (3) I might have had the privilege of leaving at some point in my life, who knows? Given what I know about the Most Holy One of Israel NOW... I can say, without reservation... that He would have found ME. No matter WHERE I was, WHERE I was born... and what "belief" I was raised in. My current life attests to that... because I wasn't raised JW... nor did I stay there, but was called OUT.

    Think about it. You know it is true. You will rail against the idea - because you think it impossible to compare your TRUE god, with what those PAGANS believed then or those false-worshipers believe now.

    Oh, I'm sorry. I thought your comments applied to me, among others. Given this last comment, I am no longer sure. Because, as I stated, I DON'T know it to be true... nor would I "rail" against the idea... and I don't think it impossible to compare my God, the Most Holy One of Israel with those these worship. Because He is the same God, the God of Abraham but, again, they don't know Him. Like most so-called "christians", they only know as to what they've either READ about Him in their "holy book"... or what they've heard about Him... from other men.

    Also, I wouldn't ever call them pagans. Pagans are those who worship the physical creation, particularly the earth, and so they are not pagans. I also wouldn't call them infidels (although they might call me such)... because God shows mercy to whomever HE wishes... and it is not for me to judge. My concern? Me... and MY household... and how OUR conduct turns out. As for anyone and everyone else... my only concern is that I show them love... and speak the truth to them... always. No matter WHAT god they believe in/serve... or do NOT believe in/serve.

    I hope that clarifies as to ME, dear Jeff, and again, peace to you, truly!

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

    SA

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    Ah, dear, dear tec... peace to you, my sister, and... OKAAAYYYYYYY?? It is quite... ummmm... interesting to "watch" folks who think they "know" you (but truly have NO clue, although it's not like you don't try to HELP them do so!)... opine as to what you are/know/believe/think, etc. Interesting... but not surprising. Because they don't know the Most Holy One of Israel, either... or His Son... and yet, make all manner of statements about Him, too, so...

    But ah, well... "a slave is not greater than his master" so not entirely unexpected. "Nothing new under the sun" and all that... .

    Peace, my dear one!

    YOUR servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ... to time indefinite...

    SA

  • sizemik
    sizemik

    C'mon Shelby . . . you can't tell me what you've just posted above is not condescending . . . you're "not surprised" that some here have "no clue" despite your repeated attempts to HELP them.

    If you can't see that to "argue" or debate points based on you're own secret knowledge . . . and your own personal belief . . . and then imply that those that don't "get it" are lacking something, is condescending . . . then I would suggest you don't understand what it means.

    For an argument to "hold water" means it is sound . . . based on reason and observable evidence . . . not a personal conviction.

    If this knowledge of God is available to all . . . then that implies that those that don't have access to it are lacking something . . . getting it wrong somehow. Has God decided already we are not worthy of it?

    There's a lot of implications in this thread about the personal attributes of others and a condescending approach . . . this one to AK for example . . .

    But I can explain why you are so hard hearted. I won't, but I can. . . . N.drew

    How do you draw the conclusion that Jeff is hardhearted N. drew? . . . is it simply because he is an unbeliever? I don't see that in him. I see an honest inquiring mind looking for rationality. Am I hard hearted too? Funny . . . but that's what WT$ said about those that wouldn't accept their version of things too. And you withold your explanation even though you have one . . . you are very much like your God I see.

    Not much is holding water here in spite of your concerted efforts. But just like all the suffering . . . it's our fault, right?

  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    Look, if God is so weak he can't punch the scientific method right in the nuts and make that thing his bitch, (s)he isn't much of a god to begin with.

  • Twitch
    Twitch

    Who would want a god that hits you in the nads? As if it ain't bad enough, never mind god sacking ya.

    I say god and satan should just have it out already instead of all the scribbling and word of mouth. Bets, stare downs, grudge matches, the good guy/bad guy thing, it's all classic cage match material. The marketing has been huge, the timing is right.

    UFC Universal Sovereign I - Who's Your Sky Daddy?

    Only on Pay per View

    Viewer Discretion Advised

  • AGuest
    AGuest
    C'mon Shelby . . . you can't tell me what you've just posted above is not condescending . . . you're "not surprised" that some here have "no clue" despite your repeated attempts to HELP them.

    No, seriously, dear Size (peace to you!). I've been coming here since March of 2001. I have said... from Day One... who it is that speaks to me, who I hear. For, what, over 10 years, now? And I repeatedly restate that to each and every person who says that I claim God is speaking to me. I state it, restate it, clarify it, emphasize, etc. I also state... clearly... what I believe as to the "god" of the OT. Again... and again... and again. I have not held back as to my view of religion - all of it. I have openly stated that I am NOT religious, have NO part with religion, do NOT ascribe to their beliefs or thinking, heck, don't even view the Bible as being the Word of God OR infalliable. And yet... folks make all kinds of assertions and accusations... as to me... based on their understanding of... wait for it... religion. No, I am not surprised that they have no clue... because they DON'T LISTEN.

    If they can't/don't/won't listen and hear ME... as to ME... should there be any surprise that they don't hear what they SAY they wish to from the Most Holy One of Israel? I am right here. Although not in the flesh, my words are here. And I can be asked personally. Yet... they don't hear.

    Nope, I don't believe I was being condescending at all. Candid, yes. Quite. I mean, c'mon, dear Size... it's been more than 10 years, man...

    If you can't see that to "argue" or debate points based on you're own secret knowledge . . . and your own personal belief . . . and then imply that those that don't "get it" are lacking something, is condescending . . . then I would suggest you don't understand what it means.

    Please see above. Because I don't see what there is TO "argue" as to ME... which some apparently wish to do, for reasons I cannot fathom...

    For an argument to "hold water" means it is sound . . . based on reason and observable evidence . . . not a personal conviction.

    Again... and I am going to say this slowly... and I am not being condescending: if... you... ask... me... to... prove... MY... conviction... to... you... and... I... say... "okay... call... me"... and... you... don't... call... me... but... respond... with... something... like... "I'm... not... going... to... call... you... because... I... don't... believe... you... can... prove... anything"... well, then...

    I'll let you finish the sentence, dear one...

    If this knowledge of God is available to all . . . then that implies that those that don't have access to it are lacking something . . . getting it wrong somehow.

    Yes. But that's not the only problem, dear Size. It goes further: ones either don't ACCEPT that it is indeed them ("Oh, no, it's NOT me - it's GOD... although I don't believe in Him!")... don't want to KNOW what it is that "wrong"... or don't want/care to correct it.

    Has God decided already we are not worthy of it?

    See... this is what bugs me. THIS is what makes me speak as candidly as I do: WHERE in the WORLD did you GET that? NONE of us are worthy, INCLUDING myself!! It is not ABOUT being worthy. You can't BE worthy! I... can't BE worthy! "Worthiness" in not IN the equation! Hence... UNdeserved kindness! MERCY! That so many haven't a CLUE what these ARE... what they MEAN... and yet, take issue with God (who, again, they don't even believe exists!)... is... I can't even describe it. How can someone understand, say, physics... and NOT understand MERCY? Only one way: they've never shown it. Because they don't think OTHERS deserve it! Hence, they can't fathom it being something THEY need.

    There's a lot of implications in this thread about the personal attributes of others and a condescending approach . . . this one to AK for example . . But I can explain why you are so hard hearted. I won't, but I can. . . . N.drew

    Ummmm... wait. Are you addressing ME as being "condescending"... or another? I mean, surely you're not asking me to answer for someone else... anymore than you expect me to ask YOU to answer for, say... others... some of whom have even resulted to cursing and using abusive speech. You are planning to address them, as well, are you not?

    How do you draw the conclusion that Jeff is hardhearted N. drew? . . . is it simply because he is an unbeliever? I don't see that in him. I see an honest inquiring mind looking for rationality. Am I hard hearted too?

    Ummmm... you're not looking for a response from me, right? Yet, you direct the comment AT me, as if somehow it was FOR me to respond to. What is up with that??

    Funny . . . but that's what WT$ said about those that wouldn't accept their version of things too. And you withold your explanation even though you have one . . . you are very much like your God I see.

    Dear Size, I will leave off here, but before I do, I have to ask: do you not see how you JUST did what you are accusing others of? Can you truly NOT see this??

    (Shaking head) Ay-yi-yi, Dios mio, Dios mio... que paso aqui...

    Peace, dear Size. Truly.

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

    SA

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit