100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Is the USA a "Christian Nation?" | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I understand that it makes no sense to you. I hope that will change with time and study,,,,,, I seriously doubt that could ever happen, especially since the book isn't going to 'magically' change overnight. It's pretty much carved in stone and can't very well change. I've already found other philosophies and even mythologies that are far more 'divine'. There are basically two things that I BELIEVE completely. (although I confess that I could be wrong in my "belifs". They are as follows: If a truly wise, intelligent, and loving creator does indeed exist, then chances are that it is far wiser, more intelligent, and more loving than me. If that's true, then I have absolutely nothing to fear from it. I might even turn out to be it (i.e. pantheism could be true) If there is no creator of any kind and life is just a brief meaningless accident, then it will all be over with shortly and at that point I'll never even know that it had ever happened. So in a very real sense at that point it may as well not have ever happened (at least as far as I would be concerned about at that point in time since I would no longer exist) If either of these "beliefs" are true, then I have nothing to fear and everything to gain no matter what I might else I might believe in. On the other hand, if I'm wrong, and some evil egotistical mean bully is going to be mean to me when my physical body dies because I didn't cower down to some particular dogmatic religion, then I guess I do have something to fear. However, if that's true then there isn't much I could do about it anyway, because it would be a total waste of everyone's time for me to PRETEND to like such an evil being, just to avoid its wrath. So that's my philosophy. There's no sense in pretending to like a God you don't like just to try to appease it. That would be futile. I agree. insincere praise is no praise at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not in this case. What God has created is perfect. Well just wait until you hit your fifties and that 'perfect' prostate gland that 'forgets' to quit growing starts giving you trouble. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A public breakdown because he forgot an apostrophy? Hold, hold. I refuse to take the blame because you can't type. I reads them as I sees them. Fine. You say "we're all God's." It still leaves umpteen of my objections unanswered, and you are pouncing around and carrying the symbol of your victory that you could only gain by making a mistake in your own text. I laugh at you for that. You do NOT reads them as you sees them, the proof is right up above. So I'm gonna go pounce around while you contemplate what your error may be. And if you can't figure it out, I'll be here so that you may inform me of your umpteen unanswered objections, maybe I'll address them. I hope you would read more mindfully next time. There is a timeline here that needs to be observed. 1. A quote was shown to me, with typing a error. 2. I showed the quote was non-sensical, as I never noticed the typing error. 3. After it was explained to me how it ought to have been typed, I capitulated to my error, I gave up my claim that I made based on the quote as originally and erroneously given to me, and pushed the blame on Cowboy for not typing the quote correctly. My giving up my original claim is expressed, not very eloquently but still validly by my statement "Fine. You say "we're all God's." It still leaves umpteen of my objections unanswered, and" 4. It still stands that I read them as I sees them. I first read a wrong thing quoted to me, and I accepted it; then later I read the correction of the quote, and I accepted that too and had it replace the originally accepted, erroneously typed quote as the only acceptable one of the two quotes, because a plausible explanation was given why I should. So I did not contradict my "I reads them as I sees them" statement, as you claim so very gleefully in your first paragraph. 5. The proof that you claim is right above is not there. I believe you did not conceptualize the time line and missed some of the events in it. I won't stop you from pouncing around and singing songs if you want to, but I forbid you to say that there is a connection between the pouncing/dancing and singing, and my having erred, until you convince me that I indeed erred. 6. I did figure out what you claim I did not figure out. Please see the time line. 7. Please read more mindfully from here on. At what point was I involved in your timeline? After your little breakdown and rant, that's when. Read this as you see it please, I'll do my best not to misspelll any words. (notice, taken litterally, I've adhered to that statement) "A public breakdown because he forgot an apostrophy?" Notice the word "he" in there... Not "I", nor "you", but "he". He, refers to the one who forgot the apostrophy, CowboyGH. "I" am the one making the statement and "you" would be you, the one to whom I was addressing my post. Yet you continued your breakdown so blindly that you assumed I was the "he" in that sentence. You also assumed that I was the one involved in your discussions saying that I was pouncing around like I had won a victory. When did I do that? All you had to do was look at the pic and name next to the beginning of my post and there would have been no error. You say you "reads them as you sees them", fine, I can accept that. If you want to take any words and/or puctuation misspelled or omitted/misused litterally, I know not to waste my time with you. But if that's how you really are, then your error should have been obvious to you, correct? to answer your timeline: 1. Yup, I pointed that out... 2. Not quite, seemed more like a breakdown to me, hence the question mark after my opening sentence. 3. No, first you claimed "innocence" and blamed "me" for Cowboy's ommision. 4 paragraphs worth, no? Finnaly you concede the fact that it was a simple ommision but you speak of "objections" that were never addressed to me and say I'm pouncing around and laught at me for that??? 4. You do admit the accuracy of my statement, that's alot more than some would do. But this post should prove to you that you don't "reads them as you sees them". 5. Yes, the proof is in the sentence described above. You had quoted it in your reply and I quoted it as well. 6. No you didn't, or at least you didn't acknowledge it. Although I could take your mention of CowboyGH's name and assume that you did, I normally don't assume without attempting clarification first. So did you figure out that you had me confused with CowboyGH and were ashamed to admit it directly, or was the mention of his name your acknowledgement of error? In which case the incidence of you claiming to have blamed him would be an error, as you blamed me initially. Or are you just now realising your error? 7. I don't think that I could "read more mindfully" than I already am, but thanks for the advice. Seriously though, vocalise your objections and I will do my best to address them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damn, couldn't find the "pouncing" emoticon, so I'll just use this one...
|
|
|
|
|
