On Jan 7, 5:46 am, e_space <[email protected]> wrote: > i am not saying anything for others to parrot ... im suggesting they > figure things out themselves ... you seem to be the one repeating the > words of others ... your whole belief system is based on the words of > others ... btw, i live in a very happy world, that is expansive ... > your ability to come to accurate conclusions is letting you down ... > again > > men who feel they have squatters rights to "god" called it "God's > Church" ... other religions do not agree with them, not just me? ... i > see churches with that name, or similar names, up and down the > highway ... they arent RC, so who is right? > > your church is headquartered in the vatican ... but here you say that > none of the issues involving the vatican are your issues, and that i > should be concerned with them? what is this, some sort of denial or > escapism at work? > > im sorry, i do not believe that you dont get upset, your words > contradict this in spades ... > > i will have an opinion about whatever i want ... i have seen no proof > of your "God", so, unlike you, i will continue to have the opinion > that "he" doesnt exist, until such time as you, he, or someone else > provides the facts that you say are available ... > > you sin, you were born in it, according to your religion ... worry > about your own sins joerge,
Concerning the beating of dead horses...I rest my case. and dont concern yourself with mine ... > > i dont see any "facts" that you are relating, sorry ... besides "god" > to me is not a male ... the fact that relate to "him" as such > indicates that you have no real concept of "god", "God", or really > anything spiritual ... you are a parrot of the bible and have nothing > to add above and beyond what men have written on the subject ... i > enjoy a spiritual life that is not subject to the rules and > admonitions of other men ... all of your warnings to me fall on deaf > ears ... as mentioned, worry about your own sins ... > > On Jan 6, 8:04 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote:> On Jan 6, 8:17 am, e_space > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > why dont you start by providing proof of that what you claim to be > > > knowledge? if it is knowledge, you should be able to satisfy the > > > questions people ask of it ... > > > So far, you haven't asked any. Feel free to start. > > > >nobody on the planet to date has > > > provided proof of "god", > > > Philosophers would tend to disagree, from both sides. That's more or > > less the point of them going back and forth with proofs and disproofs. > > > >so i feel comfortable stating that you fall > > > into that category ... especially since you use the words of man as a > > > source of your knowledge ... > > > I don't. But, it seems clear that you think I do. So. . .what. . .? > > > > the words "the truth as i see it" indicates that in reality, the truth > > > is not known ... > > > No, it doesn't. It indicates that there is truth, and that I see it, > > and that I am presenting what I see. > > > >but is rather your opinion of the truth ... if it > > > were indeed the truth, you would have no need to add "as i see it" ... > > > thats a give away, so maybe you should consider not using it if you > > > hope to gain the confidence of others that you, in fact, do know the > > > truth ... your terminology is like avowing "I KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE ... > > > i think" ... doesnt add up ... > > > Wow, some people are REALLY hard to please! If I say, "This is the > > truth," you accuse me of being overbearing. If I add, "as I see it," > > you accuse me of lacking confidence and say no one will ever be > > convinced. > > > It seems to me, you've already made up your mind, that if the thought > > didn't originate in YOUR head, it is useless. It doesn't matter what > > anyone says, they either parrot you or they are wrong. That seems > > like a small, sad world you live in. > > > > "god" doesnt have a church, men do ... > > > I don't care about your 'god.' > > > God has a Church. That is why they call it, "God's Church." > > > >jesus said, "give up your > > > riches and follow me", yet here you are promoting a religion where the > > > "holy father" lives in a mansion that makes my dream house look like > > > an outhouse ... if jesus was a representative of "god", and the RC > > > church was a representative of jesus, do you think that they should > > > live in a palace, be one of the richest corporations on the planet > > > [before all the sex scandals], and let their forced converts starve to > > > death on the plains of africa? > > > I am not saying any of that. Those are all your axes to grind. Have > > fun! If you want to talk about God's Church, then we can, but you're > > not. > > > > the fact that you have chosen the pomp and ceremony of the RC as your > > > link to "god", is a good indication to me that you do not have good > > > judgment or knowledge about "god" or related matters ... > > > You judge by appearances, and carnally. Oh well. > > > > btw, when i say "you seem to be offended ...", i am not making a > > > factual statement ... i am posing my opinion based on your > > > reactions ... now if you want to say that they are just words on the > > > internet, and that i truly do not know how you are feeling, thats fine > > > with me ... but words indicate emotions, and your thinly veiled anger > > > is clearly visible to me ... i have a massively different opinion > > > about "god" than you do ... you shouldnt let this get under your > > > skin ... > > > I don't care at all about your 'god.' I am not here to discuss 'god,' > > but God. > > > You are not entitled to hold an opinion about God, as He is a matter > > of Fact, not opinion. I'm not angry with you in the least, either > > veiled or otherwise. You are simply incorrect in your opinion that > > you are entitled to an opinion. Unless you only want to talk about > > 'god,' in which case, see ya, not interested! > > > > btw#2 ... please worry about your sins offending "god", and dont > > > concern yourself with mine ... > > > Your sins offend God. That is not my doing. God created you, and you > > do not fulfill His Plan in creating you, because you sin, with your > > free will, and offend Him. Has nothing to do with me. This is > > between you and Almighty God, whom you cannot escape. > > > Just relating the facts, here. Do not mistake this for a display of > > emotion, or of me worrying about you, or anything like that. I simply > > state the facts; I know you hear them, and you cannot escape the > > reality of your having heard them from me. What you do with that, is > > up to you, and I don't care one way or the other, as there's nothing I > > can do about any of that anyway. You are on your own, just you, and > > Almighty God, whom you will never escape. But how you treat the > > inescapability of His Presence is another matter. If you love Him, > > you won't want to escape Him. If you hate Him, you will want to but > > won't be able to. It is up to you. > > > > On Jan 5, 10:37 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote:> On Jan 5, 7:37 pm, > > > e_space <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > i will admit that my terminology of referring to your words as > > > > > "offensive" is misleading ... they are not offensive to me on a > > > > > personal basis, just to my sensibilities ... you state beliefs as > > > > > facts, and constantly warn others against a peril of which existence > > > > > you have no factual knowledge of ... > > > > > Here, you are stating your belief as if it were a fact. You state > > > > outright, that I have no factual knowledge of that which I claim to > > > > have factual knowledge of. Thus, your words are a direct statement of > > > > what you propose to be a fact, in direct contradiction to what I have > > > > stated to the contrary. By what method have you determined that I > > > > have no factual knowledge of what I claim? Let us start with that. > > > > You display the traits of a hypocrite here, doing exactly the thing > > > > that you accuse others of, with exactly as much factual knowledge as > > > > you accuse others of having --- namely, none. > > > > > Can you even name the peril that you accuse me of warning you > > > > against? If you can name it, can you demonstrate that I have in fact > > > > no knowledge of it? Go ahead and do so, since you expect us to take > > > > you at your word. Or else, admit that you are guilty of operating a > > > > double standard here, giving yourself carte blanche to do what in > > > > others you call some sort of a crime. > > > > > > you say that "These are first of all words on the internet. They > > > > > can't, of themselves, harm anyone." ... yet you often seem to be quite > > > > > offended by the words of others ... > > > > > You have not offended me in the least. Mostly because I refuse to > > > > take offense at words on the internet!! I believe you are again > > > > making a false accusation here. You accuse me of taking offense, when > > > > I have plainly stated that the opposite is true. How do you suppose > > > > you are privy to my interior feeling? I have never expressed offense > > > > at anything you have said. So where do you get off?? > > > > > >words can be harmful whether > > > > > emanating from someones mouth, or in a dear john letter ... if > > > > > understood properly, words mean what they say, whether heard or read > > > > > on a monitor ... i agree that your words have no capacity to harm me, > > > > > and they havent ... i am in no way hurt by you, so please dont have > > > > > that opinion ... > > > > > What opinion would it please you for me to have? > > > > > > i am not in a league, do not want to be in a league, > > > > > It is an expression of speech. Of course you are in a league, and if > > > > you choose to comment on another person's words --- which you > > > > continually do choose --- then it is implied that you are "in the same > > > > league" with that person, under the common figure of speech. Do you > > > > claim to be unfamiliar with it? I'm sure you can research it on the > > > > internet to familiarize yourself with it. Do you pretend not to > > > > understand it? Or is there some other reason why you would wish to > > > > create the impression that you should be an exception to general > > > > common expressions in speech? Are you trying to be intentionally > > > > difficult? Or can we relax a little and just talk? > > > > > >and i certainly > > > > > dont aspire to be in your or georges league, whatever that is ... > > > > > You can can the judgmental comments. They are uncalled for, and if > > > > you wish to converse, then you need to get over yourself, with all > > > > that that implies, including to get over your judgmental opinions of > > > > those who, after all, you know very little about. > > > > > >i > > > > > have read enough of "georges" words to not feel any sort of desire to > > > > > approach them, although they do cause me to want to run away from > > > > > them ... > > > > > That is unfortunate. Where were you planning to go? Mars? > > > > > >i find that bit about the "dogma child" thingy to be > > > > > ludicrous at best ... i trust you do not find this offensive ... > > > > > It is not me you would seek to offend with your words, but God. No, I > > > > don't take it personally. I'm not God. And I'm sure God understands > > > > just exactly why you would choose to issue self-discernment outside of > > > > both Church authority and love. It is certainly a common reaction. > > > > But the most common reactions are not necessarily the best in all > > > > cases, as I'm sure you'll agree. > > > > > I would simply counsel you against entrenching yourself in your false > > > > discernment of George, since that is only going to make it that much > > > > more difficult for you to give up all of those willful attachments > > > > that you seem to be so fond of. I am not trying to offend you here, > > > > nor am I trying to please you, I am simply relating to you the truth > > > > as I see it, which is all any of us can do. Please do not take my > > > > words as anything other than an assessment of the situation. I have > > > > neither the desire, nor the will, to judge you. But I would help > > > > anyone I could, and will help anyone I can, to prepare at least a > > > > little bit for what is coming up; > > > ... > > > read more »
