|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Apr 3, 2009 1:42:45 GMT -5
Before I answer how would one go by "do nothing" Can one do "nothing" without implementing submission, rebellion, or both. If so explain how. I feel to do "nothing" is impossible if you are conscious.
If you state there isn't a binary choice to everything in life then you are going against duality. You are going against cause and effect. Lets plug this logic elsewhere. If you are not alive then you are dead. Is there a third choice? If it is not daytime it is nighttime, is there a third choice?
See truly the only way not to do nothing is to not exist. Inaction is only achieved by being unconscious. If you are conscious then inaction is in my eyes impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Apr 3, 2009 10:08:04 GMT -5
For the record, I'm saying submission, rebellion, or neither - not submission, rebellion, or both. Example... an atheist is neither submits to or rebels from God, because the atheist says God does not exist.
If you state there isn't a binary choice to everything in life then you are going against duality. You are going against cause and effect. Lets plug this logic elsewhere. If you are not alive then you are dead. Is there a third choice? If it is not daytime it is nighttime, is there a third choice?
See truly the only way not to do nothing is to not exist. Inaction is only achieved by being unconscious. If you are conscious then inaction is in my eyes impossible.
Choice leads to Action, Action lead to State.
The binary of a choice is to do it, or to not do it. I can submit, or not submit. I can rebel or not rebel. Action becomes binary by it's dependence on choice - and it follows the same paradigm... either in doing or not doing. Of course a CHOICE and ACTION are different than STATE. You can be pregnant or not pregnant, but not both... you can be alive, or dead, but not both... those are states. And a state and it's opposite are mutually exclusive... but STATE is not choice, it results from actions, which result from choice.
If I choose not to rebel that is NOT logically the same as saying I therefore submit. If I do not rebel... then I do not rebel - that is all that you can logically conclude.
Likewise if I choose to not submit that is NOT logically the same as saying I therefore rebel. If I do not submit... then I do not submit - that is all that can be logically concluded.
If you have any doubt about it in your mind consider... you have a gun you have a choice to kill or to not kill a man. If you choose NOT to kill the man that is NOT the same as saying you have given him life. Your duality is in doing or NOT doing the act - the opposite (or what we perceive to be the opposite) of the act is NOT an implicit part of the duality.
So - if I do not submit and I do not rebel, and if we assume there are no other options, then what postive action have I taken beyond making the choice itself to do nothing? |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Apr 3, 2009 11:30:02 GMT -5
So to denote the nonexistence of something is doing nothing? I disagree. That takes a concerted effort which is an action. Inaction doesn't exist while conscious because you have to conscientiously not do something. An atheist would be in the rebellion column but personally I don't think there are any or very few true atheist.
If you state there isn't a binary choice to everything in life then you are going against duality. You are going against cause and effect. Lets plug this logic elsewhere. If you are not alive then you are dead. Is there a third choice? If it is not daytime it is nighttime, is there a third choice?
See truly the only way not to do nothing is to not exist. Inaction is only achieved by being unconscious. If you are conscious then inaction is in my eyes impossible.
Choice leads to Action, Action lead to State.
The binary of a choice is to do it, or to not do it. I can submit, or not submit. I can rebel or not rebel. Action becomes binary by it's dependence on choice - and it follows the same paradigm... either in doing or not doing. Of course a CHOICE and ACTION are different than STATE. You can be pregnant or not pregnant, but not both... you can be alive, or dead, but not both... those are states. And a state and it's opposite are mutually exclusive... but STATE is not choice, it results from actions, which result from choice.
If I choose not to rebel that is NOT logically the same as saying I therefore submit. If I do not rebel... then I do not rebel - that is all that you can logically conclude.
Likewise if I choose to not submit that is NOT logically the same as saying I therefore rebel. If I do not submit... then I do not submit - that is all that can be logically concluded.
If you have any doubt about it in your mind consider... you have a gun you have a choice to kill or to not kill a man. If you choose NOT to kill the man that is NOT the same as saying you have given him life. Your duality is in doing or NOT doing the act - the opposite (or what we perceive to be the opposite) of the act is NOT an implicit part of the duality.
So - if I do not submit and I do not rebel, and if we assume there are no other options, then what postive action have I taken beyond making the choice itself to do nothing?
So lets clarify this you have CHOICE which is the action which is also the state. Action and State are but parts of the choice (mental or physical) which wouldn't exist without it. Can you do an action (physical or mental) or achieve a state (physical or mental) without a Binary Choice? Nopers.
Staying on topic. In choice as in concern to religion if you are indifferent that in my eyes is submission if you emphatically don't believe then you are rebelling. There is no middle ground. If you are conscious (alive) then you HAVE to make a choice. Even if you don't feel like you are, you are because of existence. The only way a person can truly not make a choice is to not exist in the situation at all. To be unconscious (dead). |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Apr 3, 2009 13:15:58 GMT -5
Choosing to be a doctor, studying to be a doctor, and being a doctor represent choice, action, and state... but they are ceratinly not the same thing. If you want to go with something a little less tangible... choosing to follow, following, and being led represent choice, action, and state... they are related but they are HARDLY one and the same.
Regarding binary action, if action isn't binary then perhaps someone can explain a way you can do an act while simultanesouly NOT doing that act - I certainly can't think of one right now.
Now if you want to make this an entirely mental exercise and say - well a choice is an act. I choose to make a choice, I choose, therefore I am choosing - be my guest. However if you take that approach then you cannot infer a choice based solely on lack of action... which is what I have been saying ALL along.
Example: If you see me sitting at my house, you cannot infer that I made a choice not to go to the store. For one, you'd have to assume that "going to the store" was a choice I was even considering. Second if making a choice IS an affirmative act then you cannot infer ANYTHING by my lack of activity - I may be sitting at the house for any number of reasons that have NOTHING to do with the store or my desire to get there. My being at the house can NOT be equated to a de facto choice to NOT go to the store (it is merely a consequence of whatever reason I AM at the house).
Thus one can only rebel by CHOOSING to rebel, and one can only submit by CHOOSING to submit. If I do not choose to rebel or submit (even by indifference), and those are the only two options than I effectively do nothing. In fact I can say I CHOOSE to do nothing and the logic still holds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Apr 3, 2009 13:45:00 GMT -5
Choosing to be a doctor, studying to be a doctor, and being a doctor represent choice, action, and state... but they are ceratinly not the same thing. If you want to go with something a little less tangible... choosing to follow, following, and being led represent choice, action, and state... they are related but they are HARDLY one and the same.
Regarding binary action, if action isn't binary then perhaps someone can explain a way you can do an act while simultanesouly NOT doing that act - I certainly can't think of one right now.
Now if you want to make this an entirely mental exercise and say - well a choice is an act. I choose to make a choice, I choose, therefore I am choosing - be my guest. However if you take that approach then you cannot infer a choice based solely on lack of action... which is what I have been saying ALL along.
Example: If you see me sitting at my house, you cannot infer that I made a choice not to go to the store. For one, you'd have to assume that "going to the store" was a choice I was even considering. Second if making a choice IS an affirmative act then you cannot infer ANYTHING by my lack of activity - I may be sitting at the house for any number of reasons that have NOTHING to do with the store or my desire to get there. My being at the house can NOT be equated to a de facto choice to NOT go to the store (it is merely a consequence of whatever reason I AM at the house).
Thus one can only rebel by CHOOSING to rebel, and one can only submit by CHOOSING to submit. If I do not choose to rebel or submit (even by indifference), and those are the only two options than I effectively do nothing. In fact I can say I CHOOSE to do nothing and the logic still holds.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but honestly you are "straw-manning" this entire conversation. The correlations that you are making aren't soundly plausible in any situation. They are mere attempts at a circular discussion moving away from the crux and pushing forth an illogical idea as a serious point of contention. As you asked before seriously what is the point?
If you can't see (or refuse to) that studying and being a doctor cannot manifest without the initial choice then we can't move forward with this discussion. It's simple you can't get to Choice B or C if you don't do A first. If you don't want Choice B or C you must first refuse Choice A. You can't get to the derivative of the binary choice without making the choice first. There is no middle ground no matter how you attempt to spin it. A third option doesn't exist if you are conscious and even if you "choose" to not exist (suicide) you have in fact made a choice.
Seeing you sitting in your house and me inferring that you made a choice not go to the store is classic straw-man. What does one have to do with the other? Nothing. Why would someone think of anything other than you chose to stay in the house versus outside? You build that up which doesn't make sense and therefore since your correlation isn't sound which you know it isn't and you prove that it isn't then that equates to what I brought forth isn't sound. That is false.
So as per religion you can submit or rebel. Show me a third choice within this construct. Don't build a straw-man from the ground up and tear it down as proof stay within the context of religion that there is a third choice that neither uses Submission or Rebellion. Once again you say you're doing nothing. Does that include NOT going to church, mosque, or synagogue? NOT praying? NOT believing in God? Show what doing nothing entails and explain how it isn't part of submission or rebellion... |
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Apr 3, 2009 13:46:23 GMT -5
Does God infer?
|
|
|
|
Post by Oldskool on Apr 4, 2009 10:02:42 GMT -5
In the beginning was the word. The word was with God and the word was God. John 1:1.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Apr 4, 2009 10:52:55 GMT -5
Choosing to be a doctor, studying to be a doctor, and being a doctor represent choice, action, and state... but they are ceratinly not the same thing.
You have to at least READ what I'm saying before you critique it
Classic Strawman eh? LOL - thank you for making that point - let me rephrase it for you:
Seeing you not submitting and me inferring that you made a choice to rebel is a classic straw-man. What does one have to do with the other? Nothing. Why would someone think of anything other than you chose not to submit?
Submission and Rebellion are opposites just like love and hate... but failure to do one is NOT the same as doing the opposite. This is why your artificial binary framework does not work. There is no point in arguing your sub points - your premise does not withstand scrutiny. Still these are logical constructs and in your last post you basically said, "let's view this purely from a religious stand point". So be it... this argument will end with one question.
Is a baby in rebellion or submission to God?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Apr 4, 2009 13:08:26 GMT -5
Choosing to be a doctor, studying to be a doctor, and being a doctor represent choice, action, and state... but they are ceratinly not the same thing.
You have to at least READ what I'm saying before you critique it
Classic Strawman eh? LOL - thank you for making that point - let me rephrase it for you:
Seeing you not submitting and me inferring that you made a choice to rebel is a classic straw-man. What does one have to do with the other? Nothing. Why would someone think of anything other than you chose not to submit?
Submission and Rebellion are opposites just like love and hate... but failure to do one is NOT the same as doing the opposite. This is why your artificial binary framework does not work. There is no point in arguing your sub points - your premise does not withstand scrutiny. Still these are logical constructs and in your last post you basically said, "let's view this purely from a religious stand point". So be it... this argument will end with one question.
Is a baby in rebellion or submission to God?
Uh that not a straw-man at all. A straw man is a correlation that lacks relevance to the subject matter. You have went from your house, doctor, action state, Two steps forward or back, A thru Z etc build them up and tear them down when neither of the aforementioned are relevant to this convo. That is what a straw man is. If I make a correlation within this dialogue about religion staying within the construct then that isn't a straw man. The reason you do this is because you can't prove your stance by staying within the subject matter so you go outside of it to make the debate circular and not move. That's not showing intellect. It's more of a redundant pattern of one who really doesn't have an answer or doesn't want to be wrong so therefore lets muddy the waters. One must wonder why would a Christian man such as yourself rather "reach" and build multiple strawmen to prove that there is indeed a third choice instead of using Jesus as you were before I entered into this conversation. I know the reasoning behind this, lets see if you own up to it. St. Anselm's( as Cam playfully coined you) argument for the existence of god used straw man circular logic to prove his point as well. In reality it didn't prove "God" only the premise within the construct that he chose to use. You are doing the same thing.
So since you refuse "with inaction or nothing" to bring your faith into this "religious" debate as in concern to me I will bring it to you. You have Jesus. You can Submit to Jesus or Rebel to Jesus. Show me a third choice. If there is a third choice show with proof the third choice is not a submission or rebellion. You can however not bring Jesus into the argument or do nothing and maybe then you'd realize the two actions (as "nothing" takes a concerted effort) are indeed synonymous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Apr 4, 2009 13:39:12 GMT -5
See this is what I'm talking about. This is another attempt to circle jerk the conversation. Again show relevance. Can we answer this question without a question that is needed for the answer to be remotely plausible? Nope. The thing is you know this and do it on purpose because you can't prove your stance. Let's take it further. If I wanted to play your game of circular logic then I'd answer your question with a question. CAN a baby be in rebellion or submission to God? lol cmon St Anselm Juneyah come better than this seriously. What's next a Zygote? Embryo? Fetus? Ovum? Sperm? Fallopian Tubes? Ovaries? Testis?
I would rather not turn this convo into a hurling "beg to question" contest. In those there is never an answer achieved. The true purpose in reality is to get your opposite so far away from his point of emphasis that he(or she) spends more time defending the premise instead of proving it. Defending the question instead bringing forth the answer. I will rebel against that from this point on. I'll insure you will not have to infer when, where, how and why I'm rebelling by letting you know when I'm doing so. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Apr 4, 2009 16:03:14 GMT -5
Everything I have been saying is a direct assault on your reasoning. If you think you can bait me into going off topic you're wasting your time. You say that one can only be in submission or rebellion... there is no 3rd choice. If this is true - then it applies to everyone. That is simple logic. So I asked you, is a baby in rebellion or submission... your response is - show relevance. (That little stunt right there - asking for the relevance - that alone tells us how weak your position is)
The releveance is obvious. You assert that all people must be in submission or rebellion. A baby is a person. So are they in rebellion or submission to God? We don't have to examine zygotes, embroys, or fetus... we just have to get you to answer the question. Are they in rebellion or submission? If you can't explain - push away from the keyboard and bow out. You are not making a point by George Bushing the topic.
Most people would look at the question I asked, and wonder can a child be in rebellion or submission if they're not aware of God to rebel from or submit to? If they ask this question they'd realize that - what you're saying isn't true. They might extend it further to ask themselves, as an adult, can I possibly be in submission or rebellion to gods that for me do not exist? How can I be in defiance of rules that for me don't exist? How can I be in opposition to authority that I do not recognize because the authority holder for me doesn't exist?
While you were busy laughing at Cam's St. Anslem's reference did you miss the underlying points of this thread? I'll help you out, if you refute any of what I have said in the above paragraph, if you still hold to your position that it's submission or rebellion, nothing inbetween... than not only did the point fly over your head, it did corkscrew spirals and did some calligraphy styled sky writing while it was up there. The regional God question isn't just about regionality - it's about doom because of proximity (and chronology). Meaning if I didn't get to hear Jesus message through no fault of my own (be it time or location)... am I doomed? If I have basically lived my life by His tenants but not known Him am I doomed? I worded my response to Cam carefully because I understood that underlying point as well as others. Apparently you did not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Apr 4, 2009 18:28:56 GMT -5
Everything I have been saying is a direct assault on your reasoning. If you think you can bait me into going off topic you're wasting your time. You say that one can only be in submission or rebellion... there is no 3rd choice. If this is true - then it applies to everyone. That is simple logic. So I asked you, is a baby in rebellion or submission... your response is - show relevance. (That little stunt right there - asking for the relevance - that alone tells us how weak your position is)
The releveance is obvious. You assert that all people must be in submission or rebellion. A baby is a person. So are they in rebellion or submission to God? We don't have to examine zygotes, embroys, or fetus... we just have to get you to answer the question. Are they in rebellion or submission? If you can't explain - push away from the keyboard and bow out. You are not making a point by George Bushing the topic.
Most people would look at the question I asked, and wonder can a child be in rebellion or submission if they're not aware of God to rebel from or submit to? If they ask this question they'd realize that - what you're saying isn't true. They might extend it further to ask themselves, as an adult, can I possibly be in submission or rebellion to gods that for me do not exist? How can I be in defiance of rules that for me don't exist? How can I be in opposition to authority that I do not recognize because the authority holder for me doesn't exist?
While you were busy laughing at Cam's St. Anslem's reference did you miss the underlying points of this thread? I'll help you out, if you refute any of what I have said in the above paragraph, if you still hold to your position that it's submission or rebellion, nothing inbetween... than not only did the point fly over your head, it did corkscrew spirals and did some calligraphy styled sky writing while it was up there. The regional God question isn't just about regionality - it's about doom because of proximity (and chronology). Meaning if I didn't get to hear Jesus message through no fault of my own (be it time or location)... am I doomed? If I have basically lived my life by His tenants but not known Him am I doomed? I worded my response to Cam carefully because I understood that underlying point as well as others. Apparently you did not.
Dude you're now chasing your own tail grasping for life to be right  . If you want to be right then in your mind you can. As a matter of fact you are right within the premise you have constructed. Now when you want to join this conversation as it pertains to Is God Regional then you can.
See I didn't come in here without a definitive answer on what I believe and how I stand. I didn't attempt at all to construct straw men based sub arguments which have nothing to do with the subject. Then after you either proved or disproved (notice the duality) these strawmen they are then pushed forward as proof that the premise is incorrect. The sad thing is you have never attempted to answer the question but only attack the question. Nopers. Come better than that. Stop circle jerking.
I mean take a moment go back and read this thread. Do you honestly think you have proven your point (whatever it maybe) with steadfast efficiency? Lets get to the crux of the question. Is God Regional? That is a Yes or No answer. What is the third choice? So being Lukewarm is an actual choice? Did I not cover my thoughts on being lukewarm (indifferent) earlier? Did I not cover being conscious and unconscious earlier? Did I not say that Man has created God?
See I tailored my response just for you to take the bait as I knew you would. Everything you have raised after was answered before you asked it. lol You are flagrantly using logical bias by introducing variables that have no place in this discussion. Therefore since they are out of place they will never fit and in your mind since the out of place pieces don't fit that affirms you are correct. NO.. they just don't fit the argument. Your Jesus analysis as you have been told and I will tell you again doesn't fit because you are equating that Jesus is God.
Cam didn't ask about the manifestations of how "God" appears around the world to be proven he just wanted to know if God was regional or not. Now if he would've asked if Jesus is regional... THEN you would have something to stand on. But I'm sure you didn't or as I believe refuse to catch that.
I will end with this. I will show what you should have did to get your desired result to prove me wrong. In any debate when you bring forth a thesis you also must know the anti-thesis to that argument. You were searching for it but you couldn't find it. Instead of watching you chase your tail I will throw you a bone so to speak.
The basis of your argument was that there is a third choice which is to do nothing. This is false. What you should have argued was is there truly a choice in the first place(the true anti-thesis to my argument). If there is only 1 truth that there is a Higher Power then does your Submission or Rebellion really even matter? Both choices eventually arrive at the same truth.... A Higher Power does exist.
See how easy that was?
If I wanted to circle jerk the convo (which you are attempting to do) I would have been far more precise. Simple question again.
My first Question would have been. "Do we all agree that God(s)/Goddess /High Power has created everything and can destroy everything?" I'm sure 100% would have said yes.
The Next Deadly question would have been.... "Then explain to me what is the benefit of God/Higher Power only revealing him/herself to the few?" I mean God is maker of all things right? So God could make everyone submit at his/her pleasing... again what is the benefit of revealing to the few?
Argument destroyed and circle jerked just like that. IF I wanted to but I chose not to do so.
Oh and the reason you didn't use Jesus is in a logical argument your stance would have been weak. You knew I would have "logically" attacked Jesus. You also know that "faith" has no place in logic.
Tighten up and just mayyybe you can catch me next time. lol. :handshake:
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Apr 5, 2009 15:44:18 GMT -5
So the Sportscenter highlight of this thread would be:
VP makes a statement... Damie challenges it... VP is unable to defend it. He obfuscates until he has no choice but to pretend that he never believed his original argument either. That's basically it... you skip around his contradictions, his misuse of a variety of concepts, and his leap from a bad argument to a terrible argument... that was it.
And of course if you agree with anything he said you must also agree that he schooled me... much like Mitch Green schooled Tyson. The evidence is clearly illustrated below - no one should deny it.
I'll just have to do better next time... good job VP
:handshake:
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Apr 5, 2009 20:14:18 GMT -5
Smdh....
Honestly no disrespect intended but you are not ready to have a true discussion with me as in concern to spirituality my brother. You allow your "faith" to cloud your logic. You asked the Question.. "Damie Direct Quote Ahead">>>> Is a baby in rebellion or submission to God? Now you're jumping around giddy thinking.. "Oh I got him now" when in reality you are tearing your "faith" down and everyone else's with it.
I haven't replied to that question because honestly... Damie... you're not ready for the answer. You are not ready to stand where I stand spiritually brother. I will give you a chance to bow out now and retain your innocence as well as your ignorance because it is truly bliss. I have been there and it is awesome. BUT of course you have a choice.. Do you want me to answer that question or do you want me to not answer that question? If I were you as a good Christian Man I'd "choose" the latter.
As always the "Choice" is yours.....
|
|
|
|
Post by nsync on Apr 5, 2009 20:26:09 GMT -5
Hmmn...this is a tough question that requires serious thought.
I believe there is one God, but our understanding of what, where who and how God is becomes a cultural thing. I think in the origins of man it was regional, but if you study the origins of cultural diversity and early human behavior you will see much(what is considered) paganism across the board in early groups. This leads me to believe that original man (no matter where he evolved) had similar concepts of God based on surroundings. As man advanced creativity increased and brought about vast ideas and interpretations.
Is there only one path to God? hmmnnn...tough question. If I had to guess I would have to say yes, but organized religion is not that path.
It is our spirituality that connects us with God, not our formalized rituals. They connect us with one another.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Apr 5, 2009 23:35:36 GMT -5
Smdh....
Honestly no disrespect intended but you are not ready to have a true discussion with me as in concern to spirituality my brother. You allow your "faith" to cloud your logic. You asked the Question.. "Damie Direct Quote Ahead">>>> Is a baby in rebellion or submission to God? Now you're jumping around giddy thinking.. "Oh I got him now" when in reality you are tearing your "faith" down and everyone else's with it.
I haven't replied to that question because honestly... Damie... you're not ready for the answer. You are not ready to stand where I stand spiritually brother. I will give you a chance to bow out now and retain your innocence as well as your ignorance because it is truly bliss. I have been there and it is awesome. BUT of course you have a choice.. Do you want me to answer that question or do you want me to not answer that question? If I were you as a good Christian Man I'd "choose" the latter.
As always the "Choice" is yours.....
Now it occurs to me that you may have finally figured out how you wanted to answer the question and you're looking for a way to open it back up so you can give your response. If you just want to give your answer - go ahead - the topic has been over but you can still respond. It is all Flat Earth Society talk at this point.
As for the rest of what you're talking... save the keystrokes. You are wasting your time. You speak of faith clouding judgement - LOL - when you can tell me about the necessity of faith - then we can talk. Until then - what is there to debate? What you think you know about God and truth is no threat to anything or anyone. Have at it. Do your absolute worst. Please don't be offended if I don't respond... I just want to relieve you of your unfounded fear that you can somehow shake my faith. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Apr 6, 2009 2:21:49 GMT -5
Okay your response is lukewarm so I will take it that you don't want me to answer that question. If this conversation were spades I would equate Jesus being the 2 of hearts in your hand. It's your favorite card. You like it so much that you are willing to renege, under bid basically do any and everything just so your 2 of hearts can pass in the end. The one absolute in this thread is that in the face of truth no matter how plain it is... you will become belligerently ignorant to it. Furthermore I didn't have to “figure out” how to answer a question that was already answered in the thread below 4 days ago. It was already answered in this thread numerous times as well. I answered your question BEFORE it was asked. My words saw you coming you just didn't notice they were watching.... My entire premise was tailored for you and you alone. It was tailored based on your responses before I entered into this discussion. It measured your scholarship as it pertains to spirituality and forced your flaws to surface.
I mean you do realize you were getting played right? You do realize I have been saying almost exactly what Cam was saying in the beginning I just used a different setting but same premise. I wanted to see if you would use the same logic... Guess what Damie... Your logic changed brother. You didn't use the same logic because your logic isn't absolute and if it isn't absolute then it isn't the truth. You are correct about one thing... the debate is over. It was over before I entered. The debate didn't start with the initial question (to the board) and first question (addressed to you by Cam). The debate started with your initial response to the question and it ended with your answer back to Cam as in reference to your initial response. Thing is as I stated before you were ignorant to the truth(different than being Ignorant OF the truth). You were both the cause and effect of your argument failing. You dug a hole AND buried yourself in it alive.
In the end “God” is Universal
Man can either submit to god or rebel god.... there isn't a third choice.
Man can also submit to the reasoning of God or Rebel to the reason... there isn't a third choice.
The anti-thesis... God is Absolute so the choices above logically do not exist.
The anti thesis... the reasoning of God is Absolute so the choices above logically do not exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Apr 6, 2009 9:10:35 GMT -5
What I realize is that you are trying harder to convince yourself of the things you're saying than anyone else. I'm content to let each reader judge the text for themselves.
When it's all said and done, I'm still proclaiming Jesus... feel free to proclaim whatever deity, deities, or non-deities that you believe in today. Your disbelief doesn't hurt me.
God is still the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End.
0
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Apr 6, 2009 11:46:58 GMT -5
What I realize is that you are trying harder to convince yourself of the things you're saying than anyone else. I'm content to let each reader judge the text for themselves.
When it's all said and done, I'm still proclaiming Jesus... feel free to proclaim whatever deity, deities, or non-deities that you believe in today. Your disbelief doesn't hurt me.
God is still the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End.
0
No convincing because I already believe it. Before one can convey the truth one must first believe its the truth. Again you are correct the refined reader well judge the text for themselves.
It then will be obvious... God is Absolute.... Jesus isn't Absolute... therefore Jesus isn't God.
The cold vein is brother... that came from your very own mouth in your first 2 responses in this thread. Everyone saw it accept for you.....
|
|
