How does Romans 1 explain this...?

[Ouroboros]

Give me an opposing theory.

 

I dare you

 

The Almighty Bob made a huge machine that could create universes out of nothing.

He started the machine and one universe came out that seem to have the right color.

Bob then threw away the key, forgot about the whole thing,

and now the story is just a funny thing his friends tease him about at the parties.

 

[edit]

One of their most interesting discussions is "Where the heck did we come from?"

[Ouroboros]

Invictus, you have to understand not all of us are Atheists.

Some people on this site maintain a belief, some are even Theists.

Some are Deists, some have their own homebrewed religion.

[white_raven23]

Invictus, you have to understand not all of us are Atheists.

Some people on this site maintain a belief, some are even Theists.

Some are Deists, some have their own homebrewed religion.

 

 

Thank you Han....

 

He still hasn't responded to my post of course. I don't think he's programmed to argue with Deists or anyone else who isn't full on athiest.

 

Heck if my own mom can't keep it straight....keeps calling me an athiest.....I guess I'm expecting too much from fundies.

 

[Mr. Neil]

Your eagerness to reject evidence to support a created universe with no apparent reason (or you have yet to give me one) is exactly what Romans 1 is talking about.

You know, I would just like to point out, for the one thousandth time, that this thread started as a critique of how another Christian interprets Romans 1. If you have an alternate interpretation, good for you.

 

 

You guys are trying to convince me the evidence suggests no such thing yet you have no opinion as to what else it could suggest. Nor do you offer any evidence or theories of your own as to why mine should be rejected.

What evidence!? You attempted to make "begin" into a synonym for "create". That's sort of like making "destroy" an synonym for "end". That's not going to work.

 

I am not asking you to “prove a negative” or anything else. Just tell me what you believe and give it a supporting argument. That is all I am asking.

Do I have to "believe" something? I accept scientific principles, and I accept the big bang model. But since I actually understand the big bang model, I don't see where God has a place in it, so I don't believe he's a part of it.

 

Ultimately, I don't know why matter exists, but that doesn't mean that I have to have a ready-made answer if someone asks "where did we come from?". The problem with God (I'll say it again) is that if he exists, then he is uncreated. If the universe exists, then it is uncreated. Either way, something uncreated exists. God is extra, unnecessary, and paradoxical, so I throw him out.

 

 

Or even still, just be a “free thinker” and actually think. Feel “free” to generate your own hypothesis with or without evidence and give me that.

 

At this point, I really don’t care what you give me, just give me something. Don’t just cast insults and think that is enough to convince me or anyone else that I am wrong. I doubt you are even convincing yourselves.

 

Give me an opposing theory.

 

I dare you

"An opposing theory". In order to provide an opposing theory, you will have to have provided one yourself, which you have not. If you have one, then please demonstrate it for us. Tell us what the theory of intelligent design is and explain to us how it can be tested, demonstrated, and potentially falsified. If these cannot be done, then you don't have a theory.

 

Questions like "What made the big bang go bang?" are questions worthy of being asked, but in the abscense of an answer, theism doesn't win. In fact, as I've explained, it makes the problem worse, because you're only compounding the problem by making something that is:

 

A. redundant, because it ultimately produces the same problem of an uncreated existence and is therefore reducible; and...

 

B. incompatible, because time is a property of the universe, and yet you keep trying to put time before the universe.

 

It's like you're trying to accept and reject the big bang at the same time.

 

I've been hammering these two points over and over, and I've yet to hear your answer on them. What don't you get about the fallacy of special pleading and the law of non-contradiction?

[invictus1967]

white_raven23,

 

I read your post and I considered it to be irrelevant. I am not trying to prove Christian God or Bible God. I am not trying to prove religion, afterlife, or Jesus. I am also not trying to prove or disprove evolution, young earth, or old earth. I only set out to establish the fact that science has pretty much concluded the universe had a beginning and that implies a Beginner. I am saying nothing more, nothing less.

 

These people admitted the universe had a beginning but they refused to see the implications that came with that admission. They tried to cover-up those implications with smoke and mirrors disguised as insults.

 

They refuse to “freely think” about what a universe with a beginning implies. They choose to hide behind “I don’t know and I am not afraid to admit it”.

 

The reality is they are afraid to know. Regardless of what they say, they are not “free” to think of a universe that was created by something that can exist beyond its realm of space/time and energy/matter; an all-powerful supernatural being. They fear an encounter with God.

 

In keeping with the theme of this thread, that is exactly what Romans 1 is all about.

[Mr. Neil]

I've had enough of this. You've hijacked this thread long enough, taking it in a direction that had nothing to do with the original topic. And in doing so, you've ignored rebuttals destroying your argument.

 

You're a troll, and from now on you're going to get treated like a troll.

 

 

In keeping with the theme of this thread, that is exactly what Romans 1 is all about.

You don't even know what this thread was about. I'm the one who started it, and I know what it's about, and I can tell you that you've not made one post in the theme of this topic.

 

The topic was about a paradox between agnostic theists and Paul Manata's presuppositionalist point of view. You seem to keep missing the point that your objection is with Paul Manata's interpretation with Romans 1. None of us really give a rats ass what it really says, because it was never about Romans 1! I didn't start this fucking topic to challenge the motherfucking Bible!!! It was about Paul Manata's argument only.

 

Do you fucking get it now? Would you like re-read the first post?

 

Jesus fucking christ you're dense.

[Ouroboros]

I only set out to establish the fact that science has pretty much concluded the universe had a beginning and that implies a Beginner. I am saying nothing more, nothing less.

It doesn’t imply a Beginner, it only implies a beginning.

 

They refuse to “freely think” about what a universe with a beginning implies. They choose to hide behind “I don’t know and I am not afraid to admit it”.

I’m not afraid to admit it, but a beginning doesn’t mean a beginner. That’s only from observation from our close system, which is called our Universe.

God’s existence is inconsequential for our living, and especially for this topic.

 

The reality is they are afraid to know. Regardless of what they say, they are not “free” to think of a universe that was created by something that can exist beyond its realm of space/time and energy/matter; an all-powerful supernatural being. They fear an encounter with God.

I’m really not afraid to meet with God, but he better be afraid to meet me.

I have no notion of God, and there is not need believe in him.

 

In keeping with the theme of this thread, that is exactly what Romans 1 is all about.

I disagree, Romans 1 claims that everyone has the notion of God, which I don’t have, so Romans 1 is a false statement. Romans 1 has nothing to do with the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

 

Tell me how I can know there is a God, when I don’t know if there is a God. Prove to me that I’m wrong about my own emotions!

[invictus1967]

What’s the point, you have yet to listen to anything I have said; all the while accusing me of the same.

 

I will leave you alone so this thread can die the death it deserves.

[Mr. Neil]

I've refuted every statement you've made.

[white_raven23]

white_raven23,

I read your post and I considered it to be irrelevant.

 

Really? How?

Because the need for OTHER people to believe the same thing you believe led you to an ex-christian site to drive a point that really cannot be irrefutably proven one way or another due to a lack of sufficient evidence?

 

But despite the absence of evidence for, or against your point....you still drive it. WHY?

 

- and on a personal note: I do NOT consider my post irrelevant, and as I personally have shown you no disrespect-yet- I find it rude that you felt I needed to know your negative opinion of my thoughts. You could have kept that to yourself. You did not.

 

I am not trying to prove Christian God or Bible God. I am not trying to prove religion, afterlife, or Jesus. I am also not trying to prove or disprove evolution, young earth, or old earth. I only set out to establish the fact that science has pretty much concluded the universe had a beginning and that implies a Beginner. I am saying nothing more, nothing less.

 

Okay, fine. But there is still no POINT. Existence of god only answers one question. Everyone on this forum could all decide to agree with your opinion that there is a god. It changes nothing. We still wouldn't be any closer to understanding our purpose, or the extent of god's involvement.

And surely your warm fuzzy feeling of seeing the atheists concede would naturally be overwhelmed by the magnitude of all the other questions that arise given the existence of god. Which would remain unanswered.

 

Unless you believe the moment everyone agrees upon the existence of god, this being will reward you and us by revealing itself?

 

They refuse to “freely think” about what a universe with a beginning implies. They choose to hide behind “I don’t know and I am not afraid to admit it”.

 

They are "free" to "think" any way they like given their interpretation of the evidence they have. Some of us look at the evidence and see design, some see random chance. Either way, if there is a god, there is purpose behind not only what we DO understand, but also in what we DON'T.

 

The reality is they are afraid to know. Regardless of what they say, they are not “free” to think of a universe that was created by something that can exist beyond its realm of space/time and energy/matter; an all-powerful supernatural being. They fear an encounter with God.

 

Why do you think they fear such an encounter? Do you think god would somehow be intolerant of their point of views? Why would a supreme being hold it's creation responsible for ignorance? Especially ignorance this being did nothing directly to dispell?

 

hypothetical example:

 

If I got a new kitten, and relied on my understanding that cats are very clean animals when I brought the little fuzzy home, do I actually have a right to be pissed at this kitten when it messes on the floor? After all, I did not specifically show the kitten where the one litter box was to be found in my 3 story 50 room house.

[Abiyoyo]

I think mental gymnastics are required to be any kind of Christian.

 

We have had several members here who are so agnostic in their faith that they more closely resemble atheists than Christians and their behavior matches the behavior of the godless rather than the godly. The thing that gets to me is that they try to be "cool" Christians but then they are offended when we don't take their beliefs seriously.

 

Good grief! I came out of Christian ministry when I left the faith. I was a seriously committed disciple of Christ. If one doesn't know what one believes why not just be open and honest about it?

 

Thank reason I'm an atheist!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Last Saturday, My transmission in my car went out. I could still drive it in "drive" but there was no overdrive. The car will only get up to about 45. That doesnt help me when I drive 90miles a day.

 

Anyhow, this was 2 days before my wifes surgery, and we were on the verge of being broke. I was at a point where I could have easily said,"Is this what God lets happen to His beloved children?" I didnt though.

 

The car was broke, and I still smoked. My daughter is allergic to smoke, and my wife cringes at the smell of it in her car(03 model). I had to drive her car to work. I smoked in the car the 1st day and avoided the subject(She was still recouping). The second day I had 1 cigarette left and I thought about all the times that God has given me oppurtunties to quit. I also didnt want to lie to my wife. I quit. I been quit now for a week.

 

We have been praying for my neighbor at church(His wife left and took everything, and he has all kinds of medical conditions). I needed money because a unexpected wedding of a old friend came about. I would have been OK, but I would have liked to had a little extras. I was cleaning out my car(Getting ready to take it to sell it), and my neighbor came up to me and started telling me about all the most recent stuff that happened. He started asking me ?s about the car, and I told him that I was taking it up to the car place to sell it. He said he would give me like 350 for it.

 

I said, Well let me see what I get for it 1st. I talked with my wife and we decided to sell it to him(She took his only transportation as well). The next nite, I went to his place and talked with him(We talked alot about God and where he was at and I as well)(I also asked him to let us at the church pray over him, cancer).He said maybe. He said he got his power turned off, because she never sent the electric bill out. (He also almost got fired for all this chaos going on).

 

He told me that he would probualy give me some money tommorrow. I went back the next day. He got fired. I asked him how much could he give now, and still be OK. He said about 100. I sold it to him, and signed over the title. He said he is coming to church with us this sunday.

 

Anyhow, I believe in God by faith, and I cant see Him. What I can see though, is his taking a situation that many would say was of satan, or just life; and making it into a situation where someone in need is being helped. That is the real and perfect will of God in my life, and I can never deny that.

[Cerise]

Cerise,

 

Weak, very weak.

 

Trying to avoid admitting you have no response by casting insults.

 

I am sure you are capable of more than that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of course you are sure I am capable of driving you into the dust. I've done so before. I just don't see the point of doing so again when you shall only ignore all the arguments in order to restate things that have already been disproved as if your religion causes amnesia or something.

 

And it may be an insult, but it most certainly is the truth. You are, without a doubt, the most arrogant of morons here today.

[Cerise]

Dear Yoyo, thanks for that heartwarming testimony. Perhaps this testimony will also be of interest to you.

 

Miracles of the Invisible Pink Unicorn

Steven L. Preszler recounted:

 

I was driving from Sacramento to home with just a half tank of gas in my car. That is not nearly enough and since I didn't have any money or credit to buy gas, I decided to pray to the IPU for help. The IPU answered my prayers and I made it home with just enough gas to reach my driveway. The IPU worked in a mysterious way by allowing a big storm to blow a strong southerly wind up the central valley and bring large amounts of rain. This gave me a tail wind which improved my gas mileage enough to reach home. It appears that the storm that gave me such good gas mileage is going to cause wide spread flooding up and down the valley but I suspect that the people who will get flooded out are unbelievers living contrary to the laws of the IPU.

 

Why don't you glory in the almighty power of the IPU Yoyo? Can you not see the light?

[Ouroboros]

The vision I had last night:

 

A creature came to me last night, it was pink and yet shiny and slightly ghost like. It was shaped as a horse and had a horn from its forehead. It spoke to me and said:

 

“I am the great IPU”

 

And of course I asked him, “What? The great 'I Poo'?”

 

The creature answered me, “No you dumbhead, I.P.U.!”

 

So I instantly replied, “Huh? The ‘I Pee You’, what the heck are you talking about? How rude!”

 

In an instant there was bright light and thunder and the beast lifted its hooves and yelled, “No You Fool! I am the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn, bow down and adore me.”

 

Of course I obeyed; such a noise would wake my family, so I’d better respond quickly.

 

And it continued, “You have been selected to carry my message to the world!”

 

I trembled and kept my head bent in awe and astonishment.

 

“You will tell the world that it’s coming to and End!”

 

Then I asked, “When?”

 

And the great IPU answered “In a couple of billions years or so. Let them be warned!”

 

And in a smoke the amazing incarnation of the great IPU left me.

 

 

---

Sorry folks, I just couldn't help it...

[Mr. Neil]

NO!

 

Start a new topic, Invictus. Again, you are not even close to addressing the real topic here. If you continue to hijack my thread, then I will do everything in my power to have you banned from this forum.

 

I'm sick of your bullshit.

 

MODS!

[Zach]

NO!

 

Start a new topic, Invictus.  Again, you are not even close to addressing the real topic here.  If you continue to hijack my thread, then I will do everything in my power to have you banned from this forum.

 

I'm sick of your bullshit.

 

MODS!

 

Agreed. Starting a new topic for Invictus.

[invictus1967]

Your opening post left the door open for this thread to go the way it did. In it, you said-

“Presuppositionalists are Christians who use Romans 1 to say that all people know that God exists and that atheists are therefore liars”

 

To begin with, presupposition is not exclusive to a belief in God or the supernatural. You can form prior opinions about anything in advance of actual evidence.

 

You then go on to say-

“There are some Christians that I've met who will admit that they don't know that God exists”

 

By definition, a Christian believes God exist. If he is not sure, then he doesn’t truly believe it; he simply thinks it may be possible. Therefore, he is not a Christian but simply someone practicing a Christian religion.

 

It’s like the old commercial- “I’m not really a doctor but I play one on TV”. If they don’t truly believe God exist, then they are not really a Christian; they are only playing the part of one.

 

You in fact are guilty of presupposition. You formed an opinion about what a Christian was without actual knowledge of what they were. You were also guilty of presupposition when you formed the opinion that “Presuppositionalist are Christians” when in fact they can be anybody from any walk of life because you can presuppose anything, not just God.

 

Because of your incorrect presuppositions, the entire premise for this thread was essentially invalid. Is there any wonder it went down roads you didn’t want to travel?

[Mythra]

We just got a new puppy. He's a black lab / australian shepherd mix. He is SO funny. He's runs in circles, chasing his tail faster and faster. He is so concentrated on his tail, that he doesn't even notice how hysterically we are laughing at him.

 

We've decided to name him Invictus.

[invictus1967]

I also have a new pet, his name is Atheist.

 

He runs in circles chasing his tail, always tripping over his front feet. But he’s fun to watch.

[Mr. Neil]

Your opening post left the door open for this thread to go the way it did. In it, you said-

“Presuppositionalists are Christians who use Romans 1 to say that all people know that God exists and that atheists are therefore liars"

But that was an introductory statement for the point I was trying to make. The topic isn't about Romans 1. It was about a paradox within Paul Manata's argument

 

You can't just take one statement out of context and hijack my entire topic. I'm sick of your weasling. Either give up, or I will have you kicked off of this forum. Now fucking stop it!!

 

 

You then go on to say-

“There are some Christians that I've met who will admit that they don't know that God exists”

 

By definition, a Christian believes God exist. If he is not sure, then he doesn’t truly believe it; he simply thinks it may be possible.

Are you kidding?

 

You do realize that knowledge and belief are two different things, right?

 

 

Therefore, he is not a Christian but simply someone practicing a Christian religion.

That's nice, but that doesn't work within Paul Manata's argument, which is that everyone knows God.

 

According to Paul, atheists are people who know God but are self-deceived. So what about those who claim to be agnostic theists? Are they self-deceived, too? Have they deceived themselves into following Christ's teachings anyway?!

 

You see, whether they're "TrueChristians®" or not is irrelevent. I'm asking how a presuppositionalist like Paul Manata accounts for such a claim as agnostic Christianity. If they "know God", as he claims, but are self deceived into agnosticism, then how did this self-deception lead right back to practicing Christianity? Do they truly have faith despite self-deception? Do they get saved anyway? How does his reasoning explain this?

 

Again, if you don't understand the topic or disagree with Paul Manata's interpretation of Romans 1, then why are you attacking my argument? I made no claim about Romans 1. I took someone else's interpretation of Romans 1 and based a question from it.

 

I can't believe how stubborn you are to admit that you didn't understand the point of this topic.

 

 

You in fact are guilty of presupposition. You formed an opinion about what a Christian was without actual knowledge of what they were. You were also guilty of presupposition when you formed the opinion that “Presuppositionalist are Christians” when in fact they can be anybody from any walk of life because you can presuppose anything, not just God.

 

Because of your incorrect presuppositions, the entire premise for this thread was essentially invalid. Is there any wonder it went down roads you didn’t want to travel?

NO!

 

I formed an argument based on Paul Manata's presuppositionalist argument!!!!! Paul Manata is a Christian!

 

I've told you this five fucking times already! If you don't agree with this interpretation of Romans 1, then you need to take it up with Paul Manata; not me.

 

You still have yet to make a post that addresses the point of the topic. If you have nothing to add, then please step down. You already have your own thread. Don't pollute mine.

[Zach]

I also have a new pet, his name is Atheist.

 

He runs in circles chasing his tail, always tripping over his front feet. But he’s fun to watch.

I think you've made your point. If you have an argument that you'd like to advance, I started a new thread for you.

[invictus1967]

Neil,

 

To believe something is to know something for we can never truly know anything.

 

The way you set the premise for this thread with your false presumptions, invalidates your attempted application of Manta.

 

You were trying to apply Manta to people pretending to be Christians, with the false presumption they were real Christians.

[Mr. Neil]

You were trying to apply Manta to people pretending to be Christians, with the false presumption they were real Christians.

No I wasn't. Try reading with your eyes open.

 

 

You see, whether they're "TrueChristians®" or not is irrelevent.  I'm asking how a presuppositionalist like Paul Manata accounts for such a claim as agnostic Christianity.  If they "know God", as he [Paul Manata] claims, but are self deceived into agnosticism, then how did this self-deception lead right back to practicing Christianity?  Do they truly have faith despite self-deception?  Do they get saved anyway?  How does his reasoning explain this?

Notice the parts I've highlighted in my previous quote. I'm asking how Manata's argument accounts for the claim. I'm not assuming that the people who make the claim are Christian.

 

Must you twist what I say? Please don't put words in my mouth?

 

Invictus, I've come to the conclusion that you argue for the sake of arguing and will continue to be antagonistic no matter what I demonstrate to you. The objection you're making to the interpretation of Romans 1 is not mine but Paul Manata's. You seem to refuse to accept that this topic isn't actually about Romans 1 but rather about someone's claim.

[Ouroboros]

It all began when Einstein published (1917?) his General Theory of Relativity. Using his equations, some brainiacs of the time determined the universe was expanding. It was also deduced that by working backwards you could find a single infinitely small point at which it all began.

No one is refuting that here. Actually the latest finds is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The acceleration could be explained with the dark matter, which has not been proven yet.

 

This was not received well in the scientific community. It freaked out Einstein so much that he introduced a “cosmological constant”, also known as a “fudge factor”. It was later observed (late 1920s?) that galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is known as Hubble’s Law, after Edwin Hubble who discovered this movement of galaxies.

Einstein was not an astronomer. A doctor is not a TV-repair man. Einstein was freaked out about the quantum mechanics too, so who was right Einstein or Bohr? The answer is both, and neither! Einstein was wrong about quantum physics, but he was right about relativity.

 

The observations of Hubble and other astronomers confirmed what had been deduced from Einstein’s equations. The universe was indeed expanding.

 

Hubble spent the rest of his life trying to disprove what his findings helped to prove. Out of disgust, Fred Hoyle, a critic of the theory labeled it “The Big Bang”. Einstein eventually admitted the cosmological factor (fudge factor) was the greatest “blunder” of his life. Einstein also grudgingly admitted what he called "the necessity for a beginning" and also “the presence of a superior reasoning power.”

Yes, there was a time where time started to be time. But before time was time, time was not. When we argue about what kind of time was before time was time, then time was not and not is the time that you’re trying to argue! Is’ a fucking circle! Time came to existence when the Universe began. So when you ask what came before Time, your asking how many chickens existed before the chickens came to existence! The reason you can’t argue about time before time, is because time doesn’t exist and is undefined.

 

So when you define it to be God before time, I say bullshit, because undefined still means undefined. It’s your opinion that only God can create Something out of Nothing, but by doing so, You admit that Something can be created out of Nothing, and hence, Something could come out of Nothing. So then it is not impossible anymore! You prove that the impossible is possible, then of course we can use that proof to say the Something came from Nothing, because that’s what you are saying!

 

In the 1990s a group from Berkley led by George Smoot found slight variations in the background radiation. These “ripples” seemed to account for the formations of clumps that eventually formed the galaxies. Smoot said “If you're religious, it's like looking at God.”

Notice, Smoot said “IF”!!!

 

Theist and science historian Frederic B. Burnham stated "The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years"

He was an HISTORIAN, not a SCIENTIST!

 

And the story is very old, and the statistics is not confirmed. Give me the charts and the data that underlies the statistics to what has been claimed here.

 

Acceptance of the “Big Bang” threatens and encounter with God. Therefore, atheists that realize the implications fight it vigorously. There have been and continue to be many who study the findings of the last century and attempt to find problems with the theory and some offer alternative theories to the “Big Bang”. None have gained any sort of wide spread acceptance and the “Big Bang” is by far the dominant theory.

It does not threaten anyone to have an encounter with God. You are the one fighting vigorously to prove us wrong, while you’re not proving anything. You are just using the old Kalam Cosmological Argument over and over and over and over and over again.

 

I starting ask myself why you are so hardcore on this issue.

 

There must be a reason, and that is either; you are losing your faith, and can only reconfirm your faith by making other believe your false religion, or you are a fundamentalist that are threatened by people being free and not bound by a particular religion.

 

Romans 1 says we should acknowledge God as creator. That is tough for many to swallow. But as hard as that is to accept, it is getting even harder to defend an eternal universe as opposed to one that was “created”.

Romans 1 say that Nature proves God, which it doesn’t.

[invictus1967]

HanSolo,

Are you really trying to open that up again? Talk about going in circles.

 

I simply said the implications were that to have a beginning there must be something to begin it. I believe that in order to create a universe composed of space/time and energy/matter what ever created the universe must exist outside of those properties.

 

I call that all-powerful supernatural being God.

 

You call it whatever you like. Or you can say there is nothing outside of those properties. You can “freely think” that nothing existed outside of those properties and this nothing then created everything. Feel free to develop your own theory for the beginning of the universe based on this equation-

NOTHING + NOTHING = EVERYTHING

 

Anyway, it’s been moved to another thread. So if you like, we can take it up over there.

 

------------------------------

 

Neil,

 

I never twisted anything you said. Every quote attributed to you was a copy and paste from your post.

 

Allow me to quote from your first post-

“There are some Christians that I've met who will admit that they don't know that God exists”

 

I explained to you that if they only belief God is possible, they are not real Christians. They are only playing the part. I further explained to you that to believe is to know for we can never know anything.

 

That was actually your second false presumptions. The first was (and I quote again)-

“Presuppositionalists are Christians”

 

Presupposition is not restricted to Christians.

 

You tried to introduce the big word (presupposition) and then fell guilty of is definition yourself. That is what essentially invalidated your entire premise before you ever got to the Manata part.

 

I am not twisting your words at all; you are doing that all by yourself.