mymistake Posted October 14, 2014 Author Share Posted October 14, 2014 What I am saying is, in order to understand what the man wanted to say, we have to understand him. And just how do we understand him when he won't let that happen? I'm sure you will blame me. You always do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Foak came into chat once and said no education was needed to teach anyone anything. He clearly does not value rational thought. I will repeat again that he specifically said he had no religion. I will say again we accepted him in the spirituality forum. Foak is a jerk, plain and simple. Are you really defending foak, End, or is this really about you? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I just find it to the point that this reality demonstrates my belief in Christianity. Secondly, it demonstrates that reality doesn't offer the immediate rational output that people demand here. IOW, everything you see confirms your preconceptions. You can't demonstrate the former as that's your own perception, but you have not in any way demonstrated the later, even though you claim it's been demonstrated here. You are going to have to please tell me what you are considering former and latter. Let me start, yes it confirms my preconceptions. I think reality adequately has demonstrated my preconceptions, you don't? So what latter are you describing...you lost me. Former, red, later, blue. Bolded, emphatically, no. This is the same kind of non-argument that FOAK was throwing out. Yes, the fact that the two entities failed to communicated is realistic proof. YOU demonstrate how it worked if you think it could have or did. Demonstrate what? You're the one making the claim that it somehow demonstrates irrationality. I'm just trying to make sense of your word salad and pointing out you haven't demonstrated what you claimed. If you think the fact that FOAK and the rest of us didn't see eye to eye demonstrates irrationality, then you simply don't know what rationality means as a word. Let me break it down so you can see where my opinion of the process failed. 1) There is God 2) Jesus is One with God through an obedient and perfect relationship with God 3) Then there is us 4) Jesus asks us and prays that we will have the same relationship with Him that He has with God so that all are One. 5) Then asks us to have that relationship with others. In my opinion, the breakdown happened to Foak between mechanism steps 4 and 5. The parallel is this: If you want to get to Understanding, then this mechanism is more true than demanding that the people of step 5 adhere to the beliefs of step 4. And it appears to me that the non-believer step two in not the Grace and Sacrifice of Christ, but facts and logic. You tell me how Foak in place five now sees your truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 What I am saying is, in order to understand what the man wanted to say, we have to understand him. And just how do we understand him when he won't let that happen? I'm sure you will blame me. You always do. I don't think we always can. We can do our best and trust we have communicated as well as we can. And I'll be truthful, maybe facts and logic is the level best after a bad episode/lifetime of Christianity. I'm not going to discount that. Just please offering that IMO, that is not a complete approach. That is strictly my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I just find it to the point that this reality demonstrates my belief in Christianity. Secondly, it demonstrates that reality doesn't offer the immediate rational output that people demand here. IOW, everything you see confirms your preconceptions. You can't demonstrate the former as that's your own perception, but you have not in any way demonstrated the later, even though you claim it's been demonstrated here. You are going to have to please tell me what you are considering former and latter. Let me start, yes it confirms my preconceptions. I think reality adequately has demonstrated my preconceptions, you don't? So what latter are you describing...you lost me. Former, red, later, blue. Bolded, emphatically, no. This is the same kind of non-argument that FOAK was throwing out. Yes, the fact that the two entities failed to communicated is realistic proof. YOU demonstrate how it worked if you think it could have or did. Demonstrate what? You're the one making the claim that it somehow demonstrates irrationality. I'm just trying to make sense of your word salad and pointing out you haven't demonstrated what you claimed. If you think the fact that FOAK and the rest of us didn't see eye to eye demonstrates irrationality, then you simply don't know what rationality means as a word. Let me break it down so you can see where my opinion of the process failed. 1) There is God 2) Jesus is One with God through an obedient and perfect relationship with God 3) Then there is us 4) Jesus asks us and prays that we will have the same relationship with Him that He has with God so that all are One. 5) Then asks us to have that relationship with others. In my opinion, the breakdown happened to Foak between mechanism steps 4 and 5. The parallel is this: If you want to get to Understanding, then this mechanism is more true than demanding that the people of step 5 adhere to the beliefs of step 4. And it appears to me that the non-believer step two in not the Grace and Sacrifice of Christ, but facts and logic. You tell me how Foak in place five now sees your truth. What?? Maybe someone else who understands End-speak can translate for me? As far as FOAK is concerned, he basically argued 2+2 does not equal 4 because that runs contrary to my personal experience. If you don't see what I'm saying, it's because you refuse to ignore the evidence that is in you and all around you. You're a horrible person for telling me that 2+2=4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 14, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2014 I'm not going to read that diarrhea. What's you're point? I felt the Glorious need to bring the Word. John seventeen is all about the series of relationships between God and humanity. Given we all would want to be Godly by whatever standard we use, the aforementioned is a wonderful mechanism that is relevant to this discussion. Need I remind you all how many damn times I have heard, "Christians just want to preach....they don't even take the time to know us". Wow, just wow, that here it is in John 17. Read em and weep my brother. Actually, no. Nothing in John 17 has anything to do with whether something can come from nothing, which is what this thread is about. Therefore, however wonderful you believe the mechanism to be, it is not relevant to this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 14, 2014 Author Share Posted October 14, 2014 Let me break it down so you can see where my opinion of the process failed. 1) There is God 2) Jesus is One with God through an obedient and perfect relationship with God 3) Then there is us 4) Jesus asks us and prays that we will have the same relationship with Him that He has with God so that all are One. 5) Then asks us to have that relationship with others. In my opinion, the breakdown happened to Foak between mechanism steps 4 and 5. The parallel is this: If you want to get to Understanding, then this mechanism is more true than demanding that the people of step 5 adhere to the beliefs of step 4. And it appears to me that the non-believer step two in not the Grace and Sacrifice of Christ, but facts and logic. You tell me how Foak in place five now sees your truth. What?? Maybe someone else who understands End-speak can translate for me? End imagines that Foak is trapped somewhere on the 5th level of End's imagination. End wants you to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior so that you can rescue Foak. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Foak came into chat once and said no education was needed to teach anyone anything. He clearly does not value rational thought. I will repeat again that he specifically said he had no religion. I will say again we accepted him in the spirituality forum. Foak is a jerk, plain and simple. Are you really defending foak, End, or is this really about you? It's my perception of what happened to foak based on what Vigile labels as my preconception, my reality. I happen to think it fits very well with John 17. I am free to do Christianity here? You would wish to elaborate on what part of me you think this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I'm not going to read that diarrhea. What's you're point? I felt the Glorious need to bring the Word. John seventeen is all about the series of relationships between God and humanity. Given we all would want to be Godly by whatever standard we use, the aforementioned is a wonderful mechanism that is relevant to this discussion. Need I remind you all how many damn times I have heard, "Christians just want to preach....they don't even take the time to know us". Wow, just wow, that here it is in John 17. Read em and weep my brother. Actually, no. Nothing in John 17 has anything to do with whether something can come from nothing, which is what this thread is about. Therefore, however wonderful you believe the mechanism to be, it is not relevant to this discussion. Ha, you hit/deflected that out of the park... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Think what you wish folks. When you are defending people based on your "preconceptions" I hope each and every one of you thinks of foak and how he is a jerk not worthy of defending. How did Christ say it, Forgive them Father.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 14, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2014 Let me break it down so you can see where my opinion of the process failed. 1) There is God 2) Jesus is One with God through an obedient and perfect relationship with God 3) Then there is us 4) Jesus asks us and prays that we will have the same relationship with Him that He has with God so that all are One. 5) Then asks us to have that relationship with others. In my opinion, the breakdown happened to Foak between mechanism steps 4 and 5. The parallel is this: If you want to get to Understanding, then this mechanism is more true than demanding that the people of step 5 adhere to the beliefs of step 4. And it appears to me that the non-believer step two in not the Grace and Sacrifice of Christ, but facts and logic. You tell me how Foak in place five now sees your truth. Um... End3, I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but foak gave the specific impression that he was not a christian, meaning, by implication that he did not believe in jesus, or that jesus was god. For someone who has denigrated the rest of us for not trying to understand him, it would appear that you misunderstood him most of all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Let me break it down so you can see where my opinion of the process failed. 1) There is God 2) Jesus is One with God through an obedient and perfect relationship with God 3) Then there is us 4) Jesus asks us and prays that we will have the same relationship with Him that He has with God so that all are One. 5) Then asks us to have that relationship with others. In my opinion, the breakdown happened to Foak between mechanism steps 4 and 5. The parallel is this: If you want to get to Understanding, then this mechanism is more true than demanding that the people of step 5 adhere to the beliefs of step 4. And it appears to me that the non-believer step two in not the Grace and Sacrifice of Christ, but facts and logic. You tell me how Foak in place five now sees your truth. Um... End3, I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but foak gave the specific impression that he was not a christian, meaning, by implication that he did not believe in jesus, or that jesus was god. For someone who has denigrated the rest of us for not trying to understand him, it would appear that you misunderstood him most of all. How is my view of a mechanism for understanding and his beliefs have anything to do with each other? This is mind boggling to me Prof. Totally independent of each other.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 14, 2014 Author Share Posted October 14, 2014 End if your mechanism for understanding worked then you wouldn't be so confused about what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 14, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2014 Let me break it down so you can see where my opinion of the process failed. 1) There is God 2) Jesus is One with God through an obedient and perfect relationship with God 3) Then there is us 4) Jesus asks us and prays that we will have the same relationship with Him that He has with God so that all are One. 5) Then asks us to have that relationship with others. In my opinion, the breakdown happened to Foak between mechanism steps 4 and 5. The parallel is this: If you want to get to Understanding, then this mechanism is more true than demanding that the people of step 5 adhere to the beliefs of step 4. And it appears to me that the non-believer step two in not the Grace and Sacrifice of Christ, but facts and logic. You tell me how Foak in place five now sees your truth. Um... End3, I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but foak gave the specific impression that he was not a christian, meaning, by implication that he did not believe in jesus, or that jesus was god. For someone who has denigrated the rest of us for not trying to understand him, it would appear that you misunderstood him most of all. How is my view of a mechanism for understanding and his beliefs have anything to do with each other? This is mind boggling to me Prof. Totally independent of each other.... Do you not realize that steps 4 and 5, which you reference as the point at which the break down happened to foak, both involve the relationship between jesus and god and said relationship being applied between people? I'm assuming you wrote these steps youself. How can you not know what they say? You wrote with the assumption that because foak believed in a god, it must necessarily be the same one you believe in. That is what your mechanism for understanding and his beliefs have to do with one another. You built your understanding of foak upon a false assumption that you made about him, which then led to you completely misunderstanding him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Let me break it down so you can see where my opinion of the process failed. 1) There is God 2) Jesus is One with God through an obedient and perfect relationship with God 3) Then there is us 4) Jesus asks us and prays that we will have the same relationship with Him that He has with God so that all are One. 5) Then asks us to have that relationship with others. In my opinion, the breakdown happened to Foak between mechanism steps 4 and 5. The parallel is this: If you want to get to Understanding, then this mechanism is more true than demanding that the people of step 5 adhere to the beliefs of step 4. And it appears to me that the non-believer step two in not the Grace and Sacrifice of Christ, but facts and logic. You tell me how Foak in place five now sees your truth. Um... End3, I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but foak gave the specific impression that he was not a christian, meaning, by implication that he did not believe in jesus, or that jesus was god. For someone who has denigrated the rest of us for not trying to understand him, it would appear that you misunderstood him most of all. How is my view of a mechanism for understanding and his beliefs have anything to do with each other? This is mind boggling to me Prof. Totally independent of each other.... Do you not realize that steps 4 and 5, which you reference as the point at which the break down happened to foak, both involve the relationship between jesus and god and said relationship being applied between people? I'm assuming you wrote these steps youself. How can you not know what they say? You wrote with the assumption that because foak believed in a god, it must necessarily be the same one you believe in. That is what your mechanism for understanding and his beliefs have to do with one another. You built your understanding of foak upon a false assumption that you made about him, which then led to you completely misunderstanding him. Not even close. The mechanism would work independently of the object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 14, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2014 Let me break it down so you can see where my opinion of the process failed. 1) There is God 2) Jesus is One with God through an obedient and perfect relationship with God 3) Then there is us 4) Jesus asks us and prays that we will have the same relationship with Him that He has with God so that all are One. 5) Then asks us to have that relationship with others. In my opinion, the breakdown happened to Foak between mechanism steps 4 and 5. The parallel is this: If you want to get to Understanding, then this mechanism is more true than demanding that the people of step 5 adhere to the beliefs of step 4. And it appears to me that the non-believer step two in not the Grace and Sacrifice of Christ, but facts and logic. You tell me how Foak in place five now sees your truth. Um... End3, I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but foak gave the specific impression that he was not a christian, meaning, by implication that he did not believe in jesus, or that jesus was god. For someone who has denigrated the rest of us for not trying to understand him, it would appear that you misunderstood him most of all. How is my view of a mechanism for understanding and his beliefs have anything to do with each other? This is mind boggling to me Prof. Totally independent of each other.... Do you not realize that steps 4 and 5, which you reference as the point at which the break down happened to foak, both involve the relationship between jesus and god and said relationship being applied between people? I'm assuming you wrote these steps youself. How can you not know what they say? You wrote with the assumption that because foak believed in a god, it must necessarily be the same one you believe in. That is what your mechanism for understanding and his beliefs have to do with one another. You built your understanding of foak upon a false assumption that you made about him, which then led to you completely misunderstanding him. Not even close. The mechanism would work independently of the object. What does that even mean? And how does that relate to your assumption that foak believes that jesus is god? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 End, here is what foak did. You are either not paying attention, or you are just building a straw man to be annoying. 1. He unequivocally stated he was NOT a Christian 2. He unequivocally stated he did NOT belong to any religion 3. He stated that his understanding of God was a panentheistic one (God is the universe, note NOT the Christian God) 4. He was understood and respectfully engaged in the Spirituality forum 5. Instead of being happy with that he came here to insult us for trying to have a rational conversation; rational conservation IS the only way to have a reasoned discussion 6. He was free to remain in the Spirituality forum and continue with metaphysical dialog, but chose NOT to What part of the above don't you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I'm not going to read that diarrhea. What's you're point? I felt the Glorious need to bring the Word. John seventeen is all about the series of relationships between God and humanity. Given we all would want to be Godly by whatever standard we use, the aforementioned is a wonderful mechanism that is relevant to this discussion. Need I remind you all how many damn times I have heard, "Christians just want to preach....they don't even take the time to know us". Wow, just wow, that here it is in John 17. Read em and weep my brother. I don't want to be anything like the homocidal sadistic maniac that is the god of the bible. Please don't make assumptions about us. I'm not pissed, I just find it to the point that this reality demonstrates my belief in Christianity. Secondly, it demonstrates that reality doesn't offer the immediate rational output that people demand here. If we had a device that were plastered on everyone's forehead that could calculate all the chemistry and physics of the mind and spit out the "unified message" that we all could agree on, then that would be great, but we don't. Until then, we are left to learn or know each other to really understand what the other is thinking. Again, my impression of him was different than most because I believe I can identify with what he was writing vs. what most here would agree on. I will concede that I never had seen any of the posts in the Spirituality forum. Might have swayed my mind. I am basing my opinion of your thread. But until we have a relationship with the guy, all we have is limited data. And limited data is less accurate. You can't even tell that we don't hate Foak. You admit you have no clue what happened in the spirituality forum but you don't let your complete ignorance stop you from passing judgement on us. You say you were basing this on my thread but I was polite to Foak. You form your opinion without checking the facts. You're not listening. Let's say everyone was nice...which they mostly were. What I am trying to convey is you all were demanding that he respond or learn to respond by the manner (facts and logic) that you required. Yes, people asked him nicely...and directly, but if he was unable to recognize those means, those tools, communication is doomed. Why must he have communicated in your new language. Each of you has been Christian before or religious. Surely you recognize the Christianeze from the past? Facts, logic, and evidence is not merely "our new language", it is the framework that has existed for centuries and came to prominence in the Age of Enlightenment when humans first stepped outside of religious belief in large numbers. Foak's problem is that he left xianity only to jump directly onto another spiritual bandwagon, completely bypassing the chance to understand the language of logic and evidence that has been available for several centuries. We are trying to help Foak by exposing him the the language and framework that is used outside xianity and spirituality that has led to the scientific and technological advances that he, you and all of us benefit from on a daily basis. I know this is hard for you to understand because you ascribe value to the framework used in an ancient book, which reflects the worldview present in the society and time in which it was written. We ascribe value to a framework developed much later, as humans evolved beyond religion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Let me break it down so you can see where my opinion of the process failed. 1) There is God 2) Jesus is One with God through an obedient and perfect relationship with God 3) Then there is us 4) Jesus asks us and prays that we will have the same relationship with Him that He has with God so that all are One. 5) Then asks us to have that relationship with others. In my opinion, the breakdown happened to Foak between mechanism steps 4 and 5. The parallel is this: If you want to get to Understanding, then this mechanism is more true than demanding that the people of step 5 adhere to the beliefs of step 4. And it appears to me that the non-believer step two in not the Grace and Sacrifice of Christ, but facts and logic. You tell me how Foak in place five now sees your truth. Um... End3, I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but foak gave the specific impression that he was not a christian, meaning, by implication that he did not believe in jesus, or that jesus was god. For someone who has denigrated the rest of us for not trying to understand him, it would appear that you misunderstood him most of all. How is my view of a mechanism for understanding and his beliefs have anything to do with each other? This is mind boggling to me Prof. Totally independent of each other.... Do you not realize that steps 4 and 5, which you reference as the point at which the break down happened to foak, both involve the relationship between jesus and god and said relationship being applied between people? I'm assuming you wrote these steps youself. How can you not know what they say? You wrote with the assumption that because foak believed in a god, it must necessarily be the same one you believe in. That is what your mechanism for understanding and his beliefs have to do with one another. You built your understanding of foak upon a false assumption that you made about him, which then led to you completely misunderstanding him. Not even close. The mechanism would work independently of the object. What does that even mean? And how does that relate to your assumption that foak believes that jesus is god? I never assumed anything about his beliefs nor does it matter in any way that you are describing. I can apply the mechanism and it will work or not work regardless of whether the person believes any which way. Additionally, it's more likely designed to reach a person who DOESN'T believe. Interpret the Acts verse any way you want, but one is "each heard in their own language". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Let me break it down so you can see where my opinion of the process failed. 1) There is God 2) Jesus is One with God through an obedient and perfect relationship with God 3) Then there is us 4) Jesus asks us and prays that we will have the same relationship with Him that He has with God so that all are One. 5) Then asks us to have that relationship with others. In my opinion, the breakdown happened to Foak between mechanism steps 4 and 5. The parallel is this: If you want to get to Understanding, then this mechanism is more true than demanding that the people of step 5 adhere to the beliefs of step 4. And it appears to me that the non-believer step two in not the Grace and Sacrifice of Christ, but facts and logic. You tell me how Foak in place five now sees your truth. Um... End3, I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but foak gave the specific impression that he was not a christian, meaning, by implication that he did not believe in jesus, or that jesus was god. For someone who has denigrated the rest of us for not trying to understand him, it would appear that you misunderstood him most of all. How is my view of a mechanism for understanding and his beliefs have anything to do with each other? This is mind boggling to me Prof. Totally independent of each other.... Do you not realize that steps 4 and 5, which you reference as the point at which the break down happened to foak, both involve the relationship between jesus and god and said relationship being applied between people? I'm assuming you wrote these steps youself. How can you not know what they say? You wrote with the assumption that because foak believed in a god, it must necessarily be the same one you believe in. That is what your mechanism for understanding and his beliefs have to do with one another. You built your understanding of foak upon a false assumption that you made about him, which then led to you completely misunderstanding him. Not even close. The mechanism would work independently of the object. What does that even mean? And how does that relate to your assumption that foak believes that jesus is god? I never assumed anything about his beliefs nor does it matter in any way that you are describing. I can apply the mechanism and it will work or not work regardless of whether the person believes any which way. Additionally, it's more likely designed to reach a person who DOESN'T believe. Interpret the Acts verse any way you want, but one is "each heard in their own language". He WAS heard in his own language, in the Spirituality forum, and CHOSE not to pursue that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 End, here is what foak did. You are either not paying attention, or you are just building a straw man to be annoying. 1. He unequivocally stated he was NOT a Christian 2. He unequivocally stated he did NOT belong to any religion 3. He stated that his understanding of God was a panentheistic one (God is the universe, note NOT the Christian God) 4. He was understood and respectfully engaged in the Spirituality forum 5. Instead of being happy with that he came here to insult us for trying to have a rational conversation; rational conservation IS the only way to have a reasoned discussion 6. He was free to remain in the Spirituality forum and continue with metaphysical dialog, but chose NOT to What part of the above don't you understand? It doesn't matter. He may have had multiple issues reaching very deep and was acting on the surface contrary to who he would like to be. You would not know this unless you continued a dialogue, a relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Let me break it down so you can see where my opinion of the process failed. 1) There is God 2) Jesus is One with God through an obedient and perfect relationship with God 3) Then there is us 4) Jesus asks us and prays that we will have the same relationship with Him that He has with God so that all are One. 5) Then asks us to have that relationship with others. In my opinion, the breakdown happened to Foak between mechanism steps 4 and 5. The parallel is this: If you want to get to Understanding, then this mechanism is more true than demanding that the people of step 5 adhere to the beliefs of step 4. And it appears to me that the non-believer step two in not the Grace and Sacrifice of Christ, but facts and logic. You tell me how Foak in place five now sees your truth. Um... End3, I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but foak gave the specific impression that he was not a christian, meaning, by implication that he did not believe in jesus, or that jesus was god. For someone who has denigrated the rest of us for not trying to understand him, it would appear that you misunderstood him most of all. How is my view of a mechanism for understanding and his beliefs have anything to do with each other? This is mind boggling to me Prof. Totally independent of each other.... Do you not realize that steps 4 and 5, which you reference as the point at which the break down happened to foak, both involve the relationship between jesus and god and said relationship being applied between people? I'm assuming you wrote these steps youself. How can you not know what they say? You wrote with the assumption that because foak believed in a god, it must necessarily be the same one you believe in. That is what your mechanism for understanding and his beliefs have to do with one another. You built your understanding of foak upon a false assumption that you made about him, which then led to you completely misunderstanding him. Not even close. The mechanism would work independently of the object. What does that even mean? And how does that relate to your assumption that foak believes that jesus is god? I never assumed anything about his beliefs nor does it matter in any way that you are describing. I can apply the mechanism and it will work or not work regardless of whether the person believes any which way. Additionally, it's more likely designed to reach a person who DOESN'T believe. Interpret the Acts verse any way you want, but one is "each heard in their own language". He WAS heard in his own language, in the Spirituality forum, and CHOSE not to pursue that. Maybe you didn't read where I said I was basing my discussion off of the way he was treated once it moved to the coliseum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 14, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2014 End, here is what foak did. You are either not paying attention, or you are just building a straw man to be annoying. 1. He unequivocally stated he was NOT a Christian 2. He unequivocally stated he did NOT belong to any religion 3. He stated that his understanding of God was a panentheistic one (God is the universe, note NOT the Christian God) 4. He was understood and respectfully engaged in the Spirituality forum 5. Instead of being happy with that he came here to insult us for trying to have a rational conversation; rational conservation IS the only way to have a reasoned discussion 6. He was free to remain in the Spirituality forum and continue with metaphysical dialog, but chose NOT to What part of the above don't you understand? It doesn't matter. He may have had multiple issues reaching very deep and was acting on the surface contrary to who he would like to be. You would not know this unless you continued a dialogue, a relationship. Um... We didn't get mad and storm away. foak did that. Accept the fact that the blame does not lie with us, End3. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 14, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2014 Let me break it down so you can see where my opinion of the process failed. 1) There is God 2) Jesus is One with God through an obedient and perfect relationship with God 3) Then there is us 4) Jesus asks us and prays that we will have the same relationship with Him that He has with God so that all are One. 5) Then asks us to have that relationship with others. In my opinion, the breakdown happened to Foak between mechanism steps 4 and 5. The parallel is this: If you want to get to Understanding, then this mechanism is more true than demanding that the people of step 5 adhere to the beliefs of step 4. And it appears to me that the non-believer step two in not the Grace and Sacrifice of Christ, but facts and logic. You tell me how Foak in place five now sees your truth. Um... End3, I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but foak gave the specific impression that he was not a christian, meaning, by implication that he did not believe in jesus, or that jesus was god. For someone who has denigrated the rest of us for not trying to understand him, it would appear that you misunderstood him most of all. How is my view of a mechanism for understanding and his beliefs have anything to do with each other? This is mind boggling to me Prof. Totally independent of each other.... Do you not realize that steps 4 and 5, which you reference as the point at which the break down happened to foak, both involve the relationship between jesus and god and said relationship being applied between people? I'm assuming you wrote these steps youself. How can you not know what they say? You wrote with the assumption that because foak believed in a god, it must necessarily be the same one you believe in. That is what your mechanism for understanding and his beliefs have to do with one another. You built your understanding of foak upon a false assumption that you made about him, which then led to you completely misunderstanding him. Not even close. The mechanism would work independently of the object. What does that even mean? And how does that relate to your assumption that foak believes that jesus is god? I never assumed anything about his beliefs nor does it matter in any way that you are describing. I can apply the mechanism and it will work or not work regardless of whether the person believes any which way. Additionally, it's more likely designed to reach a person who DOESN'T believe. Interpret the Acts verse any way you want, but one is "each heard in their own language". He WAS heard in his own language, in the Spirituality forum, and CHOSE not to pursue that. Maybe you didn't read where I said I was basing my discussion off of the way he was treated once it moved to the coliseum? Maybe you didn't read where multiple people have tried to explain to you that there was another thread in the Spirituality forum wherein foak was interacted with and accepted. Perhaps it's time you put 2 and 2 together and realize that basing your opinion on this thread alone is yielding false results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Let me break it down so you can see where my opinion of the process failed. 1) There is God 2) Jesus is One with God through an obedient and perfect relationship with God 3) Then there is us 4) Jesus asks us and prays that we will have the same relationship with Him that He has with God so that all are One. 5) Then asks us to have that relationship with others. In my opinion, the breakdown happened to Foak between mechanism steps 4 and 5. The parallel is this: If you want to get to Understanding, then this mechanism is more true than demanding that the people of step 5 adhere to the beliefs of step 4. And it appears to me that the non-believer step two in not the Grace and Sacrifice of Christ, but facts and logic. You tell me how Foak in place five now sees your truth. Um... End3, I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but foak gave the specific impression that he was not a christian, meaning, by implication that he did not believe in jesus, or that jesus was god. For someone who has denigrated the rest of us for not trying to understand him, it would appear that you misunderstood him most of all. How is my view of a mechanism for understanding and his beliefs have anything to do with each other? This is mind boggling to me Prof. Totally independent of each other.... Do you not realize that steps 4 and 5, which you reference as the point at which the break down happened to foak, both involve the relationship between jesus and god and said relationship being applied between people? I'm assuming you wrote these steps youself. How can you not know what they say? You wrote with the assumption that because foak believed in a god, it must necessarily be the same one you believe in. That is what your mechanism for understanding and his beliefs have to do with one another. You built your understanding of foak upon a false assumption that you made about him, which then led to you completely misunderstanding him. Not even close. The mechanism would work independently of the object. What does that even mean? And how does that relate to your assumption that foak believes that jesus is god? I never assumed anything about his beliefs nor does it matter in any way that you are describing. I can apply the mechanism and it will work or not work regardless of whether the person believes any which way. Additionally, it's more likely designed to reach a person who DOESN'T believe. Interpret the Acts verse any way you want, but one is "each heard in their own language". He WAS heard in his own language, in the Spirituality forum, and CHOSE not to pursue that. Maybe you didn't read where I said I was basing my discussion off of the way he was treated once it moved to the coliseum? The Colloseum thread and the Spirituality forum happened at the same time. The Colloseum thread was perfectly polite until foak started to be passive aggressive and then started to insult everyone in a very condescending way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts