Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had little hope you would see it. ::Sigh:: Where the heck do you get your presumptions about what I think? You are almost routinely wrong. Give it up. We ALL have access to the Holy Spirit and the characteristics are described in detail so it is easy to know when someone is listening and when they are NOT. It has nothing to do with me. Your all-or-nothing views mirror the idiocy of the fundamentalists. No wonder Arach accuses your views of being among the atheist fundies. What you do not know about Buddhism is a lot. It has nothing to do with salvation in our own hands, it has to do with developing a disregard for the positive and negative consequences of life as a physical being out of love for all life (Maitri). Your linear chronology fixation is more rigid than your concrete thinking. It is very frustrating. There is NO REASON whatsoever why anything has to be in linear chronological order, period. Its advancement is determined by its characteristics alone! I am NOT the only one letting the Holy Spirit guide me. There are many who use the same characteristics as their guide. You reject the sources that I use for gleaning the characteristics of the Holy Spirit so you reject everything that follows from them. There is no way to meet your objections when you will NOT engage the material within the logic and information that I am using. It is a fruitless enterprise because you flat out reject any and all material and information I use to explain my BELIEFS. You also reject my scientific rationale because you lack the knowledge to even understand the issues with materialism and the extrapolations I am making from the science. There is no game to have here. You are like a pigeon on a chessboard. It is not possible to play the game with you.
That addresses nothing , Just brushes it all aside, hammered home with your habitual rudeness and tries to evade the point about your posts showing quite clearly that you put your views down to divinely received revelation and is only recived by 'someone' when they agree with you or you wouldn't be arguing with anyone here.
And if you say that Buddhism does not say that salvation is in our own hands, you know litlte of Buddhism. It is the central tenet of what Buddha is supposed to have said.
I could go through your post bit by bit translating it like "There is no way to meet your objections when you will NOT engage the material within the logic and information that I am using."means you can't do anything with me if I will not accept your claims without question to start off with. But why should I spend time on it?
You even reiterate the claim that I don't understand your 'science' when I have referred time and again to those who showed that it was wrong and, after trying to deny it, passed it off as just an 'analogy' of the actual Mysterious science that nobody understood but you.
Oh -I loved your post to Gaylen, quotemining his post like a Creationist to make it look like he was agreeing with you. I bet he's pleased with that.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-03-2017 at 03:18 PM..
Didn't you get from my remark about Chrry n-picking that I KNOW you are not literal followers of the Bible, but you follow it enough to be Christians and follow the bits that you are with.
If you really did not follow the Bible and were irreligious theists, I'd know. For one thing we'd never have spend pages arguing about the Nativity.
You are a atheist fundamentalist trans, or if you prefer a new atheist for they are one and the same. You take everything literally and to hell with trying to understand things outside of literalism. I is as though you can't see the forest because you are focused on one tree. Wake up my friend there are a lot more trees in the forest then one.
And being a new atheist you cherry pick what is compatible with religion and what is not.
Tomorrow when I have time I am going to change gears a little and show you from a couple of your post exactly where you have done this.
Until then my friend.
Oh and the arguments of the nativity we spoke about, which one of us use the sciences to back up their stance. That would be me as you only used your own apologetic of the two stories and relied solely on Josephus, cherry picking which historical writings were historically accurate and which were not.
You can't have read my posts. I have been involving with Mystic on the coherence of HIS claims, not mine. I only refer to the gospels as literal when he quotes them as though they are. The ad homs about atheist fundamentalism are unworthy, but not unexpected.
By all means refer to my posts to back up your assertions. And I rather think I used the science as applied to the nativity. As I recall I debunked some salient points about the dating and your efforts to show that Josephus was unreliable in the case of Joazar, and when I explained that, you at first tried to deny it then shifted to Archelaus arresting rebels, which did your case no good as I explained that, too. Your attempt to shift the death of Herod (which in fact does nothing to help reconcile Luke and Matthew - which is what it was all about) did not work too well and the only indication that it might have been 3 BC rather than 4 B.C was something I found.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-03-2017 at 03:19 PM..
That addresses nothing , Just brushes it all aside, hammered home with your habitual rudeness and tries to evade the point about your posts showing quite clearly that you put your views down to divinely received revelation and is only recived by 'someone' when they agree with you or you wouldn't be arguing with anyone here.
The only brushing aside and refusal to engage the material for its logical consistency within the stated material and information being used is the pigeon on the chessboard.
Quote:
And if you say that Buddhism does not say that salvation is in our own hands, you know litlte of Buddhism. It is the central tenet of what Buddha is supposed to have said.
Sorry, Arq, Buddhism has nothing to do with salvation because a complete loss of self-identity and annihilation of karma is the goal.
Quote:
I could go through your post bit by bit translating it like "There is no way to meet your objections when you will NOT engage the material within the logic and information that I am using."means you can't do anything with me if I will not accept your claims without question to start off with. But why should I spend time on it?
Given the inability to validate the information independently, the only way to defeat it is to show it is internally inconsistent and it is NOT.
Quote:
You even reiterate the claim that I don't understand your 'science' when I have referred time and again to those who showed that it was wrong and, after trying to deny it, passed it off as just an 'analogy' of the actual Mysterious science that nobody understood but you.
You do NOT have the knowledge to decide when someone has shown that I was wrong, Arq. My use of analogy for a lay audience misled them but when we engaged the material at a deeper level they withdrew acknowledging that the ideas were at least plausible. Some how you missed that.
Quote:
Oh -I loved your post to Gaylen, quotemining his post like a Creationists to make it look like he was agreeing with you. I bet he's pleased with that.
Your perceptions are becoming increasingly perverse, Arq. I am beginning to worry about you, old friend.
You said all that to say the scripture should actually read Jesus Christ is the potential savior of all men.
Talk about adding to the plain sense of the scripture.
Anyway the belief in eternal torment or annihilation only teach people that God can sin (miss the mark) as God sent Jesus into the world for the salvation of the world and according to you God will miss his mark, which is sin.
No wonder the apostle called it a doctrine of demons.
Youre way out in left field on that. Even a casual reader on this board can tell Trans knows a whole lot about Buddhism. Wasn't he like a monk or something and his wife is a monk or something.
...you seem to consider yourself not in that category -you seem to consider that you are one of those who are getting confirmation of their views by divine revelation, which you say is within us all, but you also imply that those who don't agree with you are not accessing it but relying on their own imperfect human ideas. If them why not you? And if you too, why not all of you?
Trans is right . Mystic does just this.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 07-03-2017 at 07:26 PM..
Also if he rejects the bible how can he keep using the bible as the reference for what he claims is the yardstick to measure truth by?
Didn't he say he rejects the bible?
the problem is the yardstick itself isn't it? the bible is no meter stick. It may be a meter long, but its only good to a deca meter. Not good enough today, we have way better. i mean in terms of what god may be. The bible is a good book that tells us what humans are. I'll give it that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
